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

by David Turell , Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 16:31 (890 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please stop trying to minimize the importance of the neuropeptide article. No one says brains and nerves already existed before the Cambrian, but: “The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier.”

DAVID: I am not minimizing the neuropeptides. Of course they fit my theory that the basis of the continuity of evolution is in early and complete development of necessary new bochemicals which precede new processes by new organs.

dhw: Why do you keep harping on about biochemical processes? Of course every change entails biochemical processes. But the question we are trying to answer is whether new organs and new species evolve from preceding organs and species by means of these processes, or your God suddenly produced new organs and new species that had no precursors. You favour the former when you want to show that there is a continuous line from bacteria to humans, and you favour the latter when you want to prove your God’s existence.

We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species. We do have epigenetic methylation for immediate adaptations within species. Since it is either a natural process or a designer, I pick a designer God.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

dhw: I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

DAVID: The concept says all parts must be formed simultaneously. Not your ambiguous amorphous comment.

dhw: All parts of what?

DAVID: Of the fully operating pore in this case.

dhw: I’m afraid you’ll have to remind me, as I can’t find the original article. Has this pore always been present in cells, or was it a new development? But in any case, I would not envisage intelligent cells cooperating to produce a necessary organ whose parts didn't work simultaneously. If it was necessary, they wouldn't survive.

The pore, as a vital part, has been around since cells existed. It is newly described as to its molecular parts. I have bolded the part of your response which is the irreducible complexity theory originated by Behe.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: The Cambrian gap it seems is shorter than all other gaps known!!! Accept it!!

dhw: OK, I accept it. Now will you please accept that the arguments explaining gaps in the fossil record are just as valid now as they were in 2019.

DAVID: We do not know how speciation occurs in the time period which is required. No interval is known. The gaps are gaps because they are gaps. The Edicaran/Cambrian gap is amazingly short compared to all others, considering the enormous jump in complexity.

dhw: Why have you dodged my point? I accept the shortness of the gap. Now please tell me why you think the 2019 arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are no longer valid in 2022.

I know all the arguments about gaps. All are theoretical guesses. Gould recognized the issue as so punctuated equilibrium was proposed, defended and opposed, nothing solved.