Natures wonders: bacteria can spear amoebas (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 31, 2017, 15:52 (2639 days ago) @ dhw

David: Perfectly logical to me, if He wanted to take time for the evolution to evolve. It fits he history.

dhw: We all know that evolution has evolved over time. But according to you, your God has always been in total control of evolution, and he had only one prime purpose. So it’s perfectly logical to you that he deliberately designed billions of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to take time over fulfilling his one prime purpose. Well, let’s just agree to differ on what counts as logic.

We see things differently trying to fit God's actions into interpretations.

dhw: So how do you explain extinction, if not through the “conjecture” that extinct organisms were unable to cope with conditions at the time, whereas the survivors did cope?
DAVID: Raup stated extinctions were almost always due to bad luck, not adapting quickly enough.

dhw: So it was bad luck that some organisms were not able to adapt quickly enough (= unable to cope with conditions at the time) and were therefore not fit to survive. And those that did adapt quickly enough (i.e. did cope with conditions at the time) were fit to survive. So how does that make fitness to survive an “unproven conjecture”?

Because it was Raup's concept that the existing species were surviving just fine until the unusual extinction catastrophe occurred. They were fully adapted to the existing conditions. Over the 3.6 billion years of life there have been just six major extinctions, so he felt they did not play a role in day to day evolution. Obviously they had a major effect.

DAVID: The beaks are within a species variation according to recent genetic research and simple epigenetics. Changing a hoofed leg to a flipper is a major reorganization of the anatomy with many muscle and bony changes, well beyond what we know about speciation. All the fossil evidence is of gaps and sudden appearance of major alterations. We do not understand this. You want cells to visualize the outcome and do it all at once. I say the only logical way is by a designing mind arranging for it by careful planning.

dhw: You have agreed that major adaptations are innovations, and now you are repeating my examples of minor and major adaptations. The fact that we don’t understand the major alterations is the reason why we look for explanations and offer unproven hypotheses. I have suggested that since both minor adaptations and major adaptations are adaptations, the same mechanism might be responsible for both. You accept autonomy for the one but not for the other. Epigenetics are not “simple”. What do you think is the autonomous mechanism that enables finches to change the form of their beaks in order to cope with their respective environments?

Epigenetic changes are editing of the DNA by methylation, etc., and fit Shapiro's gene editing in bacteria. The finches are not that changed, just beak size and shape alterations. It is the magnitude of adaptation that makes me differ with you. Leg to flipper, nostrils to blow hole are major changes that require visualization of the outcome of the change to set up the proper planning for the change. When we find that mechanism ability present in living organisms, I will only then agree with your theory. The fact that speciation is still so mysterious, with no hints in current research, supports me.