More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 30, 2015, 03:15 (3405 days ago) @ dhw

I&apos;m going to focus on these questions, because they seem to get to the heart of the matter-> dhw: 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? .. whether you thought every innovation, variation, lifestyle etc. was preprogrammed by God from the very beginning (or individually &#147;guided&#148; by him).&#13;&#10;> -First, on innovation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_innovation-The problem with innovation, as with evolution in general, is that there is no evidence. It has never actually been observed. That brings us to the second two points, variation and lifestyle. Lifestyle is a byproduct of a range of elements in an organism, from their metabolic needs to their particular morphology. That leaves us to focus solely on variation. -Variation was, I believe, in fact pre-programmed into all creation. I tried to explain this using a simply mathematical formula of A<X>B. Any trait (X) exists within a range defined by A and B. That leaves a LOT of room for variation, and given the propensity of genetic reinforcement and the logistics of size and location, this would lead to a wide variety of certain phenotypes. I believe this is sufficient for explaining all the various differences in a given family of creatures, such as feline or canine. --> &#13;&#10;> dhw: 2. Do you believe in common descent from each &#147;prototype&#148; species? In this context, by common descent I mean that a group of organisms share a common ancestor. If you believe that the tabby, tiger, cheetah and lion were all descended from the first (prototype) cat, you have common descent.-Following from my answer to your first question, yes, I do believe there were prototype species, and that those species were encoded with a variety of properties that could vary within certain ranges. I believe that this is sufficient to explain all of the variants from tabby cat to tiger.-> dhw: 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? My point is that we do not know what was the prototype for each species, and there is enormous controversy for instance over how to classify the early hominids (were they more ape than human?).,,,how do we know that what we now define as species (e.g. humans) did not branch off from common ancestors-&#13;&#10;> TONY: If two creatures are genetically unable to breed, it is impossible for them to produce offspring. If they can produce no viable offspring, then there can be no common decent, no transformation from one or two parent species into a subsequent unique species. What you will have are two members of the same species producing an offspring of the same species with different parameters for the same set of genetic instructions. --> TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. &#13;&#10;> Dhw: 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)? &#13;&#10;> TONY: If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn&apos;t.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;>DHW Fair enough. So may I ask what procedure you suggest he did use - or would you prefer to leave it as a &#147;don&apos;t know&#148;?&#13;&#10;> -See the answer to question #1

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