Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, August 24, 2020, 15:09 (102 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No!!! Why can't you give God the right to choose His method of producing all of reality?

dhw: Of course he has the right to do so! But I do not accept your interpretation of the method he used to fulfil your int

No dodge. God chose to evolve, and you've agreed. What other interpretation could be used?


DAVID: Your alternatives are all logically humanizing God. And, as usual, you have ignored my point that God evolves ever aspect of reality He created: the universe, the Earth, life. It is clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: If he exists, and since we both believe that evolution happened, of course he chose to evolve his creations! But that does not mean that his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens and food supply, that he directly designed every species, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder, or that every species etc. was directly designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You have admitted that you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, so perhaps we can end this repetitive discussion if you simply say this is your belief and you couldn’t care less about logic.

Your prime objection is the interpretation of God's purpose. I'm with Adler in that humans were God's prime purpose. If you wish to challenge Adler's powerful book, critique it for me.

xxx

DAVID (under “Independent and dependent life”): Parasites and viruses are not independent life, but some macrophages among the bacteriophages blur the lines:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200212131458.htm

DAVID: Amazing. These phage have stolen a bacterial defense mechanism CRISPR from bacteria. Every type of life has its own pathogens, even bacteria that attack us. More proof of the diversity of the living and the partially living.

dhw: It is indeed amazing, but in the light of our discussions I can’t help wondering why your God would have designed them as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

All part of necessary econiches


Under “Emperor penguin huddles”:

DAVID: Keeping warm by huddling is the Emperor's trick, and it follows a math pattern, but the birds don't do math, they constantly shift to find the warmest spot:
http://abstractions.nautil.us/article/604/math-of-the-penguins?mc_cid=52cd39af09&mc...

QUOTE: "Penguins seem to know what mathematicians learned long ago: The densest packing of shapes on a plane is a hexagonal grid. According to Blanchette’s model, the birds arrange themselves as if they were each standing on their own hexagon in a grid."

DAVID: The diagrams are a must-see to fully understand. The math is pure human observation math. Penguins don't understand the packing trick of hexagons. They have learned how to keep warm.

dhw: Thank you for yet another delightful natural wonder. Mathematicians seem to have learned what penguins knew long ago, but penguins don’t extrapolate generalizations from particulars. It’s the difference between concrete and abstract thinking. All organisms appear to work out their own strategies for survival, and one can only marvel at their intelligence. Or do you think that like leaf-biting bees and mother lions training their cubs to hunt, the penguins needed a divine instruction manual or private lessons on how to keep warm?

No thought involved in finding the warmest spot downwind. Cows cool under trees. Mother and cubs is learning to imitate. Leaf-biting bees involves complex correlations, a major mental difference. You just don't understand that analysis, a bias against the human mental difference.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum