More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 22:55 (3406 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: What does &#147;allowed for&#148; mean? -TONY: This is where my computer programming background comes in. In programming, I can say:&#13;&#10;A < X > B (The variable X will always be between the values A and B) etc.-I&apos;m sorry, but computer language doesn&apos;t help me! In plain English, I have pointed out that once your God had created the prototype species, something had to organize (not allow for) adaptation, diversification (protocat branching out into tabby and lion), cooperation with other organisms, design of complex habitats and lifestyles. Three questions for you:-1. Do you accept David&apos;s hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? &#13;&#10;2. Do you believe in common descent from each &#147;prototype&#148; species? &#13;&#10;3. Since classifications are not a &#147;sound basis for rational judgement&#148;, and we may not know the &#147;prototype&#148;, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors?&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. -The argument that no changes have been observed applies to all hypotheses. The changes are apparently not too great for protocat to turn itself into tabby or lion. How do you know God would not/could not design a mechanism enabling existing organisms also to adapt their bodies to munch meat instead of marigolds (especially if the latter are in short supply)? -DHW: I&apos;m surprised that you consider all the hominids to be modern humans. You clearly know a great deal more about them than the palaeontologists who have spent a lifetime studying them.&#13;&#10;TONY: You don&apos;t wear sarcasm well. I consider all hominids to be human BASED ON the findings of those palaeontologists, such as the article that I linked to you previously.-My apologies - I shouldn&apos;t have phrased it that way. You have based your hypothesis on the study of five skulls, which suggest very controversially that 1.8 million years ago there may have been one species of human (but not &#147;modern humans&#148;) and not several. The history of hominids/hominins goes way beyond that. I have found an article that traces the history of the fossil finds (going back 7/6 million years). I&apos;ll quote just one paragraph (please ignore the assumptions about evolution):-Early Hominin Evolution: Discovery of Early ...&#13;&#10;anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm Cached-(Ugh! Failed again! The link works when I put it in my WORD draft. But it should be easy to google.)&#13;&#10; &#9;&#13;&#10;&#9;&#13;&#10;QUOTE: &#147;Over the last decade, there have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa of what may be very early transitional ape/hominins, or proto-hominins. These creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs. The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera--Sahelanthropus, Orrorin , and Ardipithecus. Sahelanthropus was the earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago. Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago, while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago. At present, the vote is still out as to whether any of these three primates were in fact true hominins and if they were our ancestors. The classification of Sahelanthropus has been the most in question.&quot;-If you read on, you will see how utterly confusing it all is (which is your own point about the uselessness of our classifications), and therefore how impossible it is to say what does and does not constitute the earliest form of &#147;humans&#148;. What is clear, however, is that nobody is claiming as you do that &#147;all of the bones for hominids look well within the ranges we see in modern humans&#148;.-DHW: New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. ..&#13;&#10;TONY: True. New inventions require new information, and intelligence. Given that humans cannot even design a single cell, you are implying that a single cell, or cell community, is vastly superior in terms of knowledge and ability than humans. While I conceded this may be possible, I consider it highly unlikely.-There are different types of knowledge and ability. Clearly single cells and other cell communities (our fellow creatures) are capable of doing things we cannot do, and vice versa, but I&apos;m also a community of cells, which David says are all automatic, preprogrammed by God. However, there&apos;s a problem: the cell community that is me can think. And the cell community that is his dog can also think, but thinks differently. And crow and rat cell communities think. And some experts say ant cell communities think and even single-cell bacteria think. All differently from us, of course. And so with my theist hat on, I am suggesting that God endowed cells with their own particular form of thinking intelligence, enabling them to cooperate, adapt, diversify, design, and even invent new ways of combining themselves. You say you don&apos;t know how God did it but you are curious. All of us are curious. That&apos;s why we put forward different possible explanations, even if they all seem &quot;highly unlikely&quot;. And that&apos;s why we have these discussions, for which I am very grateful.