Magic embryology:extensive programming on display (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 27, 2018, 13:22 (2279 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Cellular intelligence plays no part in Darwin’s theory, and I do not believe for one second that “my” scientists’ conclusions have been influenced by a belief in common descent – a belief you share with them. The concept actually provides a potentially devastating blow to Darwin’s hypothesis of random mutations. And I cannot see why you think experts with both background and foreground in cytogenetics, biochemistry, biology, bacterial genetics, cell biology etc., who share your belief in common descent, are prejudiced, whereas you, with your background in biochemistry and your firm belief in divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, are not.

DAVID: We are left with our same disagreement. Common descent is not the issue. It is the total Neo-Darwin synthesis from the 1950's, about which I have presented many articles on the current discussions and disagreements, because the newer science doesn't fit the earlier suppositions. Your folks come from that era. Much of this has been revealed by Susan Mazur's reporting:

Red herring. “My” scientists say cells are intelligent. You accuse them of prejudice because you say they believe(d) in the Neo-Darwin synthesis of the 1950s, the essence of which is that the whole of evolution can be explained by random mutations and natural selection; this has nothing whatsoever to do with cellular intelligence. You say cells are not intelligent, because you believe God preprogrammed or dabbled everything that cells have done and still do. All of you believe that science supports you. If their belief in Neo-Darwinism makes them prejudiced (which I do not believe for one instant), then by the same token your belief in divine preprogramming makes you prejudiced. Please don’t answer with a reading list.