More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, November 15, 2021, 15:29 (19 days ago) @ dhw

Moved from “Cellular intelligence” as you switched the subject to survival:
Sensing autonomic activity
DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

dhw: […] As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

DAVID: Flippers are a requirement for survival in a watery environment. So God designed them helping mammals become aquatic.

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

Human evolution: another huge gap
DAVID: I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in stages from bacteria. But that is His obvious choice of a creation process.

dhw: As a believer in evolution and an agnostic, I have no problem with the idea that your God (if he exists) chose evolution in stages as his method of fulfilling whatever may have been his purpose! The problem that I have is with your interpretation of evolution, as discussed under “Giraffe plumbing”.

We disagree about the important implications of the appearance of humans in evolution. Adler, a leading philosopher of religion, is my guide. You know his views.


Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

dhw: For some reason, you digressed from this important distinction, and returned to the 50/50 game.

The reason is I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.


Metamorphosis
dhw: The problem of metamorphosis relates to all forms of “babies”. Your breakfast egg, protected by its shell, would turn into a chicken. The mammal’s eggs are protected inside the mother. The acorn grows into an oak. They are all weird in their own way. They may have evolved “naturally” – by which I mean through cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God), and not through random mutations – or supernaturally (through your God). Either way, I accept that they are intelligently designed, and clearly the aim of each design was survival. But I have not offered any over-all theory because I have no idea how such methods could have evolved. If there are things we don’t understand, and if we can’t think of any logical explanation, I feel it is better not to present and stand by a fixed opinion. Don’t you?

DAVID: The above is your great agnostic example of not accepting God. Accepting the need for a designer then requires the next step, a designing mind we call God. Just accept the designing mind concept, and no further.

dhw: When I say “perhaps designed by your God” and “through your God”, I am explaining a possible God’s possible role in metamorphosis and evolution in general. This is not a matter of “not accepting God”. It is you who insist on going further and offering a fixed but illogical interpretation of evolution that goes far, far beyond the designing mind concept (see “Giraffe plumbing”).

I don't see your problem. God, as designer, can create anything He wishes. An endpoint of humans through designed evolution was God's wish.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum