Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 16, 2019, 15:36 (279 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation, or He did it because of limitations. These possibilities are all permutations of suppositions, angels dancing on a pine head. If one views evolution as driven by a need for survival and no other drive is present, humans have no need to be here at the level of sophistication they represent. Our ancestor apes are just fine if we would leave them alone. With that reasoning I view evolution as driven by God as designer, as proven by the obvious view that life is too complicated to be the result of chance.

dhw: Thank you once more for admitting that you cannot understand why your God should have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years fulfilling the one and only purpose you impose on him. You have accepted all my hypothetical explanations as possible, and so now you go back to survival, which we have also covered and agreed on. Once more: if your God exists, then of course he is the driving force behind evolution, but even your own theory states that he specially designed 3.5+ billion years’ worth of life forms etc. so that life would continue (= SURVIVE) until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. According to you yourself, the “immediate driving force” (your term) behind his invention of slug glue, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration etc. was to improve their chances of SURVIVAL. An immediate driving force is a driving force.

dhw:It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax! :-)

DAVID: Peace.

dhw: I am a man of my word. How about you?

DAVID: We can have peace within our preferred positions, which will always differ.

dhw: But you have now raised exactly the same issues as before, which means yet more repetition!

I've said we will always differ. Of course we have issues. You are just as fixed as I am. I will continue to present new evidence from science and we will continue to present our differing opinions. Others ca n decide who they think is more correct.


DAVID: The facts we both know have lead to what I consider logical conclusions and a discovery of a faith in God. Your conclusionary road differs. So be it.

dhw: I have no problem with your argument that life is too complex to have come about by chance, and therefore you have faith that there is a designer. But please stop pretending that your attempts to read God’s mind (see my bolded summary above) are based on facts. They are pure suppositions.

DAVID: You have no answer for why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. Your dependence on survival as a driving force logically goes out the window! Bacteria prove it! Only a designer could have created multicellularity. Bacteria are complex forms, multicellulars are infinitely more complex. All conclusions based on the facts we both know.

dhw: We have been over all this hundreds of times. Even bacteria change themselves in order to SURVIVE in different environments. Nobody knows why single cells began to combine, but if – as some scientists believe – single cells are intelligent, cognisant, cooperative, decision-making organisms (possibly endowed with their intelligence by a designer God), it is not unreasonable to suppose that they found it advantageous to do so. The fact that they produced new methods of SURVIVAL does not mean the only possible explanation is that your God preprogrammed or manipulated them to do so as part of his 3.5+ billion-year plan as bolded above. And it does not alter one jot your agreement that the “immediate driving force” for the various innovations, whether directly designed by your God or not – was SURVIVAL.

The bolded portion just above simply says, single cells must have had the innate ability to evolve. Talk about faith! A very simple set of multicellular then appeared, and then relatively suddenly the Cambrian Explosion, just as demanding an explanation as bacteria simply combining. Two giant steps which only a designer can accomplish. Neither are requirements for survival as you present it. Both are jumps ell beyond immediate survival. Have you noticed survival is always an immediate requirement, not a force to jump so far forward? You don't view survival as I do as a requirement for advancement. That is pure Darwin theory.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum