Evolution and humans: big brain birth canal (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, November 02, 2018, 13:20 (2211 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Cells cannot plan for a future they cannot visualize.

dhw: And I keep repeating that I do not regard evolution as the result of planning but of intelligent RESPONSES to changing conditions. Why is this illogical?

DAVID: I would point out again, there is no evidence cells can plan for the future.

You obviously did not read the comment you quoted. In my hypothesis THEY DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.

DAVID: The only logic of that video is 'someone' had to help the caterpillar develop that ability.

dhw: I’m not going to pretend, as you do, to know how every natural wonder in life’s history originated, but once it had – maybe by sheer chance – it would have been passed on. (Yes indeed, I accept Darwin’s logical proposal that what is useful is likely to survive). This would be true even if your God had dabbled the first viper look-alike in his effort to balance life so that it would continue until he was able to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. Or do you think he pops in and dabbles with every egg?

DAVID: All I can see from the video is someone had to help the larva with the transformation. Its survivability is obvious as is Darwin's tautology.

I really can’t add anything to my response above. If you think your God dabbles with every egg to insert a viper face, or created a computer programme 3.8 billion years ago for viper faces on caterpillar tails, because otherwise life could not have gone on and enabled him to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, so be it.

DAVID: Your problem in not following my thought is you have difficulty in recognizing the need for design. The gaps imply enormous amounts of design required.

I keep accepting the argument for design. And I keep agreeing that we do not have the evidence for cellular intelligence being able to produce the necessary innovations, just as we do not have the evidence for a sourceless supermind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation in order to fulfil his purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. How many more times do you want me to repeat this?

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is a very weak hypothesis, because its first point re' the possible scope of cell intelligence is a hypothesis to begin with. Hypotheses should have a proven basis at the start of the construction. […]

So what is the proven basis for your hypothesis that there is an unknown sourceless conscious mind which 3.8 billion years ago inserted a computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? Stop making up rules as you go along.