Bacterial Intelligence and Evolution (General)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 08, 2019, 19:58 (2024 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: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.

Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:

"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.

Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.

We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth."

https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/marine-animals/how-do-whales-breastfeed-u...

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

dhw: 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.

Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose. You are totally confused about God. I don't have to know why. I've told you that over and over.

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.

dhw: 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.

I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.