dhw: Evolution and humans: Neanderthal lungs larger (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 04, 2018, 18:43 (197 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I’m not confining this to human adaptations. My proposal, as you well know, is that it is the intelligent cell communities (including that of the brain) of all organisms that organize all physical adaptations and POSSIBLY innovations. (See below) There is no wishful thinking – I am trying to find a logical explanation for innovations. And my hypothesis allows for an external designer to have created the intelligent cell in the first place.

And I firmly believe that the simple intelligent responses of cells cannot be extrapolated to grand designs necessary to create newer species.

dhw: No organisms don’t simply adapt, and indeed many fail to do so. In my hypothesis the mammal doesn’t imagine anything, just as I do not consciously direct my heart, liver and lungs to do their job. It is the cell communities of which every organ is made that function independently of my conscious intelligence, and we know that organs can adapt to new conditions. I find it easier to imagine cell communities doing this in response to new demands than I do to imagine a universal mind constantly monitoring every organism in all conditions, prophesying what will happen, and by some process of psychokinesis restructuring the various organs (cell communities) in preparation for every environmental change.

All this statement does is reaffirm your agnosticism, and have replaced God with a blind faith in cellular intelligence to create new designs.

DAVID: Free will is at a neurological level of thought, not at the physical level of phenotypic change.

dhw: I am not comparing the two processes. I am pointing out that if your God can allow freedom on one level, there is no reason to suppose that he was not willing to allow freedom on another level.

It's still apples an oranges. And guesses at what God decides to do.

dhw: As usual, you insist that innovation requires knowledge of the future, whereas we know that adaptation requires response to the present.

DAVID: An immediate response to the present is all we see in adaptation, just tiny alterations. Back to pure Darwinism. You are wedded to him at the hip and brain. You never explain how the gaps might occur!

dhw: I keep agreeing that we do not have proof that the process of adaptation can extend so far as to the major changes necessary for speciation, and that is why it remains a hypothesis. The gaps may be due to the fact that over hundreds of millions of years, fossils have not survived or not been found (Darwin’s explanation) or the cell communities are capable of creating major innovations in the process known as saltation (which Darwin rejected). Now please tell me where in Darwin you have found the hypothesis that speciation has taken place through the possibly God-given intelligence of cells that are capable of restructuring themselves to create not only minor but also major adaptations and innovations. And please stick to the arguments and stop dropping Darwin's name as if doing so provided evidence for your hypotheses and against mine.

You are still very influenced by your early readings from Darwin. Simple adaptations, which is all he knew about, will not lead to speciation. I don't accept Darwin's thinking at all except for the concept of common descent in the way I view it as step-by-step by God.

dhw: Unless you are now going to insist that your God preprogrammes or dabbles every single adaptation, there has to be an autonomous mechanism for minor changes.

DAVID: When did I ever leave pre-programming or dabbling? I believe that very minor adaptations are done by all organisms. Darwin's finch beaks come to mind, as a prime example.

dhw: You have never left preprogramming and/or dabbling. So now please tell me whether you think the mechanism for minor adaptations, such as some fish adapting to polluted water so that they can remain the same, is autonomous or preprogrammed/dabbled. (A better example than Darwin’s finches.)

Adapting to water change can be within the fishes ability to adapt without God helping. We are still at the level of natural adaptability.

DAVID: Your stonewall mind doesn't recognize the need for future planning to cover the gaps we know exist. Someday you might forget your Darwin inculcation. Your hypothesis is pure Darwin.

dhw: See above, re Darwin and re my hypothesis. No, I do not recognize the need for your God to change legs into fins before pre-whales enter the water, or adjust pelvises before pre-humans descend from the trees, or jaws before pre-baleens start filter-feeding. I find it more logical that these changes occurred as a result of organisms adapting to new environments.

Which means you really don't accept the designs you see as requiring a designing mind. For ten years I've presented extraordinary designs, which is what I consider my main contribution here. Designs require planning. Minds plan. Not illogical.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum