Genome complexity: seemingly not in obvious DNA (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, July 10, 2020, 09:03 (1379 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

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

And my point is that each change was a response: skull responds to brain, pelvis (female) responds to foetus – though later you sudden jettison the importance of the foetus by focusing solely on the upright position. Spontaneously? Well, there’s a turn-up for the books. You mean your God didn’t dabble? The cell communities did it all by themselves?

DAVID: 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?

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

You have forgotten the “dilemma” – female pelvis architecture had to be what it had to be to give birth to the larger brained foetus. And your sudden switch does not explain why God could easily find a solution and the easy solution was a hard birth.

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.

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

I know he is a design theorist, as you are. Please tell us where he supports your theory that an all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, but first he specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct, non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. And please explain how his theory disproves the theory summarized above.