Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, April 10, 2022, 16:27 (746 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I do accept that possibility. Possibility is a guess. But I insist His reactions are secondary to His purpose.

dhw:Yes, all our theories can be called guesses, because nobody knows the objective truth. You now accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life, but you insist that his reactions of enjoyment and interest are secondary to his purpose of enjoyment and interest.

Not what I wrote. Purpose primary, emotional responses secondary

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Not forced to use the best system He could invent, in His judgement, is not degrading. He decided what was best is my view.

dhw:You are now changing your argument from "the only way possible" to your God having a choice of systems (this one was best).Please make up your mind. I don’t know God’s criteria for the best and worst, but I’ll settle for your implicit confirmation that he regarded the system you call “a constant war to survive by eating” as the best. And so I wonder why, according to you, your "kind" God would deliberately choose war over peace.

It is you who suggest God could have made a different system, as if He had choices. I think He devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.

Transferred from “trilobites”:

DAVID: The polar bears must eat seals. Where are the veggies? Your imagined world was not what happened. My approach is much more reasonable

dhw: Of course it’s not what happened. That is the whole point of this discussion! Why do you think your God chose to design a world of bloody warfare when, being all-powerful, he could have chosen to design a world of peaceful cooperation? You have lost track of the argument, so let me repeat: my suggestion is that he did NOT design a world of bloody warfare, but designed a world in which life forms would design their own means of survival, as a result of which we have a mixed world of peaceful cooperation and bloody warfare. And furthermore, I suggest that he created what he wanted to create (the free-for-all), as opposed to his having to incorporate errors which he didn’t want and tried, sometimes in vain, to correct because, as bolded, it was the only way possible.

God did not incorporate errors. A world of peaceful cooperation most likely in God's eyes could not work. (Darwin goes out the window, no fighting for survival, is a byproduct of your theory.) The free-for-all has nothing to do with errors in a high speed metabolism of life's molecules.

Shapiro

DAVID: Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation.

dhw: You keep moaning that he extrapolated his theory of evolution from his study of bacteria! But yes indeed, he proposed cellular intelligence as the mechanism for speciation. Once again, I'm pleased you accept that bacteria are intelligent and am surprised that you think the cell communities which evolved from them are not intelligent.

You forget God designed bacteria. They run on His programs in DNA. He gave them editing for protection living on their own to adapt to challenges.

DAVID: He never said all cells are immensely intelligent. The only extensions from his theory I can think of, is speciation must have germ cells editing their own DNA. NOT ALL CELLS. You are in error to expand his proposals way beyond his proposals!

dhw: Nobody has said “ALL cells are IMMENSELY intelligent”! Within each community they will have different functions and capabilities. I'm not sure about germ cells being "the only extension". What about stem cells, which we know can change their forms and functions? I'd have thought these would be crucial to evolutionary innovation. When I quoted Shapiro saying “cells are cognitive (sentient) entities etc.” and “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”, I don’t recall adding that every cell was “immensely intelligent”. Please identify the quote.

I can't find your quotes. Neil gave you that ability. Immensely intelligent is the implication from your cell committees theory. Germ cells carry the DNA combined in a new individual. For a completely new individual, the DNA changes must be there