More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 22:11 (3198 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: What does &#147;allowed for&#148; mean? -This is where my computer programming background comes in. In programming, I can say:-A < X > B (The variable X will always be between the values A and B) -I can also say:-IF (X > C){ //Do something one way}&#13;&#10;Else {//Do something another way}-In this way, a program &quot;allows for&quot; a lot of variation. To give a more practical example:-If (internalBodyTemperature <= X)&#13;&#10;{&#13;&#10; //Trigger hair growth;&#13;&#10;}&#13;&#10;Else IF (internalBodyTemperature >= Y)&#13;&#10;{&#13;&#10; //Trigger hair loss;&#13;&#10;}&#13;&#10;Else (hair = defaultHairLength)-&#13;&#10;This one little snippet would allow for the length of an animals fur to vary with their ability to regulate their internal body temperature, independent of environment. If their temperature is constantly staying below normal, hair growth is started, if it stays above normal, hair loss is started, or if it is normal, their hair stays normal.--&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> TONY: It is only when you get into major differences that you have to start looking at planning. ..&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;>DHW: If some kind of mechanism produced the evolution of cat No. 1 to tabby and to lion, why could it not have produced the change from herbivore to carnivore (perhaps triggered by a change in the environment)?-Because the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. An animal would need different blueprints for teeth, different build traits for hunting, digestion, etc. The entire primate family are omnivores, eating both plant and meat. The difference is the percentages of plant vs. animal matter that they consume. Already having the morphological ability to eat either/or, varying the amount requires no major changes.-&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;>DHW: I&apos;m surprised that you consider all the hominids to be modern humans. You clearly know a great deal more about them than the palaeontologists who have spent a lifetime studying them.&#13;&#10;> -You don&apos;t wear sarcasm well. I consider all hominids to be human BASED ON the findings of those palaeontologists, such as the article that I linked to you previously. -&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;> TONY: Jeremiah 10:10 &quot;..He is the living God.. &quot;->DHW:..Judging by the quote, you are saying God is the first life.., but wouldn&apos;t God have had to use non-living materials to create earthly bodies? Wasn&apos;t he supposed to have created the first man out of dust and breathed life into him?-&#13;&#10;Yes, God is living, and therefore life he created still comes from life(i.e. him). How he does it, I don&apos;t know, though I am definitely curious about it.-&#13;&#10;>DHW: You both seize on the fact that no precursors/intermediates have been found. ..You both seem to find your hypotheses believable, which is fine. They do explain why there are no precursors/intermediaries. But so does the hypothesis that organisms are possessed of intelligence, which produced the SAME changes by exploiting new environmental conditions. New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. ..-True. New inventions require new information, and intelligence. Given that humans cannot even design a single cell, you are implying that a single cell, or cell community, is vastly superior in terms of knowledge and ability than humans. While I conceded this may be possible, I consider it highly unlikely.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.