The simplest explanation? (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, October 05, 2020, 17:34 (16 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, October 05, 2020, 17:50

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!

Very difficult for chance evolution to explain how placental pregnancy ever developed


DAVID: All under controlling instructions from God.

dhw: 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.

Shapiro does not state how that autonomous cellular intelligence developed. I chose to say God as source


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.

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

There will be no absolute proof of God, which is why I always ask the question, how much very advanced complexity must be shown before it is obvious there must be a designer.


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”?

The issue is always the personality of the God one envisions. My God is very purposeful and does not give up control to an independent inventive mechanism. Your version of God is feasible as are His actions in your wishy-washy version of God. The atheist example misses the point pf my approach..


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

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

See above for God's differing personalities isxsue.


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

shw: 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?

The background of accepting an idea is based on one's version of God. I understand your desire to have God give the cells an autonomous invention mechanism. It diminishes God's role in direct creation but He is still obviously mostly in charge. I see Him wanting full exact control.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum