More Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Thursday, April 11, 2024, 09:41 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

Origin of humans

DAVID: Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!

dhw: Nobody knows God’s logic or his purpose or his nature. Not even theologians agree amongst themselves, and I’m sorry, but when you present us with theories which defy logic and depend entirely on irrational faith that the God you wish for is the real God, I don’t “refuse” to understand them. I join you in not understanding them, but I don’t join you in accepting them.

DAVID: I know that.

So you know I don’t “refuse” to understand your wacky theological theories but, like yourself, can’t find any logical reason for supporting them. And I can’t join you in faithfully accepting your own wishful thinking.

Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.

QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”

As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable."

DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.

And he has no right to do so, since the book is manifestly not about God and some divine purpose but about the purposeful mechanisms that have driven evolution.

dhw: […] the point being that evolution is driven by the purposeful actions of the organisms themselves, as they adapt to or exploit new conditions in the great quest for survival. The origin of life and all its mechanisms is a different subject.

DAVID: And the book asks, what gave those organisms that purposeful drive? Trilobites lasted 250 million years. As Raup shows, only extinction forced a new change. One could ask, lasting that long, why bother to improve survival with a better form?

The book apparently shows us the different ways in which organisms design themselves. You and the reviewer seem to be criticizing it because you think the authors should have dealt with a different subject.

Evolution: transitional fish, Tiktaalik new findings

QUOTE: "'Tiktaalik is remarkable because it gives us glimpses into this major evolutionary transition," Stewart said. "Across its whole skeleton, we see a combination of traits that are typical of fish and life in water as well as traits that are seen in land-dwelling animals."

DAVID: the authors of this article see the purpose in evolution as they describe the advances related to walking.

dhw: There is no “advance related to walking”. Different conditions demand different means of locomotion. Fins are better for water, and legs are better for land. In this clear filling of gaps, the authors point out the similarities and developments that confirm the theory of common descent, and they show that the purpose of all these structural changes is to improve the respective organisms’ chances of survival in different environments.

DAVID: No question Tiktaalik fits the bill.

Nice to be in agreement!

Giant viruses

DAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.

Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.) You’ve used the present tense, so please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.