Magic embryology:extensive programming on display (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, January 22, 2018, 15:00 (2501 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've posted this two times without comment from anyone. When a species advances to a new form there must be enormous changes in the embryology mechanism. Imagine a new Volkswagen that changes from the beetle form. Think of all the machinery that has to be changed before the new model can appear. This article points out the problems for Darwin theory evolution:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/01/how-embryonic-development-bears-on.html

dhw:I don’t recall seeing it, but since I am the only person commenting on your posts, I can only plead that I can’t comment on everything! But I do my best, and I’m sorry to have let you down.

Since you yourself believe in common descent, I presume that what you endorse is the argument that the enormous changes cannot be the result of chance. I agree. You know my hypothesis (not dogma and not even belief, but an alternative to hypotheses such as Darwin’s random mutations and your own divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling). However, since you want me to comment, I can only repeat it: ALL evolutionary changes can be explained by the inventive intelligence of cells and cell communities, which work together to produce new forms out of old (common descent, which you accept). Convergent evolution is responsible for similar solutions to similar problems (i.e. intelligent beings will think in similar ways). It may well be that a God designed this inventive intelligence in the first place. I cannot see any problem in the article that would not be resolved by my hypothesis. I can’t find the author’s own explanation, but perhaps you have not reproduced that. If so, does he mention your computer programme or the dabbling?

Hunter is a confirmed anti-Darwinist. He doesn't believe in common descent. He and I disagree. But what I find fascinating about him is the fallacies he uncovers in Darwin scientist thinking as in this article, as they twist theories about the latest findings to conform to the underlying principles develop from Darwin theory.

But the other point of his article is how does evolution invent the new factory proceses to manufacture the latest phenotype in a series of new species. Looking at how humans do it, one designer presents a shape of the new Volkswagen, someone else designs the machines to stamp out the sheet steel or plastic. Another set of engineers design the advanced motor, and another group design the machines to make some of the new parts. In nature changes in DNA and other layers produce the new forms. You suggest cell committees contain the intellect to do this. I have never understood this wishful thinking. A designer is required, obviously.