AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

We stimulate the production of oxytocin in our interaction with each other:-http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hormone-that-bonds-humans-to-dogs-1442503702-"The discovery concerns the mammalian hormone oxytocin, which evolved around 500 million years ago from an ancestral version still found in fish and amphibians. The hormone evolved to play a key role in what makes mammals mammalian. -"Other newborn animals typically fend for themselves: Crocodiles, for example, are catching insects soon after birth. But mammals develop slowly, and mothers have to feed their newborns. Oxytocin evolved to make this possible, prompting mothers who are nursing to produce more milk as their babies demand it. -"Evolving the means to nurse the young was only half the battle. You also have to want to take care of them and to invest zillions of calories in generating milk and fending off predators. And you need to be able to recognize your offspring in a crowd, so you don't waste your energy helping others to leave behind copies of their genes. -***-"Oxytocin helped to solve both problems. Around the time of birth, female mammals release oxytocin in some brain regions, and the hormone allows them to register and recall their offspring's smell, appearance or voice. Oxytocin rewards such maternal behavior with feelings of well-being.-"More oxytocin innovations emerged. In the eons since mammals proliferated on earth, some primate and rodent species independently evolved pair-bonding (that is, sexual and/or social monogamy). In the brain, oxytocin is heavily involved in this as well. And as primates developed complex you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch yours relations, evolution adapted oxytocin to mediate the formation of trust and altruistic feelings toward fellow members of one's group.-***- "Miho Nagasawa of Azabu University in Japan and colleagues observed that modern dogs and their owners secrete oxytocin when they interact with each other. Remarkably, dogs who gaze the most at their humans during interactions had the biggest oxytocin riseas did their humans. -"The scientists then spritzed oxytocin (or saline, as a control treatment) up the dogs' noses. The oxytocin caused female dogs to gaze more at their humanswhose own oxytocin levels rose as a result. All of this only affected dogs and their owners. Hand-reared wolves and their owners didn't react in the same way to the treatment, and dogs administered oxytocin didn't gaze any longer at humans who weren't familiar to them. In other words, dog and human brains seem to have evolved at lightning speed to co-opt oxytocin for bonding between our species."-Comment: dhw will ask, did God dabble and cause all of this? I doubt it. I think the evolutionary mechanism God gave life did it all by itself.

3185 views

DAVID: We stimulate the production of oxytocin in our interaction with each other:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hormone-that-bonds-humans-to-dogs-1442503702-Comment: dhw will ask, did God dabble and cause all of this? I doubt it. I think the evolutionary mechanism God gave life did it all by itself.-Thank you! If the production of oxytocin was not preprogrammed into the very first cells to be passed down to our dogs and us, and God didn't dabble, then the evolutionary mechanism which did it all by itself must have its own independent intelligence. I guess this means you now agree that my buddies the weaverbird, the monarch butterfly, the plover, the wasp also did it all by themselves. But I suspect you still won't allow my other buddies the bacteria to join the Intelligence Club.

3066 views


> David Comment: dhw will ask, did God dabble and cause all of this? I doubt it. I think the evolutionary mechanism God gave life did it all by itself.
> 
> dhw: Thank you! If the production of oxytocin was not preprogrammed into the very first cells to be passed down to our dogs and us, and God didn't dabble, then the evolutionary mechanism which did it all by itself must have its own independent intelligence. I guess this means you now agree that my buddies the weaverbird, the monarch butterfly, the plover, the wasp also did it all by themselves. But I suspect you still won't allow my other buddies the bacteria to join the Intelligence Club.-Sorry. This adaptation of oxytocin involves an existing hormone and a species (Canis) developing a new brain receptor for a new use. This is not as complicated as designing a weaver bird nest. It is equivalent to bacteria getting antibiotic resistance by a mutation.

3105 views

DAVID: Comment: dhw will ask, did God dabble and cause all of this? I doubt it. I think the evolutionary mechanism God gave life did it all by itself.-dhw: Thank you! If the production of oxytocin was not preprogrammed into the very first cells to be passed down to our dogs and us, and God didn't dabble, then the evolutionary mechanism which did it all by itself must have its own independent intelligence. I guess this means you now agree that my buddies the weaverbird, the monarch butterfly, the plover, the wasp also did it all by themselves. But I suspect you still won't allow my other buddies the bacteria to join the Intelligence Club.
-DAVID: Sorry. This adaptation of oxytocin involves an existing hormone and a species (Canis) developing a new brain receptor for a new use. This is not as complicated as designing a weaver bird nest. It is equivalent to bacteria getting antibiotic resistance by a mutation.-Aw shucks! So back we go to your God preprogramming the weaverbird's nest into the first living cells for transfer through billions of years and organisms, or alternatively making a special visit (dabbling) to the prototype weaverbird to teach it how to build its nest, because without it he could never have produced humans. Oh, it would have been so much simpler if the mechanism God might have given to life did it all by itself!

3062 views


> dhw: Aw shucks! So back we go to your God preprogramming the weaverbird's nest into the first living cells for transfer through billions of years and organisms, or alternatively making a special visit (dabbling) to the prototype weaverbird to teach it how to build its nest, because without it he could never have produced humans. Oh, it would have been so much simpler if the mechanism God might have given to life did it all by itself!-Aw shucks yourself! I don't know God's mechanisms, but you keep trying to get me to tell you how He did it. I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. As an agnostic you sure worry a lot about God's machinations.

2990 views

dhw: Aw shucks! So back we go to your God preprogramming the weaverbird's nest into the first living cells for transfer through billions of years and organisms, or alternatively making a special visit (dabbling) to the prototype weaverbird to teach it how to build its nest, because without it he could never have produced humans. Oh, it would have been so much simpler if the mechanism God might have given to life did it all by itself!-DAVID: Aw shucks yourself! I don't know God's mechanisms, but you keep trying to get me to tell you how He did it. I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. As an agnostic you sure worry a lot about God's machinations.
-All theories depend on details. When I have suggested that evolution is guided by individual intelligences that begin at cellular level and follow their own individual path of development, you have demanded details, including evidence of cellular intelligence. Preprogramming and dabbling were your ideas not mine, as is your central theme of humans as the ultimate purpose. You've taken to using guided as a nice nebulous term which, understandably, you'd rather not define, but how else could your God guide evolution? If you cannot come up with any rational, believable, detailed explanation of how this guidance might work, is it not possible that your theory is wrong? The aim of this forum, which you have done more than anyone to fulfil (and I am hugely grateful to you for that), is to provide insights into the nature of the universe we live in, in the hope that we might advance just a little in our joint quest for some kind of truth. After all your herculean efforts to explain the complexities of design as evidence for your theory, how would you respond to an atheist who said: I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details?

3070 views


> dhw: All theories depend on details. When I have suggested that evolution is guided by individual intelligences that begin at cellular level and follow their own individual path of development, you have demanded details, including evidence of cellular intelligence.-I've told you cells are automatons. You have simply quoted some authors who, in my opinion have overstated the case for cellular intelligence, when on board intelligently designed mechanisms are just as likely to show the same results.-> dhw: Preprogramming and dabbling were your ideas not mine, as is your central theme of humans as the ultimate purpose. You've taken to using guided as a nice nebulous term which, understandably, you'd rather not define, but how else could your God guide evolution? -Of course they are my ideas, and since I have admitted I don't know how God guided evolution, but I think He did as reasoning to a best explanation, I must use the word 'guided'.-> dhw: If you cannot come up with any rational, believable, detailed explanation of how this guidance might work, is it not possible that your theory is wrong?-Preprogramming and dabbling are both reasonable alternatives, if one accepts a universal consciousness as I do. Can I give you confirmatory details about the UC. Of course not, remember 'faith' plays a role, something which is beyond your thought pattern.?-> dhw:The aim of this forum, ...is to provide insights into the nature of the universe we live in, in the hope that we might advance just a little in our joint quest for some kind of truth. After all your herculean efforts to explain the complexities of design as evidence for your theory, how would you respond to an atheist who said: I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details?-Lots of atheists do just that. And my evidence for design I view as convincing.

3064 views

DAVID: Aw shucks yourself! I don't know God's mechanisms, but you keep trying to get me to tell you how He did it. I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. As an agnostic you sure worry a lot about God's machinations.

dhw: All theories depend on details. When I have suggested that evolution is guided by individual intelligences that begin at cellular level and follow their own individual path of development, you have demanded details, including evidence of cellular intelligence.-DAVID: I've told you cells are automatons. You have simply quoted some authors who, in my opinion have overstated the case for cellular intelligence, when on board intelligently designed mechanisms are just as likely to show the same results.-
Sorry, but you have misunderstood my whole post, which is a response to your statement I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. I am a British bulldog, and I refuse to be brushed off.-dhw: If you cannot come up with any rational, believable, detailed explanation of how this guidance might work, is it not possible that your theory is wrong?-DAVID: Preprogramming and dabbling are both reasonable alternatives, if one accepts a universal consciousness as I do. Can I give you confirmatory details about the UC. Of course not, remember 'faith' plays a role, something which is beyond your thought pattern?-The alternative that I have offered does not preclude a UC. The autonomous inventive mechanism may have been his invention. We can disagree as to the reasonableness of a 3.8-billion-year programme/divine dabble to build the weaverbird's nest in preparation for humans, but again, that was not the point of my post.
 
dhw: The aim of this forum, ...is to provide insights into the nature of the universe we live in, in the hope that we might advance just a little in our joint quest for some kind of truth. After all your herculean efforts to explain the complexities of design as evidence for your theory, how would you respond to an atheist who said: I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details?
DAVID: Lots of atheists do just that. And my evidence for design I view as convincing.-Yes, of course. But I am trying to test the hypotheses of a dear friend (the bulldog is now replaced by the sweet-talking diplomat), and need your advice on how to cope with his dismissal of my inquiries as details not worth worrying about. So after presenting your convincing arguments, how WOULD you respond to an atheist who said: I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details?

3132 views

dhw: Sorry, but you have misunderstood my whole post, which is a response to your statement I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. I am a British bulldog, and I refuse to be brushed off.-No I haven't. I've pointed out you are very 'specifics' oriented. I am to a point, but if a conclusion of mine seems reasonable from a variety of points of reason, but the conclusion itself offers no details, I'm just as comfortable with it.(see final statement below)-> DAVID: Lots of atheists do just that. And my evidence for design I view as convincing.
> 
> dhw: Yes, of course. But I am trying to test the hypotheses of a dear friend (the bulldog is now replaced by the sweet-talking diplomat), and need your advice on how to cope with his dismissal of my inquiries as details not worth worrying about. So after presenting your convincing arguments, how WOULD you respond to an atheist who said: I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details?-With my point of view I accept his statement of his beliefs. I would tell him he can't prove it, and I view the odds against his proposal are enormous. But then neither can I prove my design conclusion, although I listed many factors in my two books, as to why I think design is proven to me beyond reasonable doubt.

3036 views

DAVID: ...you keep trying to get me to tell you how He did it. I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. As an agnostic you sure worry a lot about God's machinations.-dhw: I am trying to test the hypotheses of a dear friend (the bulldog is now replaced by the sweet-talking diplomat), and need your advice on how to cope with his dismissal of my inquiries as details not worth worrying about. So after presenting your convincing arguments, how WOULD you respond to an atheist who said: I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details?
-DAVID: With my point of view I accept his statement of his beliefs. I would tell him he can't prove it, and I view the odds against his proposal are enormous. But then neither can I prove my design conclusion, although I listed many factors in my two books, as to why I think design is proven to me beyond reasonable doubt.-Thank you for your very helpful answer. May I follow your example? You can't prove your belief that God guided evolution through divine preprogramming or divine dabbling or some other unknown form of guidance, and I view as enormous the odds against your proposal that God preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest from the beginning, or subsequently dabbled, as part of his plan to produce humans. But then neither can I prove my autonomous inventive intelligence hypothesis (not a conclusion, but a possibly theistic explanation of evolutionary innovation). And so if I cease to worry about details such as divine preprogramming and dabbling and anthropocentrism, will you cease to worry about details such as bacterial intelligence?

3087 views


> dhw: Thank you for your very helpful answer. May I follow your example? You can't prove your belief that God guided evolution through divine preprogramming or divine dabbling or some other unknown form of guidance, and I view as enormous the odds against your proposal that God preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest from the beginning, or subsequently dabbled, as part of his plan to produce humans.-OOPS! How do you give God odds? As you try to be a theist in your way of analysis, remember, it might be true that God can do anything He wants, as the religions suggest. Your claimed theistic hat is very askew.-> dhw: But then neither can I prove my autonomous inventive intelligence hypothesis (not a conclusion, but a possibly theistic explanation of evolutionary innovation). And so if I cease to worry about details such as divine preprogramming and dabbling and anthropocentrism, will you cease to worry about details such as bacterial intelligence?-But I am not worried. I know that bacteria follow intelligent information in their responses to stimuli.

3043 views

dhw: Thank you for your very helpful answer. May I follow your example? You can't prove your belief that God guided evolution through divine preprogramming or divine dabbling or some other unknown form of guidance, and I view as enormous the odds against your proposal that God preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest from the beginning, or subsequently dabbled, as part of his plan to produce humans.-DAVID: OOPS! How do you give God odds? As you try to be a theist in your way of analysis, remember, it might be true that God can do anything He wants, as the religions suggest. Your claimed theistic hat is very askew.-I am not giving God odds. I am giving odds against your interpretation of your God's methods and intentions. Your approach is totally rational when dealing with the issue of design, but you have to jettison reason when you try to link your God's supposed purpose of producing humans to his special guiding or dabbling or 3.8-billion-year preprogramming of the weaverbird's nest and a billion other weird wonders and innovations. You are obviously aware of the irrationality of such a scenario, because that is the point at which you tell me to stop worrying about the details! But when I offer you an alternative view of your God's methods and intentions, all of a sudden reason returns and I am asked to provide details. So the bookies can decide the odds: the nest specially designed by God as part of his plan for humans versus the nest designed and engineered by the weaverbird using its own intelligence (perhaps God-given) for its own purposes.
 
dhw: But then neither can I prove my autonomous inventive intelligence hypothesis (not a conclusion, but a possibly theistic explanation of evolutionary innovation). And so if I cease to worry about details such as divine preprogramming and dabbling and anthropocentrism, will you cease to worry about details such as bacterial intelligence?-DAVID: But I am not worried. I know that bacteria follow intelligent information in their responses to stimuli.-Ah, a subtle change in the use of worry! So let me rephrase the deal. If I were to stop asking you to fill the gaps in your preprogramming, dabbling, guiding, anthropocentric view of evolution, would you stop asking me to fill the gaps in my view of evolution directed by cellular intelligence?

3099 views


> dhw: I am not giving God odds. I am giving odds against your interpretation of your God's methods and intentions. You are obviously aware of the irrationality of such a scenario, because that is the point at which you tell me to stop worrying about the details! -I'm not irrational about God. He might be able to doc anything He wants. You are the doubting one, but then you are agnostic, and full of doubt.-> dhw: So the bookies can decide the odds: the nest specially designed by God as part of his plan for humans versus the nest designed and engineered by the weaverbird using its own intelligence (perhaps God-given) for its own purposes.-Religious faith does not depend on bookies.-> DAVID: But I am not worried. I know that bacteria follow intelligent information in their responses to stimuli.
> 
> dhw: Ah, a subtle change in the use of worry! So let me rephrase the deal. If I were to stop asking you to fill the gaps in your preprogramming, dabbling, guiding, anthropocentric view of evolution, would you stop asking me to fill the gaps in my view of evolution directed by cellular intelligence?-I'll stop if you quit using it and we'll move on. You haven't commented on the article which covers the entangled, but purposeful mess of mechanisms in humans that controls blood pressure. How does Darwinian evolution figure out how to provide the interlocking, coordinated and circular feedback mechanisms?

