Magic embryology: placenta maintains symmetry (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 15:00 (1716 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: (under "Junk DNA”): There is very little junk DNA, to the disappointment of Darwinists.

dhw: Another of your mantras repeated ad nauseam, so let me repeat ad nauseam that the less junk DNA there is, the more evidence we have of natural selection at work, whereby what is useful survives, which would be to the delight of Darwinists who realized it.

DAVID: And I have repeatedly told you, that devote Darwinists have said if DNA is not junk Darwinism is dead. Their point is chance is proven by the appearance of junk which is discarded DNA due to changes as a result of natural selection. Junk, in their view, shows helter-skelter development. Perhaps they will come to accept your logic, which is not theirs.

dhw: I know what they say. I do wish you would respond to my logic and not to theirs.

Your logic implies natural selection has power which I think does not exist. Junk implies chance evolution very directly, a point they must defend. If chance disappears, what is left? If you read their papers you would understand.

DAVID: And finally do you really believe in evolution thru natural selection by competition and survival of the fittest?

dhw: And through cooperation, and through intelligent innovation by means of a mechanism possibly designed by your God, with the possibility that if your God exists, he may occasionally have dabbled. I’m surprised you don’t know this already. I know you believe in evolution by way of a divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every non-dabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the whole history of life, and somehow every one was geared to the production of the brain of Homo sapiens. We have spent years discussing both versions.

I have my beliefs and you yours.

TONY: We would of course point to the fact that the complexity is irreducible, unless of course you can show an evolutionary pathway that could conceivably lead to that mechanism, which I can not see. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the complexity in terms of timing and chemical messaging necessary is staggering.

dhw: The complexity is indeed staggering, as is that of the single cell, but the argument that it is irreducible is not a fact. It is a theory. Behe believes it, and lots of other scientists do not. I personally am not in any position to trace an evolutionary pathway from the single cell (which you agree was the first form of material life) to all the complexities of us humans. Nor, I suspect, are you in a position to trace a pathway from pure energy to conscious energy to the spawning of its spirit son to the spawning of more spirits to the spawning of material cells to the spawning of every innovation in the history of material life. However, I can imagine that over the course of 3.8 billion years, cells used their possibly God-given intelligence to cooperate in forming increasingly complex organs and organisms.

Yes, imagine what is not logical. It is too complex as Tony describes.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum