Logic and evolution: doubting Darwin; (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, September 05, 2019, 18:28 (1904 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I view the point of this essay is that humans cannot be justified by Darwin's principal theories. The only accomplishment of Darwin is to put the emphasis on evolution. Once again you ignore Adler's point that we are different in kind, and God is required.

dhw: What do you mean by his “principal theories”?

DAVID: You have ignored this paragraph in the essay: "The human brain and the power of speech put humans way beyond the boundaries of Darwin’s own three critical criteria for natural selection, which; (i) may expand an animal’s power only to a point where it has survival advantage — and no further; (ii) cannot produce changes that are “injurious” to the animal; and (iii) cannot produce a “specially developed organ” that is useless to an animal at the time it develops. If a Neanderthal brain three times the size of any primate’s and a unique capacity for speech do not constitute “specially developed organs,” what does?"

dhw: So what do you mean by Darwin’s “principal theories”?

Obviously covered with the three points made in the quote.

dhw: ... also show the illogicality of your theory that your God’s one and only purpose in designing ALL of them was to enable life to survive until he started designing the ONLY thing he wanted to design!

God chose to evolve. You humanize God's thinking and don't accept that point.

DAVID: Again, you are ignoring the need for design by a mind.

dhw: I am proposing that the cells do the designing because, as many scientists now believe, cells are intelligent organisms. But I am an agnostic, and acknowledge the possibility that your God may be the designer of the intelligent cell. Why do you think he is incapable of such a design?

Because i believe God designed cell instructions that make them look intelligent as they react.

DAVID: Your cells have no neurological abilities.

dhw: There are all kinds of cells, including neurons. In multicellular organisms they combine to form communities, and these communities – whether 1) divinely preprogrammed or 2) divinely dabbled, or 3) acting autonomously, are the producers of innovations. You simply reject the third hypothesis, on the grounds that we don’t actually “know” if it is true. Same problem, then, with 1) and 2), but you have a fixed belief in at least one of them.

Note the bold. You KNOW they innovate what?

DAVID: Yes I do. Do cells other than neurons create the ability to design thru thought?

dhw: I don’t know why you are so hung up on neurons. “Design” requires cooperation between ALL the cell communities. However, here is an article that might open your eyes to the fact that single cells do not need human brains to think:
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/uoc--bdb101915.php

"Biologists at UC San Diego have discovered that bacteria--often viewed as lowly, solitary creatures--are actually quite sophisticated in their social interactions and communicate with one another through similar electrical signaling mechanisms as neurons in the human brain."

This is well-known. Electric signals don't prove they are thinking.

DAVID: I can't accept design by cell committee, your theory to avoid God.

dhw: For the thousandth time, it does NOT avoid God, because God may have been the designer of the intelligent cell. What you cannot accept is the increasing amount of evidence that cells are intelligent. That does not prove that they are capable of evolutionary innovation, but it is a major step along the way, since we already know that they are capable of adaptation.

Once again, all we know is they act as if intelligent, and it all can be in the intelligent
information they use, which they were given..