Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 29, 2018, 13:18 (110 days ago) @ dhw

Ok, trimming where needed for clarity and space.

dhw: I would suggest that it is the environmental input (the steep slope) that determines the egg shape. Now please tell us how the birds come up with their pointy eggs.

TONY: It would most likely need to be something OTHER than the steep slope. […] If all cliff dwellers do not produce pointy eggs, the trigger must be something else.

DHW Interesting, but now please tell us your own theory: Did your God preprogramme them to do it, do a dabble, or install a mechanism enabling organisms to adapt autonomously to their environment?

Did you even READ my hypothesis? Remember that big long winded thing with all the bullet points? I hypothesize that they were originally programmed with the possibility of round to pointy, with specific triggers(input parameters) that would invoke the changes necessary to go from one type, to another.

DHW (to Tony): […] you asked me to show you “something that can be repeated in a lab, step-wise”, and to show you the evidence “by reproducing the process. That is science.” Let me repeat: NOBODY KNOWS HOW SPECIATION TOOK PLACE. We only have theories.

TONY: No one knows because it has never been observed. Hence the hard rejection. It currently stands as a fairy tale from start to finish. Secondly, I claim that the observed gaps denote gaps; the observed sudden appearance of species fully formed.

DHW: Nobody has ever observed the sudden appearance of a species fully formed! There are gaps. That’s it.

Wrong. The cambrian explosion is just that, species appearing fully formed out of nowhere, and thus the basis for punctuated equilibrium. (As I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.)

DAVID: I think the conserved genes are God's primary blueprint.

DHW: And conserved genes can be taken as evidence of common descent, not as a prior assumption. I have proposed that if God exists, cellular intelligence is his “primary blueprint”.

TONY: That is logically incorrect. First, even the name 'conserved genes' starts with the assumption of common decent. If that assumption were not in place, the more appropriate term would be 'genetic similarity'.

DHW: If, say, 90% of chimp genes are the same as human genes, why is it illogical to propose that they share a common ancestor?

That number has been steadily dropping and now hovers around 80%, and it largely depends on which part of the genome they compare. (You do know they don't compare the entire genome, right, only the bits they think are important)

Dr. Tomkins just published a new study, and as far as I can tell, it makes the most sense of any BLAST analysis done so far. In this study, he chopped up the chimpanzee genome into “slices” that were as small as 100 base pairs long or as large as 650 base pairs long. The chimpanzee genome is 2.9-3.3 billion base pairs long, so obviously these slices are incredibly small compared to the entire genome.

So, yeah, when you compare less than 1% of the genome we show a high degree of similarity (around 80%). Some studies suggest 70%. But NONE of these studies compare 100% of human DNA to 100% of Chimp DNA, and none of them compare folding either.

TONY: I understand your hypothesis is cellular intelligence, I have simply not seen enough evidence to support the level of intelligence you ascribe to cells. If such evidence comes to light, then I would certainly consider that it was perhaps the method God used.

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is pure theory, not proven. Cells have no means of thinking.

DHW: I don’t know how often I have to repeat that it is a hypothesis precisely because although we have plenty of evidence that cells behave intelligently, we don’t know how far that intelligence can go in terms of innovation. NOBODY can explain speciation. Cells do not have brains. David, your constant insistence that thought depends on the brain is based on the materialism you reject elsewhere, and on your assumption that microorganisms do not have some kind of brain equivalent.

DAVID: The so-called cell intelligence is based on definite evidence of what can be seen as logical responses of cells to stimuli. These responses can obviously be planned and automatic. They are shown to be a series of molecular reactions.

DHW: As with all our fellow creatures (e.g. the parrots you tell us about on another thread), we judge intelligence by behaviour. Behaviour always entails molecular reactions of some kind, as these are what enable organisms – including ourselves – to demonstrate intelligence!

Behavior is not as telling as choice. Can the organisms CHOOSE to do other than the prescribed chemical reactions? Do they show evidence of planning?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum