Human evolution: Denisovan contribution (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, November 10, 2024, 19:00 (11 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "In the review article, Dr. Ongaro and Prof. Emilia Huerta-Sanchez outline evidence suggesting that several Denisovan populations, who likely had an extensive geographical range from Siberia to Southeast Asia and from Oceania to South America, were adapted to distinct environments."

DAVID: we are an amalgam of several varieties of HOMO forms which contributed differences based upon their climate of origin. God might have thought this might be the perfect way to create the best final design. To ask why God did not directly do it brings us back to the question of why He used evolution instead of direct creation.

dhw: All these varieties confirm the theory that evolution develops as a result of cells adapting to or exploiting different environments. You can’t answer your own question if you insist that H. sapiens was your omnipotent, omniscient God’s one and only purpose. It simply doesn’t make sense. But if God exists, the whole of evolution makes perfect sense if he planned a free-for-all through cellular autonomy (with the option of dabbling if he wanted to), or if he was deliberately experimenting with different forms in order to make new discoveries, or in order to find a particular formula (e.g. for a being “in his own image”, which is your view of his purpose). And of course evolution also makes perfect sense if you believe that the first cells miraculously assembled themselves by chance and proceeded to create the free-for-all of species that come and then go or are lucky enough (Raup) to stay because of their ability to survive the changing conditions.

I view God as a mind at work. He knows all and can do anything He wishes. He evolved humans for His own reasons, at which we must guess. All of them have been exposed in the past here and I believe they represent human wishes about/for God. A natural free-for-all would not necessarily produce the human brain. As a most unusual result, it is a perfect object to use as a proof of God, as Adler did. dhw, as usual, finds reasons to avoid God in a direct way.