Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, April 07, 2016, 13:01 (1143 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: The fourth possibility for how evolution works (as opposed to how it all started) - which you now refuse even to include in your list - is that organisms have the autonomous power, whether God-given or not, to innovate, their purpose being to survive and/or improve.
DAVID: That possibility I've agreed to but I view it as part of God's guidance because I only see it as having guidelines.

The fourth possibility is WITHOUT guidelines. The fact that you disagree with it (just as you disagree with the chance hypothesis) does not mean you can leave it out!

DAVID: […] You admit that major changes as in cuttlefish require ‘adjustment on the inside' but refuse to accept the difficulty in that major step. […] Simply proposing 'fish adaptation to pollution' is equivalent is totally unreasonable. We are back to a gap like degree and kind. If God gave organisms an IM it must be highly complex and some hint of it should have been spotted by now. It is either deeply hidden or God directly dabbles.

I did not say fish adaptation to pollution was equivalent. I suggested a “possible link”, since these processes of adaptation and innovation both require internal change (as opposed to the external adaptations/innovations of weaverbirds). Nor have I suggested that such a mechanism would not be highly complex. So would the mechanism you are prepared to agree to WITH guidelines. And I do not refuse to accept the difficulties in any of the major steps. On the contrary, you have even quoted my acknowledgement of these in the next part of your post:

dhw: Wanting to know how a hypothesis fits the facts it is meant to explain does not seem to me to be secondary, and I think you are quite right to query the likelihood of my own hypothesis on the grounds that we have no evidence to prove that cell communities are intelligent enough to fill the major gaps that are involved in speciation.

DAVID: I'm working backward from the problems I see in speciation. You appear to be working in the opposite direction, throwing out hypothetical mechanisms without recognizing the planning problems, which are real, not hypothetical. Once again I see an agnostic mind saying 'anything but God', while admitting God might do it.

Of course the problems are real, and that is why my autonomous inventive mechanism remains a hypothesis, just like chance, separate creation, and your divine “guidance” (= preprogramming and/or dabbling). There is no evidence for any of them. The admission that God might do it is hardly “anything but God”. I see a theistic mind saying 'nothing but MY god', while not admitting that God might think differently!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum