More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, November 03, 2016, 17:48 (2940 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue you have raised is whether there is a personal God or not. Many folks in this country approach their belief from this standpoint. Adler thought the chance was 50/50 in the issue of hearing and acting on prayers. But Adler actually believed in God and was not concerned about how personal He appeared to be.

dhw: This is the first time I have known you to turn to mainstream religion for support! Your own reading of his purpose is that he wants to have direct relations with humans, but you would rather not answer my question of how that is possible if he hides himself. And you still won’t tell me why my hypothesis is less believable and more of a supposition than yours, or what aspects do not cover life as we know it.

Yes, I have to turn to the religious thought I've read. After all great thinkers have recognized that God keeps himself concealed, and it does present a problem that you recognize. The book a concealed God explains a great deal of the discussion and comes down on the side that only God explains what we see in reality. Remember I have to deal with the concealment in making my choice to accept that God exists, and I do it on the basis of what I see in His works. As for your hypothesis which is obviously anthropomorphic, I see purpose, not a spectacle for enjoyment.

dhw: It is certainly true that animals are adequate until they are inadequate. The problem for you is whether their inadequacy was by design or by “bad luck”. There would be no such problem if organisms were responsible for their own design. Then you could say their cell communities simply couldn't work out ways to cope. But if God preprogrammed them or dabbled them, as you insist he did, then either he deliberately designed them to be inadequate when the stresses changed (= in control), or…oops…he didn’t allow for the new stresses, which would be understandable if he didn’t know the stresses were going to happen (= not in control).

I simply accept that God is in control and fully knows what He is doing. You are still anthropomorphizing him by suggesting He can lose control.

dhw: The basic contradiction lies in the fact that one day you conclude that the course of evolution depends on luck, the next day that God is in tight control, and the next day that it’s only possible that God is in control. Each of your daily beliefs throws up different problems. However, perhaps we should drop the subject for the time being, as you are clearly on safer ground sniping at my own hypotheses!

I brought up Raup's idea about luck to show you that 90% of extinctions were due to sudden environmental changes, the organisms could not handle. "Luck" is his term in his book. Extermination of certain organisms allowed for the appearance of new organisms, advancing on the evolutionary bush. That is obvious. My guess is God is in tight control, but every time I admit I have no proof I have to show my position also relies of a conclusion of faith. And then you jump on it, because you have concluded there is no positive answer for you. But surprise, some of us have a positive answer that satisfies us. No contradictions.

xxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Need is not desire. Survival of bacteria, as you admit, is guaranteed. Why multicellularity is a question you can't answer, unless you admit to purpose, which you refuse to do. The human purpose answers the question.

dhw: Of course need is not desire. My proposal is that evolution is powered by need AND the desire (drive) for improvement.

I'll pick you apart. Why should bacteria have a desire for improvement. They are built to survive anywhere in any form of stress. They don't need improvement to multicellularity.

dhw: The purpose I “admit to” is need for survival AND the desire for improvement (possibly God-given), which explains multicellularity AND the vast range of innovations and natural wonders that constitute the history of life on Earth, including humans.

Desire is an emotion. On the part of single-celled animals? Oh, I forgot, they are sentient, which means they receive stimuli and have the ability to edit their DNA. That is all Shapiro says. Find anything else in his book. I can't. The desire is God's.

dhw: As for an overall purpose, you refuse even to consider the hypothetical theistic purpose I have offered because it’s not to be found in mainstream religion, and because I’m an agnostic, but apparently not because you can find any fault in the reasoning.

See above.