More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 15:22 (3298 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In order to justify your belief in a “higher”, divine, anthropocentric purpose, I do wish you and/or Conway Morris would explain why your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species, but I can understand why you'd rather avoid such a question.-DAVID: Avoiding nothing: evolution proceeds from simple to complex. Convergence is evidence of this drive to complexity. Humans are the most complex. Therefore convergence is evidence for the intended arrival of humans.
 
Convergence is evidence of different species coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. I don't see that as evidence of the drive to complexity. Drive to variety, maybe. Anyway, some solutions can be simpler than others. That leaves us with the argument that evolution proceeds from simple to complex. The human brain is the most complex, but the dog's nose is more complex than the human nose. So the human brain is evidence for the arrival of... the human brain, and the dog's nose is evidence for the arrival of...the dog's nose. In other words, perhaps that's simply how it all worked out or, to take a leaf out of BBella's book, what IS is. Where do you get “intended” from? And you still haven't explained why you think your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species.
 
DAVID: ...one must reach for oneself proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
dhw: In other words, when you talk rather grandly of “proving God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt”, what you really mean is explaining the reasons for your own subjective convictions. It doesn't have quite the same authoritative ring, does it?-DAVID: If one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century touts the method, why shouldn't I. You seem to forget, find the evidence then make up your mind. Ergo, agnostic to belief.-“Proving beyond a reasonable doubt” carries all the weight of a legal judgement. It is as close to objectivity as one can hope to get in a court of law. Explaining one's personal religious beliefs is a different kettle of fish.