More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 15:37 (12 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: But the clocks appear as if fact on both sides.

dhw: That is the nature of dogmatic beliefs, which often masquerade as facts. I presume you are now agreeing with me that even mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts.

Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: What a convoluted twist! We are discussing genome mutation controls with loss of previously established DNA genes. Genes are removed with a new recombination of existing genes creating the phenotypic change.

dhw: You have left out innovations, as you did last time. Your comment does not contradict my point: the losses do not CAUSE the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolutionary changes, but result from them because they are no longer needed.

DAVID: Discarding genes create advances, surprisingly. You are off point.

dhw: That is the theory. And it is indeed surprising. And I’m suggesting that discarding genes is the RESULT of advances, whether these take the form of restructuring existing genes or adding new ones, because the restructuring or innovation will render some of the old genes superfluous.

It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

dhw: They are no longer of any use in the new conditions.... Please explain how you can know that the loss of genes causes innovation as opposed to being the result of innovation. However, I can also see that in certain changed conditions, some existing structures might suffice, while others become unnecessary: a sighted organism might lose its sight and improve its hearing if it takes to living underground. Is that the kind of adaptation you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t call that an “advance”, though.

I preserved the last observation of yours for completeness as an example of your strange attempt to misinterpret which comes first. Please answer the question above to make your thinking clearer.

DAVID: If life appeared 3.8 by ago, its chemical processes did not need oxygen. It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. And an obvious drive toward complexity existed, I propose designed by god.

dhw: Yes indeed, environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. Even if it were true that your God designed them, he would not have done so BEFORE the oxygen was available, but AS it became available. That is how evolution works: in RESPONSE to conditions – not in ANTICIPATION of them.

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present. Evolution is stages, remember.

dhw: You’ve got it at last. New organisms are a RESPONSE to new conditions, and do not arrive in anticipation of new conditions.

No, a nuance of important difference. New conditions allow new designs to be created.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum