Genome complexity: seemingly not in obvious DNA (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 09, 2020, 21:08 (1597 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This response is an exact description of simultaneity. One change cannot follow another!

dhw: My response is an exact description of how one change follows another. Every change is a response. Why would the pelvis change if the foetus did not require change? Why would the skull expand if the brain didn’t expand? Still you cling to the vision of your God stepping in one evening and next morning our group of homos wake up with bigger brains, skulls and pelvises!

My point is all the changes have to occur at once, spontaneously

dhw: I am not disputing any of this! Your theory is that your God kept on simultaneously enlarging brains, skulls and pelvises overnight. I suggest that the enlargements would have been sequent and would have required time.

DAVID: Same mess. All changes must occur at the same time for survival of baby and/or mother.

dhw: And I have suggested to you that there may well have been many that did not survive until the changes had been finalized. Even now, the article emphasizes that human childbirth is a comparatively difficult process, as you say below.

DAVID: . Human pelvis has required shape for upright posture, results in hard births.

dhw: Yes, birth is hard. And no doubt it was even harder when the changes began to take place, and no doubt there were plenty of babies and mothers who did not survive. Concerning the “obstetric dilemma”, you wrote: “I don’t believe dhw’s ‘smart cooperating cells could solve the problems by themselves, but God could easily.” So God’s easy solution resulted in hard births. Why didn’t it result in easy births?

Silly question. Pelvis architecture is whet it has to be for upright posture

DAVID: To repeat from above, cells follow intelligent instructions given to them by God. Of course, you have forgotten Behe's very strong exposition which shows DNA devolves to advance evolution, strongly suggesting the instructions were there from the beginning.

dhw: Does Behe support your theory, as summarized above, with instructions for every new life form etc.? Please tell me how his theory (a theory, not a fact) disproves the theory that cellular intelligence was there from the beginning, and the cells themselves worked out how to use their DNA in order to advance evolution. And please remember that this theory allows for God as the creator of the original cells, their DNA and their intelligence.

Behe is a design theorist. I've personally talked with him. He and I think alike.