Miscellany (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 15:17 (1186 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

dhw: New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? ... I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

I have an entirely unknotted view. God prepared the pre-whale a way to enter a watery environment. But He didn't change hippos!!! So they keep wading. God speciates.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.
And
DAVID: It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.

dhw: Once again you assume that when there’s a problem, every individual immediately dies. My “apparently” referred to the illogicality of your implied agreement that eight of the snakes had a problem first and solved it second, whereas the other two solved the problem at the same time as they (or your God) created it. Nobody knows how any of these mechanisms work, but I see no reason why cells should be able to work out solutions to problems from outside, and yet unable to work out solutions to problems arising from their own activities. ALL innovations and adaptations entail new forms of cooperation between the cell communities, and that applies whether your God manipulated every one directly, or gave them the power to do their own self-modifications. In any case, I don't really understand why this is so important to you, unless you think that somehow eight-snakes problem followed by solution doesn't count, whereas two-snakes simultaneity proves that God designed all speciation, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in advance of any need. I’ll avoid bringing in the rest of your theory of evolution, as agreed.

Your faith in cell intelligence is overwhelming, as you simply agree the poison appears with the solution at the same time with cell magic. My point is God design is required, cells are n ot ctaht smart.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTE: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

DAVID: Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

dhw: You have missed the point. Junk DNA is an analogy, so I’ll scrap it. 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.