Genome complexity: epigenetics in action (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, April 11, 2017, 18:24 (2565 days ago) @ dhw

i]

DAVID: And my answer is constant, balance of nature for energy supply.

dhw: So once again you have God designing the weaverbird’s nest in order to supply energy so that life could continue until he produced humans. This is why I use the nest as my prime example. It doesn’t make sense.

You've backtracked. You've admitted food energy supply is needed for evolution to continue. The nest is part of a eco-niche. The bush of life is made up of hundreds/thousands of them.

DAVID: I'm still fully in favor of the thesis that God chose a lengthy time, and arranged for a copious food supply.

dhw: If God exists, there can be no doubt that it took longer for him to produce humans than to produce dinosaurs, and that whatever system he used resulted in there being enough food for some species to survive. And so there is nothing controversial in what you have just written. The problem arises when you say that God’s sole purpose was to produce humans, and he chose to take a long time over doing so, and designed the weaverbird’s nest to provide energy while he was taking a long time to produce humans. THAT is what did not make sense to you earlier, and THAT is what has resulted in your different explanations which one day you regard as conclusions and the next day regard only as possibilities.

Our discussion help me to study the history and formulate final conclusions. I may wander around, but I've gotten to a firm point: God chose a long time to evolve humans, perhaps because He felt some limitations (but we can't be sure). To supply energy for life in a prolonged process He created the full bush of life with all its odd lifestyles including strange nests. Tony's point that God provided the Natures wonders also for our enjoyment may apply.

DAVID: I also believe your theories are possible, but not probable. This is a fluid discussion.[/i]

dhw: I do not ask you to accept any interpretation. I am fully aware of all your attempts to explain the dichotomy between what have previously been your two dogmatic beliefs, and welcome the fact that you regard my different hypotheses as possible, which means you accept the possibility that one or both of your dogmatic beliefs may be wrong.

Since we have preferences not proven beliefs, of course one or all may be wrong.