Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, December 02, 2014, 18:04 (3435 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I don't think even a hardened evolutionary atheist would dispute that there are patterns. They give powerful support to common descent, which lies at the very heart of the theory. “Convergence” makes perfect sense if we accept the premise that organisms are intelligent beings, and will come up with similar (though “personalized”) solutions when confronted with similar problems.-What convergence really tells us is that basic patterns of response are present from the beginnings of life, so that very disparate, unrelated species can come up with the same answers as necessary. This implies controls as well as suggestions for innovation. ->dhw: How many programmes would your God have had to put into those first cells, allowing for every possible type of environment? With your new-found confidence, you have even decided to discount divine dabbling, which makes evolution totally reliant on programmes to be passed on from the very beginning. And since your God did not control the environment, these could have been wiped out at any moment by a catastrophe, -Your concept of MY God requires that his powers are limited. That is because you cannot accept the idea that He might exist. You have no right to question my concept of His abilities with your wishes. I fully think HE can put that much programming into the beginning code to handle evolution as I see it. And I don't know where you got the idea that God, as I view Him, has no environmental control at all. I just don't know how much He does or does not have.-> dhw: Whereabouts in the scientific literature have you found support for this hypothesis? At least my own has the scientific backing of specialists who emphasize the intelligence and cooperativeness of cells, and it still allows for your God to be the source of the inventive mechanism.-I find support in the ID literature, and they do have peer-reviewed papers in the literature. I am, as always, allowed to interpret the research results as I see fit. Research findings are just a beginning. Interpretation is another step. You keep throwing scientists' names at me as if they absolutely had the truth and nothing but the truth. They don't. They have opinions, nothing more. They are concluding more than can be known currently. They have the right to do that. So do I and so do you. Frankly using their quotes, which I have generally supplied for you, proves nothing. I am content with my own interpretations of their work.