Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 13:24 (5121 days ago) @ David Turell

David believes that "the Maker coded progress through evolution (into DNA) for one-celled beginners to end up as humans and added epigenetic abilities to make sure the process arrived at humans."-I asked what, in that case, was the purpose of all the extinct species, and what was David's reasoning for rejecting the scenario whereby God made things up as he went along. David's answer (12 November at 18.57) to my first question is: "Extinction is due to BAD LUCK". In that case, God didn't know what would or wouldn't survive, and has no control over the mechanisms he has set in motion. It could therefore only have been by good luck that each stage leading to humans survived, as you acknowledge in your post of 16 November at 05.24. Reliance on luck doesn't sound much like planning to me. -Secondly, you have said that epigenetics "guarantees survivability, but not new organs", which arrive via an undiscovered mechanism. This leaves us with some creatures surviving because they can adapt (good luck), some dying off because they can't (bad luck) ... which ties in with Darwin's natural selection ... plus the unsolved mystery of innovations which eventually led to us. Forgive me, but I simply cannot see how the epigenetics lottery plus the mystery of innovations over billions of years provides rational proof of a process planned from the very beginning to lead to US. Why should the organs appearing "de novo" have been planned right from the start, and yet the survival/extinction of species left to chance? The two concepts simply don't dovetail ... or, at the very least, they suggest improvisation, with God adding bits onto whatever happens to be there at the time. Alternatively, of course ... since innovation is unexplained ... we can just as easily revert to Darwin's mutations, which are no more unlikely than a pre-planned mechanism that relies on luck, or a mysterious power playing games. Not one of these theories stands up to reason.-Having said that, I must acknowledge that your post of 15 November at 16.02 under "A Challenge for David" is the best summary I have yet seen of the rational case for the existence of a UI. (Your book, of course, provides the details.) It does not shed any light on the issue of pre-planning versus improvisation, and it obviously can't answer crucial questions on the provenance or nature of a God, but the case you have argued so cogently highlights the enormous degree of faith necessary to believe in the creative genius of chance. It is what makes atheism impossible for me, though the inconceivability and irrationality of an eternal, uncaused intelligence, and the randomness of earthly existence make theism equally impossible.-I'm touched by your concern for my rump, but mine is not a picket fence ... more of a thick wall with a padded top from which I can enjoy a splendid view of both sides, without being distracted by any painful points inserted from below. -I'm also able to enjoy Matt's company up here, though occasionally we seem to differ on what we see. Natural Selection is one such area. The words have become so familiar that many neo-Darwinists seem to have forgotten what they mean. Nature cannot select from items that do not exist. In other words, the innovations must already have happened before Nature can decide whether they're worth keeping or not. Therefore, Natural Selection by definition cannot INNOVATE. As I interpret evolution, mutations, additions, subtractions may result in innovation, but NS can only decide whether or not the changes will survive.