Proof of ID (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 02:01 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Matt: The precursor thing is something I don't immediately buy. I've read plenty of biochemical studies, such as the lactamase study I posted some years back, where the bacterial cells under selective pressure created a new (not identical) gene that allowed them to metabolize lactose.-It was a modified gene. 
> 
> Matt: We know for a fact that evolution works by modifying existing proteins. Even epigenetics requires modification of existing material. I don't think that the geologically sudden appearance of kidneys need an appeal.- Lensky's work. Damaging a gene or changing it to make a different lactose path is not making a kidney, which is several thousands of times more complex. The Cambrian does not allow enough time for step by step modificaitons. 
> 
> Matt: Consider this: We have strong reason to believe that mitochondria were originally their own organism, and that they began a symbiotic relationship at some point. If we have to resort to kidneys popping out of thin air, what about a similar path for cells that processed waste into harmless by-products that eventually gained prominence due to selective pressure? Cells quite obviously have a social life, and when you even consider that our guts are their own ecosystem, I don't see that innovations have to come purely from one set of DNA.-Perfectly true. It again comes down to a time issue, as well asc a monster selection issue. Ediacarans and bilatarians are extremely simple sets of cells. by the way no eyes, and that is another grouip of similar organs with no real precursors, except eye spots. Consider from nothing to bifocal lenses in trilobites. We are not finding trilobite precursors in Australian or Chinese shale to add to the Burgess in Canada. Darwinian eyes from ? Doesn't work.