Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 08:17 (880 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Changing conditions may offer new opportunities. For example, an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life, and so the novelties may have been “triggered” by it. […] Instead of God creating and using the new conditions, I am proposing that intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God) used them to invent the novelties you attribute to your God. Same process, so why is my version sillier than your 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God's endless operations in anticipation of events that have not yet happened?

DAVID: I know all your strange theories. And my usual response is cells can't plan for changes such as the Cambrians. Oxygen allows for change but doesn't drive them. We are arguing the identity of the agency of change.

dhw: Why do you keep ignoring my usual response: CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT CHANGES. And I have just stated (now bolded) that “an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life”, so why do you repeat it as if somehow you were correcting me. I did not say oxygen “drove” the changes. Triggering entails providing the conditions which set in motion the processes for adaptation and innovation. Changes in organisms are “driven” by organisms (or your God) responding to the changing conditions. As regards the “agency”, yes, that is what we are discussing, and I have asked the question now bolded at the end of my comment. Of course you haven’t answered.

DAVID: None of your discussion can explain the Cambrian gap. The bold I've added is distorted reasoning. The new level of oxygen only allows the opportunity for change, and never is the agency. Oxygen alone cannot make anything happen.

We have dealt with the Cambrian gap elsewhere. I have now pointed out twice in bold that the new level of oxygen may “allow” for new forms of life, and I have said that the changes are driven by organisms (or your God with his book of instructions or his dabbling) which respond to the new conditions. They are the “agents”. Now please tell us why it is “sillier” for organisms to respond to changing conditions than for God to preprogramme or dabble their evolutionary changes BEFORE conditions have changed. […]

DAVID: As for your treasured cell intelligence for future change…..

Stop there! I keep repeating that cells do not use their intelligence for future change, but in response to present change!

DAVID: …all we know is cells make immediate responses to current stimuli nothing more.

Correct. Why “nothing more”? I propose that legs do not turn into flippers in anticipation of the arrival of water, but as a response to being in the water.

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

Mud

DAVID: Your interpretation of my theories as senseless is simply your senseless interpretation of my God. He is pure purpose….

What on earth or in heaven is “pure purpose”? According to you, his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans plus our food. What is “pure” about that? According to you, he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food, and you don’t know why he did so if his one and only purpose was humans plus our food. And he created species without precursors, but he designed the only species he wanted to design (plus our food) in stages, and you don’t know why. Your theories “make sense only to God”, which can only mean that they do not make sense to you.

DAVID ….and does not require what your God wishes: experimenting, enjoying a free-for-all, and all the other humanized desires for Himself you have described. Yes I've agreed your humanized God is very consistent with His desires as you describe them. That doesn't mean I recognize your God as a valid concept.

How do you know what your God wishes or doesn’t wish? You have agreed that my theories are “very consistent” with the history of life as we know it, whereas your own are inexplicable. I don’t ask you to recognize any of my alternatives as “valid”. Nobody knows the truth, even of your God’s existence. But your non-recognition is totally irrelevant to the fact that your own theories do not make sense even to you.