Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 11:24 (319 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

dhw: And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? Or do you really think he sits looking into his crystal ball and sees that next week there’ll be a food shortage on land, so he’d better step in and turn legs into flippers before telling the pre-whales that they’ll find food in the water? I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.

dhw: Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category? [David's bold]

DAVID: Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.
DAVID: It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.

Once again you assume that when there’s a problem, every individual immediately dies. My “apparently” referred to the illogicality of your implied agreement that eight of the snakes had a problem first and solved it second, whereas the other two solved the problem at the same time as they (or your God) created it. Nobody knows how any of these mechanisms work, but I see no reason why cells should be able to work out solutions to problems from outside, and yet unable to work out solutions to problems arising from their own activities. ALL innovations and adaptations entail new forms of cooperation between the cell communities, and that applies whether your God manipulated every one directly, or gave them the power to do their own self-modifications. In any case, I don't really understand why this is so important to you, unless you think that somehow eight-snakes problem followed by solution doesn't count, whereas two-snakes simultaneity proves that God designed all speciation, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in advance of any need. I’ll avoid bringing in the rest of your theory of evolution, as agreed.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTE: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

dhw: Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. [etc. – I shan’t reproduce the rest of my response, as I’m going to have to repeat it.]

DAVID: Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

You have missed the point. Junk DNA is an analogy, so I’ll scrap it. 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum