More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 07:41 (769 days ago) @ David Turell

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

DAVID: Obvious Two inputs allow much more new outputs than simple cell division always producing exactly the same.

And why do you think your God would have wanted more new outputs? What were they necessary for? (I’m not trying to be awkward, but in any case, you may have guessed why I am asking.)

Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

DAVID: All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

dhw: Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

DAVID: Some adaptations require a loss of genes. We agree new gene complexes create new species. The authors called the loss of flower parts evolution. No it isn't. Nothing new appeared.

They say the sepal was completely different from the petal. Do you disagree with them? But I’m lost. What is “Darwin faith bias”, and what is your point?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum