Theoretical origin of life; lipid containers (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, May 04, 2019, 13:42 (2030 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] you claim that […] you ”try to base every theory on the scientific facts”, and you start with “what science shows us as established”. I would like to know what scientific facts and established truths your proposal is based on. You are happy to quote Adler (anthropocentrism) and Behe (design) in support of individual aspects of your hypothesis, and I am happy to quote Margulis, McClintock and Shapiro in support of aspects of mine, but I really don’t know why the other aspects of your proposal should be considered any more scientific or any less speculative than mine. I was merely wondering whether there are ANY scientists who support yours.

DAVID: I've admitted that my proposals as to how God guides evolution are speculations. From Adler certainly the issue of why humans are here is a major point. Behe is different. He firmly supports the need for a mind to design evolution and for me has totally demolished Darwin except for common descent.

Yes, your proposal that your God specially designed every evolutionary change, and did so in order that organisms could eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens is pure speculation with no basis in science. I know what Adler and Behe propose, and have no quarrel with their logic.

DAVID: As for cellular reactions which I have studied and understand, they all have the regular appearance of automaticity. There is no proof here is intelligence guiding them. Intelligent instructions are all that is required.

You have admitted that they have the “regular appearance” of intelligence (50/50), but of course we do not have the proof – if we did, the hypothesis would be a fact. You have no proof that they are guided by a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme which you prefer to gloss over as “intelligent instructions”.

DAVID: The only evidence of planning intelligence is in humans.

Even you have admitted that our fellow animals are intelligent. I don’t know why you insist on inserting “planning” but see my post under “Bacterial intelligence”.

DAVID: As to your quoting M,M,S, and A, just as I'm quoting opinion that is all either of us has. I've gone beyond reasonable doubt. Have you?

Yes, we both quote opinions, but reasonable versus unreasonable is pure subjectivity. My subjective view is that your belief in the design argument for God and in the specialness of humans is reasonable, your opinion that cells are automatons is nowhere near beyond reasonable doubt, and your proposal that your God specially designed every life form etc, and did so in order to make them eat or not each other until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design is unreasonable, especially since you yourself have no idea why he would come up with such a method.