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

by dhw, Wednesday, April 17, 2019, 13:41 (94 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: Agreed.

Thank you.

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.

dhw: 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: As I understand it, the 'damage' is that as they gain a minor advantageous change another ability is lost. And apparently this is a common event below the family level of classification or below. See the chart to understand the level:
Therefore how evolution occurred above this level is not known.

Of course we don’t know how speciation itself occurred! I still don’t understand why Behe says evolutionary advances are caused by “damage”, which is such a negative term. I can see that if genes are restructured to create something new, the restructuring may well result in the loss of something old: a leg that turns into a flipper will no longer be a leg. What would this prove?

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You are correct. I was referring only to random mutations.

Thank you again. Taking the part for the whole is a common device used by theists and atheists alike. “Without junk, Darwin is dead” is a typical example. So is Dawkins’ “Natural selection…explains the whole of life.”

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum