Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 07, 2019, 09:22 (1816 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: It doesn’t matter two hoots whether you call this adaptation or innovation (which is why I say we cannot draw a borderline between the two) – it is the process by which evolutionary changes occur in response to different environments, and such major changes lead to speciation.

DAVID: In Alaska I've seen a whale skeleton with the vestigial limbs. I view innovation as major modifications, and see a major demarcation, which to support your view, you want to blur.

Your view is exactly the same as mine, except that you have used “modifications” instead of “changes”. There are small modifications (adaptations), and the species remains the same, and there are major modifications (innovations) which result in speciation. However, we are in no position to pinpoint the precise borderline between the two: you presumably think your God shrunk the pre-whale’s hind legs in one go when he turned legs into flippers in one go, in advance of sending the pre-whale into the water. I would propose that both sets of limbs underwent a series of modifications (the hind legs shrinking away because of non-use) as the pre-whale adapted to life in the water. In the case of the whale, I find this Darwinian theory far more convincing than yours – but I have always disputed his belief that Nature does not make jumps. See below.

DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.

dhw: Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.

DAVID: Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!

This is no answer to the point I have raised. I find Gould’s theory very reasonable: while conditions remain stable, we may have evolutionary stasis; when conditions change, we may have evolutionary change – and this may be gradual (whale) or comparatively swift (Cambrian). What’s wrong with that?

DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again. If your God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.

DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.

I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.

DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.

I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. I have no suppositions but only hypotheses, one of which is an all-powerful God who decides to occupy himself by creating an ever changing bush of life, giving this free rein except for when he feels like dabbling. The bush, at least for now, has culminated in H. sapiens, whose extraordinary intelligence also has free rein and has itself produced an astonishing variety of spectacles. It is perfectly feasible that such a God would himself experience all the feelings known to humans. This fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it, and if you would regard such a God as namby-pamby and wishy-washy (I wouldn’t), so be it. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong.