Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,402 Year: 3,659/9,624 Month: 530/974 Week: 143/276 Day: 17/23 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not enough room in DNA
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 139 (555284)
04-12-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jpatterson
04-12-2010 3:39 PM


jpatterson writes:
If this mechanism isn't valid, if there's not enough room on the DNA, then evolution collapses.
You have a good topic. However, it does not present the problem for evolution that you think it poses. It is pretty well understood that the DNA is not a blueprint for the organism, but is more of a blueprint for a set of development processes out of which the organism arises.
The real implication of this is that environment plays a substantial role in forming an organism, and that DNA is only part of the story. The importance of environment has long been recognized. The case of thalidomide babies illustrates the importance of the environment.
Limitations in the size of the DNA perhaps create a problem for rationalist philosophers, who like to assume a considerable amount of innate knowledge. But they are not a problem for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jpatterson, posted 04-12-2010 3:39 PM jpatterson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 10:34 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 27 of 139 (555635)
04-14-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
04-14-2010 4:24 PM


slevesque writes:
Suppose that God had made a universe where life could arise by natural means, ie no need of supernatural intervention. Idem for all the mysteries concerning origins (Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution)
That's about what deists believe. I don't see any particular problem with that concept of God.
Straggler writes:
Would you not then accuse this God of being misleading, since he made a universe which could have made itself with life in it that could have made itself.
Of course I don't speak for Dr Adequate. However, I don't see anything misleading about that that. It would merely suggest that God does not have an overinflated ego, so is acting anonymously because he/she doesn't care about the credits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2010 4:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2010 6:09 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 31 of 139 (555651)
04-14-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by slevesque
04-14-2010 6:09 PM


slevesque writes:
And I'm sure you once asked the very same question CS just did.
Actually, I don't think I have.
Straggler writes:
Hence the irony, because you brush off the evidence he did give us of his existence in his creation by saying ''what a show-off if he were to do that'' but then at another time you will say ''why doesn't he give us more proof that he exists?''
There are quite a few deists and Christian scientists who would say that there is plenty of evidence to be found in the wonders of nature. And that kind of evidence does not require being a show-off.
The trouble with YEC beliefs, is that they reject the evidence from nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2010 6:09 PM slevesque has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 35 of 139 (555679)
04-14-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jpatterson
04-14-2010 8:25 PM


It's a bogus issue
jpatterson writes:
You are set with the task of specifying, at a molecular level, every last detail of the anatomy, physiology and innate behavior of a human being.
That's a bogus issue.
Nothing depends on specifying every last detail. It is well known that identical twins who are raised together have many differences. Even their brain wiring is very different. Yet they are similar enough that we have difficulty telling them apart either by their appearance or by their behavior. So it should be obvious that specification of every last detail is not required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jpatterson, posted 04-14-2010 8:25 PM jpatterson has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024