More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 16:15 (11 days ago) @ dhw


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

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

Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.

Evolution - Loss of traits

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?

dhw: 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.

Not answered. Which comes first? New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!

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.

dhw: 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.

Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes


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.

dhw: 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.

Look at my response in PART ONE. New conditions allow new changes to happen. God dsigns in advance for them.

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.

dhw: 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!

No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum