Human evolution; our complex speech mechanism (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 13:28 (2017 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I rely on you to inform me about McCrone’s findings and arguments. If all the changes were present in habilis and erectus, does he think they communicated without using their voices to make sounds, and how does he know that they were not able to make some of the sounds that are now used in modern speech? Is there a tape recording?

I notice you have skipped over this point. Please tell us how McCrone knows that pre-sapiens did not use his larynx and epiglottis to make sounds now made by H. sapiens.

DAVID: And I find your hypothesis impossible, as all the different changes have to coordinated. Even Dawkins says biology looks designed.

dhw: I wrote above […] that all parts have to cooperate, and I have always agreed that biology looks designed. In case you’ve forgotten, my theistic proposal is that your God designed the mechanism that does the designing – as opposed to preprogramming the first cells with every single undabbled design in the history of life.

DAVID: And I've written such a mechanism must contain God's guidelines, and you have refused to accept that limitation which means your mechanism allows that God is not entirely in control.

The only “guidelines” you can offer are a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for epiglottises and larynxes and every other evolutionary change in life’s history, or your God performing ad hoc operations on individual organisms. Yes, in my theistic hypothesis, my autonomous mechanism means God deliberately creates a free-for-all while still having the option to dabble if he feels like it. How do you know your God does not want some unpredictability to add to the interest?

DAVID: […] I'll remind you, I view God as much more purposeful than you do. He won't give up tight control over evolution.

dhw: […] I do not accept that your view of God is “much more purposeful”, since the only purpose you are prepared to offer for every organism that ever existed is his wish to design H. sapiens. You have no justification for claiming that “he won’t give up tight control”, especially since your belief in tight control leaves you with “no idea” why he chose the above method to fulfil his one and only purpose. It is perfectly feasible that his purpose was to create the ongoing, ever-changing spectacle of life’s history, with humans providing the richest variety of all. Your God as spectator at his own production instead of puppet master (but always with the option of dabbling when he feels like it).

DAVID: Same old mantra. I accept that God chose the method He did. You can't refute that point, so you keep repeating I have 'no idea', but I do.

In your own words, you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. We agree that if God exists, he chose evolution to fulfil his purposes. That is a million miles away from saying that he chose your interpretation of evolution (every life form etc. specially preprogrammed or dabbled) to fulfil your interpretation of his purpose (to specially design humans). See "Unanswered questions" for your concept of evolution which so blatantly contradicts your concept of your God's purpose.