Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 23:26 (5120 days ago) @ dhw

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 some or variable control over the mechanisms he has set in motion. Reliance on luck doesn't sound much like planning to me. -I am like Frank. We don't know God's reasoning in the beginning. In my faith he set forward an evolutionary process, but evolving means change and both life and geology were changing at the same time. There would have to be good and bad luck in that scenario.
> 
> 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.-One of God's protection mechanism for reaching us is the epigenetic system of rapid change responding to evolving circumstances. (See the answer to question two below.)-> 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, Not one of these theories stands up to reason. -We cannot reason as God does.We can only imagine His reasoning, based on what we see as factual information. Primates are HERE, NOW, over billions of years of evolution. Only one species has a huge brain. My belief system tells me the only way that could have happened is if the big brain was programmed in advance just as all the other complex organs were. I believe in a guided evolutionary process, but still with the patterns of luck and change that we see.-
> 
> 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. -Thank you. Everyone (!), please study that last sentence carefully. We got here totally by chance is what atheism wants us to accept. By chance mutation, repeatedly, ad infinitum, in only 3.8 billion years, with our own billions of complex parts and mechanisms. To me laughable.
 
> 
> I'm also able to enjoy Matt's company, though occasionally we seem to differ on what we see. Natural Selection is one such area. 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.-Second point to study, everybody (!): Natural Selection receives innovations passively, totally passive in its role until those innovations must face competition from other species and from nature. Then, and only then, is NS, as defined, active.