Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 06, 2016, 21:26 (3152 days ago) @ dhw

David: There are only three possibilities for how evolution works, as discussed before: Natural chance, strict creation step by step (tony) or a process with guidelines. Without purpose and with purpose.[/i]
> 
> The fourth possibility for how evolution works (as opposed to how it all started) - which you now refuse even to include in your list - is that organisms have the autonomous power, whether God-given or not, to innovate, their purpose being to survive and/or improve.-That possibility I've agreed to but I view it as part of God's guidance because I only see it as having guidelines
> 
> DAVID: You are mixing apples and oranges. I'm discussing the new molecules needed for speciation, not adaptations. 
> 
> dhw:... Whether you call the first weaver nest or the first monarch migration an adaptation or innovation therefore makes no difference: God did it all. However, there are different types of adaptation and innovation. The nest and migration are external adaptations/innovations, whereas cuttlefish camouflage or fish adaptation to pollution requires adjustments from the inside, and that is where I would suggest a possible link between evolutionary adaptation (preserving the status quo) and innovation (the unexplained process of speciation), since both processes entail adjustments made within the cell communities. The link is a hypothesis based on the fact that we know cell communities make changes to themselves (adaptation), and some scientists tell us cells are intelligent beings. But there is no presumption.-What a mixed up bit of reasoning. You admit that major changes as in cuttlefish require 'adjustment on the inside' but refuse to accept the difficulty in that major step. It will require changed molecular reactions in the skin. In planning for it, what new molecules and what molecular interactions should be chosen from possibilities of thousands? THIS is why we don't understand speciation. In the whale series (my favorite)there are giant phenotypic changes requiring much more complex molecular choices and rearrangements.
 The genome is getting very complex from the discoveries made, but nothing has been found to explain the changes required for a new species form. Simply proposing 'fish adaptation to pollution' is equivalent is totally unreasonable. We are back to a gap like degree and kind. If God gave organisms an IM it must be highly complex and some hint of it should have been spotted by now. It is either deeply hidden or God directly dabbles.
> 
> dhw: Wanting to know how a hypothesis fits the facts it is meant to explain does not seem to me to be secondary, and I think you are quite right to query the likelihood of my own hypothesis on the grounds that we have no evidence to prove that cell communities are intelligent enough to fill the major gaps that are involved in speciation. -I'm working backward from the problems I see in speciation. You appear to be working in the opposite direction, throwing out hypothetical mechanisms without recognizing the planning problems, which are real, not hypothetical. Once again I see an agnostic mind saying 'anything but God', while admitting God might do it..