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

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 18, 2019, 19:10 (155 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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: I'm stuck just like you are. The Darwinists state it is damage and Behe agrees. But your example is way beyond the events discussed. This is not at the level of major bodily change. It is color change in polar bears, citrate or glucose use in Lenski's E. coli.

dhw: Unusual for Behe and the Darwinists to agree! Even at this level, I really can’t see why the changes should be described as damage, since they are clearly of benefit to the bears and the bacteria when conditions change. As you are also stuck, this is a dead end.

Near the end of the book Behe gets into the role of mind. I'll report when I've read it.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum