Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Monday, March 01, 2021, 13:47 (324 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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)
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

So your God, who is in total control of evolution, built organisms to survive, although 99% of them are extinct, but he built the extreme extremophiles to ensure that 1% would survive. I admit to being confused. Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

DAVID: The second aspect is origin of life theories. Since the Earth was not that hospitable at life's origin, whatever came first had to possess these same abilities for survival.

I agree. And the ability to adapt to changing conditions is fundamental to survival. That is the whole purpose of adaptation. But for some reason I simply cannot understand, you say that survival and improving chances of survival were NOT the purpose of adaptation and all the complex innovations that led from bacteria to humans.

DAVID: The great oxygenation event occurred much later and was a much easier way to create energy as we measure it in calories of heat. Of course antioxidants had to be added to control the oxygenation process, all part of good design. My view is always opposite Darwin. He emphasized survival to get rid of God. In my view God provides survival. We are diametrically opposite. There is no middle ground.

So God provides the mechanisms for survival, and that means survival is not the purpose of the mechanisms. I don’t get it. As for your attack on Darwin, you know as well as I do that he was an agnostic and saw “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species) He emphasized survival, because whether your God did or did not preprogramme or dabble every evolutionary innovation, it would make no sense at all for the innovation NOT to be geared to coping with existing conditions. And even devout Christians can believe that organisms descended from other organisms, and that pre-whale legs can have turned to flippers in order to help them adapt to life in the water.

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 reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have 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?

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

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.

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

Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.


DAVID: Not volcanoes says latest study:

"Researchers believe they have closed the case of what killed the dinosaurs, definitively linking their extinction with an asteroid that slammed into Earth 66 million years ago by finding a key piece of evidence: asteroid dust inside the impact crater.

DAVID: this is how real science works. Keep searching until the key proving evidence appears. In theoretical science, the theory must be based on existing known facts, not a network of guesswork.

I must confess I didn’t even know that Chixculub was in doubt! I support your plea for agnosticism (“keep searching”) until “key proving evidence” appears, and for theories to be based on existing known facts.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum