More miscellany (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, July 06, 2024, 09:17 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: The basic answer is proportionality. […] That is how theologians handle it. The Dayenu approach.
And:
DAVID: I went to several 'standard' theological websites on theodicy. They are all the same. I have no need to do the whole theological universe.

I can only repeat the questions you have ignored:
Who decides what is “standard”, since nobody knows the truth? Didn’t you know about the alternatives? (God gave us free will, God wants to punish us for our sins.) And ask your Mr Hyde why he rejected the so-called “standard” response and told you your God invented evil in order to “challenge” us, and to make life more interesting for us than a Garden of Eden. Please stop pretending that the answer is to pretend there is no problem.

Offshoot from Giraffes

DAVID: Evolution works by culling 99.9%. The resulting 0.1% are a superb result of the process. Why are you complaining? God handled His purpose beautifully.

dhw: According to you, it is not evolution that culls 99.9% but your God, who deliberately designed them, knowing that they were irrelevant and he would have to cull them. You say he handled his purpose imperfectly, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently, all of which means "beautifully".[…]

DAVID: I repeat: Adler used Darwinian theory to show God's sole purpose were humans. It is simply the logical reverse of Adler's proof of God in his book.

I’m not arguing with Adler but with you. YOU say God invented a method of evolution which was imperfect, inefficient etc. for the purpose you impose on him (Hyde’s reasoning) but was beautifully handled (Jekyll’s wish for a perfectly efficient God). Do you want me to repeat all your other contradictions?

Plants control water in the desert
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/07/240703131733.htm
Crassula muscosa, native to Namibia and South Africa, can transport liquid in selected directions.

DAVID: the plant does not have a brain with which to produce this mechanism. I can't imagine the plant developing this by chance in the desert[…] Design is the answer.

dhw; Two comments from me: firstly […] You only have to google the question “Are plants intelligent?” and you’ll be surprised at the number of experts who answer yes.
Secondly, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why the heck would he specially design the crassula muscosa and the millions of other plants with their own special methods of survival?
Put your comment together with my own, and you have an extremely feasible theory: yes, design by intelligent plants is the answer. And maybe plant intelligence was designed by your God.

DAVID: And maybe God designed the DNA directions to help this desert plant in its ecosystem helping the insects there with water supply.

Did your God tell himself he must design the crassula muscosa or we humans will perish? At best, I’d have thought if he did design the irrelevant 99.9% and the crassula muscosa, you might revert to your earlier certainty that he enjoys creating – but your Mr Hyde rules out the possibility of your God enjoying anything, because although your God probably/possibly has human-like thought patterns and emotions, he certainly doesn’t have human-like thought patterns and emotions.

Introducing the brain

DAVID: Bit by bit the deep complexity of our brain is yielding its secrets, in the most complex living organ in the universe. It originated in the Cambrian Explosion without precursors and evolved to our form. By far it is the strongest argument for a designer.

I’ve always accepted that the Cambrian “gap” is real, but I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the authoritative statement that there were no precursors. A common explanation (also Darwin’s) is that the fossil record is and was always bound to be incomplete. Purely out of curiosity, I’ve done some googling, and came across the following article. I’ve tried to copy the link, but I don’t think it works – which is certainly due to my usual technical incompetence, but if you google the first question, I’m sure you’ll find the article.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nim.nih.gov
When does a ganglion become a brain? Evolutionary origin of the central nervous system

QUOTE: The evolution of the vertebrate central nervous system may have begun with free-living flatworms (planaria) that evolved before the divergence of metazoans into invertebrate and chordate branches. The planarian is the simplest animal to develop a body plan of bilateral symmetry and axes of growth with gradients of genetic expression, enabling cephalization, dorsal and ventral surfaces, medial and lateral regions, and an aggregate of neural cells in the head that form a bilobed brain. Neurons of the planarian brain more closely resemble those of vertebrates than those of advanced invertebrates, exhibiting typical vertebrate features of multipolar shape, dendritic spines with synaptic boutons, a single axon, expression of vertebrate-like neural proteins, and relatively slow spontaneously generated electrical activity. The planarian is thus not only the first animal to possess a brain, but may be the ancestor of the vertebrate brain. (dhw's bolds)

It’s only a theory, but planarians apparently go back 839 million years, i.e. 300 million years before the Cambrian.