Natures wonders: Subsea Microorganisms Long Life (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, August 20, 2018, 15:28 (2285 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Ah! I’d be interested to know, then, if you reject Tony's conclusion and agree with Karen Lloyd that ALL organisms, from bacteria to humans, must have developed from the first living cells.

Tony: Interpretation of data is largely dependent upon cognitive bias. I don't claim that this bias is necessarily mistaken, but it is always present. For example, each of us three almost universally interprets data in a way that fits our preferred theory, which is why we always disagree and always end up having the same arguments. These biases are formed from the narrative, or combination of narratives, that we have chosen to believe. The primary issue is that each of our narratives are mutually exclusive, and for the most part, none of us are really interested in understanding each other's narrative framework as much as we are interested in defending our own framework, or as DHW is fond of doing, trying to wrangle someone into saying they agree with him.

When I said that it did not HAVE to mean something, I wasn't implying that I thought it meant something different than I stated. I as simply saying that it CAN and WILL be interpreted differently, depending on the starting cognitive bias of the interpreter. Evolution is slippery because the cognitive bias is very entrenched culturally, because the cognitive bias appears to make sense when not examined too deeply, because humans stink at understanding odds, and because it frees them up from ideas that they feel are limiting or painful to think about(i.e. God and the ramifications of his existence).

DHW claims a third option, that he doesn't know and so refuses to choose, but that is not really the case. By his arguments, he has clearly made a choice and there is likely no evidence short of divine explanation which would convince him otherwise, as evidenced by our repeated and well documented attempts to show all the evidence AGAINST cellular intelligence and common descent on the scale he discusses.

You see dhw as rigid as I do.

Tony: David generally tries to have the best of both worlds; he recognizes the need for a designer, but tends to agree with evolution from common descent, though I think he waffles on that slightly, perhaps recognizing that the so-called bush of life doesn't match the genetic data, which seriously undermines the theory of common descent.

My waffle, as you note, is based on the genetic and morphologic tree obvious differences. I think you and I would agree as you really do below:

Tony: Personally, I believe in a creator God, reject mainstream evolution and common descent, but acknowledge the role of epigenetics, inheritance, and variation within a single species type, citing the commonality of genetic language as a prime illustration of how designers design! In short, a bear will always be a bear, and never anything but a bear, but it may be one of any number of bear variations. It never has been, nor will it ever be, a cow or dog, or cat or whale. And yet, it will have similarities with them because they all have similar functionality which requires similar design elements, just like most cars and trucks have 4 wheels and a engine, despite their other differences, and most of those wheels and engines will have similar elements and components even though they perform differently. This is true, and will always be true, because of the mechanical, physical requirements of being a car or truck. Likewise, all combustion engines, whether jet planes, boat engines, or car motors, will all has similar properties defined by mechanical need.

This is really my view. God started life, and reused whatever part He had perfected in moving from stage to stage. But life did evolve from simple to complex stages, in gaps/jumps controlled by God. So it depends on you use the word 'evolution' to describe the process to arrive at us. Perhaps 'stepwise' is a better term.