Why sex evolved; no one knows (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2016, 15:26 (567 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Speciation occurs through innovation, and in my version the cells have the intelligence to restructure themselves into new forms. Your God didn't have to “put” anything into that intelligence. Intelligence is enough!

Intelligence has a range of IQ. You proposed cell intel must be 200+ to cause speciation.

dhw: So if you believe it, it must be true, even though it doesn't make sense even to you. With my hypothesis, there is no need to even try and explain why or how God designed it. He didn't. He enabled the weaverbird to do it. Simple!

See my comments in today's discussion of Higgs.> DAVID: The h-p bush looks scattergun.

dhw: Like you, I think it is scattergun. But that argues against every new organism and natural wonder being purposely preprogrammed or dabbled by your God, and in favour of him creating a free-for-all.

I don't disagree that it is a possibility through constant saltation/dabbling.

dhw: I'm afraid I still find myself wondering why your God would then personally keep intervening to design the weaverbird's nest, the centipede's underwater apparatus, the cuttlefish's camouflage, and to fiddle with all those different hominins etc., just to create homo sapiens. Something still doesn't quite add up, does it?

Not for you. Why explain the weaver's nest. See my Higgs comment from today.

dhw: You say your God is always in control, and yet in the next breath you have him scattergunning complexities that have no particular purpose other than to be complex!

He may have allowed complexities as I have noted before to eventually reach humans, the most complex organisms on Earth.

DAVID: All hypotheses are unproven guesses based on what is observed, nothing more, nothing written in stone. Again, what God does may not fit human logic. Until we discover how speciation works, and we may never if it is a result of God's direct action (Saltation), then our hypotheses are moot.

dhw: But you are all in favour of logic when you challenge the atheist's faith in chance. It's only when the illogicality of your own hypothesis is exposed that you suddenly deny the value of human logic. Of course all the hypotheses are “moot”. That is why we discuss and test them to try and clarify the issues.

None of my hypotheses are illogical, because logic does not explain God's intentions or plans. Chance is logically disproven! See the Higgs entry.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum