More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 22, 2024, 18:01 (91 days ago) @ dhw

"De novo” (The Cambrian)

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

dhw: The primitive precursors still exist today, but in any case you continue to misread my point. Do you or do you not agree that eyes and brains gradually became increasingly complex?

Not in the Cambrian gap. Yes, later brains became much more complex, and eyes also improved from that point on.

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: The past forms created the massive exiting populations of current forms.

Only very few past forms “created” or “produced” existing forms. The dinosaurs illustrate the process.

DAVID: Each step had more forms. So the exiting survivors are a massive ecosystem to support humans

dhw: We needn’t go into the purpose of all existing survivors. The fact that species produced more species does not mean that every species led to us and our food! Far, far, far from it, as vividly illustrated by the dinosaur example.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: What do you mean “relates to nothing”. It vividly illustrates the point that the vast majority of extinct species did NOT “create” the 0.1% living. Only 0.57% of dinosaurs did! And you agree, as repeated ad nauseam by me, and ignored ad nauseam by you:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From 0.1% surviving.

dhw: See the “evolution” thread for more examples of your schizophrenic self-contradictions.

You ignore that a small population of forms evolved into many multiples of the initial forms. Thus 99.9% extinct became/created the 0.1% surviving.

The universe

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

Answered already:

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.

We are going round in circles.

Yes, you are.

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: [...]

There’s no need to repeat it, since you have simply missed the point, as follows:

dhw: 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.

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

dhw: I was pointing out that IF scientists designed life, it would be mad to claim this proved that life did not have to be designed. It was a point in favour of theism, balancing the earlier point against theism! I was not discussing whether we could or couldn’t design life!!!

I guess I am too literal. Your theoretical point is right on.