Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, August 30, 2018, 13:10 (106 days ago) @ dhw

DHW [re pointy eggs]: ...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?

TONY: 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: Does this mean that when your God created the root type, he put in a kind of computer programme for round AND pointy eggs (plus every other possible variation within that original root type), and when the murre settled on a slope, the computer programme automatically switched to pointy, thereby reshaping the cloaca? Just making sure I’ve understood, so please correct any misunderstandings.

Yes, this is precisely the idea behind my hypothesis.

DHW: We observe gaps, not root types appearing out of nowhere! Punctuated equilibrium means long periods of stasis, broken by sudden bursts of creative activity. Nothing to do with out-of-nowhere. I can’t solve the Cambrian mystery any more than you can, but here is a website with answers you will reject and evolutionists will accept, both of you because of “confirmation bias”. Nobody knows the truth.

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

SAMPLE QUOTES: This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur.

Scientists are now gaining a better understanding of what existed before the Cambrian Explosion as a result of new fossil discoveries. […] Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air.

But do they have precursors or are the new forms that did not exist prior to the Cambrian?

DHW: […] conserved genes can be taken as evidence of common descent, not as a prior assumption.

TONY: That is logically incorrect. […] .

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?

TONY: That number has been steadily dropping and now hovers around 80%, and it largely depends on which part of the genome they compare.

DHW: I don’t care what part of the genome they compare or if it's 90% or 80%. I'm asking why it is illogical to propose that the same genes may indicate they had a common ancestor.

Because if they are 80% the same, then they are 20% different. Where would the 20% NEW information come from?

TONY: 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?

DHW: Most of the “cognitive” tests offer choice of some kind. Why are bacteria killed by antibiotics until they find modes of resistance? Are the “prescribed chemical reactions” that Billy will go glug and die, while Bobby finds a solution? There has to be choice. My view of evolution is that changes are not planned in advance but are triggered by environmental needs and/or opportunities.

I've been curious about this, but honestly do not have enough information to answer. Are they developing new resistances, or is there some underlying existing something that causes Billy to be vulnerable while Bobby is not. For example, we know that some people are genetically predisposed to diabetes because their genetics make their cells insulin resistant. Could what we be seeing be a small preexisting variation in organisms that make them already resistant, and by killing off all the Billy's all that is left is Bobby's, or are they adding new information? Or is there some function in their genes that changes its output based on some input that results in their resistance? I don't know.

DHW We agree on design of some kind. I do not believe that your God changed organismal structures in advance of the environmental changes those structures would be used for. I’d be interested to know if Tony thinks his God controls the environment, and if he specially created root types in advance of or in response to environmental change.

first, imagine each environmental state of the Earth as a stage in Earth's development. I believe he created organisms that could exist in the initial environment to change the environment to a new state, the next stage in Earth's development, and then repeated this process at each new stage, driving the development of the environment using the organisms natural biological processes. Like putting yeast in grape juice to get to the next desired stage of grape juice, wine! Without the addition of yeast, the juice just sours and becomes vinegar, so we add life to the juice to alter the outcome of the juicy environment to the desired result.

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