Cambrian Explosion: another article on early brains (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 16, 2015, 12:52 (1692 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: No one has found an explanation for the gap. But a radical change in the environment (increase in oxygen?) might provide a massive range of new possibilities. Hence a massive surge in inventiveness.

DAVID: Right. A 'massive surge'. Oxygen did rise, but did it have some parallel effects? That is poor statistics: in the 1940's it was shown that the rise in Coca Cola use exactly paralleled polio's rise, raising some stupid alarms. Developing brains from nothing, nada, requires more than 'inventiveness', a squishy term if ever.


A poor analogy. If the various new forms of life could not have come into existence without the extra oxygen, then even your own pet theory makes the extra oxygen a trigger for your God's computer programme, or his personal dabble. I don't know why “inventiveness” should be regarded as “squishy” when even you have agreed to the concept of an inventive mechanism. You can accept it in the form of a divine computer programme, but not in the form of autonomous intelligences.

DAVID: We don't know this is the method of a 'guided evolution'. It is one of many possibilities.
dhw: Apart from the 3.8-billion-year computer programme and the divine dabble (which is bringing you closer and closer to creationism), please tell us some of these many other possibilities you can envisage.

DAVID: Yes, I accept created evolution. Easy step once one realizes that this universe requires planning by an intelligent source.

But what are the many possible methods for “created evolution” apart from a computer programme and direct intervention?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum