Evolution and humans: Neanderthal lungs larger (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 11, 2018, 18:10 (32 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've carefully read all of this a long time ago, based on his bacterial studies, and have integrated it into my thinking and arguments.

dhw: If you have carefully read that living organisms have the capacity to alter their own heredity, that evolutionary change is an active cell process, and that rejection of cellular intelligence is “large organisms chauvinism”, then you have not integrated it into your thinking and arguments but have categorically rejected it.

dhw: You are, of course, free to reject the concept of cellular intelligence – even though you agree that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct – and to reject its possible link to the advancement of evolution. But you certainly don’t integrate either hypothesis into your illogical argument that your God’s purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, and so he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution.

What is illogical to you is logical to me. Labeling it constantly as illogical is simply name-calling with no reference other than your mind is set against my logic.


DAVID: How does life get from single cells to humans? What we accept is common descent over a very long time. And the evidence is single celled eventually became humans. And my conclusion is that it could not have happened by chance. There is no obvious reason to have advanced beyond bacteria or beyond apes. So I have logically concluded there is a drive for complexity, which I have ascribed to God. The only step in this series of thoughts is I have added God, which requires faith.

dhw: There is nothing illogical about any of this. We have long since agreed that chance is an unlikely explanation of evolution, and we have long since agreed that your God may be the initiator of the process. But you have carefully left out the huge step which is so illogical that you have to claim your God’s logic is different from ours: namely (apologies for the repetition), that his purpose was TO CREATE HUMANS, but he specially designed 50,000 different spider webs plus billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct in order to provide energy for life – whether human or non-human.

Again, blithely skipping over the need for balance of nature which supplies the energy for life to last and evolve over 3.5+ billion years of time.


DAVID: As for designs in life, there are many examples.

Indeed there are billions. Your belief (apologies for the repetition) appears to be that your God designed every single one, although his purpose was to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: I have presented that cannot be explained by chance stepwise development. How do you know what God decided to design and what He did not design? I come the point of view that evolution was guided and designed and you don't.

dhw: As regards humans, you have just agreed that Lucy was a transitional form, so please distinguish between “chance” and stepwise. Transitions are steps. Organisms which adapt themselves to new environments have to make changes which are not by chance. You have your God (apologies for the repetition) changing the organisms before they confront new conditions, whereas I suggest (theistic version) that he provided them with the mechanism to change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. Neither of us “knows” what your God decided to design, but you insist (apologies for the repetition) that your illogical hypothesis – God’s purpose was to create humans, and he specially designed 50,000 spider webs – is correct, and you dismiss mine: God gave spiders the intelligence to design their own webs.

Keep repeating 'illogical'. That goes nowhere. Lucy, as a transitional form, is not the tiny step you are trying to imply. That giant step requires a transformed pelvis that allows bipedal walking. Her feet are very different but can still grip to some degree. Her shoulders are changed but still allows a degree of swinging from branch to branch. She is a giant step with a transformed pelvis for bipedal posture for walking that requires a very different way of giving birth. We have discussed the obstetrical dilemma present in studying the evolution of humans.

If we never find a way to fill the gaps, we are left with personal judgment as to how they happened. They require design in anticipation of use. That requires a designing mind. That is always my point. Therefore that mind has to exist and be active. Your excuse that God might have to give organisms the ability to self design simply is a statement that God is required even if secondhand. Note, either way God is required! How can you avoid this conclusion? In this way the chasm awaits. It doesn't take a big jump.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum