Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, June 12, 2022, 10:46 (684 days ago) @ David Turell

Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: It has always been presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

dhw: Many thanks for this. As with the article on “neuropeptides”, we are slowly learning that fundamental features of “modern” species (brains, nervous systems, and now sex) did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian after all. New fossils keep emerging and confirming the theory that the evolution of species is a continuous process of common descent as life forms vary, adapt and innovate.

DAVID: How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?

dhw: The gap is the absence of fossils. You have answered yourself above: organs that had previously been assumed to have appeared “suddenly” in the Cambrian are now shown to have originated in simpler forms before the Cambrian. This suggests continuity, not sudden appearance.

DAVID: The grasper organ found in trilobites is Cambrian, and presumes a penis. The bold is your pure invention. I did mention Edicarans are thought to be simple animals, so they possibly had sexual reproduction, but as sessile forms, sperm would have to float over to find an egg somehow. In Cambrian reproduction intromission is assumed. Your theoretical struggles show their rigidity.

You are right, my bold goes too far, as you said that Ediacaran animals “could have had” sex, not “did have”. However, the article on neuropeptides showed us that precursors to the fully developed Cambrian forms (brains and nervous systems) existed earlier, thus confirming the concept of continuity. And if the same “could have” applied to sexual reproduction, the theory of continuity can hardly be dismissed as wild.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: Everything works together in a coordinated fashion. It must do that all at once. It cannot be constructed bit by bit by evolution, because it won't work properly until it is complete. This is the very definition of irreducible complexity which requires a designing mind. Ingress an egress must tightly controlled always. When a molecule wants to enter it emits an alerting signal to trigerv the pore, and teh same at exiting. The signals can e chemical, electrical or physical force. All have been described. This is why the cells look lintelligent: the molecules follow intellgently designed signals. This can be only fully understood when the molecular architecture is found and its actions described.

dhw: Once again, we are focusing on the cell, which is the basic unit of all life forms, and of course many of its functions have to be automatic, and as always, I acknowledge the logic of the design argument. However, the cell is also designed to respond to new conditions, and when cells combine they are even able to change their own structures. They are indeed so flexible in their ability to cope with different conditions and to change their structures, that they have combined to create all the multicellular species that have ever existed. It is not the automatic processes that have led to evolution but the ability to vary, and each new response to each change in conditions demands a departure from the previous norm. This is where (possibly God-given) intelligence comes into play. […]

DAVID: You may accept design theory, but totally ignore the import of irreducible complexity. All newly appearing cell forms most come complete with all functions intact and operating. Without that arangement, it won't work.

I presume you are now talking about adaptation and innovation, in which cells take on new forms, and of course they must work. When conditions change, many life forms die. Survival depends on the flexibility of cells to change their structure.

DAVID: All cells work on intelligent information. New species use cells just like the ones in the old species, butteh cells aerenow arranged to operate cooperatively in new body parts and body forms.

I don’t know why you want to muddy the waters with “intelligent information”. It is the intelligence of cells that interprets and uses information, which is passive. And you’ve hit the nail on the head: the cells cooperate to create new forms.

DAVID: How do cells take new body part forms? By design from the designer who undertand and plans for the future form and its new functions and uses. The thought that simple living cells can forsee the future and design for it to create the known gaps in the fossil record ( as the Cambrian) is preposterous.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that in my theory cells do not foresee the future! They respond to conditions in their present: either they die, or they adapt (both proven) or they exploit the new conditions by designing new ways of using them (innovation, but not proven). The gaps in the fossil record are a different subject, which we have now discussed ad nauseam, with you refusing to consider the various explanations that have been offered. But of course you have every right to cling to your theory that 3.8 billion years ago your God produced an instruction manual for every single innovation, or alternatively he kept popping in to engineer each and every one, because each and every one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of us humans.