Cambrian Explosion: even had parenting (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 04, 2018, 11:26 (2425 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID’s comment: Darwin rejected saltation, and saltation requires design. The Cambrian is an enormous saltation and offers the strongest evidence against the gradualism the Darwin theory requires.
dhw: You and I and many other believers in the theory of common descent – including some of Darwin’s own contemporaries – have long, long, long since rejected Darwin’s rigid adherence to gradualism. You and I and many others have also rejected his reliance on random mutations. Time to move on?

DAVID: Even Darwin could not explain the Cambrian. Accepting God does.
dhw: Accepting cellular intelligence does too. Move on.

DAVID: And just where is the intelligence hiding in the automatic cellular responses? I've shown you information codes are hidden in the 3-D shape of organic molecules.

Where is the intelligence hiding when you solve problems? Has science revealed the presence of your dualist’s thinking soul?

dhw: I can’t explain where that intelligence came from. That is why I usually add “possibly God-given”. I am an agnostic. My hypothesis relates to all of evolution, including the Cambrian, and for you as a theist it would do away with the various anomalies associated with having your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every single successful and, for 99%, ultimately unsuccessful innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, and doing so in order to produce sapiens’ brain.

DAVID: […] The loss of 99% is simply the rate of success and failure in a complex evolutionary process starting with bacteria, who happen to still be here. The problem in evolution was getting to complex multicellularity which happens to be much more fragile and less capable of responsive modification when threatened.

I don’t know why your God would specially design millions of lifestyles and natural wonders, then lose 99% of them if his primary purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. Could it not be that – if he exists – his primary purpose was to produce the ever changing bush of life, including humans? And that the loss of 99% was the success and failure rate resulting from his setting the whole process in motion and then watching it – as you have suggested in the past – “with interest” (though perhaps also with the occasional dabble, like Chicxulub)?
You still haven't offered any explanation for your refusal to consider such a possibility.