The simplest explanation? (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 05, 2020, 11:04 (1508 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We do not understand how sexual reproduction first started or how it happened. […] There is no way chance caused this arrangement since both parts must be simultaneously present. Only by design fits.

dhw: We do not understand how ANYTHING started, but in the context of evolution, we have been given a clue:

QUOTE from earlier article: "Cell plasticity is a property by which a cell can take on different and reversible identities.”

dhw: I would propose that the key to evolution lies in cell plasticity as a known fact, Lynn Margulis’ theory that evolution is a consequence of cooperation, and the widely held belief that cells are intelligent (all combined in Shapiro’s theory of “natural genetic engineering”). Sexual reproduction is as vivid an example of Margulis’s symbiosis as one could imagine!

DAVID: All under controlling instructions from God.

Back we go. Your “controlling instructions” mean a 3.8-billion-year-old programme to be passed on from the first cells for every undabbled evolutionary change, natural wonder etc. in the history of life. The exact opposite of Shapiro's/my autonomous cellular intelligence.

dhw: How does our not yet knowing the layers of control make your theory of God’s implanted instructions more likely than Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence?

DAVID: […] I'm still with God speciating. Shapiro has never gotten any support through research. I accept research.

dhw: Shapiro’s theory is based on research (his own and other people’s) into the behaviour of cells. […]

DAVID: My theory in not any more scientific than Shapiro's. My point is that no one has advanced it in any way. It simply remains his supposition which, you are correct, follows the thoughts of other prior researchers.

dhw: How do you “advance” a theory other than through research that supports or disproves it? I really wonder how further research can confirm that intelligent cells design species, or that there is a God who designs species.

No answer from you. How has your theory been "advanced"? It's a typical case of pots and kettles.

dhw: I have offered you an explanation for theodicy: God did not design the good and the bad – he gave them the means of designing themselves, just as you think he gave humans free will. The fact that this doesn’t fit in with your own fixed beliefs does not mean that the proposal is not feasible.

DAVID: I did answer. I do not accept the idea that organisms design advances in evolution using a mechanism from God. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Repeating the fact that you don’t believe the explanation does not explain why you think it is not feasible! How would you react if an atheist dismissed your excellent arguments in favour of design with a bare “It's not feasible because I do not accept it”?

DAVID: I've constantly told you I see God as the designer for all advances to prepare for new uses and needs.

I know your rigid beliefs. But that does not explain why my alternative is not feasible!

DAVID: As for atheists, they DENY God completely. I accept IM's only with guidelines from God.

I know what atheists do. And I know what you accept. So how would you respond if an atheist dismissed your excellent argument for design by telling you it is not feasible because he doesn’t accept it?