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

by dhw, Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 14:06 (2050 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 80% functional as ENCODE reports. Graur, the author of your 'nonsense' firmly believes 80-90% of DNA is 'junk'. So 'junk' becomes a huge issue in whether Darwin has any validity.

dhw: Darwin knew nothing about DNA. So what did Darwin write that has now been invalidated? What is the issue? Some evolutionists believe that if there is junk DNA, it supports the case for randomness and destroys the case for design. And so the less junk there is, the weaker their argument becomes. I have no idea how much is junk and how much is not. My point is that even if it turns out that all of DNA is useful, these evolutionists can argue that it is explained by Darwinian natural selection, whereby what is useful survives. And you still haven’t come up with an answer.

DAVID: I'm only trying to explain what current Darwinists think. You have offered them an out, which I have tried to explain they won't accept, since natural selection does not act on DNA directly.

Of course natural election does not act on DNA directly. That is irrelevant. If your crop of Darwinists don’t accept this obvious “out”, and if you can find no fault with it, then we need not continue the discussion. If there is no junk DNA, they will eventually catch up with the obvious, and Darwin will not be dead.

DAVID: The implication I see is the requirement to build new DNA instructions on the surviving old DNA and time involved. No implication natural selection deleted useless DNA.

dhw: It is blindingly obvious that if common descent is true, any innovation involves new DNA instructions, and it makes no difference to our discussion whether the process takes ten years or ten million years (though you have ignored the vital point about the role of environmental conditions). I have no idea whether DNA is deleted or just restructured. The article talks of storehouses being wiped out, but the new organisms must still have formed their innovations out of the DNA that had survived. The two questions remain (a) how much existing DNA is junk or is useful, and (b) what are the implications if there is no junk (see above).

DAVID: And as I read Behe's new book, he reports Darwinist findings that advances in evolution are always caused by damaging genes, damage they admit to! Generally accompanied by convoluted excuses as to how it follows Darwin's theory.

No one will deny that advances in evolution would have to be caused by mutations of some kind. Randomness is the part of Darwin’s theory we both reject. I have no idea why Darwinists should say that the genes are "damaged" if the mutations result in new forms and functions, but perhaps you can explain. Nor do I understand why “damage” invalidates the theories of common descent, natural selection, and links between environmental and organismal change.

DAVID (under “Brain complexity”): When four parts are involved chance development by a series of mutations is impossible, negating Darwin's theory.

Which theory? Does it negate common descent? Does it negate natural selection? Does it negate the link between environmental and organismal change? You and I have long since agreed that life’s complexities negate the part of Darwin’s theory that attributes change to randomness. So do please stop trying to equate the whole of Darwin’s theory with just one part of it.