https://phys.org/news/2024-09-discovery-bacteria-environment-infection.html

"...contrary to decades of established scientific belief, a new study has shown bacteria can in fact directly sense their chemical environment across the length of their cell bodies with an unprecedented degree of precision.

***

"Dr. William Durham, Senior Lecturer in Biological Physics at the University of Sheffield's Department of Physics and Astronomy, said, "In principle, cells can figure out whether they are moving towards or away from a nutrient source in two different ways.

"'First, they can wander randomly and measure if the concentration increases or decreases over time. Alternatively, cells can measure changes in concentration over the length of their bodies, allowing them to directly move towards the source. Our research demonstrates that bacteria can do the latter, which was previously thought beyond their capabilities due to their tiny size.

"'Bacteria then use this information to navigate across surfaces toward chemical sources using tiny grappling hooks called pili."

***

"...the researchers mapped out how individual cells responded to precise changes in nutrient concentrations. They uncovered that these cells can compare nutrient concentrations along the length of their cell bodies—a phenomenon termed "spatial sensing."

"Dr. Jamie Wheeler, a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Sheffield's Department of Physics and Astronomy, and lead author of the study, said, "This work overturns our understanding of how bacteria navigate and sense their environment. As such, it sheds new light on how bacteria could direct their motility during human infection and potentially how it could be manipulated by different clinical treatments.'"

Comment: this chemo-sensory ability is built into the bacterial DNA, which certainly makes them move intelligently.

DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.

dhw: And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?

DAVID: We have exhaustively discussed all the alternative reasons in the past. Why try to repeat them? I've simply chosen to accept God's choice of method to create what He desires to create.

dhw: If God exists, and since we both accept that evolution happened, we both accept that he used evolution to create what he wanted to create. Our disagreement is over how he used evolution and what he wanted to create.

We both see the same history of evolution. You are the one fighting with God's choice. It cannot be explained, just accepted.

DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.

dhw: Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousands of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens.I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.

DAVID: History tells me, if God is in change, and I believe He is, that what you have described is what He chose to do. I don't find a need to interpret known history, and just accept it as God's choice. I repeat, for some reason you want an interpretation, when any other thought would be an unsubstantiated guess.

dhw: If God exists, of course he is in charge. But it is NOT “known history” that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form etc., or that he set out with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is YOUR interpretation, but “known history” is confined to the existence of all the different life forms extant and extinct, and the fact that H. sapiens is the latest of these life forms. You admit that you have no idea why he would have chosen your “unsubstantiated guess” at his method in order to fulfil your “unsubstantiated guess” at his goal, both of which are your attempts to interpret known history, and then you complain that I want an interpretation! No, I am simply challenging the logic of your interpretation and offering alternatives which you yourself have agreed are logical.

Of course it is not 'known history' that He pre-programmed or dabbled. I am simply using the known history of evolution to say that it presents God's choice of creation method. How He controlled it is my attempt at guessing how He managed the genetics. You keep conflating my guesses as a history. I've never done that. If you accept the possibility that God ran the progressive complexity of advancing evolution, and humans are the current last event, than obviously they must be accepted as a goal. You are arguing that other goals might be coming. That is as much guesswork as my suppositions about He has run the show. I'm simply sticking with what has happened so far, and my supposition is that more advanced organisms will never appear.

dhw: And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?

DAVID: We have exhaustively discussed all the alternative reasons in the past. Why try to repeat them? I've simply chosen to accept God's choice of method to create what He desires to create.

If God exists, and since we both accept that evolution happened, we both accept that he used evolution to create what he wanted to create. Our disagreement is over how he used evolution and what he wanted to create.

DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.

dhw: Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousands of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens.I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.

DAVID: History tells me, if God is in change, and I believe He is, that what you have described is what He chose to do. I don't find a need to interpret known history, and just accept it as God's choice. I repeat, for some reason you want an interpretation, when any other thought would be an unsubstantiated guess.

If God exists, of course he is in charge. But it is NOT “known history” that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form etc., or that he set out with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens. That is YOUR interpretation, but “known history” is confined to the existence of all the different life forms extant and extinct, and the fact that H. sapiens is the latest of these life forms. You admit that you have no idea why he would have chosen your “unsubstantiated guess” at his method in order to fulfil your “unsubstantiated guess” at his goal, both of which are your attempts to interpret known history, and then you complain that I want an interpretation! No, I am simply challenging the logic of your interpretation and offering alternatives which you yourself have agreed are logical.

DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.

dhw: And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?

We have exhaustively discussed all the alternative reasons in the past. Why try to repeat them? I've simply chosen to accept God's choice of method to create what He desires to create.

dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.

DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.

dhw: Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.

DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.

dhw: Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousand of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he finally specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens. I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.

History tells me, if God is in change, and I believe He is, that what you have described is what He chose to do. I don't find a need to interpret known history, and just accept it as God's choice. I repeat, for some reason you want an interpretation, when any other thought would be an unsubstantiated guess.

DAVID: I will never believe that such steps as breast feeding under water developed without
mental planning.

I also believe that such changes in cellular structures must be the result of mental activity. The difference between us is that you claim breasts were changed in advance by your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for breast feeding, or by his performing operations on individual organisms, whereas I suggest the changes took place through cellular response to the organisms going under water.

DAVID: Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose.

dhw: Yet again: my human logic, in keeping with your own (“you have no idea why…”) refuses to accept your INTERPRETATION of your God’s method: i.e. that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to enable organisms to eat or not each one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: I simply say: it was God's choice of method.

And I say how do you know, and why do you assume that he chose a method you cannot understand whereas there are alternatives which you can understand?

dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.

DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.

dhw: Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.

DAVID: I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.

Again you take it as a fact that he chose to specially design thousand of non-human life forms to eat or not eat one another until he finally specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design: H. sapiens. I want to know what logical reason you can find for this interpretation of his choice – but you have no idea.

dhw: Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.

DAVID: Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:
"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.
Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.
We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth.

dhw: We can spend the rest of our lives detailing every single special feature of every single species! Yes, they all have different methods of breast feeding. So what is your explanation: that either your God, whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens, provided the first living cells with a programme for every form of breastfeeding that you can think of, or he popped in to adjust all the glands and nipples? I propose that the different cell communities designed their own modes of breastfeeding as best suited to the requirements of the environment.

I will never believe that such steps as beast feeding under water developed without mental planning.

DAVID: I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.

dhw: You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose.

dhw: Yet again: my human logic, in keeping with your own (“you have no idea why…”) refuses to accept your INTERPRETATION of your God’s method: i.e. that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to enable organisms to eat or not each one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.

I simply say : it was God's choice of method.

dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.

DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.

dhw: Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.

I don't have to know why He made he choice He did. Only you want it.

DAVID: Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:
"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.
Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.
We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth.

We can spend the rest of our lives detailing every single special feature of every single species! Yes, they all have different methods of breast feeding. So what is your explanation: that either your God, whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens, provided the first living cells with a programme for every form of breastfeeding that you can think of, or he popped in to adjust all the glands and nipples? I propose that the different cell communities designed their own modes of breastfeeding as best suited to the requirements of the environment.

DAVID: I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.

dhw: You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose.

Yet again: my human logic, in keeping with your own (“you have no idea why…”) refuses to accept your INTERPRETATION of your God’s method: i.e. that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to enable organisms to eat or not each one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.

dhw: I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.

DAVID: I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.

Fair enough. That is no defence of your insistence that only your decision can be valid, even though you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him.

DAVID: The whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point.

dhw:It makes no difference to the argument. Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.

Then explain how whale mother's figured out how to nurse their baby whales, or seals or any other aquatic mammal? This cannot be developed step-by-step:

"Species from three orders – Carnivora (including seals and sea lions), Cetacea (dolphins and whales) and Sirenia (manatees and dugongs) – live and feed at sea, but they’ve evolved different methods for breastfeeding.

Seals and sea lions have retractable nipples that tuck inside the body when the baby is not feeding, but animals that are fully restricted to the sea, such as whales and dolphins, have evolved ‘mammary slits’ – special folds of skin that enclose the feeding glands.

We’re still not completely sure how they do it, but it is thought that either the calves can curl their tongues to channel released milk, or that specialised muscles actually contract the mammary glands, squeezing milk into the baby’s mouth."

https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/marine-animals/how-do-whales-breastfeed-u...

DAVID: Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.

dhw: You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

Your human logic refuses to accept the method God had the absolute right to choose. You are totally confused about God. I don't have to know why. I've told you that over and over.

DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.

dhw: I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. […]

DAVID: I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.

dhw: You have no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to fulfil your interpretation of his purpose, but you don’t see that as a possible indication that your interpretations might be wrong. So be it. I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.

I would change your bolded statement to say : 'I can't make a decision', and I would add you have the absolute right not to.

DAVID: The whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point.

It makes no difference to the argument. Evolution proceeds through a process of modifications – some small and some big. I propose that all these modifications, big and small, are the result of intelligent cells RESPONDING to changes in the environment, whereas you think they are all preprogrammed or dabbled IN ANTICIPATION of environmental changes. I find that highly unconvincing.

DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who knew what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.

dhw: I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.

DAVID: Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.

You interpret new findings with God propaganda, and you have not answered my point that you have no idea why a God with a strong purpose who knew what he wanted and did it directly would use such an indirect means of specially designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.

dhw: I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. […]

DAVID: I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.

You have no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to fulfil your interpretation of his purpose, but you don’t see that as a possible indication that your interpretations might be wrong. So be it. I don’t make a decision; I offer alternatives, all of which – as you have repeatedly agreed and in contrast to your fixed interpretation – make for perfectly logical interpretations.

dhw: Your view is exactly the same as mine, except that you have used “modifications” instead of “changes”. There are small modifications (adaptations), and the species remains the same, and there are major modifications (innovations) which result in speciation. However, we are in no position to pinpoint the precise borderline between the two: you presumably think your God shrunk the pre-whale’s hind legs in one go when he turned legs into flippers in one go, in advance of sending the pre-whale into the water. I would propose that both sets of limbs underwent a series of modifications (the hind legs shrinking away because of non-use) as the pre-whale adapted to life in the water. In the case of the whale, I find this Darwinian theory far more convincing than yours – but I have always disputed his belief that Nature does not make jumps. See below.

The whale series of eight or nine forms show major changes (gaps) with each change. Nothing Darwinian about it, my constant point .

DAVID: Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!

dhw: This is no answer to the point I have raised. I find Gould’s theory very reasonable: while conditions remain stable, we may have evolutionary stasis; when conditions change, we may have evolutionary change – and this may be gradual (whale) or comparatively swift (Cambrian). What’s wrong with that?

Whale not gradual in the sense the gaps in form are sizable.

DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.

dhw: I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.

Of course I've incorporated experts into my thinking. I interpret new findings without any Darwin propaganda.

DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.

dhw: I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. I have no suppositions but only hypotheses, one of which is an all-powerful God who decides to occupy himself by creating an ever changing bush of life, giving this free rein except for when he feels like dabbling. The bush, at least for now, has culminated in H. sapiens, whose extraordinary intelligence also has free rein and has itself produced an astonishing variety of spectacles. It is perfectly feasible that such a God would himself experience all the feelings known to humans. This fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it, and if you would regard such a God as namby-pamby and wishy-washy (I wouldn’t), so be it. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong.

I don't try decide whether God has limits. You are the one to do that. And the bold above is your quandary, which you try to apply to me. But I don't see it that way. Simply, God made a choice of methods.

DAVID: In Alaska I've seen a whale skeleton with the vestigial limbs. I view innovation as major modifications, and see a major demarcation, which to support your view, you want to blur.

Your view is exactly the same as mine, except that you have used “modifications” instead of “changes”. There are small modifications (adaptations), and the species remains the same, and there are major modifications (innovations) which result in speciation. However, we are in no position to pinpoint the precise borderline between the two: you presumably think your God shrunk the pre-whale’s hind legs in one go when he turned legs into flippers in one go, in advance of sending the pre-whale into the water. I would propose that both sets of limbs underwent a series of modifications (the hind legs shrinking away because of non-use) as the pre-whale adapted to life in the water. In the case of the whale, I find this Darwinian theory far more convincing than yours – but I have always disputed his belief that Nature does not make jumps. See below.

DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.

dhw: Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.

DAVID: Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!

This is no answer to the point I have raised. I find Gould’s theory very reasonable: while conditions remain stable, we may have evolutionary stasis; when conditions change, we may have evolutionary change – and this may be gradual (whale) or comparatively swift (Cambrian). What’s wrong with that?

DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again. If your God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.

DAVID: I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly.

I thought you prided yourself on NOT following experts but forming your own judgement. If I believed in God, I would share your view that he had a strong purpose, knew what he wanted, and did it directly. The exact opposite of a God who wanted nothing but H. sapiens and proceeded to produce H. sapiens by specially designing 3.5+ billion years’ worth of non-sapiens.

DAVID: You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.

I have alternative views of your God. You can’t make up your own mind whether he is limited or unlimited in his powers, and you have no idea why he would use an indirect method to achieve the one and only purpose you give him. I have no suppositions but only hypotheses, one of which is an all-powerful God who decides to occupy himself by creating an ever changing bush of life, giving this free rein except for when he feels like dabbling. The bush, at least for now, has culminated in H. sapiens, whose extraordinary intelligence also has free rein and has itself produced an astonishing variety of spectacles. It is perfectly feasible that such a God would himself experience all the feelings known to humans. This fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it, and if you would regard such a God as namby-pamby and wishy-washy (I wouldn’t), so be it. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong.

dhw: UCSB Science Line
scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536

QUOTE: "For whales and dolphins, their front legs turned into flippers. Their back legs became really tiny, so tiny that you can't even see them when you look at these animals, but they have hind legs still inside their bodies -- if you see a skeleton of a whale you can see it has tiny leg bones near its tail."

It doesn’t matter two hoots whether you call this adaptation or innovation (which is why I say we cannot draw a borderline between the two) – it is the process by which evolutionary changes occur in response to different environments, and such major changes lead to speciation.

In Alaska I've seen a whale skeleton with the vestigial limbs. I view innovation as major modifications, and see a major demarcation, which to support your view, you want to blur.

DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.

dhw: Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.

Gould was so worried about the gaps he invented punc inc theory, but you are not worried!

DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.

dhw: Dealt with over and over again. If God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.

I follow experts just as you do. Karen Armstrong viewed the Koran as having the most mature view of God by concentrating on His works which to me means a God of very strong purpose, who k new what He wanted to accomplish and did it directly. You view of God is mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, who struggles to decide what to do, clearly based on your suppositions about Him, which always make Him humanized.

DAVID: I'll stick with my view of God as purposeful, and not wonder about His choice of method.
And later: There are no answers as to why God chose his method of creation. He had the right to chose, as you admit, so why question it? And the methods He chose to control evolution are the only ones that are reasonable to me.

dhw: Nothing to do with purposefulness. You cannot make sense of your hypothesis, which suggests that either your concept of God’s one and only purpose (to design H. sapiens) or of his method of achieving his purpose (designing billions of other life forms to eat or not one another until he designed H. sapiens), or both, may be flawed. Why you should consider an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled bacterial behaviour, innovations, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders more “reasonable” than a (possibly God-given) mechanism for autonomous invention remains a mystery to me.

The whole problem is your view of God as stated above. You agree God, in charge, had the right to choose and then give Him a weak personality, so His choices became less firm decisions.

DAVID: The flipper is an innovation since its function is different than weight bearing. The bony pattern is used in both, but the muscle functions and the controls by the brain will be different. Walking and paddling are totally different motions.

Of course the function and motions are different! Different functions and motions were required when the land-dweller took to the water. Hence the changes!

UCSB Science Line
scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536

QUOTE: "For whales and dolphins, their front legs turned into flippers. Their back legs became really tiny, so tiny that you can't even see them when you look at these animals, but they have hind legs still inside their bodies -- if you see a skeleton of a whale you can see it has tiny leg bones near its tail."

It doesn’t matter two hoots whether you call this adaptation or innovation (which is why I say we cannot draw a borderline between the two) – it is the process by which evolutionary changes occur in response to different environments, and such major changes lead to speciation.

DAVID: The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.

Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. In order to satisfy you, we would need a complete set of thousands of fossils recording every millimetre of front leg into flipper and big back leg into mini back leg. I’m afraid I still find RESPONSE to environmental requirements more likely than your God performing a one-off leg-into-flipper-and-shrink-the-back-leg operation on umpteen pre-whales in advance of sending them into the water to eat and be eaten until he performed all the operations necessary to produce H. sapiens.

DAVID: The known fact is that what we see in existing species are minor adaptations to the changing conditions as you describe. The gap of speciation requires planning for the future existence of the new species, which it can be assumed will involve new capabilities of action.

I keep agreeing that there is no proof that cellular intelligence can innovate, and that is why it is a hypothesis. The same applies to your hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled innovation. And there really is no point in your repeating that speciation requires planning for the future, and making me repeat that I see evolution/speciation as a process of response and not planning. Neither of us has the authority or the evidence to state their opinion as if it were a fact.

dhw: Your suggestion is that your God provided the very first cells with an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled bacterial variation, evolutionary innovation, econiche, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, but you do not regard that as fanciful. My theistic alternative is that your God may have provided the first cells with the mechanisms to do their own designing in response to changing conditions. Why is that more fanciful than your proposal?

DAVID: The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful.

Dealt with over and over again. If God’s purpose was to create a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling), then that is purposeful.

dhw: We both accept that evolution happened, but your concept of evolution is that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled (both of which are a form of direct creation). This in itself is not illogical. It only leaves you floundering when you insist that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled so that God could fulfil his one and only purpose of specially preprogramming/dabbling H. sapiens, leading to your exasperated cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.

DAVID: I'll stick with my view of God as purposeful, and not wonder about His choice of method.
And later: There are no answers as to why God chose his method of creation. He had the right to chose, as you admit, so why question it? And the methods He chose to control evolution are the only ones that are reasonable to me.

Nothing to do with purposefulness. You cannot make sense of your hypothesis, which suggests that either your concept of God’s one and only purpose (to design H. sapiens) or of his method of achieving his purpose (designing billions of other life forms to eat or not one another until he designed H. sapiens), or both, may be flawed. Why you should consider an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled bacterial behaviour, innovations, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders more “reasonable” than a (possibly God-given) mechanism for autonomous invention remains a mystery to me.

DAVID: Well, surprise! Cells inventing new species is exactly what you have been touting.

dhw: What is the surprise? The whole point of the hypothesis is that they invent new species (i.e. change their own structure) IN RESPONSE TO to changing conditions and not in advance of them.
Perhaps you would tell us whether you regard a flipper as an innovation or as an adaptation of the pre-existing leg to enable it to function better in water.

The flipper is an innovation since its function is different than weight bearing. The bony pattern is used in both, but the muscle functions and the controls by the brain will be different. Walking and paddling are totally different motions. The difference requires planning as no tiny steps are seen in the gap between leg and flipper. Gaps absolutely require planning in my view and the fossil record is filled with gaps.

dhw: Yet again: my suggestion is evolution as the history of intelligent cells REACTING to changing conditions, not anticipating them. Many scientists now believe that the purposeful results achieved by cells denote autonomous (as opposed to your God-guided) intelligence, but whether this is inventive enough to power speciation remains a hypothesis.

The known fact is that what we see in existing species are minor adaptations to the changing conditions as you describe. The gap of speciation requires planning for the future existence of the new species, which it can be assumed will involve new capabilities of action.

DAVID: I find that idea as totally fanciful. I see the mind of God as necessary.

dhw: Your suggestion is that your God provided the very first cells with an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled bacterial variation, evolutionary innovation, econiche, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, but you do not regard that as fanciful. My theistic alternative is that your God may have provided the first cells with the mechanisms to do their own designing in response to changing conditions. Why is that more fanciful than your proposal.

The difference is I view God as very purposeful, and your fancy allows the organisms to evolve as they wish, under a God you envision as less purposeful..

dhw: We both accept that evolution happened, but your concept of evolution is that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled (both of which are a form of direct creation). This in itself is not illogical. It only leaves you floundering when you insist that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled so that God could fulfil his one and only purpose of specially preprogramming/dabbling H. sapiens, leading to your exasperated cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.

I'll stick with my view of God as purposeful, and not wonder about His choice of method.

DAVID (under “anthropithicus”): Evolution requires steps to reach a goal. No matter how hard you try to make the steps as small, the design requirements and the gaps in forms is very large. Each step in whale evolution is the result of highly complex phenotypical and physiological design steps. In my view as God chose evolution to reach His goal of large-brained humans He knew He had to provide a larger bush of eco-niches to feel everyone on the way over lots of time. I don't know why you cannot see that as totally logical?

dhw: You cannot even see the logic yourself. Of course evolution is the history of steps, and of course the steps may be highly complex and sometimes large, and the gap between bacteria, whales, elephants, the duckbilled platypus and humans is also large. However, none of that explains why your God would choose to specially design all these life forms to eat or not eat one another if H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to specially design, and if – as you maintain – he could and actually did specially design all the features (brain, pelvis, bipedalism) peculiar to H. sapiens. Hence the fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen your version of his method in order to achieve your version of his purpose.

It is your problem. There are no answers as to why God chose his method of creation. He had the right to chose, as you admit, so why question it? And the methods He chose to control evolution are the only ones that are reasonable to me.

DAVID: I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.

dhw; No it doesn’t. It means the capacity to make the necessary changes to cope with or exploit existing (not future) environmental conditions. I do not imagine pre-whale cells saying to themselves: some time in the future, we shall have to leave dry land, so let us change our legs into flippers before it happens.

DAVID: Well, surprise! Cells inventing new species is exactly what you have been touting.

What is the surprise? The whole point of the hypothesis is that they invent new species (i.e. change their own structure) IN RESPONSE TO to changing conditions and not in advance of them.

DAVID: I do not accept that minor adaptations within an existing species would ever lead to eventual speciation.

dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.

Perhaps you would tell us whether you regard a flipper as an innovation or as an adaptation of the pre-existing leg to enable it to function better in water.

DAVID: (under "Early embryology"): What we are debating is the necessity of a planning mind to arrange for the complex designs we see as evolution advances for simple to very complex. You have extrapolated simple cellular responses, which have the appearance of intellectual guidance because they are purposeful in their results, to the suggestion they can actually plan for the future complexities.

Yet again: my suggestion is evolution as the history of intelligent cells REACTING to changing conditions, not anticipating them. Many scientists now believe that the purposeful results achieved by cells denote autonomous (as opposed to your God-guided) intelligence, but whether this is inventive enough to power speciation remains a hypothesis.

DAVID: I find that idea as totally fanciful. I see the mind of God as necessary.

Your suggestion is that your God provided the very first cells with an undiscovered 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled bacterial variation, evolutionary innovation, econiche, life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, but you do not regard that as fanciful. My theistic alternative is that your God may have provided the first cells with the mechanisms to do their own designing in response to changing conditions. Why is that more fanciful than your proposal?

DAVID: You constantly come back to my simple acceptance of God's choice of method as somehow lacking substance. We see the evolutionary history as evidence of how it was done. What more do you need? I can only think of direct creation or evolution as possibilities. Do you know of a third way?

We both accept that evolution happened, but your concept of evolution is that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled (both of which are a form of direct creation). This in itself is not illogical. It only leaves you floundering when you insist that it was all preprogrammed or dabbled so that God could fulfil his one and only purpose of specially preprogramming/dabbling H. sapiens, leading to your exasperated cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.

DAVID (under “anthropithicus”): Evolution requires steps to reach a goal. No matter how hard you try to make the steps as small, the design requirements and the gaps in forms is very large. Each step in whale evolution is the result of highly complex phenotypical and physiological design steps. In my view as God chose evolution to reach His goal of large-brained humans He knew He had to provide a larger bush of eco-niches to feel everyone on the way over lots of time. I don't know why you cannot see that as totally logical?

You cannot even see the logic yourself. Of course evolution is the history of steps, and of course the steps may be highly complex and sometimes large, and the gap between bacteria, whales, elephants, the duckbilled platypus and humans is also large. However, none of that explains why your God would choose to specially design all these life forms to eat or not eat one another if H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to specially design, and if – as you maintain – he could and actually did specially design all the features (brain, pelvis, bipedalism) peculiar to H. sapiens. Hence the fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen your version of his method in order to achieve your version of his purpose.

DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.

dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.

DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?

dhw: No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans).

DAVID: Exactly my point. From tree dwelling to ground dwelling is speciation. Adaptation is the minor alteration of existing species.

dhw: But we do not know to what extent adaptation may lead to sufficient innovation to produce new species (broad sense). The evolution of the whale is a case in point. Do you regard the flipper as an innovation or an adaptation of the leg? Each change is an adaptation to life in the water, but the accumulation of changes results in a creature that is radically different from its ancestors, as is the big-brained bipedal H. sapiens from its ape ancestors. That is the history of evolution if you believe in common descent! One vast history of adaptations and innovations, with no clear borderline between the two processes.

I do not accept that minor adaptations within an existing species would ever lead to eventual speciation . That is pure Darwin little step by little step. The known gaps between species evolution from the fossil record refutes it. Punc Inc theory is a result of trying to explain the gaps.

dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.

DAVID: I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.

dhw; No it doesn’t. It means the capacity to make the necessary changes to cope with or exploit existing (not future) environmental conditions. I do not imagine pre-whale cells saying to themselves: some time in the future, we shall have to leave dry land, so let us change our legs into flippers before it happens.

Well, surprise! Cells inventing new species is exactly what you have been touting.

dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.

DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?

dhw: No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans).

DAVID: Exactly my point. From tree dwelling to ground dwelling is speciation. Adaptation is the minor alteration of existing species.

But we do not know to what extent adaptation may lead to sufficient innovation to produce new species (broad sense). The evolution of the whale is a case in point. Do you regard the flipper as an innovation or an adaptation of the leg? Each change is an adaptation to life in the water, but the accumulation of changes results in a creature that is radically different from its ancestors, as is the big-brained bipedal H. sapiens from its ape ancestors. That is the history of evolution if you believe in common descent! One vast history of adaptations and innovations, with no clear borderline between the two processes.

dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.

DAVID: I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.

No it doesn’t. It means the capacity to make the necessary changes to cope with or exploit existing (not future) environmental conditions. I do not imagine pre-whale cells saying to themselves: some time in the future, we shall have to leave dry land, so let us change our legs into flippers before it happens.

DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.

dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.

DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?

dhw: No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans).

Exactly my point. From tree dwelling to ground dwelling is speciation. Adaptation is the minor alteration of existing species.

dhw: My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.

I fully understand your theory, which means cells have the capacity to plan for the future.

dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.

DAVID: Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?

No refutation. Speciation results from major changes, but in the section of my post that you have omitted I explained that it is sometimes difficult to separate adaptation from innovation (as in the transformation of tree-dwelling apes to bipedal humans). My proposal is that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) is responsible both for adaptation and innovation. Straightforward cases of the former will obviously not result in speciation, whereas the latter will, but I would not like to draw a strict borderline between the two processes.

DAVID: But what you stated is pure Darwin, adaptation after adaptation leading to speciation, whether by intelligent action or not. Darwin never discussed intelligence as a driving force. That is your imagined process.

dhw: I have not stated that adaptation after adaptation leads to speciation, and Darwin himself proposed random mutations, not cellular intelligence, as key to innovation. I have suggested that the same mechanism (cellular intelligence) responsible for adaptation – a process we know takes place – may also be responsible for innovation.

Confused answer. The second sentence refutes the first. Does adaptation following adaptation lead to innovation (speciation ) or not?

DAVID: The difference is I do my own interpretation of studies I read, and accept author's conclusions judgmentally.

dhw: There is no scientific evidence for your hypothesis above, and I do my own interpretation and pass my own judgement on your conclusion that, although you have no idea why he would have chosen it, this was his method of fulfilling his one and only goal of specially designing H. sapiens.

Fair enough. Do you arrive at a theory and look for support on the internet, or read and absorb and then make a decision as I do??