Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, March 23, 2015, 12:22 (3531 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I still don't know why you insisted that I read an article which you said contained “the key to understanding the argument for design”, when the author obviously thinks he's found a solution that dispenses with design. It is you who constantly provide many keys to understanding the argument for design, so why bother with Wagner at all?-DAVID: Simply because he describes so well the problem of a landscape of protein search. It is a major, major problem for the Darwin theory, and I discovered a reference to this article in an ID site. They used it as I do. He has not found a solution, but is arguing to support his work and grants. I am attempting to show you where the arguments lie.-The extreme difficulty in finding the right 'next' protein is a strong argument for design. Actually his statement that DNA is functionally 'capable' of doing this is a strong argument for design, when you cobble together all of the amazing arrangements, the coiling around histones to give a useful 3-D relationship of genes to modifiers, the expression of genes modified by telomeres, etc., through an ever enlarging list of control layers. This is an amazing construction. It requires an inventor, not chance. The inventive mechanism that we have discussed, if it exists, is in this arrangement. One could argue that God set up DNA this way to work just as Wagner proposes! The thoughts cut both ways.-Thank you for this clarification. As I keep repeating, I can't make any sort of statement about the technicalities. I rely on scientists like you and him. If you're now saying Wagner's proposal could work, then your only complaint about his article is that he doesn't tell us the mechanism must have been designed by God. And that is what you have said all along, since agreeing that an inventive mechanism is a possibility.