More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 09:21 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS
dhw: ID-ers and neo-Darwinists reach different conclusions because nobody can possibly know the truth, i.e. the facts.

DAVID: Don't conflate the differences. Both sides use the same maths to estimate times of DNA changes.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here. I used the following reference to make my point:
dhw: I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution
QUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!”

My point is that they are equating mutation with randomness, and totally ignoring the possibility that mutations are NOT random but are guided by the intelligence of the cells that make up the organism. Everything depends on the mechanism that produces speciation, and that is unknown. I don’t know what maths are used by Darwinists.

Evolution - Loss of traits
dhw: I am asking you to explain how the loss of genes can generate the innovations that are necessary for speciation, and I am asking you why you think it is illogical to suppose that the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes would make some of the old genes redundant.

DAVID: It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

With this response, you have totally ignored the reason for this dispute, which is the claim that loss of genes causes the “advances” in evolution. I gave you an example of how loss of genes might be the result of adaptation (an organism going blind because it takes up residence in the dark) and challenged your argument that the advances which result in innovation and speciation were caused by loss of genes. You simply ignored the fact that innovation requires restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes. I have suggested that when these are successful, they make some of the old genes redundant. Are you now saying that innovations and new species do not constitute advances, and that it is NOT logical that some old genes will then become redundant?

Retrotransposons
These produce new combinations of genes.

QUOTES: Furthermore, many of our traditional genes are now understood to descend from the good-old run-of-the-mill retroviral gag, pol, or env genes that were co-opted for a new use.”
“This implies that our brains, and likely our bodies as well, are significantly mosaic in the sense that neighboring cells of much the same putative phenotype can have notably different genome architectures due to opportune transposition events.”

More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants.

dhw: Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

DAVID: And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle th e new use.

I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum