Convoluted human evolution: Tattersall's take (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 21, 2016, 15:42 (3199 days ago) @ dhw

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.
> 
> dhw: 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. -But the key to an answer must involve analyzing what evolution has produced. We can only work backwards. The processes of life, one of which I have briefly described in finding a way to advance a new complex process in life, are obviously too complex to arrive by chance. You agree. Then what?:-> dhw: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.-Your explanation explains my point:-> dhw: 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.-But your IM is just an alternative for God, just as supernatural as God is. An IM which solves the enzyme problem has the same characteristics as God, in solving an immensely difficult problems. Again I ask you, why are we here? And your answer is, I can't accept any answer as reasonable. And my answer is, from our experience in our lives, the complexity requires mentation, and nothing else, i.e., thought and planning. Only chance or design. In my reading, no respected authority who is agnostic, has posed anything else, except to plead for a 'third way'. Denton and Nagel are examples. So are you. If we never find a third way, then what? For my part I don't see any evidence for one, not even a glimmer of one. -As a result we are equal. I have my magical solution in your view. You want one.