Convoluted human evolution: Tattersall's take (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 20, 2016, 13:22 (1279 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: When I say the origin of the mechanism is unknown, I am acknowledging a void....... and mine is an inventive mechanism within the organisms themselves. Two voids, three inventions to fill each void, and none of these inventions are based on human experience because no human has ever experienced the unique origin of the evolutionary mechanism or the unique process whereby bacteria have evolved into humans.

DAVID: But with a look at the biochemistry of life your solution is no better than Darwin's chance.

Which solution? I have identified two voids: 1) how life and the mechanisms for evolution originated; 2) how evolution works. Darwin's solution leaves 1) open, and so does mine. As for 2), my IM solution is totally different from Darwin's precisely because every innovation is deliberate and not random, other than the all-important changes in the environment, which even you can't make up your mind about.

DAVID: The IM wants as advance. It will need to have two organic molecules to interact. to do this the IM must find can enzyme to facilitate the reaction, Otherwise the reaction will take 3K to 120K years to do the reaction. An enzyme is many thousands of atoms, C,O, H, N, S, P, etc., and usually a metal like Zinc. It must be set up in proper 3-D, and must have two lock/key areas in proper relationship to hold the two molecules for the reaction to take place, which it will do instantly or else life won't work. Unless the IM has cognitive teleology it must now search the universe of possible enzyme molecules in all sizes and shapes and possible metals to find just the right one among millions of possibilities. This is just like Darwin hunt-and-peck. Just what attributes do you wish to apply to the IM so it isn't like Darwin? That is why I so strongly resist your third-way solution. Planning must occur!

What you are describing sounds to me like the IM itself, which must have been part of the very first cells, and I do not know how the first cells were formed. Once again, you are focusing on the first void - origin - whereas the IM is the “invention” (as opposed to your invention of a divine 3.8-billion-year old computer programme) that fills the second void: how evolution works. As I have stated over and over again, your explanation of its complexity is precisely why I cannot subscribe to atheistic chance as a filler of the first void. What you refuse to recognize is that an unknown, sourceless, supernatural mind so vast that it can create and encompass billions of solar systems (plus various other associated problems) is itself an invention and is just as difficult to believe in as atheistic chance. That is the agnostic's dilemma.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum