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

by David Turell , Monday, June 27, 2022, 16:36 (878 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer of the first cells. All branches are related in so far as they all spring from the first cells (Darwin’s few forms or one). However, this theory precludes the concept of species coming into being without any precursors, and so I have listed possible reasons for the Cambrian “gap”, the foremost being Shapiro’s proposal that intelligent cells are responsible for evolutionary innovation. And the fact that all branches spring from the earliest cells does not mean that all branches lead to humans and our food, let alone that they were individually designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food.

The bold is true. We humans are at the end of one branch. Darwin knew the Cambrian gap damaged his itty-bitty step theory. He hoped for gap fossils, which in the new 410,000-year study DO NOT exist. It goes from very simple to very complex in an amazingly short time compared to every other known gap.

DAVID: From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.

dhw: Your dodging technique is becoming painfully obvious and out of order. Nowhere have I said that a designer God is a silly concept! I am an agnostic! I have asked why you consider my concept of intelligent organisms (perhaps designed by your God) RESPONDING to new conditions to be sillier than your concept of God preprogramming or dabbling changes BEFORE the new conditions have come into existence. And yes, we know that adaptation means preservation of the species, but since nobody knows how one species turns into another, it is not unreasonable to propose that maybe the same mechanism for adaptive structural changes also enables intelligent organisms to innovate.

DAVID: You still want brilliant cells to get together and design future forms to handle future conditions.

dhw: How many more times? In my theory, CELLS DO NOT DESIGN FUTURE FORMS TO HANDLE FUTURE CONDITIONS. They design new forms IN RESPONSE to changes in conditions. For example, I regard it as absurd to imagine pre-whale legs turning into flippers before there is any water for them to swim in.

All species adapt and stay the same species currently. Does not explain speciation.

DAVID: All based on the observation cells act as if intelligent, when it is equally possible, they act on intelligent instructions they have been given by design.

dhw: If you give cellular intelligence an equal chance of being the truth, then it is absurd to reject the possibility. As an agnostic, I find that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing. All my theories must therefore include that possibility. Unlike you, I regard 50/50 as possible, and not as grounds for rejection.

A 50/50 equation allows anyone to pick a side. I'm on the God side.

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

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

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

dhw: How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?

You scurry back to your obtuse view of how to design complexity. Designing living life forms is way beyond any form of modern technology. A very strained comparison don't you think?