Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 08, 2019, 15:15 (1901 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] I keep repeating that we do not know if intelligent cells are capable of major changes – it is a theory. And you have totally ignored the problem of distinguishing between adaptation and innovation. Legs turning into flippers is clearly a case of adaptation, and the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations. These adaptations, however, are so major that they result in new species.

DAVID: […] My comment was about your blurring the lines between minor adaptation and major engineering requirements. Yes the foot to flipper is technically an adaptation. But this change requires major design changes of bones and muscle attachments. […] As for the physiologic changes they require major chemical design changes which are organic really large alterations, not simple adjustments, as you again blur lines.

dhw: I did not say they were simple adjustments! Again you have not registered what I have written. I have now bolded the relevant comments. All the whale changes are “technically” adaptations, since they all make adjustments to existing features. We know that cell communities can make minor adjustments, but we do not know if the same mechanism is capable of major adjustments. It is a theory, but it is based on the existence of an autonomous mechanism which even you have apparently begun to acknowledge: “As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability”.

You are missing my insistence that foot to flipper is a very major alteration requiring intensive design by glossing over it as the now bolded phrase shows! It requires more than 'adjustments'.

DAVID: H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.

dhw: You say “a” as opposed to “the” final goal. Good. Now apparently your God desired to evolve (by which you mean specially design) ALL of life’s bush […] do please tell us why you think your God “desired” to specially design all of life’s bush, since apparently you now think his purpose was not just to keep life going until he could fulfil THE goal of designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: You've tortured my theory into a one-purpose God "apparition".

dhw; I don’t know what you mean by “apparition”. Do you really want me to compile a list of the occasions when you have insisted that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens?

You know full well the word apparition. You present a very strange God. It is just your intentional misinterpretation of my repeated statements that humans were His eventual goal.

DAVID: My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing and what He 'desires' to do.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he is purposeful and knows what he desires.

DAVID: […] He certainly wanted the entire bush of life before arriving at humans, as God is the creator of reality and history tells what He did.

dhw: Until now you have insisted that your God “had to” create the bush in order to keep life going for 3.X billion years until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design, which was H. sapiens. (I will provide quotes if you want me to.) If you are now saying that the bush was a purpose in itself (he wanted/desired it), then at last we have reached common ground. We can jettison the whole idea that he started out with just the one purpose of producing H. sapiens. Bush and humans were all designed for the same purpose – to satisfy his desire. I would go further than you, and suggest that his desire was for something to fill the great void of his existence (if he exists), but you may have other ideas or you may prefer not to speculate on his motives. That’s fine, so long as we now agree that humans were not his one and only purpose. The second area of disagreement is the likelihood of his specially designing everything, as opposed to creating a mechanism that would do its own designing, but that is a different issue.

The whole of the evolutionary theory shows God's purpose, but I will not leave the point to your interpretation. Remember I'm with Adler and we are different in kind which means we were God's final goal. You admit to our specialness and then ignore its importance in your final conclusions.