More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 03:59 (3408 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Let's agree on what we HAVE observed, and what we have not. 
> We have observed:
> •	Creatures appearing with no precursors
> •	Deviation within a species group (different types of apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, melons, etc)
> •	Deviation within the same breed (morphological/genetic differences between Doberman Pincers, for example)
> •	Functionally perfect 'adaptations' (i.e. shark's electrical impulse sense)
> •	Purpose for each 'adaptation'
> We have NOT observed:
> •	Speciation - i.e. changing from a goat to a llama
> •	Life appearing from non-life
> •	Randomly created NEW features without prior instructions (i.e. no eyes where there was not already the genetic information to create eyes)
> •	Stepwise change within a species leading to new organs.
> Based on this, the most likely (least convoluted) explanation is:
> •	Life was planned/created by an intelligent designer.
> •	Creatures were created, at a minimum, and the individual species level. (i.e. Apes, Monkeys, Dogs, Cats, etc)
> •	The plan allowed for variation within that species group. (i.e. Doberman, rotweiller, corgy)
> 
>DHW: An ingenious scheme, beautifully put together. Thank you. The only problem I have with it is the gap between the first two sections and the last, summed up by the expression “the plan allowed for...”. This has to cover all the variations, all the adaptations, and all the new features. How do you think these came about? I am going to put on my theist's hat here, because it should go without saying that all this is subject to the existence of your God, but our discussion concerns evolution and not God's existence. If God did not personally intervene to create the variations, adaptations and innovations, would you not agree that “the most likely (least convoluted) explanation” is that he provided the cell communities with some kind of intelligence to produce them? And would you not agree that all the variations must have sprung from common ancestors - the ones you say your God created at the individual species level?-
Variation within a familial group is relatively small. Whether you are talking about size, color, or other similar things, there is no reason to assume that every single solitary variation had to be pre-planned, only allowed for, similar to how your computer allows for colors within a saturation range of 0-255 for Red, Green, and Blue, thus producing all the myriads of colors that you see on your screen. It is only when you get into major differences that you have to start looking at planning. For example, carnivore vs. a herbivore. Normally, we do not see these kinds of variations within a single family though. -- 
>DHW: If you agree, we now find ourselves confronted with the problem of the term “species”. This is where things get murky. You have yourself pointed out the problem of classification: “Given the disparity between our classification systems, it should be obvious that they are not a sound basis for rational judgement.” I have taken as my example the various hominids and hominins. It's all very well saying God created apes and humans separately, because we can now see a clear distinction, but back in the past which nobody can ever observe, the distinctions become less rigid. And the further back we go, the less we know.-
Not really. The distinctions are always there, and taking a artists rendering of a full bodied hominid that was dirived from a single skull fragment is a bit loony. All of the bones for hominids look well within the ranges we see in modern humans, particularly if we account for all races and naturally occuring genetic deformities such as dwarfism.-> 
> DHW: I will now add one item to your list of things we have NOT observed:
> Living organisms that have not sprung from other living organisms.-I did list this. It was #2 on my not observed list.--> DHW: With this in mind, and for the sake of argument granting the existence of an intelligent designer, how about this for a most likely (least convoluted) explanation:
> 
> The designer provided the first forms of life with an inventive intelligence which enabled them to adapt, innovate and cooperate in creating different organisms. Over the course of millions of years these diversified into all the plants and animals we now know, together with all the plants and animals that have become extinct.-Jeremiah 10:10 "But Jehovah(YHWH) is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.-
Even with creation, even the creation of individual species or family, life does not spring from non-life. Your point there violates the fact that we have not observed any intermediates.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.