More Miscellany: Bechly reappears (General)

by dhw, Saturday, May 18, 2024, 08:46 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum

DAVID: Pete is not human!!! He can't tell his friends! You write children's books famously, but don't produce them here! Another example of how you put in a human in action where he doesn't belong.

dhw: Do you really believe that our fellow creatures can’t communicate? This is “large organisms chauvinism” gone crazy.

DAVID: Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.

So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning?

Early human hunting weapons

DAVID: We think in our language, but I wonder how did they think to invent these weapons so long ago.

dhw: You just cannot understand that any organisms that live in a community must have their own means of communication. [...]

DAVID: I understand lots more than you seem to realize. I know we use meaningful hand gestures and facial expressions!

Congratulations. So why do you wonder how our ancient ancestors managed to invent their weapons without the benefit of speaking American? Is it inconceivable to you that they might have had sophisticated modes of communication which helped them to manufacture sophisticated tools?

Sapiens brain

dhw: Why have you picked on erectus? Heidelbergensis is regarded as our most probable direct ancestor, and his brain was almost the same size as ours, as was the Neanderthal brain.

DAVID: Heidelbergensis is not that ancestor, per Bechly.

dhw: I have no idea whether Bechly is the ultimate authority on our ancestry, but even if he is, it is nonsense to argue that our brain is a giant jump when there were Heidelhomos and Neanderhomos with brains of a similar size to ours.

DAVID: But not near the complexity. Size is only one small issue. Note the recent entry on brain complexity.

It’s a major issue, since evolution has resulted in increasing sizes of brain. We agreed long ago that the sapiens brain stopped expanding and increased complexification took over. How does that indicate that there was a “giant step” from Heidelhomo and Neanderhomo to sapiens? Once more: do you believe your God created the sapiens brain “de novo”. If not, then you have accepted Darwin’s theory of common descent.

Early water

DAVID: He wanted one special planet, ours.

dhw: And therefore, despite his omnipotence and omniscience, he had to create trillions of planets etc. not like ours.

DAVID: Yes, He did for His own reasons.

If you can’t think of any reasons, we’re back to your agreement that your arguments are based on irrational faith. So be it.

New fossils found

DAVID: [...] The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.

dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. [...] .

DAVID: A tiny portion of Darwin.

dhw: Please tell us the proportion of species proven to have been created “de novo” during the last 3.8 billion years.

DAVID: See Bechly today:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/05/fossil-friday-three-modern-scientific-challenges-to-t...

"the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans and bursts of biological novelty within very short windows of time, which have been called revolutions, explosions, and ‘Big Bangs’ by mainstream evolutionary biologists for good reason (also see Bechly 2021, 2023a, Bechly & Meyer 2017). This phenomenon is ubiquitous in all periods of Earth history, in all geographical regions, and in all groups of organisms, from protists and plants to invertebrate and vertebrate animals.
"These discontinuities in the history of life not only contradict the Darwinian core prediction of gradualism (i.e., an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time), but also raises another fatal problem for the feasibility of any unguided process as adequate explanation for the major transitions in the history of life (macroevolution)."

I have no difficulty accepting that drastic changes in conditions might well lead to major changes within short periods (how short is short? Overnight?). And I agree with Bechley that macroevolution is too complex to have come into existence by chance (unguided process). Does he mention the theory that macroevolution is guided by the autonomous intelligence of cells?

INTEROCEPTION

QUOTE: "Powerful signals travel from the heart to the brain, affecting our perceptions, decisions and mental health. And the heart is not alone in talking back. Other organs also send mysterious signals to the brain in ways that scientists are just beginning to tease apart.

dhw: Yet again, we have confirmation that our bodies consist of cell communities that communicate with one another.

DAVID: All by design.

I’m an agnostic. I’m open to the suggestion that cells are sentient, communicative, inventive beings whose autonomous intelligence was designed by your God.