More Miscellany: Bechly reappears (General)

by dhw, Monday, May 20, 2024, 09:31 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: It well could be programmed.

dhw: Are you referring to the 3.8-billion-years-old instructions your God planted in the first cells for every species and every strategy, including death-feigning, for the rest of history, or to the ad hoc operations and courses he conducts whenever there's a new problem? Is this what all your theologians have taught you?

DAVID: Nothing from theology here. Preprogramming or dabbling.

And I strongly suspect there is nothing from theology even remotely like the contradictions I have listed on the evolution thread. And yet you say you follow theology’s strict attributes and guidelines.

Early human hunting weapons

DAVID: Meaningful grunts and hand gestures might well work.

dhw: What sounds like a meaningful grunt to you could be a language sophisticated enough to satisfy all the requirements of the grunters.

DAVID: A language of meaningful grunts is possible.

Thank you. The same applies to all animal sounds and all chemical modes of communication.

Sapiens brain

DAVID: Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.

dhw: So sapiens brain was not created “de novo” but evolved as per Darwin from earlier brains. Thank you.

DAVID: Like all the gaps in Darwinian evolution, the complexity gap is real.

But the complexity gap is the work of the brain cells and connections. Even you are surely not proposing that your God has twiddled every complexification.

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. [...] .

dhw [re Bechly]: 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 Bechly 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?

DAVID: No. Your favorite theory unsupported.

dhw: There is growing support, as you have kindly shown with various articles, but yes, it’s only a theory. So is the existence of God, so is common descent, so is creation “de novo”, and so is your version of God’s messy, inefficient use of evolution to fulfil the theoretical purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Not much support for cell-committee-driven speciation.

You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?