Life's biologic complexity: Automatic molecular actions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, December 09, 2016, 01:06 (2907 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: …There is no evidence for the Darwin thesis that there is a competition with other species or with environmental conditions. Extinctions are just that. The species cannot adapt, but with minor changes then can adapt. But that does not mean it is a road to new species.

dhw: I don't know why you've suddenly switched from complexity to competition! Anyway, I don't follow your reasoning.

I'll try again. Darwin thought assumes there is a struggle for survival with the environment and with other species leading to speciation. There is no proof of any of that as research has proceeded. Species don't survive without generally more complex adaptations.

dhw: You tell us how in New Zealand the introduction of non-native species has caused havoc to native species. No competition? How can extinctions be caused by environmental conditions, but there's no evidence for “competition” with environmental conditions?

New Zealand is an upset of the balance of nature, which we both agree assumes a new balance every time it is thrown out of balance, this time by human error in planning. Extinctions deny competition.

dhw:I suggest that evolution advances through the quest for improvement as well as survival. The increase in oxygen may have offered new opportunities. Not demand. Opportunity.

Then the 'quest for improvement' must be inherent to existing DNA, and since evolution goes from relatively simple ( bacteria)to complex (human), it is really an inherent drive to complexity. I have no idea why you like the word improvement

DAVID: Punc Eq requires that species are isolated and in isolation decide to change, nothing more. It is thin specious thinking, an excuse for change that doesn't hold water.

dhw: If you accept common descent, innovations take place in individual organisms, so of course they take place locally – except where there is convergent evolution.

Sorry, punc-eq requires isolation, more than a requirement of locality.

dhw: And what is “specious” about claiming that organisms exploit new opportunities? You believe that too – but you think they were preprogrammed to do so.

And you are claiming that organism are programmed to improve, when the evidence is species stasis.

dhw: What are you suggesting? Pre-whales should have migrated, but God said: “No, thou shalt go into the water so that thou shalt become more complex for the sake of complexity.”

No, what you suggest is the illogicality of the whale series as improvement, but it exists and it is highly complex.

DAVID: I start with the observation above that first life had to have information to run on. Isn't DNA an intricate code? That is information which cannot develop by chance on a rocky planet.

DAVID: …I've never said the 3.8 billion year program is scientifically proven. What we know strongly suggests it.

dhw: Not agreed. You say your separate theories are based on “known research findings”. The separate theory I'm challenging is that all innovations and natural wonders were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or were divinely dabbled. What known research findings support this theory?

The ever increasing scientific findings of more and more complexity of life's genome layers demands a planning mind which set it up 3.8 billion years ago with a drive to complexity