How children pick up a language: new review of Wolfe (Humans)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 08, 2016, 14:41 (2935 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Not enough time for Darwin’s randomness. But substitute intelligence for randomness and there is ample time. The intelligence you substitute is God’s. The intelligence I substitute is that (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities. What does that have to do with your claim that innovations must have taken place in large numbers all at the same time?

You are proposing a magical kind of intelligence in your cell communities which is God-like. News species require very involved mental planning. Hard to avoid the need for intense planning for a new species, isn't it. Your argument sounds like a struggle to escape God.

DAVID: Now it is known that it is not a single mutation but a series of cooperative mutations are required for a new species, further making the time intervals too short.

dhw: Of course the mutation involves cooperation between the cell communities. And successful mutations (= saltatory changes to an organism) will be passed on to subsequent generations, even if they only start with one or a few individuals.

A few individuals is refuted in the Wistar Institute conference.

DAVID: A true saltation in a new species involves body plans and new biologic processes. Look at the whale series as an example. Those gaps are huge. The human species have huge gaps with long maturity cycles that average 20 years a generation. That is the saltation issue I see.

dhw: None of this means that saltations have to take place in large numbers of organisms all at the same time, as opposed to one or just a few individuals, and there is no issue between us on the subject of gaps. A saltation is a jump, and we agree that Darwin was wrong when he said that nature does not jump.

Refuted in Wistar.

DAVID: God as 'a person like no other person' can have a goal without being humanized. His goal is obviously producing humans, since they are here against all need or reason. Enjoyment is a human emotion, and certainly does not have to be His thought!

dhw: Nothing “has to be his thought”. We can only speculate on his thought. ..So what was his purpose in producing humans? Try and answer without “humanizing” God. You tried: to have direct relations with him; I think you once mentioned to have them study and understand his works. We can only speculate in human terms, and why shouldn’t we? If, as you believe, we are in his image, why should that NOT mean that we have some of his attributes? Your speculation that he is without emotion has no more evidence than mine that he could have emotion.

As a person like no other person, we can only speculate on His reasons by looking at his works.

dhw: And many people think God loves them. Why is your emotionless God more likely for you than theirs or mine, and why do you think God wants relations with us?

All of our conclusions can only be speculations. Relationship involves His consciousness and our consciousness.

dhw: We know that neither complexity nor improvement was needed. But if you claim that the purpose of complexity was to produce humans, you might just as well say that the purpose of improvement was to produce humans. I cannot see the point of complexity for its own sake, and I cannot see how ALL the complexities of life’s history can be related to the production of humans. The motivation for complexity has to explain all the millions of innovations and natural wonders, extant and extinct, which mark that history. That is why the weaverbird’s nest is so important. I argue that each organism designs what suits it best (= an improvement for them). You argue that God designs them all for the sake of humans. I can’t see the relevance of the weaverbird’s nest to the production of humans.

I've explained balance of nature is necessary for all to eat. It is obvious humans are the pinnacle of complexity and the end point for evolution. We communicate with God. I don't know why you cannot see that it all fits together. Can I prove it, as you want. No. Is it a reasonable construction, based on reality. Yes