Human evolution; early ancestor probable upright posture (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 29, 2019, 08:20 (1672 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are making progress. You agree that your God (if he exists) gave organisms (cell communities) a degree of autonomous intelligence, but only to design minor adaptations. […] The hypothesis I offer – just as unproven as your hypothesis of divine preprogramming/dabbling – is that the same mechanism is capable of designing all of them.

DAVID: No progress. Epigenetics does not cause a new species. Something else must do it.

We don’t know what causes speciation, and since the process has stopped for what has been a relatively short period in geological terms, we cannot observe it. But now that you have agreed that your God must have given organisms sufficient autonomous intelligence to create small modifications, we have a basis for suggesting that the same autonomous intelligence might be capable of effecting large modifications. I have agreed that it is unproven, as is your own theory.

DAVID: The humans were not the only thing He wanted. he knew He needed the entire bush of life as support for the time evolution took. Humans were his final goal, and I firmly believe we are last.

dhw: In your theory, it wasn’t evolution that “took time” but your God who for some inexplicable reason DECIDED to wait 3.X billion years before starting to “evolve” (= specially design) the only thing he wanted to design, which was us.

DAVID: Not my theory at all. History tells us how long evolution took, and God used that mechanism.

We know how long evolution has taken so far, and if God exists, then he used the mechanisms of evolution, but you have added all the bits and pieces above and below. You claim here that it is not your theory, and below you say of course it is your theory.

dhw: And he NEEDED (very different from “wanted”) the entire bush to COVER that time! Why do you keep ignoring your own precise account of the process: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”

DAVID: Of course!

Do please make up your mind. And let us not forget that you have no idea why he decided to “evolve humans over time” as described in your theory.

dhw: […] you happen to know that he is in total control and he cannot possibly have any characteristics (such as the desire to experiment) in common with the humans you say he specially created.

DAVID: My God does not need to experiment. His creations are quite complex: quantum mechanism and the origin of consciousness

So how does the complexity and the origin of consciousness support your statement that he did not need to experiment in order to create them? If, as you claim, his only goal was to produce H. sapiens, experimentation would explain why it took him so much time – as opposed to him knowing how to do it but for some unknown reason deciding not to do it for 3.X billion years!

dhw: I still don’t understand why a God, who according to you can produce whole organs and organisms with a single dabble, should choose to dabble one single, useless vertebra to “anticipate” what he is going to design in the future.

DAVID: Just admit it, you don't understand your humanized God at all.

It is, of course, your version of God that I do not understand. My alternative versions are perfectly understandable, even to you, since you admit that you see them as logical. Your objection is that you believe your God is NOT logical by human standards! But let’s try once more: do please explain why you think he chose to dabble one single useless vertebra 21 million years ago if he is capable of producing major adaptations with a single dabble (e.g. see the post about whales).

dhw […] why couldn't a totally-in-control God enable the only desired species to develop different responses etc.? Oh, but I mustn't ask such questions, because although God might very well think like humans, you happen to know that he doesn't.

DAVID: When God chose to evolve, He also used interbreeding. History shows his obvious methods. History of creation tells us how God did it, but you constantly ignore the history, while humanizing God's thinking

I have never ignored the history, and you have agreed that all my different hypotheses fit in with the history. The illogicality of your theory is not suddenly made logical by your attacking other theories. I am happy to acknowledge that all my own alternatives are what you call guesses, but since you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, there really is no point in your harping on about my logical explanations “humanizing” him. One or other of my explanations might “very well” be right!