Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, October 27, 2017, 14:17 (2367 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why would He want to dabble if He doesn't want control. Your idea makes no sense.
dhw:Of course it makes sense. He sets the free-for-all process in motion, but if he doesn’t like what he sees, or gets tired of it, he intervenes. In other words, he only takes control if he wants to. On the other hand, looking at your scenario, if he is NOT in full control, how can he dabble and be sure to get what he wants?
DAVID: So you agree He is always in full control (if He wants). Fine.

What am I “agreeing” with? You are the one who can’t make up his mind if God is in full control or not! 22 October, you replied to reblak: “I’ve admitted that God may have limits.” Now it's "fine" that he's in full control. My theistic hypothesis is that if he exists, he SACRIFICES control but can always resume control (dabble) if he wants to. And you reject my hypothesis!

DAVID: Evolution requires balance of nature. You agree to that.
dhw: Evolution can only take place if life goes on. Nobody could possibly disagree. “Balance of nature” means nothing more than that at different times different organisms are able to cope with different environmental conditions and therefore to survive.
DAVID: What you have left out is everyone gets to eat as a result.

What you have left out is that everyone does NOT get to eat as a result, because 99% of species go extinct. The balance constantly changes in a manner that even you cannot link to the production of H. sapiens’ brain.

DAVID: The evolution of Cambrians showed development of new species over millions of years, no different than a few million years for human development. Evolution is evolution whenever and for how long it happened. 'Mucking' all along, don't you notice.
dhw: Under “Cosmology: how the universe evolved”, I wrote: “I thought your explanation for the Cambrian was an almighty dabble of instant creation, since species appeared to spring from nowhere.” You replied: “First life also is an almighty dabble, remember? Dabble and evolve.” Now apparently there is nothing special about the Cambrian after all – no almighty dabble, just evolution going the same old way. I’m happy with that. It fits in perfectly with my hypothesis that speciation of all kinds “mucks along” as different organisms devise different organs and strategies in the constant drive for survival and/or improvement. No overall plan, and especially no plan that links whales, nests and shrinking shrew skulls to the production of Homo sapiens’ brain.
DAVID: All I left out was that the Cambrian had an abrupt start, but, oh, you seem to have forgotten that. Then there was lots of evolution of the original forms.

It’s difficult for me to remember something you left out. Of course the original forms evolved. I thought your argument was that the “abrupt start” was the result of your God dabbling to create instant species, as the original forms do not appear to have had any precedents. Hence Darwin’s big problem. So do you think the “original forms” were instant creations or not?

DAVID: As for humans, upright posture appeared, muscles reduced in size and then the brain grew. Each segment of evoluton had to start somewhere as God logically progresses with his plan.

That is precisely the sequence I am suggesting: upright posture resulted in new requirements, and the brain grew in order to fulfil the new needs. The exact opposite of your theory that your God expanded the brain in order to prepare for future tasks.

DAVID: Shrewdly the shrews adapted either epigenetically, by a mechanism provided by God, or He stepped in. Either is possible, Only more research may tell us in the future.
dhw: Yes, the mechanism of cellular intelligence that organizes epigenetic adaptation, which as you say is “akin to speciation”, may have been provided by your God. I’d be a bit surprised if he shrewdly preprogrammed the shrewy shrinkage 3.8 billion years ago or even did a dabble, since apparently all he really wanted to do was produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: I shrewdly said only research will tell us. As for the H sapiens brain, it obviously was a major goal. Can you think of others in your theistic mode?

It’s good to see the gradual evolution of your concept from the H sapiens brain being the ONLY goal to its being the PRIMARY goal to its being A MAJOR goal. I agree that it is A MAJOR advance in evolution, and if God exists, I might even accept that after 3.X billion years he may have done a dabble. I have enormous difficulty in accepting that this major advance in evolution was THE or even the PRIMARY reason for the whole higgledy-piggledy bush of life on Earth. Can I think of another major goal? Yes indeed: the whole higgledy-piggledy bush of life on Earth, which provides an ever-changing spectacle and indeed a continuous source of wonderment. And before you make your complaint about “humanization”, remember that your hypothesis concerning the purpose of the brain was your God wanting a relationship with us and wanting us to think about him, which is just about as human as one can make him.