Evolution: a different view with loss of DNA segments (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 10, 2019, 19:39 (159 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My view is still that God creates major speciation by one method or another, either having it built into the original 3.8 byo DNA with coded changes or perhaps by deletion as Behe is saying. I've viewed dabbles as wolf/dog changes which humans did in this case, but God did it before humans stepped into the process.

dhw: Even more confusing. You now have dabbles for adaptations, whereas in your original comment above, it was the 3.8 byo programme that only allowed for adaptations, and now the 3.8 byo programme apparently contains every single major change from bacteria through to humans, or alternatively the first cells contained DNA for eyes, ears, teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises etc., and just discarded all these as needed, or rather as not needed. And you call my own hypothesis a “monstrous extrapolation”!

All I have ever said is the original DNA may have contained all the info for evolution. And minor adaptations within species may be done with guidelines by the species itself.

dhw: Why do you need a large group to make large mutations?

DAVID: It has everything to do with the size of the group. From ape to erectus in two-three million years ( a moment in the grand scheme of 3.8 billion) means rapid fire mutations, all working together for the advance. I'm not arguing about chance. I'm claiming only deliberate design fits, and not by brainless cell committees.

dhw: See my bold above for chance, and this still has nothing to do with the size of the group. You are not just claiming “only deliberate design fits” – you have put forward a very specific, though somewhat confusing theory of design outlined above: divine dabbles (originally the 3.8 byo programme) for minor changes, preprogramming or deletion for major changes.

A non-answer! The issue is the need for rapid-fire mutations to make hominins so quickly!

DAVID: The only issue here is I believe God gave the cells that mechanism.

dhw: What mechanism were you referring to?

DAVID: 'That mechanism' is Shapiro's result. Cells can modify their DNA for minor adaptions to changes in requirements or stimuli. But they are still the same cells. What is not clear?

dhw: If you believe your God gave the cells the mechanism which enables the cell to change itself autonomously, you accept the autonomous mechanism! But you don’t, so let’s just forget what you wrote.

you know fully well I support a mechanism with guidelines, semi-autonomous.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum