More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, August 21, 2024, 23:38 (26 days ago) @ dhw

De novo” (The Cambrian)

dhw And your comment does not invalidate my statement that much of evolution was gradual, as
organs and organisms complexified. Eyes and brains are good example of increased complexification.

DAVID: Still spewing Darwinist propaganda in bold. NO EYES ARE SEEN IN ANY OF THE EXISTING EDICARAN FOSSILS TO DATE.

dhw: I never said there were. My point was that much of evolution is gradual, e.g. the eye and the brain, which changed over time from comparatively simple to extremely complex. The first recognizable eyes appear in the early Cambrian, but then they complexify gradually. The quote above suggests that primitive precursors did exist before the Cambrian, and still exist today.

The bold is still Darwinist wishes. After 160+ years no 'primitive precursors' re found.

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: No. The survivors represent previous ancestors. Yes, many lines simply stopped. Raup took all of this in to present overall statistics for the whole process of evolution: 99.9% extinctions produced 0.1% survivors. It is a conglomeration result of all lines still alive or dead.

dhw: Why do you go on contradicting yourself? Of course the present survivors sprang from previous ancestors, most of which are extinct. We accepted Raup’s 99.9% extinct and 0.1% survivors, but no one can be that precise. The vast majority of extinct species did NOT produce ancestors of the current 0.1%. Absurdly you claimed that 696 extinct species of dinosaurs were the ancestors of current species (birds). No they weren’t. Only 4 species of dinosaurs were the ancestors. That is 0.57%. There was no “conglomeration”. And you agreed that we are NOT descended from the 99.9% of extinct life forms, but from the 0.1% of survivors. Please stop contradicting yourself.

The past forms created the massive exiting populations of current forms. Each step had more forms. So the exiting survivors are a massive ecosystem to support humans. Why you pull out a dinosaur/bird example that relates to nothing is beyond me? The statement is simple: 99.9% extinct created the 0.1% living.

The universe

DAVID: Design demands a designer! Doesn't it?

dhw: Design of evolution can be explained by designers – billions of them (intelligent cells). If you ask who designed the designers, the atheist will ask you who designed your designer – as if it’s OK to assume a supreme designer came from nothing, whereas loads of mini-designers had to have a source. A “first cause” universal, conscious mind seems to me as unlikely as “first cause” chance producing evolvable mini-minds.

DAVID: Still on the fence.

dh: Yes. Why don’t you recognize the problem, bearing in mind your agreement that your theory requires faith?

Designs had a designer. You are stuck with that point.

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: this is actually laughable. How do all these critical chemicals naturally congregate in one special place? Intelligent design in the lab.

dhw: I am reminded of the conclusion to my brief guide:

Let me, however, conclude with our starting-point of agnosticism, and offer you two alternative forms of madness: 1) countless numbers of people, sums of money, buildings, institutions, wars, miseries, joys, works of art have been devoted to or have sprung from human worship of something that never existed; 2) the designer’s creations are just beginning to understand, after centuries of conscious endeavour, how life functions, but they are still unable to design an organism like themselves that can spring from inanimate matter into living existence, reproduce itself, adapt to changing environments, invent new mechanisms, and pass on its adaptations and innovations to the organisms it engenders. They believe, however, that if they ever can consciously and deliberately design such an organism, it will prove that they themselves were not designed. Take your pick.

DAVID: False reasoning. Since life exists, all humans can do is design within its rules. WE did not make the rules for life to exist, the designer did. WE can only use His rules.

dhw: You seem to automatically oppose me, even when I agree with you! My point is that intelligent design within the lab would only prove that life had to be designed by an intelligent designer! To think otherwise would be as mad as worshipping something that doesn't exist.

I was attacking the area now bolded. WE can never make life in the lab. WE can only play with living biology.

Trapped male fireflies.

DAVID:: this study does not clearly show how the spider manipulates its prey. The spider's actions appear to be a learned behavior. […]

dhw: Ingenious. I’m never sure what you mean by “learned behaviour”. Such strategies must have had a beginning, and even if they might start with a chance observation, the first users would recognize the potential and pass it on – possibly to others who refined it. The obvious conclusion is that they used their intelligence in the first place, and just like us humans, passed on their new knowledge, which eventually became routine within their species. Thank you for yet another natural wonder.

you are welcome.