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

by dhw, Saturday, August 29, 2020, 12:23 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

This discussion has diverged from "error corrections", but we'll leave it here for the time being.


DAVID: 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.

dhw: But you said it meant that “all future organism models might be present in the original DNA/genome”,... Perhaps you could explain what you meant by “models”?

DAVID: Codes for new parts. Not models.

Yes, I thought models might be a bit bulky for those poor little cells. Anyway, now we have them containing codes for hands, wings and fins, and later cell communities dropped two and kept one. Presumably, then, the first cells also contained codes for legs and arms too, added to the programmes they apparently contained for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder, bacterial response etc. in the history of life. What a pity they didn’t also contain corrections for “errors” like cancer, but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: 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”.)

DAVID: We can't mix science and religion in the way you have asked me. Which innovations do you wish to discuss? You know my feelings about brains.

Then leave God out.You say new organisms arrived in advance of the challenges they would face in the future. I propose that new organisms appeared in response to new challenges. I wondered how many scientists agree with you. If you want an example, see pre-whale legs below.

dhw: …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.

DAVID: I know. I have had the ability to pick one. Only His mind can really design in anticipation of future requirements.

If you know, why did you moan that I’d skipped the origin of life?

Under “Magic embryology
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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Seduction by a simplistic Darwin theory to which they twist and turn in order to make it fit a reality it does not fit destroys logical attempts at scientific thought. This is why Behe is so disruptive.

How can you possibly argue that your God turning legs into fins before pre-whales entered the water is more logical, more scientific and more of a fit with reality than legs adapting to life in the water and in due course turning into fins?

DAVID (under “Immunity”): we use bacterial CRISPR enzyme to edit DNA, a perversion of its use in life, in which it is used to chop up enemy DNA's. But the real consideration is when does this type of immunity appear in relation to the origin of the organism? And it obviously has to be designed simultaneously into the first appearance of each new species.

Once again you are confusing yourself by conflating evolution and direct design. For those of us who believe in common descent, each new organism/species will have inherited characteristics and processes, including certain forms of immunity, from its ancestors. Immunity, in my view, has to be an on-going process as the cells react to new threats. The designer of the mechanism (I call it cellular intelligence) which works out solutions to new problems as they arise may be your God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum