Back to David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, August 28, 2020, 10:52 (98 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: This discussion originated with an article describing evolution of fins to hands, and you wrote: “Devolving per Behe means that all the future organism models might be present in the original DNA/genome.” If you think the example supports your theory and his, I have every right to ask my question, so please answer it.

DAVID: I have many times. Per Behe, all advances involve removing of DNA code. If that is the case, original DNA held all the information needed, and what was removed was code that held back advances.

But you said it meant that “all future organism models might be present in the original DNA/genome”, so I asked if you thought the first cells contained models for hands, wings and fins, and when one model took over, the others were deleted. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by “models”?

dhw: As an alternative to your theory, I proposed that your God produced exactly what he wanted: a mechanism allowing cells to work out their own designs etc., including all the beneficial and deleterious ones that have produced the vast variety of life’s history and the death he “required”.

DAVID: As usual you have reintroduced your God who concedes control over evolution to the organisms themselves, as if they could understand design for future purpose.

dhw: You keep going on about design for future purposes, when I have explained over and over again that my theory does NOT involve foreseeing the future and is entirely based on organisms reacting to current conditions.

DAVID: I know your belief which is completely opposite to mine. God speciates and designs for future problems.

dhw: Repeating your belief is no excuse for attacking my proposal because organisms must foretell the future when I keep repeating that my theory ONLY requires responses to their present.

DAVID: We go back to the huge gaps in evolution that so troubled Gould, and you studiously ignore. The new organisms are much different from the past and miraculously can handle the future they find themselves entering into with all its different challenges. Design for the future required.

I don’t ignore them. I have repeatedly opposed Darwin’s theory that nature doesn’t make jumps, but that is not the issue here. You sometimes dismiss proposals that run counter to mainstream science. Yes, new organisms are different from earlier organisms, but I wonder how many scientists share your belief that innovations appear BEFORE the new challenges, as opposed to being responses to them. (See below, under “magic embryology”.)

dhw: […] There is nothing mysterious about the concept of cooperation between living organisms or about progressive advances as changing conditions require or allow an ever great variety of methods. The mystery lies in the origin of life itself and of the mechanisms that have enabled cells to reproduce, vary, and act with the intelligence so evident in all their actions. […] you asked why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. None of it was “necessary” in the great scheme of things – the original life forms survived, but when some of these were exposed to different conditions, they began the whole process. In time, I would say the agency that drove (rather than “forced”) advances became a mixture of pressures and opportunities for survival in response to changing conditions.

DAVID: You've not skipped over the starting point of how life began and what gave it the ability to evolve by adaptations. What was the cause? Nothing is not an answer. You'll keep it mysterious, a non-answer. I'll accept God, the designer of all you have just described.

Presumably you mean I HAVE skipped the starting point. Look at the bold. But you asked why evolution advanced beyond bacteria, and I gave you an answer (too long to reproduce in full). Now you switch to wanting an answer to the mystery of the origin of life! For the umpteenth time, three possible answers: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism. And I find all three equally impossible to believe.

Under “Magic embryology
DAVID: The microbiome is always a part of embryological development:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-environment-microbiome-jointly-body.html

QUOTES: “Most living beings have developed strategies to recognize changes in their environment and to adapt their individual growth and thus also the resulting body shape to the prevailing conditions.”
In this way, we were able to demonstrate which internal processes ultimately lead to the adaptation of a living being's developmental program in response to its environment."

DAVID: All of us are inhabited by friendly microbiomes that are integrated with the genetic systems in a cooperative effort. This is as finely tuned as any ecosystem and really is one. As noted before, this is why bacteria are still around, as necessary. Now we can include viruses and fungi. No mistakes here.

On this we can agree. It was Lynn Margulis who drew attention to cooperation as a key element of evolution (whereas earlier evolutionists tended to emphasize competition). She also championed cellular intelligence. My selected quotes take it for granted that organisms develop in response to changing conditions. I wonder how many scientists believe that God changed the pre-whale’s legs into fins BEFORE it entered the water.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum