Genome complexity: DNA 3-D importance in replication (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 06, 2019, 10:39 (1930 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Evolution requires changes in the DNA. I gave you the choice between a 3.8 byo programme for all the changes and a mechanism which enabled the cells to change AUTONOMOUSLY in response to changing conditions. You went for the mechanism, and believe that your God gave it to the cells. If they can change their own DNA autonomously, how does that provide evidence for a 3.8 byo programme for all the changes?

DAVID: The 3.8 byo program allows the organisms to modify their DNA only for adaptations to immediate needs which provide minor changes within species. That is how I view Shapiro. Elsewhere I have provided evidence for the initial program completely providing everything (all info) from the beginning.

This makes no sense. Presumably your first sentence refers to Shapiro’s hypothesis of “natural genetic engineering” (and my hypothesis of cellular intelligence as the designer of innovations), and not to your 3.8 byo programme, and your objection merely echoes the point I made myself, now in bold below.*** There is no evidence for a 3.8 byo programme for every change in the history of evolution, and when I gave you a choice, you opted for a God-given autonomous mechanism! How does an autonomous mechanism support the hypothesis that every change was preprogrammed?

***Dhw: Cells can alter their own DNA and their own structures. We do not know the extent to which they can do this, which is why Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”, or my more explicit concept of autonomous (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the inventor of innovations, remains a hypothesis.

DAVID: Animals are designed to fit their environments requirements which can change requiring new design or extinction. 'Bad luck' still applies. God steps in where He wishes.

dhw: I’m glad you now acknowledge the vital importance of environmental influence. It is indeed bad luck if organisms can’t use their possibly God-given autonomous intelligence to solve new problems. If God exists, then of course he can dabble if he wishes, and the theistic version of my hypothesis has always allowed for this. Chixculub might be an example. (The atheistic version would be that environmental change is purely by chance – bad luck in some cases, and good in others – though it is also possible that your God set up a system to engender random environmental change.)

DAVID: Of course environment plays a huge role as when mammals entered water permanently, but design for survival is required. Note design is primary.

I don’t know what you mean by “primary”. Are you referring to your theory that your God changed legs to fins before sending pre-whales into the water, all for the sake of complexity - not survival - although fins are no more complex than legs?