More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 06, 2015, 04:46 (3187 days ago) @ dhw

dhw (re an inventive mechanism, or “brain”): When the environment changes, some (maybe most) “brains” will not be able to cope, others will adapt, and others may use the changed circumstances to invent new ways of exploiting the new condition.
> 
> TONY: The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match?
> 
>DHW: I'm surprised to hear that this is the only problem! “Chicken and egg” applies to all hypotheses. What is the Creationist solution?
> -Perhaps "only" was a bit hasty. Either way, for the creationist, this is not a problem. If the same designer designed the bees and the flowers, they would know the capabilities of each and could design them to work together from the very beginning, with all the relevant instructions in place.-> TONY: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman
> All of the genetic differences they site from not from the human DNA, but from the mitochondrial DNA.(mtDNA) The idea that this can determine species relationships is pure speculation because we have no baseline to test against, only theory based on the knowledge that mtDNA is passed through the mother. 
> 
> The update on this website informs us that the bone belonged to a Denisovan, and Denisovans were humans (who apparently interbred with Neanderthals and other ancient humans). No-one is questioning their classification as human. The problem of classification arises with much earlier hominids/hominins (e.g. the australopithecines). These fossils exist. Are you prepared to say they were definitely human, or definitely ape? The differences between them and us are huge. And I still don't know whether you think God created all of them separately and then created modern humans separately, or you think modern humans evolved from them as some kind of “variation”.
> -I'm prepared to say that taking the genetic material from one organism, mitochondria, does not tell us anything about the host organism. Ironically, mtDNA doesn't mutate much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA). And the origins of it are presumed, not known. So we are using an element that we have very little knowledge of its origin to determine what is, and is not, a modern human. We do this because nuclear DNA tends not to survive. It is the god of gaps. 
 
> DHW: After this discussion on common descent, I hope you will acknowledge that many scientists and religious people genuinely believe the theory to be true, and are not using it as an excuse to keep their jobs or to somehow exclude God.
> 
> TONY: I never questioned the beliefs of individuals. Between the indoctrination of schools, the reality of funding and tenureship, and just straight personal reasoning, I am certain that most believe what they believe. However, that the theory, and its precursor of naturalism, are both geared towards excluding or minimizing the role of God there can be no doubt.
> 
>DHW: Thank, you for this measured response. Of course you are right about naturalism. How a theory is "geared" depends on the people who do the gearing. I really don't know how many theistic evolutionists there are compared to atheistic evolutionists, but I would agree that it's the latter who seem to shout loudest!-:)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.