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

by dhw, Sunday, June 19, 2022, 09:36 (886 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The new 410,000 year gap, when compared to other gaps, simply reinforces to magnitude of the phenotypical changes in an extremely short period. And finally your wishful generations theory has no evidence. All newspecies we know about appear afer gaps (punc-eq)

There are long periods of stasis, and then sudden bursts of activity (PE). If new species evolved during a comparatively short time (410,000 years) we can call that a comparatively sudden burst of activity, but it still doesn’t alter the fact that if you believe in common descent, every change will have taken place between generations, and I propose that twenty to forty thousand generations would allow for plenty of changes, especially if those changes were produced by intelligent entities changing their structures in order to cope with or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: The new biochemistry must be available to allow new forms. I have God engineering and you have ???

dhw: Possibly intelligent cells, possibly designed by your God. Please clarify what you mean by “new biochemistry”. Do you mean new materials, or do you mean new ways of using existing materials? And do you or do you not believe in common descent?

DAVID: Are you confused? Life is biochemistry and we have discussed the neuropeoptides appearing in advance of brains as an example. First biochemistry, then new forms as below:

I am not confused. Of course life is biochemistry, and I am proposing that new forms are the result of existing materials being used in new ways. Why don’t you answer my question about common descent?

dhw: […] we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

DAVID: […] the underlying biochemistry must precede all form advances. And early new forms will prepare for later new forms. Evolution!!!

dhw: This does not explain your self-contradiction, but it suggests that the materials are already present, and new forms result from new uses. I suggest that the early forms are not “preparations” (no crystal ball involved), but through “biological processes”, organisms (cell communities) adapt or innovate IN RESPONSE to changing conditions.

DAVID: I know your approach. Brilliant cell committees do it all on their own, b ut God might have helped them. Another waffle theory.

So what is your theory? That God looks into his crystal ball and designs all the innovations BEFORE they are needed. What’s more, he designed them all 3.8 billion years ago in the form of a book of instructions to be passed on to all cells, so they could pick the right ones at the right time. Or alternatively, he kept consulting his crystal ball, and every time he saw new conditions coming, he popped in to make the changes before the new conditions arrived. I’ll leave you to find the appropriate description of such a theory.

How did sex pop up?
DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear.

DAVID: Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.

So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry? The newness consisted in new use of existing materials, which supports the theory of common descent, and common descent contradicts the theory of speciation without precursors. We appear to be in agreement, except when you propagate the latter theory in order to prove the existence of your God.

Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

DAVID: […] Of course cells can't design for the future, but new species appear fully formed to handle living.

They could hardly appear if they never lived! What is your point? Mine is that the cells of existing species respond to new conditions, and change accordingly by adapting or innovating (or they die). They do not look into a crystal ball and change in advance.