dhw: The controversy is not about “snowball” versus “warming”! You and Watts have both acknowledged that the planet is getting hotter! The controversy is over the degree of danger that this presents.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: This is a common practice of yours – to avoid the subject under discussion, or to dodge particular questions. You do the same in the next exchange.

I agreed and you complain!

DAVID: Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda.

dhw: How can it be “pure propaganda” if you accept that climate change is real? Do you honestly believe that we should continue -perhaps even increasingly - to burn fossil fuels, cut down the forests, stick to current forms of transport and methods of agriculture which poison the air and the soil through the accumulation of greenhouse gases? Please answer.

DAVID: See above. 'Degree of danger' is the issue. Those of us with me think the degree is small.

dhw: But do you believe we should go on indefinitely, or even increasingly, cutting down the forests, burning fossil fuels, and using methods of transport and agriculture which are known to poison the air and the soil?

Poisoning air and soil is more alarmist propaganda.

dhw: The fact that the changes will be difficult does not prove that it is OK to continue present practices. Please answer my question above.

I think I did.

Symbiosis

dhw: After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know.

DAVID: I know the difference as I see it. Agnosticism grudgingly suggests a God might exist.

dhw: You have just agreed that “no one knows!” Agnostics accept that no one knows, and we can see the logic and the non-logic behind the choices made by theists and atheists. In our discussions, I offer various alternative theories, which include God as the designer – the intelligent cell being one of them. There is no “grudgingly”. But you stick to your own illogical theories (e.g. anthropocentric evolution, all-good creator of evil (theodicy), selfless but might want to be worshipped), and you pretend that my alternatives, such as an experimenting God or a God who enjoys creating, or learns as he goes along, are atheistic!

You always create a humanized God, never a real God-like figure.

Octopus nervous system

DAVID: Note the agnostic speaks like an atheist. The version of agnosticism I get from you is 90% atheism.

“Maybe [the conscious cell] was designed by your God.” How does that constitute 90% atheism? I repeat your own words:
DAVID: No one knows. Some us choose.

Picking one simple agnostic example does not repute the 90% overall estimate.

dhw: Theists choose God, atheists choose no God, and agnostics do not choose. Got it?

OK.

God and evolution: weaverbirds

dhw: Do you believe that your God only gave courses in cavity nest-building, but all other nests were designed by the birds themselves?

DAVID: The ecosystem may require a cavity for more protection.

dhw: Once again, you simply ignore the question. You insist that your God designed the weaverbird’s nest. Do you believe that other birds had the intelligence to design their own nests?

Yes, simple dish style.

DAVID: Agreed.

This is a common practice of yours – to avoid the subject under discussion, or to dodge particular questions. You do the same in the next exchange.

DAVID: Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda.

dhw: How can it be “pure propaganda” if you accept that climate change is real? Do you honestly believe that we should continue -perhaps even increasingly - to burn fossil fuels, cut down the forests, stick to current forms of transport and methods of agriculture which poison the air and the soil through the accumulation of greenhouse gases? Please answer.

DAVID: See above. 'Degree of danger' is the issue. Those of us with me think the degree is small.

But do you believe we should go on indefinitely, or even increasingly, cutting down the forests, burning fossil fuels, and using methods of transport and agriculture which are known to poison the air and the soil?

DAVID: Slow and steady can happen, but lining up nations is not an easy job.

dhw: I’ve explained above precisely why this is not an easy job, but it’s a job which requires action now, to be continued as quickly and smoothly as possible. The fact that it’s difficult does not mean that the danger posed by climate change can be dismissed as panic or propaganda!

DAVID: Back to your panic mode of propaganda.

The fact that the changes will be difficult does not prove that it is OK to continue present practices. Please answer my question above.

Symbiosis

dhw: […] it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. [...] But the origin of "the conscious cell" remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God.[…]

DAVID: You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

dhw: After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know.

DAVID: I know the difference as I see it. Agnosticism grudgingly suggests a God might exist.

You have just agreed that “no one knows!” Agnostics accept that no one knows, and we can see the logic and the non-logic behind the choices made by theists and atheists. In our discussions, I offer various alternative theories, which include God as the designer – the intelligent cell being one of them. There is no “grudgingly”. But you stick to your own illogical theories (e.g. anthropocentric evolution, all-good creator of evil (theodicy), selfless but might want to be worshipped), and you pretend that my alternatives, such as an experimenting God or a God who enjoys creating, or learns as he goes along, are atheistic!

Octopus nervous system

DAVID: Design takes a working mind.

dhw: Agreed. Hence Margulis’s theory of the conscious cell. If nothing else, this would remove the astonishing anomaly of an all-powerful, all-knowing, messy, inefficient God.

DAVID: Note the agnostic speaks like an atheist. The version of agnosticism I get from you is 90% athism.

“Maybe [the conscious cell] was designed by your God.” How does that constitute 90% atheism? I repeat your own words:
DAVID: No one knows. Some us choose.

Theists choose God, atheists choose no God, and agnostics do not choose. Got it?

God and evolution: weaverbirds

dhw: Do you believe that your God only gave courses in cavity nest-building, but all other nests were designed by the birds themselves?

DAVID: The ecosystem may require a cavity for more protection.

Once again, you simply ignore the question. You insist that your God designed the weaverbird’s nest. Do you believe that other birds had the intelligence to design their own nests?

dhw: The controversy is not about “snowball” versus “warming”! You and Watts have both acknowledged that the planet is getting hotter! The controversy is over the degree of danger that this presents.

Agreed.

DAVID: Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda.

dhw: How can it be “pure propaganda” if you accept that climate change is real? Do you honestly believe that we should continue -perhaps even increasingly - to burn fossil fuels, cut down the forests, stick to current forms of transport and methods of agriculture which poison the air and the soil through the accumulation of greenhouse gases? Please answer.

See above. 'Degree of danger' is the issue. Those of us with me think the degree is small.

DAVID: Slow and steady can happen, but lining up nations is not an easy job.

dhw: I’ve explained above precisely why this is not an easy job, but it’s a job which requires action now, to be continued as quickly and smoothly as possible. The fact that it’s difficult does not mean that the danger posed by climate change can be dismissed as panic or propaganda!

Back to your panic mode of propaganda.

Symbiosis

dhw: […] it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. [...] But the origin of "the conscious cell" remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God.

DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

dhw: In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

DAVID: Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

dhw: After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know. The options remain open. Your alternatives to a God-sourced intelligence are a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or endless ad hoc interventions […]

No response. May I take it that you have finally understood the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

I know the difference as I see it. Agnosticism grudgingly suggests a God might exist.

God and evolution: weaverbirds

DAVID: The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.

dhw: […] I have no idea why you think these birds are intelligent enough to design their own means of protection but have to have lessons from God on how to build their own homes. […]

DAVID: All cavity nests come from design.

dhw: I am suggesting that all nests come from design – i.e. by the birds that build them. Do you believe that your God only gave courses in cavity nest-building, but all other nests were designed by the birds themselves?

The ecosystem may require a cavity for more protection.

Octopus nervous system

DAVID: Design takes a working mind.

dhw: Agreed. Hence Margulis’s theory of the conscious cell. If nothing else, this would remove the astonishing anomaly of an all-powerful, all-knowing, messy, inefficient God.

Note the agnostic speaks like an atheist. The version of agnosticism I get from you is 90% athism.

dhw:[…] . [...] Nobody knows for sure how quickly and globally climate change will shatter nature’s balance beyond repair. We are faced with a choice between the devil (environmental catastrophe) and the deep blue sea (social and economic catastrophe), and our only hope of avoiding these is to make the changes as quickly but as smoothly as we can. And the time to start is now.

DAVID: [...] A warm Earth is better for all of us than a cold Earth. We really don't know which temperature balance is best for us. We simply understand what we have experienced and know a 'snowball' Earth is not desired.

The controversy is not about “snowball” versus “warming”! You and Watts have both acknowledged that the planet is getting hotter! The controversy is over the degree of danger that this presents.

DAVID: Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda.

How can it be “pure propaganda” if you accept that climate change is real? Do you honestly believe that we should continue -perhaps even increasingly - to burn fossil fuels, cut down the forests, stick to current forms of transport and methods of agriculture which poison the air and the soil through the accumulation of greenhouse gases? Please answer.

DAVID: Slow and steady can happen, but lining up nations is not an easy job.

I’ve explained above precisely why this is not an easy job, but it’s a job which requires action now, to be continued as quickly and smoothly as possible. The fact that it’s difficult does not mean that the danger posed by climate change can be dismissed as panic or propaganda!

Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain] did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

DAVID: I use this site to illustrate design. Accept it.

And I have every right to question your arguments and make alternative suggestions. Accept it.

Symbiosis

dhw: […] it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. [...] But the origin of "the conscious cell" remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God.

DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

dhw: In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

DAVID: Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

dhw: After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know. The options remain open. Your alternatives to a God-sourced intelligence are a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or endless ad hoc interventions […]

No response. May I take it that you have finally understood the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: […] Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

DAVID: The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.

dhw: […] I have no idea why you think these birds are intelligent enough to design their own means of protection but have to have lessons from God on how to build their own homes. […]

DAVID: All cavity nests come from design.

I am suggesting that all nests come from design – i.e. by the birds that build them. Do you believe that your God only gave courses in cavity nest-building, but all other nests were designed by the birds themselves?

Octopus nervous system

DAVID: Not by chance but by design.

dhw: Of course these amazing complexities are designed. […] Possible explanation: the individual intelligences of the cells/cell communities themselves – that is to say, of those cells/cell communities that are able to make the necessary changes. Many cells can’t do so, which explains extinction – a major problem for your anthropocentric view of evolution […]

DAVID: Design takes a working mind.

Agreed. Hence Margulis’s theory of the conscious cell. If nothing else, this would remove the astonishing anomaly of an all-powerful, all-knowing, messy, inefficient God.

DAVID: The climate alarmists want immediate urgency. Gradual adaptations make the most sense from a monetary standpoint.

dhw: It’s not just monetary. The necessary changes will also have colossal social repercussions. Whole industries will have to close down, and households will have to make major adjustments to their ways of living, and so of course there are huge forces opposed to such a revolution. New industries and technologies will spring up, but that will all take time, and sadly none of this means the climate “alarmists” are wrong. Nobody knows for sure how quickly and globally climate change will shatter nature’s balance beyond repair. We are faced with a choice between the devil (environmental catastrophe) and the deep blue sea (social and economic catastrophe), and our only hope of avoiding these is to make the changes as quickly but as smoothly as we can. And the time to start is now.

You have described the possible makeover which may be necessary. A warm Earth is better for all of us than a cold Earth. We really don't know which temperature balance is best for us. We simply understand what we have experienced and know a 'snowball' Earth is not desired. Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda. Slow and steady can happen, but lining up nations is not an easy job.

Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain] did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

I use this site to illustrate design. Accept it.

Symbiosis

QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness.

DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

dhw: In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

DAVID: Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

dhw: After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know. The options remain open. Your alternatives to a God-sourced intelligence is a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or endless ad hoc interventions, such as the next example:

God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

DAVID: The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.

dhw: The article was on the use of snake skin. I have no idea why you think these birds are intelligent enough to design their own means of protection but have to have lessons from God on how to build their own homes. Do you think God also taught other birds to make their nests, or is it only weaverbirds that he singled out for special tuition?

All cavity nests come from design.

Octopus nervous system

QUOTE: "While octopuses and squid diverged from each other more than 270 million years ago, the commonalities in how they control parts of their appendages with suckers -- and differences in the parts that don't -- show how evolution always manages to find the best solution."

DAVID: amazing muscle/nerve complexity fitted exactly to need. Think of the thousands of mutations needed. Not by chance but by design.

dhw: Of course these amazing complexities are designed. The above and many of your magnificent “Nature’s Wonders” are one vast demonstration of how cell communities adapt to or exploit different conditions. Possible explanation: the individual intelligences of the cells/cell communities themselves – that is to say, of those cells/cell communities that are able to make the necessary changes. Many cells can’t do so, which explains extinction – a major problem for your anthropocentric view of evolution, which makes you label your all-powerful, all-knowing God as “messy” and “inefficient”.

Design takes a working mind.

DAVID: The climate alarmists want immediate urgency. Gradual adaptations make the most sense from a monetary standpoint.

It’s not just monetary. The necessary changes will also have colossal social repercussions. Whole industries will have to close down, and households will have to make major adjustments to their ways of living, and so of course there are huge forces opposed to such a revolution. New industries and technologies will spring up, but that will all take time, and sadly none of this means the climate “alarmists” are wrong. Nobody knows for sure how quickly and globally climate change will shatter nature’s balance beyond repair. We are faced with a choice between the devil (environmental catastrophe) and the deep blue sea (social and economic catastrophe), and our only hope of avoiding these is to make the changes as quickly but as smoothly as we can. And the time to start is now.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain] did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis

QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness.

I shall now reposition comments for the sake of clarification:

dhw: This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

dhw: In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

DAVID: Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know. The options remain open. Your alternatives to a God-sourced intelligence is a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or endless ad hoc interventions, such as the next example:

God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

DAVID: The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.

The article was on the use of snake skin. I have no idea why you think these birds are intelligent enough to design their own means of protection but have to have lessons from God on how to build their own homes. Do you think God also taught other birds to make their nests, or is it only weaverbirds that he singled out for special tuition?

Octopus nervous system

QUOTE: "While octopuses and squid diverged from each other more than 270 million years ago, the commonalities in how they control parts of their appendages with suckers -- and differences in the parts that don't -- show how evolution always manages to find the best solution."

DAVID: amazing muscle/nerve complexity fitted exactly to need. Think of the thousands of mutations needed. Not by chance but by design.

Of course these amazing complexities are designed. The above and many of your magnificent “Nature’s Wonders” are one vast demonstration of how cell communities adapt to or exploit different conditions. Possible explanation: the individual intelligences of the cells/cell communities themselves – that is to say, of those cells/cell communities that are able to make the necessary changes. Many cells can’t do so, which explains extinction – a major problem for your anthropocentric view of evolution, which makes you label your all-powerful, all-knowing God as “messy” and “inefficient”.

DAVID: Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

dhw: If you and he believe that global warming is a fact, then clearly the dispute is over the degree of damage that it is causing/will cause. The “experts” disagree. I can quite believe that there is hype on one side, and understatement on the other, but since you and Watts agree that current practices must change, the only question that matters is how quickly we can find pragmatic solutions to the problems these practices are creating.

DAVID: I have just read an article describing new building materials to mitigate CO2 production. Over the years it would produce a 30% reduction in CO2 production. This is a reasonable approach.

dhw: It seems that you and I (and Watts, judging by the views expressed in the interview) are in agreement, although you are reluctant to say so. Global warming is a fact, and we need to adopt a pragmatic approach in order to restore the balance of nature. The only difference between us is the question of how urgently change is needed. Thank you for this example of how the problem might be solved.

The climate alarmists want immediate urgency. Gradual adaptations make the most sense from a monetary standpoint.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain]did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis
QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. I found the following quote, though I’m sorry I can’t provide an actual link.

The Conscious Cell - MARGULIS - 2001

‘The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities.’

DAVID: The link: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05707.x

dhw: Thank you for reproducing the whole quote (no need for me to repeat it here). Unfortunately, your comment could be taken as part of the quote, which of course it is not:
DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.

dhw: This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question.bbb Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

DAVID: Intelligence is a requirement for evolution. Implanting it as as driving force within cells begs the question of what was its source?

dhw: You have simply repeated my question. You say God, an atheist would say chance, and we agnostics say we don’t know.

No one knows! Some of us choose.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.

dhw: Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

DAVID: Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

dhw: If you and he believe that global warming is a fact, then clearly the dispute is over the degree of damage that it is causing/will cause. The “experts” disagree. I can quite believe that there is hype on one side, and understatement on the other, but since you and Watts agree that current practices must change, the only question that matters is how quickly we can find pragmatic solutions to the problems these practices are creating.

DAVID: I have just read an article describing new building materials to mitigate CO2 production. Over the years it would produce a 30% reduction in CO2 production. This is a reasonable approach.

It seems that you and I (and Watts, judging by the views expressed in the interview) are in agreement, although you are reluctant to say so. Global warming is a fact, and we need to adopt a pragmatic approach in order to restore the balance of nature. The only difference between us is the question of how urgently change is needed. Thank you for this example of how the problem might be solved.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain]did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis
QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. I found the following quote, though I’m sorry I can’t provide an actual link.

The Conscious Cell - MARGULIS - 2001

‘The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities.’

DAVID: The link: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05707.x

Thank you for reproducing the whole quote (no need for me to repeat it here). Unfortunately, your comment could be taken as part of the quote, which of course it is not:
DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

dhw: This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question.bbb Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

DAVID: Intelligence is a requirement for evolution. Implanting it as as driving force within cells begs the question of what was its source?

You have simply repeated my question. You say God, an atheist would say chance, and we agnostics say we don’t know.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

Watts and global warming

DAVID: One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

dhw: In order to reach your conclusion, have you daily reviewed every website that covers the view that global warming is a fact, and that contributory factors are the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production, and that these practices if continued will lead to more and more catastrophes as we systematically destroy the balance of nature? I might say one website “is quite incomplete”.

DAVID: A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

dhw: Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

DAVID: Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

dhw: If you and he believe that global warming is a fact, then clearly the dispute is over the degree of damage that it is causing/will cause. The “experts” disagree. I can quite believe that there is hype on one side, and understatement on the other, but since you and Watts agree that current practices must change, the only question that matters is how quickly we can find pragmatic solutions to the problems these practices are creating.

I have just read an article describing new building materials to mitigate CO2 production. Over the years it would produce a 30% reduction in CO2 production. This is a reasonable approach.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis

QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. I found the following quote, though I’m sorry I can’t provide an actual link.

The Conscious Cell - MARGULIS - 2001

‘The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities.’

The link: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05707.x

"Abstract: The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities. I have reconstructed an aspect of the origin of the neurotubule system by a hypothesis that can be directly tested. The idea is that the system of microtubules that became neurotubules has as its origin once-independent eubacteria of a very specific kind. Nothing, I claim, has ever been lost without a trace in evolution. The remains of the evolutionary process, the sequence that occurred that produced Cajal's neuron and other cells, live today. By study of obscure protists that we take to be extant decendants of steps in the evolution of cells, we reconstruct the past directly from living organisms. Even remnants of “microbial mind” can be inferred from behaviors of thriving microorganisms. All of the eukaryotes, not just lichens or an animal's neurons, are products of symbiogenesis among formerly free-living bacteria, some highly motile. Eukaryotes have evolved by the inheritance of acquired genomes; they have gained all their new features by ingesting and not digesting whole bacterial cells with complete genomes.

The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

dhw: This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

Intelligence is a requirement for evolution. Implanting it as as driving force within cells begs the question of what was its source?

DAVID: Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

dhw: I summarized the views Watts expressed: “He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated […] the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.”

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.
Later:
DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

dhw: […] If it is a fair summary of his current views, why are you disputing it?

DAVID: One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

dhw: In order to reach your conclusion, have you daily reviewed every website that covers the view that global warming is a fact, and that contributory factors are the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production, and that these practices if continued will lead to more and more catastrophes as we systematically destroy the balance of nature? I might say one website “is quite incomplete”.

DAVID: A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

dhw: Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

DAVID: Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

If you and he believe that global warming is a fact, then clearly the dispute is over the degree of damage that it is causing/will cause. The “experts” disagree. I can quite believe that there is hype on one side, and understatement on the other, but since you and Watts agree that current practices must change, the only question that matters is how quickly we can find pragmatic solutions to the problems these practices are creating.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theology

Root controls

DAVID: Tell us our brain appeared by chance mutations!! Think of the odds!

dhw: More repetition: As above, I keep acknowledging the logic of design in relation to all life forms. You keep ignoring the logic of non-design in relation to items such as the 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen, or the billions of stars that come and go for no apparent reason, or the existence of sourceless consciousness (God) while at the same time you insist that consciousness (ours) must have had a source.

DAVID: It did not come from chance.

I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis

QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. I found the following quote, though I’m sorry I can’t provide an actual link.

The Conscious Cell - MARGULIS - 2001

‘The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities.’

This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

https://www.the-scientist.com/bacteria-help-worms-brave-the-harsh-antarctic-cold-72434?...

"While researchers had identified that some Antarctic marine animals make antifreeze proteins to adapt to the extreme cold, similar mechanisms in invertebrates remained poorly understood.1

"In a study published in Science Advances, Corinaldesi and colleagues have shown that the microbiome of Antarctic worms produces cryoprotective proteins that help these creatures cope with freezing temperatures.2 The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

"Analyzing the sequences revealed that bacteria belonging to the genera Meiothermus and Anoxybacillus made up most of the worms’ microbiome. Although scientists have found these species in frigid environments before, they are most commonly seen in high temperatures, such as hot springs.

"The microbiome’s role in providing nutrition or immunity is well-established, said Har­ald Gruber-Vodicka, a marine symbiosis researcher at Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, who was not involved with the study. “But cold protection as a symbiont service or a symbiont function was surprising and new.”

***

"The researchers found that these bacteria were not present in any other worm species whose metagenomes were available in gene banks. They also did not find these bacteria in the sediment where they collected the worms, indicating that the worms did not recently acquire these bacteria from their environment.

"This led the team to investigate whether the worm-microbe connection started in the past and was passed down through the generations. They studied the relationship between the evolutionary history of the host—assessed by analyzing its mitochondrial genes—and that of the microbiome associated with the host. This revealed a high degree of phylosymbiosis, or similarity, suggesting that the microbes and the worms may have coevolved.

***

“'The symbiosis started in ancient times, probably when the habitat was different, and now these bacteria are no longer present in the surrounding sediments of the animals,” said Corinaldesi.

***

"When they analyzed worm extracts using a proteomics approach, they found many of these proteins and several enzymes that are potentially useful for coping with extreme cold temperatures. Matching these proteins with established databases that describe protein sequences and their functions helped the team pinpoint that the bacteria, and not the worms, produced several of the cryoprotective proteins.

"The fact that the microbiome produced specific proteins that can help the host cope with the cold was surprising, said Corinaldesi."

Comment: my guess is these guys coevolved from a time when the Arctic was warm

dhw: The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place […] is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: I have bolded the propaganda in your first entry above. In fact there are less environmental storms, as one example, all exhibited in Watt's site. Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

dhw: I summarized the views Watts expressed: “He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated […] the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.”

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.

Later:
dhw: Has Watts reversed his view that it [global warming] is happening, and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

You have quoted all of this, and then ignored it! If it is a fair summary of his current views, why are you disputing it?

DAVID: One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

dhw: In order to reach your conclusion, have you daily reviewed every website that covers the view that global warming is a fact, and that contributory factors are the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production, and that these practices if continued will lead to more and more catastrophes as we systematically destroy the balance of nature? I might say one website “is quite incomplete”.

DAVID: A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

dhw; Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Theology
Ozone layer

DAVID: Purpose is the result of an analysis of His actions. Did chance contingencies produce our brain? Isn't a guiding mind a better choice?

dhw: I have agreed that the complexities of living organisms (not just our brain) provide a logical case for design. I do not believe that a 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen provides evidence for design or for an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose sole purpose was to produce humans. Your own “analysis” comes up with the proposal that your God is a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” designer, which is hardly commensurate with your image of him as being all-powerful and all-knowing.

DAVID: His choice of evolution rather than direct creation means that roundabout creation was required as the best approach.

dhw: If he exists, his choice of evolution means that he wanted the ever changing diversity that has resulted from evolution. This does not exclude the possibility that he sometimes intervened, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along. Once more: The ever changing diversity does not, however, support the theory that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, but so messy, cumbersome and inefficient that he thought the best approach was to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. We are now repeating the arguments previously dealt with on the “evolution” thread that we closed, but this is inevitable so long as you use these articles to support your theological theories. However, at least we can keep the comments brief.

Thank you.

Root controls

DAVID: Tell us our brain appeared by chance mutations!! Think of the odds!

dhw: More repetition: As above, I keep acknowledging the logic of design in relation to all life forms. You keep ignoring the logic of non-design in relation to items such as the 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen, or the billions of stars that come and go for no apparent reason, or the existence of sourceless consciousness (God) while at the same time you insist that consciousness (ours) must have had a source.

It did not come from chance

dhw: You agree that we are already causing damage to ourselves and our planet. Would you also agree that we need to take steps now to stop those interferences?

DAVID: I agree at the level of local damages.

dhw: All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times.

I also used the word “catastrophe”, which you disputed, and as an example of local catastrophes I cited (in brackets) the current fires in LA. The cause of these is not yet known, and I was only responding to your points about “local” and “catastrophe”.

dhw: The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place […] is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: I have bolded the propaganda in your first entry above. In fact there are less environmental storms, as one example, all exhibited in Watt's site. Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

I summarized the views Watts expressed: “He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated […] the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.”

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.

Later:
dhw: Has Watts reversed his view that it [global warming] is happening, and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

You have quoted all of this, and then ignored it! If it is a fair summary of his current views, why are you disputing it?

DAVID: One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

In order to reach your conclusion, have you daily reviewed every website that covers the view that global warming is a fact, and that contributory factors are the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production, and that these practices if continued will lead to more and more catastrophes as we systematically destroy the balance of nature? I might say one website “is quite incomplete”.

DAVID: A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Theology
Ozone layer

DAVID: Purpose is the result of an analysis of His actions. Did chance contingencies produce our brain? Isn't a guiding mind a better choice?

dhw: I have agreed that the complexities of living organisms (not just our brain) provide a logical case for design. I do not believe that a 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen provides evidence for design or for an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose sole purpose was to produce humans. Your own “analysis” comes up with the proposal that your God is a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” designer, which is hardly commensurate with your image of him as being all-powerful and all-knowing.

DAVID: His choice of evolution rather than direct creation means that roundabout creation was required as the best approach.

If he exists, his choice of evolution means that he wanted the ever changing diversity that has resulted from evolution. This does not exclude the possibility that he sometimes intervened, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along. Once more: The ever changing diversity does not, however, support the theory that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, but so messy, cumbersome and inefficient that he thought the best approach was to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. We are now repeating the arguments previously dealt with on the “evolution” thread that we closed, but this is inevitable so long as you use these articles to support your theological theories. However, at least we can keep the comments brief.

Root controls

DAVID: Tell us our brain appeared by chance mutations!! Think of the odds!

More repetition: As above, I keep acknowledging the logic of design in relation to all life forms. You keep ignoring the logic of non-design in relation to items such as the 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen, or the billions of stars that come and go for no apparent reason, or the existence of sourceless consciousness (God) while at the same time you insist that consciousness (ours) must have had a source.

Ozone layer

DAVID: I impost nothing on God. I assume this reality is caused by Him as it appears to us. The method is messy and non-direct, and putting Him in charge changes nothing.

dhw: If he exists, then of course we can assume that he caused this reality. But that does not mean that we were his sole purpose, that he specially designed the 2-billion-year long battle between iodine and oxygen, and then went on to design and cull countless species and ecosystems, solely in order to produce us. Nor does it mean he is all-powerful and all-knowing. These are your “impositions”.

DAVID: Purpose is the result of an analysis of His actions. Did chance contingencies produce our brain? Isn't a guiding mind a better choice?

dhw: I have agreed that the complexities of living organisms (not just our brain) provide a logical case for design. I do not believe that a 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen provides evidence for design or for an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose sole purpose was to produce humans. Your own “analysis” comes up with the proposal that your God is a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” designer, which is hardly commensurate with your image of him as being all-powerful and all-knowing.

His choice of evolution rather than direct creation means that roundabout creation was required as the best approach.

Root controls

QUOTE: "The study highlights how ABA and auxin, another key hormone, work together to shape root growth angle, providing a potential strategy to develop drought-resistant crops with improved root system architecture."

DAVID: Clearly a designed system to direct root growth. Plants could not have adapted to land without this mechanism available in the beginning.

dhw: Many plants die as a result of drought. The process seems to me to echo the whole history of evolution: some cell communities have the ability to work out means of survival as conditions change, and some don’t. The ability may have been the product of a designing God. But I doubt if a designing God would have decided on the survival or extinction of every individual life form throughout the whole history of evolution. Indeed, some folk would argue that changing conditions (including the winner of the battle between iodine and oxygen) and the survival and extinction of subsequent life forms are simply matters of chance or “luck”, rather than design.

Tell us our brain appeared by chance mutations!! Think of the odds!

dhw: All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times. The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place (we are all currently shuddering at the horror of Los Angeles) is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: This is the parroted propaganda we are fed and supposed to accept. The California fires have many local causes. Lack of cleaning out brush near homes, poor forest management, poor water reservoir management with water kept at low levels, etc. The local geography creates the Santa Ana winds, and cannot be changed. Global warming is not related in any way.

I was responding to your two points above: ALL damage is local (e.g. the Los Angeles fires) and the use of the word “catastrophic” is not hype (e.g. the Los Angeles fires). I mentioned them only because they are current. I don’t know enough about them to pinpoint the direct causes, and you may well be right. But that does not invalidate the argument that the increase in such “local” catastrophes has been caused largely by the factors I have listed above, all of which contribute towards global warming. Do you agree, or not?

I have bolded the propaganda in your first entry above. In fact there are less environmental storms, as one example, all exhibited in Watt's site. Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

dhw: The Paris Agreement was that all countries should make every effort to reduce temperatures by cutting back on all the above activities. This would entail nothing less than a revolution in the way we all live. Perhaps understandably, many governments are not prepared to countenance such changes. The problem, however, is not solved by arguing over what is or isn’t a “catastrophe”.

DAVID: Does a problem really exist?

dhw: Both you and Watts apparently agree that it does. I quoted an interview with him on YouTube:

DAVID: Why not look at the current Watts site directly and avoid YouTube slant?

dhw: No need, since you agree with my summary of his views, as expressed in the interview:

One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

dhw: He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated, and questions methods of measuring. The interviewer asks whether we should ignore the problem, and Watts hesitates before answering that we should not be in such a hurry (because of the chaos a quick solution would cause), but instead should take our time in developing new technologies. He likes to think of himself as a “pragmatic” sceptic, and I’d say it’s clear that a “pragmatic” approach is the only one possible. His overall response, then, is emphatically NOT a denial that the climate is changing, but the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.

dhw; Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, we are currently warming […]

dhw: You agree that we are currently warming. Does Watts now disagree with you? If he does, he is certainly in a minority among "experts". I have just listed the human factors which cause warming (“impinge on” would imply that they reduce warming). Has Watts now reversed his view that it is happening and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

dhw: Thank you again.

DAVID: (under “The water cycle”): How we treat the land and its plants has an direct effect on the water cycle. It is important for us to understand those effects and be sure they are not detrimental.

dhw: That is the key to this whole discussion. We are currently in the process of destroying the balance of nature, and unless we change our activities, the results will be “catastrophic”.

DAVID: "Catastrophic" is an uncertain prediction.

dhw: Since you and Watts agree that global warming is a fact, that temperatures are now rising more rapidly than ever, that humans are currently destroying the “balance of nature” and we should take steps to stop this destruction, I would suggest that a definition of “catastrophic” is the least of our problems.

A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

DAVID: I impost nothing on God. I assume this reality is caused by Him as it appears to us. The method is messy and non-direct, and putting Him in charge changes nothing.

dhw: If he exists, then of course we can assume that he caused this reality. But that does not mean that we were his sole purpose, that he specially designed the 2-billion-year long battle between iodine and oxygen, and then went on to design and cull countless species and ecosystems, solely in order to produce us. Nor does it mean he is all-powerful and all-knowing. These are your “impositions”.

DAVID: Purpose is the result of an analysis of His actions. Did chance contingencies produce our brain? Isn't a guiding mind a better choice?

I have agreed that the complexities of living organisms (not just our brain) provide a logical case for design. I do not believe that a 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen provides evidence for design or for an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose sole purpose was to produce humans. Your own “analysis” comes up with the proposal that your God is a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” designer, which is hardly commensurate with your image of him as being all-powerful and all-knowing.

Root controls

QUOTE: "The study highlights how ABA and auxin, another key hormone, work together to shape root growth angle, providing a potential strategy to develop drought-resistant crops with improved root system architecture."

DAVID: Clearly a designed system to direct root growth. Plants could not have adapted to land without this mechanism available in the beginning.

Many plants die as a result of drought. The process seems to me to echo the whole history of evolution: some cell communities have the ability to work out means of survival as conditions change, and some don’t. The ability may have been the product of a designing God. But I doubt if a designing God would have decided on the survival or extinction of every individual life form throughout the whole history of evolution. Indeed, some folk would argue that changing conditions (including the winner of the battle between iodine and oxygen) and the survival and extinction of subsequent life forms are simply matters of chance or “luck”, rather than design.

DAVID: I agree at the level of local damages.
And:
DAVID: “Catastrophic” is the usual hype word asking for unreasonable actions like the Paris accords.

dhw: All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times. The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place (we are all currently shuddering at the horror of Los Angeles) is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: This is the parroted propaganda we are fed and supposed to accept. The California fires have many local causes. Lack of cleaning out brush near homes, poor forest management, poor water reservoir management with water kept at low levels, etc. The local geography creates the Santa Ana winds, and cannot be changed. Global warming is not related in any way.

I was responding to your two points above: ALL damage is local (e.g. the Los Angeles fires) and the use of the word “catastrophic” is not hype (e.g. the Los Angeles fires). I mentioned them only because they are current. I don’t know enough about them to pinpoint the direct causes, and you may well be right. But that does not invalidate the argument that the increase in such “local” catastrophes has been caused largely by the factors I have listed above, all of which contribute towards global warming. Do you agree, or not?

dhw: The Paris Agreement was that all countries should make every effort to reduce temperatures by cutting back on all the above activities. This would entail nothing less than a revolution in the way we all live. Perhaps understandably, many governments are not prepared to countenance such changes. The problem, however, is not solved by arguing over what is or isn’t a “catastrophe”.

DAVID: Does a problem really exist?

Both you and Watts apparently agree that it does. I quoted an interview with him on YouTube:

DAVID: Why not look at the current Watts site directly and avoid YouTube slant?

No need, since you agree with my summary of his views, as expressed in the interview:

dhw: He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated, and questions methods of measuring. The interviewer asks whether we should ignore the problem, and Watts hesitates before answering that we should not be in such a hurry (because of the chaos a quick solution would cause), but instead should take our time in developing new technologies. He likes to think of himself as a “pragmatic” sceptic, and I’d say it’s clear that a “pragmatic” approach is the only one possible. His overall response, then, is emphatically NOT a denial that the climate is changing, but the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.

Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, we are currently warming […]

dhw: You agree that we are currently warming. Does Watts now disagree with you? If he does, he is certainly in a minority among "experts". I have just listed the human factors which cause warming (“impinge on” would imply that they reduce warming). Has Watts now reversed his view that it is happening and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

Thank you again.

DAVID: (under “The water cycle”): How we treat the land and its plants has an direct effect on the water cycle. It is important for us to understand those effects and be sure they are not detrimental.

dhw: That is the key to this whole discussion. We are currently in the process of destroying the balance of nature, and unless we change our activities, the results will be “catastrophic”.

DAVID: "Catastrophic" is an uncertain prediction.

Since you and Watts agree that global warming is a fact, that temperatures are now rising more rapidly than ever, that humans are currently destroying the “balance of nature” and we should take steps to stop this destruction, I would suggest that a definition of “catastrophic” is the least of our problems.

dhw: All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times. The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place (we are all currently shuddering at the horror of Los Angeles) is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

This is the parroted propaganda we are fed and supposed to accept. The California fires have many local causes. Lack of cleaning out brush near homes, poor forest management, poor water reservoir management with water kept at low levels, etc. The local geography creates the Santa Ana winds, and cannot be changed. Global warming is not related in any way.

DAVID: "Catastrophic" is the usual hype word asking for unreasonable actions like the Paris accords, which are never followed.

dhw: The Paris Agreement was that all countries should make every effort to reduce temperatures by cutting back on all the above activities. This would entail nothing less than a revolution in the way we all live. Perhaps understandably, many governments are not prepared to countenance such changes. The problem, however, is not solved by arguing over what is or isn’t a “catastrophe”.

Does a problem really exist?

DAVID: Watts is anti Paris Accord and his website is joined by a group of world-wide expert climatologists who agree with him.

dhw: I have just watched a very revealing interview with Watts on YouTube from about 10 years ago. Apparently his position has hardened since then, but what he says here would certainly give a much more rational basis for his non-acceptance of the Paris Agreement.

Why not look at the current Watts site directly and avoid YouTube slant?

Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts: (Sorry, I can't get the link.)

He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated, and questions methods of measuring. The interviewer asks whether we should ignore the problem, and Watts hesitates before answering that we should not be in such a hurry (because of the chaos a quick solution would cause), but instead should take our time in developing new technologies. He likes to think of himself as a “pragmatic” sceptic, and I’d say it’s clear that a “pragmatic” approach is the only one possible. His overall response, then, is emphatically NOT a denial that the climate is changing, but the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.

Very fair analysis of Watt.

DAVID: Yes, we are currently warming, but observing that event tells us nothing about the future which results from a large number of factors that impinge on warming.

dhw: You agree that we are currently warming. Does Watts now disagree with you? If he does, he is certainly in a minority among "experts". I have just listed the human factors which cause warming (“impinge on” would imply that they reduce warming). Has Watts now reversed his view that it is happening and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

DAVID: (under “The water cycle”): How we treat the land and its plants has an direct effect on the water cycle. It is important for us to understand those effects and be sure they are not detrimental.

dhw: That is the key to this whole discussion. We are currently in the process of destroying the balance of nature, and unless we change our activities, the results will be “catastrophic”.

"Catastrophic" is an uncertain prediction.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ozone layer

dhw: This raises religious issues:

dhw: It is you who tell us that he exists, is all-everything, and had to fulfil the purpose you impose on him by using the method you impose on him. You are happy to use logical “human analysis” to show that life’s complexities are so great that they must have been designed, but when it comes to testing your theories concerning purpose and method, you prefer to label your all-everything God “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” rather than challenge your own human thinking.

DAVID: I impost nothing on God. I assume this reality is caused by Him as it appears to us. The method is messy and non-direct, and putting Him in charge changes nothing.

dhw: If he exists, then of course we can assume that he caused this reality. But that does not mean that we were his sole purpose, that he specially designed the 2-billion-year long battle between iodine and oxygen, and then went on to design and cull countless species and ecosystems, solely in order to produce us. Nor does it mean he is all-powerful and all-knowing. These are your “impositions”.

Purpose is the result of an analysis of His actions. Did chance contingencies produce our brain? Isn't a guiding mind a better choice?

dhw: You agree that we are already causing damage to ourselves and our planet. Would you also agree that we need to take steps now to stop those interferences from increasing the damage?

DAVID: […] I agree at the level of local damages.

All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times. The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place (we are all currently shuddering at the horror of Los Angeles) is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: "Catastrophic" is the usual hype word asking for unreasonable actions like the Paris accords, which are never followed.

The Paris Agreement was that all countries should make every effort to reduce temperatures by cutting back on all the above activities. This would entail nothing less than a revolution in the way we all live. Perhaps understandably, many governments are not prepared to countenance such changes. The problem, however, is not solved by arguing over what is or isn’t a “catastrophe”.

DAVID: Watts is anti Paris Accord and his website is joined by a group of world-wide expert climatologists who agree with him.

I have just watched a very revealing interview with Watts on YouTube from about 10 years ago. Apparently his position has hardened since then, but what he says here would certainly give a much more rational basis for his non-acceptance of the Paris Agreement.

Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts: (Sorry, I can't get the link.)

He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated, and questions methods of measuring. The interviewer asks whether we should ignore the problem, and Watts hesitates before answering that we should not be in such a hurry (because of the chaos a quick solution would cause), but instead should take our time in developing new technologies. He likes to think of himself as a “pragmatic” sceptic, and I’d say it’s clear that a “pragmatic” approach is the only one possible. His overall response, then, is emphatically NOT a denial that the climate is changing, but the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.

DAVID: Yes, we are currently warming, but observing that event tells us nothing about the future which results from a large number of factors that impinge on warming.

You agree that we are currently warming. Does Watts now disagree with you? If he does, he is certainly in a minority among "experts". I have just listed the human factors which cause warming (“impinge on” would imply that they reduce warming). Has Watts now reversed his view that it is happening and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: (under “The water cycle”): How we treat the land and its plants has an direct effect on the water cycle. It is important for us to understand those effects and be sure they are not detrimental.

That is the key to this whole discussion. We are currently in the process of destroying the balance of nature, and unless we change our activities, the results will be “catastrophic”.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ozone layer

This raises religious issues:

DAVID: another example of contingent processes which had to follow a certain course to give us the Earth we have now. Chance or design?

dhw: Why would a designer who wanted diversity have designed a battle which delayed this diversity for 2 billion years?

DAVID: God-thinking vs. human analysis. The whole process took a very long time. Why should it be shorter? Human impatience?
And:
DAVID: It is just His all-everything that tells us it had to be that way.

dhw: It is you who tell us that he exists, is all-everything, and had to fulfil the purpose you impose on him by using the method you impose on him. You are happy to use logical “human analysis” to show that life’s complexities are so great that they must have been designed, but when it comes to testing your theories concerning purpose and method, you prefer to label your all-everything God “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” rather than challenge your own human thinking.

DAVID: I impost nothing on God. I assume this reality is caused by Him as it appears to us. The method is messy and non-direct, and putting Him in charge changes nothing.

If he exists, then of course we can assume that he caused this reality. But that does not mean that we were his sole purpose, that he specially designed the 2-billion-year long battle between iodine and oxygen, and then went on to design and cull countless species and ecosystems, solely in order to produce us. Nor does it mean he is all-powerful and all-knowing. These are your “impositions”.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/01/250109183329.htm

"A new study led by scientists in the Schmid College of Science and Technology at Chapman University provides the first comprehensive global estimates of the amount of water stored in Earth's plants and the amount of time it takes for that water to flow through them. The information is a missing piece of the puzzle in understanding the global water cycle and how that cycle is being altered by changes in land use and climate.

"The study, published today, January 9, in the journal Nature Water, finds that Earth's vegetation stores about 786 km3 of water, only about 0.002% of the total amount of freshwater stored on Earth. The study also finds that the time it takes for water to flow through plants (referred to as transit or turnover time) and return to the atmosphere is among the fastest in the global water cycle, ranging from just five days in croplands to 18 days in evergreen needleleaf forests. The transit of water through plants is particularly fast in croplands, grasslands and savannas. The results underscore vegetation's dynamic role in the water cycle. In comparison to the global annual median of 8.1 days for water to transit through plants from entry to exit, the water in lakes is estimated to take 17 years, and the water in glaciers is estimated to take 1600 years.

***

"The team combined estimates of plant water storage with cutting-edge estimates of the rates at which water is leaving plants to determine the transit time of water through vegetation. The result was five years of monthly water storage and transit time estimates at a spatial resolution of 9 km2.

***
"'One important observation is that croplands around the world tend to have very similar and very fast transit times," said Dr. Gregory Goldsmith, senior author and an associate professor of Biological Sciences at Chapman University. "This indicates that land use change may be homogenizing the global water cycle and contributing to its intensification by more rapidly recycling water back to the atmosphere where it can turn into heavy rain events."

"'The results suggest that the transit time of water through plants is likely to be very sensitive to events such as deforestation, drought and wildfire, which will fundamentally change the time it takes for water to flow through the water cycle," Felton said."

Comment: How we treat the land and its plants has an direct effect on the water cycle. It is important for us to understand those effects and be sure they are not detrimental.