Convoluted human evolution: Tattersall's take (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, February 21, 2016, 12:33 (3199 days ago) @ David Turell

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..... 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!-dhw: 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. ..... 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.-DAVID: And what you refuse to look at are the odds of finding the perfect enzyme for the new process. You've talked around it. Only chance or design can find that enzyme, unless you believe in magic, which is what your IM appears to be.-The section of my post that you have left out reads: “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.” How this can be described as refusing to look at or talking round it, I do not know. But clearly the message has not got through: I cannot and do not believe in chance as the creator of the cell and its IM. Unfortunately, however, the invention of a supernatural magician - which is what your “God” appears to be - creates just as many problems for me as the chance discovery of the perfect enzyme. And so I repeat: That is the agnostic's dilemma. I cannot believe in either.