Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 08, 2019, 09:33 (1814 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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 whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point.

It makes no difference to the argument. Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.

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 knew what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.

dhw: 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: Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.

You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

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.

dhw: 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. […]

DAVID: I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.

You have no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to fulfil your interpretation of his purpose, but you don’t see that as a possible indication that your interpretations might be wrong. So be it. I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.