3015 views

DAVID: I'm not irrational about God. He might be able to do anything He wants. You are the doubting one, but then you are agnostic, and full of doubt.-The irrationality lies in your interpretation of your God's methods and intentions: the hypothesis that he can do anything he wants does not lend any credence to the theory that he specially designed the weaverbird's nest as part of his plan to produce humans. Ditto the billions of other innovations and organisms and lifestyles extinct and extant. Anything he wants would also cover an autonomous intelligence enabling organisms to design their own nests and to pursue their own purposes, succeeding or failing, regardless of humans. -dhw: If I were to stop asking you to fill the gaps in your preprogramming, dabbling, guiding, anthropocentric view of evolution, would you stop asking me to fill the gaps in my view of evolution directed by cellular intelligence?-DAVID: I'll stop if you quit using it and we'll move on.-No deal. If you think the first cells could contain all these billions of detailed, automated programmes, I see no reason why I shouldn't think they could contain the intelligence to devise new programmes as new generations learned to communicate and cooperate. And surprise, surprise, many biologists actually believe that cells are cognitive, intelligent beings. Ah, but you know that!
 
DAVID: You haven't commented on the article which covers the entangled, but purposeful mess of mechanisms in humans that controls blood pressure. How does Darwinian evolution figure out how to provide the interlocking, coordinated and circular feedback mechanisms?-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/controlling_blo099611.html-There is a distinction here that needs to be stressed yet again. I have always accepted the complexity argument in favour of design, and am sceptical about random mutations. We have long ago rejected that side of Darwin's theory. Once more: It is your own anthropocentric account of your God's intentions and methods that is in dispute here.
 
In passing (as you have pointed out), this article also offers a slightly less direct attempt to discredit Darwin's theory by distortion and over-generalization:
Evolutionary biologists seek to tell us how life came into being.-Some biologists do, but the theory of evolution doesn't. The article quotes Malcolm Muggeridge: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."-The whole theory? Will the world be converted to Creationism? Muggeridge may well have been right about the extent to which it has been applied - my Dawkins quote is enough to illustrate that - but there seems little sign that the world regards as flimsy and dubious the theory that all forms of life except the first have descended from earlier forms. That is the meaning of evolution, and even Muggeridge's Catholic religion has accepted it.

3039 views

DAVID: I'm not irrational about God. He might be able to do anything He wants. You are the doubting one, but then you are agnostic, and full of doubt.
> 
> dhw: The irrationality lies in your interpretation of your God's methods and intentions: the hypothesis that he can do anything he wants does not lend any credence to the theory that he specially designed the weaverbird's nest as part of his plan to produce humans. Ditto the billions of other innovations and organisms and lifestyles extinct and extant.-I look at what has been produced as life progresses from bacteria onward and have offered a balance of nature to allow for a supply of energy to the survivors of red in tooth and claw. I look for the purpose behind what is seen. All you seem to see is a complex bush of life inventing whatever with no purpose.-> dhw: Anything he wants would also cover an autonomous intelligence enabling organisms to design their own nests and to pursue their own purposes, succeeding or failing, regardless of humans. -Again, to what purpose? Or perhaps purpose as a possibility is to be ignored?
> 
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/controlling_blo099611.html
> 
> dhw: We have long ago rejected that side of Darwin's theory. Once more: It is your own anthropocentric account of your God's intentions and methods that is in dispute here.-And I look for purpose.
> 
> dhw: The article quotes Malcolm Muggeridge: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."
> 
> The whole theory? Will the world be converted to Creationism? Muggeridge may well have been right about the extent to which it has been applied - my Dawkins quote is enough to illustrate that - but there seems little sign that the world regards as flimsy and dubious the theory that all forms of life except the first have descended from earlier forms. That is the meaning of evolution, and even Muggeridge's Catholic religion has accepted it.-Remember, I've accepted evolution only if guided by God. This removes Darwin whose theory explains nothing.

3083 views

DAVID: I'm not irrational about God. He might be able to do anything He wants. You are the doubting one, but then you are agnostic, and full of doubt.
dhw: The irrationality lies in your interpretation of your God's methods and intentions: the hypothesis that he can do anything he wants does not lend any credence to the theory that he specially designed the weaverbird's nest as part of his plan to produce humans. Ditto the billions of other innovations and organisms and lifestyles extinct and extant.-DAVID: I look at what has been produced as life progresses from bacteria onward and have offered a balance of nature to allow for a supply of energy to the survivors of red in tooth and claw. I look for the purpose behind what is seen. All you seem to see is a complex bush of life inventing whatever with no purpose.-On the contrary, I see purpose everywhere. It is twofold, and I have mentioned it many times: survival and improvement. Every form of life pursues these purposes in its own way; some succeed and some fail. I see that as a clear explanation of the variety of life and the sequences of extinctions and innovations that characterize the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution. To my admittedly subjective eye, it also explains why a particular wasp might decide to lay its eggs on a particular spider's back (substitute a million other natural wonders if you prefer them), rather than needing God's guidance because such a manoeuvre is necessary for a balance of nature to provide energy for humans.
 
DAVID: Remember, I've accepted evolution only if guided by God. This removes Darwin whose theory explains nothing.-Evolution means the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. So convincing were the arguments Darwin assembled for this theory that in spite of vehement initial opposition, even many churches have come to accept it. Not bad for a theory that explains nothing! Whether and how the process is guided by God is a separate issue, and Darwin did not exclude God from his thinking. I know you would dearly love to remove Darwin and replace him with Wallace, but your frustration will not change the fact that you also believe in his theory, as defined above, so give the man his due.

3114 views


> dhw: On the contrary, I see purpose everywhere. It is twofold, and I have mentioned it many times: survival and improvement. Every form of life pursues these purposes in its own way; some succeed and some fail.-This is just a restated legalistic form of natural selection on an individual basis. It doesn't answer the question whether evolution as a mechanism has a purpose. I think it does. Your definition does not tell us why evolution advanced beyond the bacterial state, when bacteria are the most successful life form to ever appear as life began. They still represent the largest life mass on Earth!.-> dhw: I see that as a clear explanation of the variety of life and the sequences of extinctions and innovations that characterize the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution.-If you ignore all the weird side twigs, no chance reason appears for the line that eventually lead to conscious humans. On a survival basis, it should not have gone further than lions and apes. -> dhw: To my admittedly subjective eye, it also explains why a particular wasp might decide to lay its eggs on a particular spider's back (substitute a million other natural wonders if you prefer them), rather than needing God's guidance because such a manoeuvre is necessary for a balance of nature to provide energy for humans.-Your 'survival' interest requires regular meals, which require a balance of nature.-> 
> dhw: Evolution means the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. So convincing were the arguments Darwin assembled for this theory that in spite of vehement initial opposition, even many churches have come to accept it. Not bad for a theory that explains nothing!.....I know you would dearly love to remove Darwin and replace him with Wallace, but your frustration will not change the fact that you also believe in his theory, as defined above, so give the man his due.-I don't believe in his theory. The concept of evolution was bandied about for most of the century before Darwin. He did not invent the concept that we evolved. His theory doesn't explain evolution. He popularized the idea as a chance mechanism while Wallace, who did most of the observation work for him at least recognized the probable need for design. I simply accept the probability of evolution because of the fossil record following a progressive time line. You cannot get over the 'Darwinization' that occurred to you in your earlier life before this website was started. We never talked about Wallace until I brought him into the conversation.

3066 views

DAVID: All you seem to see is a complex bush of life inventing whatever with no purpose.
dhw: On the contrary, I see purpose everywhere. It is twofold, and I have mentioned it many times: survival and improvement. Every form of life pursues these purposes in its own way; some succeed and some fail.-DAVID: This is just a restated legalistic form of natural selection on an individual basis. It doesn't answer the question whether evolution as a mechanism has a purpose. I think it does. Your definition does not tell us why evolution advanced beyond the bacterial state, when bacteria are the most successful life form to ever appear as life began. -I don't know what you mean by legalistic, but of course natural selection decides what succeeds or fails. Life only exists on an individual basis (i.e. through individual organisms), and each organism has its own purpose. We believe evolution began when single cells combined. Bacteria survived, but the new forms led to improvement, and that is the answer to your question why. As for a divine purpose, you are welcome to impose your anthropocentrism onto your God, but even an agnostic can find other possible explanations: he created an autonomous inventive mechanism without knowing where it would lead, but it's been fun to watch (still watching) or it's become a bit of a bore (given up, gone somewhere else). That would explain both the higgledy-piggledy history and the lack of divine presence. (You think he's hiding, but absence could be a sign of departure or non-existence.)
 
