Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 14, 2019, 12:53 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: … there will always be a small group with enough immunity to survive and adapt to the antibiotic by adopting an existing metabolic path answer or using gene transfer. Bacteria do this automatically, God's instructions used.

Dhw: Alternatively, perhaps some bacteria use their intelligence to find a suitable means of solving a new problem which some of their less intelligent buddies were unable to solve.

DAVID: Successful bacteria use alternative pathways as research shows. The intelligence is in automatically switching.

What does this mean? You say your God provided a programme with complete instructions to solve every problem, and bacteria are automatons. So why don’t they automatically switch on your God’s instructions? Are you saying your God provided them with multiple choice instructions, and so automatically some bacteria chose the wrong answer and some chose the right answer while none of them knew what they were doing?

DAVID: The deletion idea from Behe is simply the reserve [dhw: reverse?] of that possibility, in that info is simply taken out of the process. One or the other is very likely a correct analysis.

dhw: “Simply”? It means that the first cells contained the DNA for every single life form in history – insects, birds, reptiles, mammals – not to mention all the bits that got discarded during speciation: teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises….You call that simple?

DAVID: Simple for God.

dhw: Any reason why he couldn’t "simply" have invented a single mechanism (the intelligent cell combining with other intelligent cells) capable of inventing all the above? Too difficult?

DAVID: And lose control of changes? Not likely.

Why do you assume your God wanted to maintain control? Perhaps he wanted to see what would happen if he set the wheels in motion…And to anticipate your usual response, a control freak is just as “human” as an experimental scientist.

QUOTE: ''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith." (David’s bold)

DAVID: The scientists are sure of it. Note the bold of their comment you ignored.

Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins. Meanwhile, your scientists are sure that by examining the mutation rate over 200 years between 13 generations of one H. sapiens family under stable conditions, they know exactly what mutation rate was possible throughout 6-8 million years between 300 and 400 thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in all kinds of environments. Sorry, but I’m not sure.

dhw: […] why do you think localized response to changing conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and making them abandon their happy life in the trees?

DAVID: Marked changing conditions cause extinctions as you know.

But some species survive, and new conditions may lead to new developments.

DAVID: Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.

So will I. You keep harping on about chance mutations as the only alternative to design (and I can’t help wondering what mutations your Sanger scientists were talking about).You know perfectly well that my alternative is that intelligent cell communities (possibly designed by your God) do their own designing. Again: why do you think an intelligent response to local conditions is less likely than your God fiddling around with some apes before making them leave their happy home?

dhw: […] please tell us which half of the “semi-autonomous” evolutionary process was autonomous. i.e. was the independent, intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.

DAVID: It is a concept. You, in a silly way, want exactitude. Semi-autonomous means within prescribed limits of design.

dhw: […] I’m quite happy to accept the idea that cell communities autonomously restructure themselves, independently designing their own adaptations and innovations within limits prescribed by the environment and their own capabilities. Did you have any other “prescribed limits” in mind?

DAVID: You understand my concept based on the first sentence. God controls developing evolution. Your intelligent cells respond automatically to stimuli and the genome info they contain and use it intelligently provided by design.

I asked you what you meant by semi-autonomous, and your only answer was “within prescribed limits”. Apart from environment and restricted capabilities, what other limits are you thinking of? It is no answer to repeat your belief (stated as fact) that God is in total control (= no degree of autonomy), and that cells are automatons (= no degree of autonomy), and I don’t understand what you mean by cells use info “intelligently provided by design”. Either cells/cell communities autonomously process info intelligently and make their own decisions (within prescribed limits described above), or they merely follow instructions and are automatons. But the invitation remains open: what do you mean by semi-autonomy?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum