DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 18, 2014, 20:14 (3656 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw (16 November): Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans.
DAVID (16 November): Not at all...
Dhw (17 November): Since according to you the purpose of evolution was to produce humans, and the IM is capable of nothing more than “minor adaptations”, it follows that all species (broad sense) plus specially programmed “variations” like this one, plus a few million others, must be necessary for the existence of humans.
DAVID (17 November): I think that is the case. See the Spetner review.-Gratifying though it is to have converted you from “not at all” on Sunday to “I think that is the case” on Monday, I can't help wondering what you will believe on Tuesday.-dhw: So now we have the first cells preprogrammed with every single innovation leading from bacteria to humans, along with millions of Nature's Wonders.... To add to the improbability, Chicxulub was not preprogrammed after all, and so these programmes depended on chance coming up with the right environment. Luckily for us there wasn't a Chicxulub right at the start to destroy those first cells with all their programmes! I'm surprised that your God was/is such a gambler.
DAVID: You appear to be describing Spetner's view. My own view is close to Spetner, but I've gone further than he has in theorizing about the IM (NREH)mechanisms and its abilities.-I was actually describing your view, and am surprised that both you and Spetner should agree that your God relied on pot luck to produce the right conditions for his carefully planned, 3.7-billion-year programme from bacteria to humans via the monarch butterfly. I'm also surprised that anyone could go less far than you in theorizing about the IM, since you believe it to be capable of nothing more than minor adaptations.
 
dhw: Which is another way of saying that your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the IM.
DAVID: True. Perhaps it is better to follow Spetner and not guess as to how it works.-And yet you are prepared to guess that is it only capable of minor adaptations. Perish the thought that it might be better to follow dhw and keep an open mind! -dhw: I look forward to your report on Spetner's ideas, and especially to hearing his alternative to common descent. 
DAVID: He is a believer in God, who thinks life was set up from the beginning to adapt from the basic 365 life forms quoted in the Talmud. He challenges the Darwinists to prove their 'chance' approach by producing probability calculations, which he states can be done with the currently available information about the structure of proteins. Matt should take notice, as he claims it can't be done.-Yeah, yeah, let's flog the dead horse of chance again. Does Spetner think God created 365 basic forms in the beginning, or is he working on the assumption that these all appeared gradually? And does he think humans were (a) God's purpose for creating life in the first place, and (b) one of the 365 basic forms, or an adaptation?-(Thank you for the review. I really appreciate the way you keep updating us on the latest research and publications - and I'm sure there are plenty of others who follow these posts of yours.)-dhw: Of course no-one knows, and that's why all the theories are “pipedreams”. Your divine, 3.7-billion-year computer programme for all those organs, wonders and species geared to us humans is as dreamy as any pipe-smoker has ever dreamt.
DAVID: Spetner doesn't dream. He believes. Note that he clearly shows the scientific literature finds deletion of information with current adaptations. This means the information was there at the beginning of life.-Since the earliest forms of life were able to reproduce and must have contained the potential for evolution, it stands to reason that the information (I'd prefer to call it mechanism) for life and evolution must have been there at the beginning of life and evolution. But that doesn't mean God preprogrammed every conceivable innovation and millions of natural wonders right from the beginning!
 
dhw: If energy is the first cause, then clearly consciousness “somehow appeared and it came from energy” and the stream of contingent events “must start somewhere and somehow.” That's what the discussion is about: whether consciousness was always there, or emerged through some form of evolution. The fact that you “fully doubt” the latter does not make your beliefs any more rational or irrational than anyone else's.
DAVID: I'm sorry, but for me it is irrational to think amorphous energy somehow by chance organized itself into a constructive consciousness.-Of course it is. Just as irrational as energy having always had a constructive consciousness that came from nowhere and knew how to make universes and living cells before universes and living cells had ever existed.