DAVID: If you ignore all the weird side twigs, no chance reason appears for the line that eventually lead to conscious humans. On a survival basis, it should not have gone further than lions and apes. -As you say yourself, on a survival basis it should not have gone further than bacteria. Why ignore the weird side twigs? According to you the whole of evolution except for humans consists of side twigs! So why did your God plan them all? Here's your weird answer: 
DAVID: Your 'survival' interest requires regular meals, which require a balance of nature.-Nature has a history of unbalance in which whole species disappear because they don't get their meals, or because of other environmental changes over which apparently your God has no control despite his careful planning. However, if you truly believe he planned all the dead species and non-human innovations and weird lifestyles and side twigs so that humans could have enough to eat, so be it.-DAVID: I don't believe in his [Darwin's] theory.
[DAVID, 21 September: I accept evolution. I have my own theory as to how it works.] -I presume you mean you do believe his theory of common descent, but you do not believe his theory of gradualism and random mutations. -DAVID: The concept of evolution was bandied about for most of the century before Darwin. He did not invent the concept that we evolved.-That does not invalidate the theory. -DAVID: His theory doesn't explain evolution. He popularized the idea as a chance mechanism while Wallace, who did most of the observation work for him at least recognized the probable need for design. I simply accept the probability of evolution because of the fossil record following a progressive time line. -Darwin was travelling the world, observing species and working on his theory long before he knew Wallace. He joined HMS Beagle in 1831, when Wallace was eight years old! In fact it wasn't until 1858 that Darwin realized through their correspondence that Wallace was coming to the same conclusions as himself! Origin was published in 1859. This is not a very fruitful line of discussion, is it?

3085 views

dhw: We believe evolution began when single cells combined. Bacteria survived, but the new forms led to improvement, -I don't think you mean what the sentence says. There was evolution among the first single cells. Archaea came first. Multicellularity came after cyanobacteria and common bacteria appeared in many species. 
> 
> DAVID: I don't believe in his [Darwin's] theory.
> [DAVID, 21 September: I accept evolution. I have my own theory as to how it works.] 
> 
> dhw: I presume you mean you do believe his theory of common descent, but you do not believe his theory of gradualism and random mutations. -Yes, I accept evolution through a form of common descent. 
> 
> DAVID: The concept of evolution was bandied about for most of the century before Darwin. He did not invent the concept that we evolved.
> 
> dhw: That does not invalidate the theory. 
> 
> DAVID: His theory doesn't explain evolution. He popularized the idea as a chance mechanism while Wallace, who did most of the observation work for him at least recognized the probable need for design. I simply accept the probability of evolution because of the fossil record following a progressive time line. 
> 
> dhw: Darwin was travelling the world, observing species and working on his theory long before he knew Wallace. He joined HMS Beagle in 1831, when Wallace was eight years old! In fact it wasn't until 1858 that Darwin realized through their correspondence that Wallace was coming to the same conclusions as himself! Origin was published in 1859. This is not a very fruitful line of discussion, is it?-Yes it is. You know they had much correspondence up to 1858. if I'm correct, Darwin did just three years of observation, Wallace many more. And Darwin finally got around to publishing in 1859 to beat Wallace to the punch. I must repeat, Darwin popularized the concept of evolution, a theory which had been around for years. The method of evolution he proposed has never been proven, and remains a tenuous hypothesis to this day. You've agreed to not accepting chance mutation and natural selection. What is left of his proposal is common descent, nothing else.

3070 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum