AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by David Turell
Post reply
Reply to the message by
David Turell
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> > dhw: You have repeated my own point about adaptations and innovations, and your ‘onboard drive to complexity' is no different from the ‘inventive mechanism' we have agreed must be present. -I agree. But I see a degree of difference. In 'drive to complexity' I see a specific intent to make organisms more progressively complex arriving at humans and their brain. An arrow of purpose. To me the IM doesn't seem to imply that purpose. The invention need not be more complex, but just a useful adaptation for an immediate purpose.-> dhw:I have never understood what you mean by “partial” or “semi” other than as a reference to the restrictions imposed by the environment and the organism's own nature, which do not explain inventiveness.-In my guesses as to how it works, I can't give you any exactitude about God's limits to inventiveness. I am not even thinking about environment or the organism's nature, but construction of new useful parts. Obviously two heads are not allowed. This is where pattern planning fits into my thinking, Pentadactyl appendages as examples. Use Ediacaran to Cambrian as a guideline. A mighty jump sets the basis for what we see today. This implies planning and guidance. Epigenetics is more the IM I think of, small necessary adaptations, not necessarily leading to new species. -> dhw: I have proposed an alternative to preprogramming and dabbling which would cover your “partial” - namely that your God has given organisms free rein, but intervenes if he doesn't like what is going on, or wants to guide evolution in a different direction. This would cover the anomaly of all the species, lifestyles and natural wonders that do not seem to fit in with your anthropocentrism. -I don't think the bush of life is from free rein, but a required balance of nature, no matter how weird some the outcomes happen to be. We've discussed this before. You are the guy who wants a reason for everything, and I've given you one.
OK - Submit
Preview