Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Monday, May 17, 2021, 13:22 (1077 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
DAVID: I use continuity: God created life and controlled evolution. Theorizing separately can avoid God, your preferred approach.

dhw: I also use continuity: past evolution was a continuous process of life branching out into different life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And I have offered you a variety of theories that include your God (e.g. experimenting, having new ideas etc.). “Controlled evolution” is one of your fixed beliefs, whereas I offer one theory which has him creating a free-for-all. Please stop pretending that my theistic alternatives avoid God.

DAVID: Your invented form of God does not describe the God I believe in. Belief vs. theory

Since nobody knows God, your own view is just as invented and theoretical as my various alternatives.

DAVID: Inventing an inventive mechanism to do the designing is second-hand, cumbersome and very unlikely as a solution, used by a logical form of God.

dhw: Do you regard your free will as second-hand (whatever that means) and cumbersome?

DAVID: What a weird comparison!! My free will has nothing to do with God's evolutionary designs.

If your God designed us with the freedom to make our own decisions, why could he not have designed cells to do the same? (And don’t forget those naughty molecules, which are free to go wrong).

New forms require new genes
DAVID: The Cambrian forms, as the first complex animals are our ancestors. 99% extinction is a reasonable part of the process, but you continue an illogical, unreasonable complaint.

dhw: Have you really traced a line from ALL the Cambrian life forms to us? Amazing! What “process”? How can it be logical and reasonable for your God to specially design the 99% of life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply, as part of the “process” of designing the only life form he wanted to design, which was humans (plus food supply)?

DAVID: Remember you have said God, as creator, produced evolution.[/i]

If he exists, then of course he produced evolution. I have offered various theories as to how and why. Now please answer the questions above.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

Our subject is the “obstetric dilemma”, which I could extend to all “dilemmas” – i.e. how all life forms adapt to changing conditions: problem first, followed by solution. You wrote: “instant solutions don’t happen”. I agree, but now you tell us they do – and apparently I'm the only person in the world who believes there is a time sequence involved in problems arising and solutions being found (= adaptation)! This is what happens when you impose your fixed beliefs on reality – contradiction after contradiction.

Subterranean extremophiles
DAVID: … Oxygen is only needed by complex life forms. Living forms can be anywhere.

dhw: “Living forms can be anywhere” suggests to me one mighty free-for-all, as cells and cell communities of all kinds adapt themselves to all kinds of conditions in their efforts to survive. How all of them could be “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” is quite beyond me.

DAVID: The whole concept of evolution as a necessary continuum is way beyond you.

I hereby do solemnly declare that I believe in the whole concept of evolution as a continuum from single cells to every branch of life, including subterranean extremophiles, dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus. And I hereby do solemnly declare that I do not believe that if there is a God, he would have specially designed every single life form and food supply on every single branch of life, or that if he did so, it was because they were all “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose of specially designing humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

Different species cooperate
QUOTES: “…while octopuses seemed to take the lead, the collaborations seen by Bayley and Rose demand quite a bit of intelligence from the fish as well. (dhw’s bold)

"Another fascinating question, he said, is how knowledge spreads of hunting strategies and mutually-understood signals. Perhaps each participating octopus and fish works it out for themselves, through trial and error — or perhaps, following an initial breakthrough, knowledge spreads by observation or even active teaching. (dhw’s bolds)That would make it a cultural adaptation, a matter of accumulating knowledge passed between generations, (DAVID’s bold) an example of species surviving in a fast-changing world not because of some fortunate genetic mutation but because they are learning." (dhw's bold)

DAVID: […] they won't attack each other so why not react normally and hunt by instinct with some help. Each knows what to do within their own limits of instinct.

Heaven forbid that you should acknowledge as our researchers do, that other life forms might be intelligent, work things out for themselves, consciously communicate, learn from experience and pass their knowledge on. All you can think of is “instinct with some help”.