More Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 08, 2024, 10:36 (197 days ago) @ David Turell

Early barred spiral galaxies

DAVID: God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.

dhw: […] And in order to verify your theory, all I have to do is go and ask God.

DAVID: Who else can you ask in this event where God is in charge.

dhw: I ask you, because you are the one who proposes the theory that your God designed the trillions of galaxies for the sole purpose of producing our galaxy, us, and our contemporary species. If you can’t think of a reason, maybe there is something wrong with your theory.

DAVID: The usual false comment. I do not know at this point why the universe had to be so big. I assume God had a reason, but He didn't tell me. Why do you keep asking as if I can explain God's actions simply because I believe in Him? we are not buddies! This is a phony tactic to get me to answers questions I can't answer.

It’s not a “phony tactic”! If an atheist tells you life arose by chance, do you just swallow the theory or do you ask pertinent questions? The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss all the different theories. You are able to provide good reasons for your belief in a designer God, but what I ask you to explain here is not your God’s actions but your illogical and often contradictory theories about his actions, purpose and nature. If you can’t think of any reasons to support your theories, please don’t blame me.

Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same place

QUOTE: Once its fungal plug has been torn apart, the newly disemboweled bug will sprinkle spores wherever it goes, passing this zombie fungus on to the next generation of cicadas.

DAVID: each brood plays a role in its ecosystem. Another weird animal in the vast bush of life.

dhw: Yuck! But I appreciate your comment. It applies to every ecosystem that has ever existed, and if your God exists, he must have had a reason for designing them (your theory), or letting them evolve through random mutations and natural selection (Darwin’s theory), or letting them design themselves autonomously (theistic version of Shapiro’s theory). The weirder they are – and the further back in time we go – the greater seems the likelihood of a massive free-for-all, and the lesser seems the likelihood that every single one was designed for the sole purpose of producing us and our contemporary species.

DAVID: All of this is highly designed. What produced your massive free-for-all? And why?

The atheist answer would be chance produced it, and there is no purpose other than that of the organisms themselves, which basically amounts to survival. I have also offered a theistic answer: God would have produced it because, as you pointed out yourself, he wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t enjoyed creating and been interested in his creations. You have agreed that he would have found puppets boring, and so an unpredictable free-for-all would be far more interesting for him to watch. (I have also proposed experimentation, but that would not be a free-for-all.)

Protect a pregnancy

QUOTE: “It protects but doesn’t damage […] Evolution is so smart.”

DAVID: The purpose is clear but how could this naturally happen? Trial and error would be disastrous. It reeks of a designer mind at work.

dhw: One’s heart goes out to the mice, who seem to be the main providers of all this information! As usual, I agree with you that these complex processes “reek” of design, and evolution is not “smart”. Evolution is a process, not a mind. The choice of explanations is the same as under “Cicadas”, but in answer to your comment, I would suggest that solutions to problems only arise once a problem appears. It seems to me perfectly possible that the relevant cells developed this strategy to improve chances of survival once problems became acute. Problems don’t automatically mean immediate extinction, and solutions can take time to find, as we know from the lives of bacteria.

DAVID: See Reznick's guppies in the other thread to explain adaptation without mutations.

Covered below, but it has nothing to do with the point I have made above.

Reznick’s guppies:

QUOTE: "Identifying the origin of novelty-generation as random mutation is pivotal to providing an authentic instance of Darwinian macroevolution. Instead, what we have here is an example of how populations rapidly adapt using preexisting genetic variation."

I don’t quite understand the reasoning here. Novelty-generation is what causes speciation, but although the borderline between adaptation and novelty is not clear-cut, the guppies are still guppies. That’s not macroevolution. Of course, the same argument would apply to Darwin’s finches, and in any case, David, you and I have long since rejected random mutations as the driving force of macroevolution. We are therefore left with two possible theories: design by your God, or by Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, the source of which could be your God.