More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, November 22, 2021, 15:29 (5 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Your approach is always organism oriented, so of course in your theory suv ival is a driving force.

DAVID: The bold is a total misstatement of my stated position: God's newly designed species must be designed for survivability as God advances evolution through each more complex stage.

dhw: But all stages of evolution consist of changing body forms! This is not an abstract process with flippers tacked on so that the new species can survive. The flippers are what MAKE the organism a new species. So did your God say to himself: “Flippers are more complex than legs, so a flippered whale will be the new complex stage of evolution”?

No!!! God also established a complex bush of necessary ecosystems to feed all who need food!!! The whale is in a very necessary ocean system previously described here.

dhw: In other words, why do you separate the reason for changes in body form from speciation, which consists in changes of body?

DAVID: Because, as above, I don't!!!

dhw: You are saying God’s reason for changing legs to flippers (which stands for all the changes in body form that make for speciation) was to advance evolution through more complex stages. But the changes that RESULT in speciation (flippers) are designed to improve chances of survival! Therefore, even in your God-directed evolution, speciation is driven by the quest for survival! The flippers are not separate from speciation – they ARE speciation.

I know that! God drives speciation and provides for survival, the reverse of your reasoning.

Genome complexity
"There is a deeper, philosophical question here: How can such a complex molecular machine, crucial for the synthesis of proteins and hence life, be itself dependent on 75 different proteins for its function? Where did those proteins come from in the first place if there was no PIC to initiate protein synthesis? (DAVID’s bold)
"Or what came first—the chicken or the egg?"

DAVID: any reasonable person, reading this article, would recognize the need for design, so why not accept a designer at work? Not at the 'maybe' level of thought!

dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

DAVID: If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

dhw: Correct. How do you fill in the need to explain the existence of a conscious, universal mind etc., as above? You don’t.

But logically I do: if design is present, where is the designer? I don't know, but He must exist. Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum