Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 16:05 (74 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

dhw: I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on,...Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)

How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you merely reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining to me why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have now explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never goes into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

dhw: In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

Are kookie theories justified?

QUOTE: "The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. (David’s bold)

dhw: A lovely article, very well suited to the AgnosticWeb! Thank you.

Delighted to present it.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum