Genome complexity: seemingly not in obvious DNA (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, July 06, 2020, 15:29 (1387 days ago) @ dhw

Under “energy requirements”:

DAVID: It can be assumed each expansion of the brain was accompanied by a proportionate increase in caloric requirement. This means not only had there to be several simultaneous bony changes but also an adjustment in the division of caloric energy usage and an increase in calorie intake. I doubt this all could be naturally coordinated by chance evolution and had to be designed.

dhw: I would suggest that since cells are living organisms that require sustenance, the larger the community, the more sustenance would be required. I really don’t know why this should be regarded as a special problem or how chance versus design enters the argument, but I agree that the complexities of the cell provide the best possible evidence for design.

DAVID: Again skipped over all the triple bony change requirements that dictate the need for design and note the human digestive tract made new adaptations for the energy need as compared to apes:

dhw: I was merely pointing out that there was nothing special about the brain’s need for enough sustenance – that applies to all cell communities – and I didn’t know why you brought chance into it. Adaptations generally require the cooperation of all the cell communities in all areas of evolution.

The need for accommodation for an enlarged brain required all the changes I noted, including changes in or by three individuals, father, Mother, and new-sized baby. Cell committees must be clairvoyant to cooperate as dhw describes.

Under “Genome complexity”

QUOTE: Perhaps it’s easier for life to innovate by rearranging its existing gene networks instead of evolving scores of new genes.

DAVID: Not surprising. Certainly there is a strong drive in evolution to become more complex. It is obvious that simple looks at DNA will not give us answers. There are gene relationships we do not understand and layers of control that are still being discovered. we still do not know how cells produce the results they control. God is a clever designer. It ius too complex for production by a chance mechanism.

dhw: As regards the quote, life doesn’t innovate. Innovations take place in living organisms, which means there must be some kind of mechanism within the organisms. This means organisms “rearrange their existing gene networks” – or for David, God preprogrammed all the rearrangements 3.8 billion years ago or he steps in to dabble with every existing network. David is quite right: “we do not know how cells produce the results they control”. But the very statement that they control the results might suggest that cellular intelligence (possibly designed by a God) is a very plausible alternative to chance, divine preprogramming and divine dabbling.

Again glossing over 'cell intelligence'. It had a definite cause, but dhw's wishy-washy discussion leaves the source hanging. Chance or God the designer?