Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 13:16 (237 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

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)
And:
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.

dhw: 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: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

How algae find light

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

dhw: It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

DAVID: It remains an unproven theoretical conjecture.

So does your God theory and every theory that tries to explain every unsolved mystery.

cetaceans get much less cancer

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

dhw: 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: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

Neanderthal research

QUOTE: "Thus, Neandertals had a similar capacity to us to produce the sounds of human speech, and their ear was "tuned" to perceive these frequencies. This change in the auditory capacities in Neandertals, compared with their ancestors from Atapuerca, parallels archaeological evidence for increasingly complex behavioral patterns, including changes in stone tool technology, domestication of fire and possible symbolic practices. Thus, the study provides strong evidence in favor of the coevolution of increasingly complex behaviors and increasing efficiency in vocal communication throughout the course of human evolution."

DAVID: This study is based on preserved ear bones. Its weakness is the assumption that the auditory area of the brain was structurally advanced enough to handle the sounds of speech and make speech. My guess is, yes it was.

I have never understood the assumption that sapiens invented language. Does anyone seriously believe that earlier forms of human did not communicate? All life forms have means of communication, and our fellow animals use sound as one method. It seems to me that there would be a natural progression from a small range of sounds to a larger range of sounds as pre-sapiens expanded the range of subjects to be communicated. The brain would change and the other related parts of the anatomy would change in response to these new requirements. The more we invent and discover, the more sounds we need. Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum