More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 14:01 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS

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.

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

I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

Evolution - Loss of traits
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.

DAVID: 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?

Of course genes run the show and produce the new forms. Now please tell me why you think the new form is CREATED by the loss of genes, as opposed to new genes or restructured genes rendering old genes superfluous.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

I don’t know how I can make it clearer. The last observation is the only example I can think of in which loss of genes will change the nature of the beast, but I would not call that an “advance”. An advance will entail something new: a restructuring of existing genes and/or new genes. I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

Oxygen

dhw: […] 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.

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

It would help if you read the comments you reply to. Please note the bold, and please note also that both requiring and allowing still entail the existence of the new conditions BEFORE the new forms come into existence. The new forms are a RESPONSE, and as we at long last agreed (Your theory, PART ONE), if God exists, he designed the MECHANISM that made all such responses possible.

Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution
DAVID: lots of lessons here. dhw note how one step leads to another so all results are related, and ecosystems evolve with important consequences.

Of course steps lead to other steps, and of course ecosystems evolve with important consequences, but please don’t try to kid us that “all results are related” to your God’s one and only goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! THAT is the illogical claim you try so hard to gloss over!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum