More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, July 27, 2015, 18:18 (3197 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Variation within a familial group is relatively small. Whether you are talking about size, color, or other similar things, there is no reason to assume that every single solitary variation had to be pre-planned, only allowed for...-What does “allowed for” mean? With my theist hat on, I am proposing a God-made mechanism in organisms, but this must organize (not “allow for”) adaptation to changing environments, morphological variations (change cat No. 1 into tabby or lion), cooperation with other organisms, the design of complex habitats and lifestyles etc. Furthermore, you apparently accept common descent, though only within species. But - as I pointed out earlier - you also say our current systems of classification are disparate, so classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgment”. We therefore have common descent for each species, but we can't rely on classifications of species (particularly in the far distant past). Sounds like we're on the way to a theory of evolution!
 
TONY: It is only when you get into major differences that you have to start looking at planning. For example, carnivore vs. a herbivore. Normally, we do not see these kinds of variations within a single family though.-If some kind of mechanism produced the evolution of cat No. 1 to tabby and to lion, why could it not have produced the change from herbivore to carnivore (perhaps triggered by a change in the environment)? Many animals, including ourselves, are both, so does that mean separate creation of herbivores, carnivores and omnivores? Hold on, though. Chimps are omnivores and gorillas are herbivores...It's getting confusing.
 
DHW: It's all very well saying God created apes and humans separately, because we can now see a clear distinction, but back in the past which nobody can ever observe, the distinctions become less rigid. And the further back we go, the less we know.-TONY: Not really...All of the bones for hominids look well within the ranges we see in modern humans, particularly if we account for all races and naturally occuring genetic deformities such as dwarfism.-I'm surprised that you consider all the hominids to be modern humans. You clearly know a great deal more about them than the palaeontologists who have spent a lifetime studying them.-DHW: I will now add one item to your list of things we have NOT observed:
Living organisms that have not sprung from other living organisms.
TONY: I did list this. It was #2 on my not observed list.-That was life appearing from non-life, which I took to refer to the unsolved mystery of the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not deal with that. But if the Cambrian organisms did not spring from other organisms or from non-life, what did they spring from? (See below)
 
TONY: Jeremiah 10:10 "But Jehovah(YHWH) is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.”
TONY: Even with creation, even the creation of individual species or family, life does not spring from non-life. -This is hard to follow. I have no idea what the first forms of life on Earth sprang from, but if they sprang from life, they were not the first forms! Judging by the quote, you are saying God is the first life (and we should be scared stiff of him!), but wouldn't God have had to use non-living materials to create earthly bodies? Wasn't he supposed to have created the first man out of dust and breathed life into him?-TONY: Your point there violates the fact that we have not observed any intermediates.
DAVID: This far out theory of yours does not allow for planning to coordinate for the complexity in multiple organ system animals, as in the Cambrian. That is the major stumbling block for your theory. No precursors, just sudden appearance.-You both seize on the fact that no precursors/intermediates have been found. David's evolutionary explanations are that God preprogrammed the first cells with every single innovation, and so approx. 3 thousand million years later, existing organisms suddenly switched on their individual programmes (automatically) and found themselves transformed into a wide range of totally different organisms. Or God personally rummaged around inside existing organisms with the same result. Presumably Tony's explanation is that God started life all over again by separately creating totally new organisms out of not-non-life. You both seem to find your hypotheses believable, which is fine. They do explain why there are no precursors/intermediaries. But so does the hypothesis that organisms are possessed of intelligence, which produced the SAME changes by exploiting new environmental conditions. New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. It's a hypothesis as unproven (unprovable?) as your own, but at least it has the virtue of linking up with the fact that organisms CAN change their structures (by adapting), and with a notion that many experts in the field consider already proven: that cells/cell communities have some form of intelligence.