Logic and evolution: Darwin theory is not scientific (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, April 12, 2019, 18:17 (7 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am in no position to judge what is junk and what is not junk. You claim that if there is no junk, that is an argument against Darwinism. Now please explain what is wrong with the argument that NO junk fits in with the Darwinian principle that natural selection only preserves what is useful.

DAVID: That is not a Darwin principle as the current supporters view it. "Junk", as they see it, is cast aside material from poorly formed chance mutations that didn't work and weren't expunged. […] It is Graur who has said, without junk, Darwin is dead.

dhw: I know what “junk” is, but the dispute over whether there is or isn’t junk is not the point here. If we find that there is no junk, Darwin is not dead at all, because the absence of junk fits in perfectly with the theory that natural selection preserves what is useful. You still refuse to say why that is wrong, apart from this irrelevant comment:

DAVID: Your interpretation is at the adaptation level, theirs is at the genome level.

dhw: A complete non sequitur. The dispute concerns the implications of there being junk or no junk in the genome. If there is no junk, those Darwinians who claim that the presence of junk supports their case against design will be proved wrong. But if they are too stupid to realize that no junk supports the Darwinian case for natural selection as the preserver of what is useful, then more fool them.

Natural selection cannot control what is in the genome. It can only work with what is offered by new mutations and that is the only level of its choosing ability. It cannot directly cause removal of genes

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum