Life's biologic complexity: Automatic molecular actions (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, December 05, 2016, 13:58 (2910 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The fact that you are not sure about some regions of your theories does not explain why you object to my reasoning.
DAVID: I look at God's purpose behind all of the events. You never look at purpose. When God wants to get rid of a family of species, of course He can bring up something they cannot handle, and that is what happened with the dinos. His purpose is humans. Why He didn't just start at the Garden of Eden, I cannot explain, but He used evolution.

You believe that God’s purpose was humans, but you can’t explain why he had first to design and then to destroy 99% of all species to get there, and then you wonder why I challenge your view of the history of evolution! As for purpose, I don’t know how often I have to repeat my hypothesis that if God exists, his purpose could be a spectacle. You have even quoted me!
Dhw: This has resulted in the history of life as we know it: an ever changing spectacle of comings and goings, including mass extinctions, of adaptations, and of innovations (leading to speciation). The essence of this spectacle is unpredictability, but your God always had the option to intervene, and it is possible that he did so in the case of humans. The unpredictability of a self-conscious being would certainly enhance the spectacle.

DAVID: As usual you avoid the idea that God has a purpose. Thus a helter-skelter evolutionary process in your view. His purpose was to produce complexity in organisms which I have shown and eventually humans, the most complex.

I’m afraid your definitive view of God’s purpose does not invalidate my hypothetical view. You challenged me to explain how my hypothesis covered all aspects of the history of evolution. I did so, and then concluded:
dhw: With this scenario, there is no need to explain why the weaverbird’s nest is essential to the existence of humans, why God had to specially design and then deliberately destroy 99% of species in order to produce humans, or how God’s “total control” can be reconciled with the possibility that he does not control the environment. So please tell me what aspect of my hypothesis does NOT fit the facts of the history of evolution.

DAVID: Just as I don't accept unicellular intelligence, you don't accept the importance of the balance of nature. Same double standard by your principles. As for destroying species no longer needed, the Earth has just so much room for living matter. Makes way for new advances.

We have agreed that the balance of nature changes in accordance with what conditions suit what species. It has no meaning other than life goes on, with or without humans. I agree that room is limited – hence natural selection and, as conditions change, an ever shifting balance. What double standards? You demand absolute proof for my hypothesis (impossible) and then accuse me of demanding absolute proof for yours (impossible). You can’t explain why God didn’t start with humans. My hypothesis offers an explanation. So once more: please tell me what aspect of my hypothesis does NOT fit the facts of the history of evolution.