Biochemistry of cell communication; message molecules (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, February 23, 2018, 12:17 (2464 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Are there long, gradual, pathways of functional intermediate structures, separated by only one or perhaps a few mutations, leading to every single species, and every single design and structure in all of biology? As we saw last time, this has been a fundamental claim and expectation of evolutionary theory which is at odds with the science.* If one mutation is rare, a lot of mutations are astronomically rare. For instance, if a particular mutation has a one-in-a-hundred million (one in 10^8) chance of occurring in a new individual, then a hundred such particular mutations have a one in 10^800 chance of occurring. It’s not going to happen."

dhw: Exactly the same argument. If you believe in common descent, those mutations did happen (though as I pointed out before, not one at a time). You say your God preprogrammed or dabbled them. I propose that cellular intelligence organized them. Your author doesn’t seem to realize that he is NOT arguing against mutations but against chance. If, however, he rejects common descent, the alternative is the individual creation of every single species and variation from scratch, and I wonder what you and “the science”* say about that.

DAVID: He and I have the same theory, which I am sure you recognize, and it not scientific. God speciates. And 'cellular intelligence' appeared from what? Again God supplies the answer, because intelligence is obviously required.

I have merely tried to point out the flaws in the article you quoted. You claim to believe in common descent, and so you should also reject everything he says about mutations. I already know you believe mutations (and speciation) are programmed or dabbled, and you already know that my hypothesis of cellular intelligence as the organizer of the mutations allows for God as the designer. And since the author sneers at the unscientific nature of belief in chance, why don't you criticize his failure to acknowledge the unscientific nature of his own theory (which of course you do recognize)? Let's have some balance here!