More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 12:32 (793 days ago) @ David Turell

Pseudogenes

DAVID: You really don't understand the import of junk DNA, which was invented by Darwinists to show that chance would produce junk in DNA. The howls from Moran and Graur over ENCODE prove the point. Graur went so far as to say if junk disappears so does Darwin's theory.

dhw: Then more fool Moran and Graur. Would you please explain why you disagree with my point that natural selection preserves what is useful (Darwin's theory), and that explains the survival of genes which some people thought were junk.

DAVID: So you understand the point how foolish committed Darwinists are/were.

You’ve named two people who apparently didn’t realize that the disappearance of so-called “junk” supported Darwinism, and if this is so, I agree that they were/are foolish not to have realized it. I said so: “More fool Moran and Graur”. I trust you now agree with me that the disappearance of “junk” supports Darwinism.

Early quark-gluon plasma
DAVID […] I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.

dhw: Previously you told us that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. After much to-ing and fro-ing, you realized that you did not accept that, since you are convinced that your God existed before the BB (and might even have created earlier universes). Maybe it would help us if you found the exact wording of what Guth said he had “proved”.

DAVID:
https://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem

QUOTES: "The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the physics community.
"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity
."

DAVID: Clear to me, a beginning. By God.

If the BB took place, I have no problem with it being called a “beginning”. “Singularity” has lots of different implications. If I start to write a book, it is a beginning, and assuming nobody has ever written my book before, it is a singularity. This is a far cry from claiming that nothing preceded my book or the BB, and your original statement was that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. Even now you clearly disagree with that theory – and if that really is what Guth & Co were proposing, you agree that they cannot possibly prove it.

The requirements of design

dhw: I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:

DAVID: All design is for future use.

dhw: I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED!

I’ll end it there because - my fault – the discussion returns to our disagreement over the human brain, which is dealt with elsewhere


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum