Brain expansion: pure Darwinian explanations (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 20, 2020, 18:34 (95 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Until humans arrived, the prime motivation for all activity would have been survival, and the quest for survival means that all organisms must adapt to or exploit their respective environments, constantly finding new forms of nourishment, accommodation, hunting, self-defence etc. That in turn requires intelligence, whether the intelligence is autonomous (my proposal) or controlled by your God (your proposal). Please explain why you reject this explanation of evolutionary advancement.

DAVID: You know the answer. The design of life is so complex a designer is required, it is design that keeps you from being an atheist. Remember I put in this article because 'dhw will love it'.

dhw: But what I have written concerns how evolution works ā€“ as bolded. This applies just as much to your theory as to mine. Your God would have designed all the different pre-sapiens life forms and their econiches and their ways of adapting to or exploiting environmental changes so that they could stay alive. What is your objection?

DAVID: I know what you bolded. My objection is your either/or view of God. I was only reiterating that a designer is required, not either/or.

dhw: My point, of course, was to emphasize the role played by the environment as a crucial factor in the advancement of evolution. Iā€™m pleased to see that you accept this.

DAVID: That I said I know what you wrote is not acceptance. Environment relates to adaptations, without any proof it causes speciation.

dhw: I asked you why you rejected my bolded explanation of evolutionary advancement. Your reply was not a reply, and even now the only objection you have raised is that there is no proof. There is no proof for ANY of the theories we discuss. A couple of days ago, you wrote:ā€Absolute proof, which you always require, does not exist. Choice involves reason with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.ā€ Please pinpoint whatever section of my bold seems to you to be unreasonable.

What I object to is your theory that autonomous intelligence can exist for no particular reason. Intelligence must have source, cannot appear simply from nothing, cannot arrive by chance in any form. Rocks are not intelligent; Earth started as a big rock, nothing more and now it contains life. There must be a designing mind. We agree on everything except the source of intelligence, which we both agree is absolutely required for life to exist. I name the mind God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum