There is n o evidence for a gradual elongation of the giraffe neck. In the fossil record it just appears:

http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf

"This new study attempts to explain the massive physiological changes required by the very long neck:

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-tall-giraffes-genes.html

"The extraordinary stature of the giraffe has led to a long list of physiological co-adaptations. The blood pressure of the giraffe, for instance, is twice as high as in humans and most other mammals to allow a steady blood supply to the lofty head. How does the giraffe avoid the usual side effects of high blood pressure, such as severe damage to the cardiovascular system or strokes?

"The team discovered a particular gene—known as FGFRL1—that has undergone many changes in the giraffe compared to all other animals. Using sophisticated gene editing techniques they introduced giraffe-specific FGFRL1 mutations into lab mice. Interestingly, the giraffe-type mice differed from normal mice in two important aspects: they suffered less cardiovascular and organ damage when treated with a blood pressure increasing drug, and they grew more compact and denser bones.

"'Both of these changes are directly related to the unique physiological features of the giraffe—coping with high blood pressure and maintaining compact and strong bones, despite growing them faster than any other mammal, to form the elongated neck and legs," says Rasmus Heller from the Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen,...

"While jumping out of bed for (some) humans might be an effortless and elegant affair, this is definitely not the case for the giraffe. Merely standing up is an a lengthy and awkward procedure, let alone getting up and running away from a ferocious predator. Therefore, giraffes have evolved into spending much less time sleeping than most other mammals.

"Rasmus Heller elaborates: "We found that key genes regulating the circadian rhythm and sleep were under strong selection in giraffes, possibly allowing the giraffe a more interrupted sleep-wake cycle than other mammals."

In line with research in other animals an evolutionary trade-off also seem to be determining their sensory perception, Rasmus continues, "Giraffes are in general very alert and exploit their height advantage to scan the horizon using their excellent eyesight. Conversely, they have lost many genes related to olfaction, which is probably related to a radically diluted presence of scents at 5m compared to ground level."

"These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. The dual effects of the strongly selected FGFRL1 gene are compatible with the phenomenon that one gene can affect several different aspects of the phenotype, so called evolutionary pleiotropy. Pleiotropy is particularly relevant for explaining unusually large phenotypic changes, because such changes often require that a suite of traits are changed within a short evolutionary time. Therefore, pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe."

Comment: The bold above describes the problem perfectly. How so many complex physiological changes so coordinated appear so quickly? Of course, the authors think a Darwin style gene did the job all by itself like an octopus with all its arms in action. How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/evolution/useless-evolution/?utm_source=Cosmos+-+Mast...

"Not all evolutionary shifts are, as we imagine, a driving force for improvement. On close examination, some represent meaningless change.

***

“'How complexity evolves is one of the great questions of evolutionary biology,” says Joseph Thornton, of the University of Chicago, US. “The classic explanation is that elaborate structures must exist because they confer some functional benefit on the organism, so natural selection drives ever-increasing states of complexity.

“'But at the molecular level, we found that there are other simple mechanisms that drive the build-up of complexity.”

This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk.

***

"They used an elegant method called ancestral sequence reconstruction, in which they recreated the ancient ancestor of the steroid receptors before they’d evolved to work as dimers.

"It turned out that the ancient proteins functioned just as well as the modern, intricate dimers, despite the solo protein being significantly simpler; it wouldn’t matter if they’d never evolved at all. There was nothing beneficial about forming the molecular machine, but it became a fixed trait due to an evolutionary fluke.

***

"The original formation of the dimer wasn’t harmful, and so wasn’t lost during selection. But once it happened, the proteins just couldn’t go back to the older, simpler method, and the machines hung around for hundreds of millions of years.

“'These proteins gradually became addicted to their interaction, even though there is nothing useful about it,” explains Georg Hochberg of the Max Planck Institute, Germany. “The parts of the protein that form the interface where the partners bind each other accumulated mutations that were tolerable after the dimer evolved, but would have been deleterious in the solo state. This made the protein totally dependent on the dimeric form, and it could no longer go back. Useless complexity became entrenched, essentially forever.”

***

"Researchers resurrected the ancient proteins using synthetic DNA and introduced a very simple mutation to the gene. This triggered a chain of reactions that led to descendant proteins working exactly as they do today, suggesting how little is actually needed for neutral mutations to become established in the genome.

"At a small scale, there’s no “thought” of adaptation, there’s simply change based on chemistry and physics. At a higher, population scale, we can’t see these hidden complexities, so it all seems like adaptation. Quite simply, molecules are not intelligently evolved.

"Constructive neutral evolution is a beautiful theory that highlights exactly how complex evolution is, and that it goes well beyond “survival of the fittest”. Sometimes, things just uselessly evolve."

Comment: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

DAVID: Once again a flat space time predicts a heat death in 100 billion years with the universe tearing up.

dhw: I predict that in 100 billion years, the universe will still be here, eternally forming new combinations of energy and matter. And I hope you will support me in my bid for a grant to carry on with my invaluable work on predicting the unpredictable.

I use current science as the best possibility to know the future truth

DAVID: My discussion about the geometry of spacetime is to the point our current studies do not support some sort of continuing process back to infinity. Therefore a universe has to have a start. Just following pure science.

dhw: There are no “pure science” studies that can possibly prove or disprove eternity, and I strongly doubt whether we shall ever be able to reach the borders of the universe, even if it is not infinite. You have yourself demolished Hawking’s claim that “there is no before”, so I don’t know why you brought it up in the first place, or why you continue to defend it now.

DAVID: I did just the opposite with the Hawking celebration Guth, et al, paper. It offered proof there was no 'before' before the big bang.

dhw: And I argued that it was impossible to prove that there was no ‘before’, and you have agreed (bolded above). So I don’t know why you brought it up, or why you continue to argue that current studies reject “some sort of continuing progress back to infinity” (I would say here “back to eternity”) and the universe has to have had a start.

I agree, and something or someone started it.

dhw: Without a universe, there is nothing, so of course there is no space or time! But there is a universe, and the claim that the big bang (if it happened) was the beginning of all things is totally unprovable because it is impossible for anyone to know what preceded the big bang!

DAVID: Agreed. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: So we are left with either nothing or primordial energy with no form. Or only energy in the form of God. Something must be eternal.

dhw: Exactly. If, like me, you reject the idea that billions of stars and galaxies can emerge from nothing, you are left with an eternal something. I don’t accept the restriction to primordial energy with no form, as the universe might just as well have gone on throughout eternity forming different combinations of matter. George called it an “infinite regress”.

DAVID: Once again a flat space time predicts a heat death in 100 billion years with the universe tearing up.

I predict that in 100 billion years, the universe will still be here, eternally forming new combinations of energy and matter. And I hope you will support me in my bid for a grant to carry on with my invaluable work on predicting the unpredictable.

DAVID: My discussion about the geometry of spacetime is to the point our current studies do not support some sort of continuing process back to infinity. Therefore a universe has to have a start. Just following pure science.

dhw: There are no “pure science” studies that can possibly prove or disprove eternity, and I strongly doubt whether we shall ever be able to reach the borders of the universe, even if it is not infinite. You have yourself demolished Hawking’s claim that “there is no before”, so I don’t know why you brought it up in the first place, or why you continue to defend it now.

DAVID: I did just the opposite with the Hawking celebration Guth, et al, paper. It offered proof there was no 'before' before the big bang.

And I argued that it was impossible to prove that there was no ‘before’, and you have agreed (bolded above). So I don’t know why you brought it up, or why you continue to argue that current studies reject “some sort of continuing progress back to infinity” (I would say here “back to eternity”) and the universe has to have had a start.

DAVID: Since this universe appears with a start of space and time, this can be turned about to say without a universe there is no space or time.

dhw: Without a universe, there is nothing, so of course there is no space or time! But there is a universe, and the claim that the big bang (if it happened) was the beginning of all things is totally unprovable because it is impossible for anyone to know what preceded the big bang!

Agreed.

DAVID: So we are left with either nothing or primordial energy with no form. Or only energy in the form of God. Something must be eternal.

dhw: Exactly. If, like me, you reject the idea that billions of stars and galaxies can emerge from nothing, you are left with an eternal something. I don’t accept the restriction to primordial energy with no form, as the universe might just as well have gone on throughout eternity forming different combinations of matter. George called it an “infinite regress”.

Once again a flat space time predicts a heat death in 100 billion years with the universe tearing up.

DAVID: My discussion about the geometry of spacetime is to the point our current studies do not support some sort of continuing process back to infinity. Therefore a universe has to have a start. Just following pure science.

dhw: There are no “pure science” studies that can possibly prove or disprove eternity, and I strongly doubt whether we shall ever be able to reach the borders of the universe, even if it is not infinite. You have yourself demolished Hawking’s claim that “there is no before”, so I don’t know why you brought it up in the first place, or why you continue to defend it now.

I did just the opposite with the Hawking celebration Guth, et al, paper. It offered proof there was no 'before' before the big bang.

dhw: This is an astonishing claim from someone who believes in a conscious mind of “pure energy” which engineered the big bang! Of course you believe in a before. And if you can believe in pre-existing and eternal conscious energy, you can believe in RED pre-existing unconscious and eternal energy and matter. The big bang may be relevant to your belief in conscious design, but it’s not relevant to a discussion on “first cause”.

DAVID: It is extremely relevant. Note the bold above. The only 'before' is God from my view. For the reason that I don't believe your red phrase can accomplish anything without a designing mind hard at work.

dhw: The article George quoted was an attempt to convince us that there has to be a first cause, which has to be God. I argued against George’s idea that “there was no time before” the big bang (if the big bang happened). Please look at your reply, quoting Hawking: “There is no before”. You have now simply confirmed what I wrote in relation to your own beliefs. The big bang is only relevant to your design theory. There are alternative versions of a “first cause”, and the fact that you are only prepared to consider one is no justification for quoting Hawking at me!

DAVID: Since this universe appears with a start of space and time, this can be turned about to say without a universe there is no space or time.

Without a universe, there is nothing, so of course there is no space or time! But there is a universe, and the claim that the big bang (if it happened) was the beginning of all things is totally unprovable because it is impossible for anyone to know what preceded the big bang!

DAVID: So we are left with either nothing or primordial energy with no form. Or only energy in the form of God. Something must be eternal.

Exactly. If, like me, you reject the idea that billions of stars and galaxies can emerge from nothing, you are left with an eternal something. I don’t accept the restriction to primordial energy with no form, as the universe might just as well have gone on throughout eternity forming different combinations of matter. George called it an “infinite regress”.

DAVID: My discussion about the geometry of spacetime is to the point our current studies do not support some sort of continuing process back to infinity. Therefore a universe has to have a start. Just following pure science.

There are no “pure science” studies that can possibly prove or disprove eternity, and I strongly doubt whether we shall ever be able to reach the borders of the universe, even if it is not infinite. You have yourself demolished Hawking’s claim that “there is no before”, so I don’t know why you brought it up in the first place, or why you continue to defend it now.

DAVID: Irrelevant only in your philosophy. The fact that this current universe had a timed appearance which is unexplained is entirely relevant. At Hawking's 70th birthday conference it was fully accepted in a Guth, etc. article there is no before, before the big Bang. Further you are describing a theory known as a 'Big Bounce' which requires a curved universe spacetime and this one is measured as flat.

dhw: This is an astonishing claim from someone who believes in a conscious mind of “pure energy” which engineered the big bang! Of course you believe in a before. And if you can believe in pre-existing and eternal conscious energy, you can believe in pre-existing unconscious and eternal energy and matter. The big bang may be relevant to your belief in conscious design, but it’s not relevant to a discussion on “first cause”.

DAVID: It is extremely relevant. Note the bold above. The only 'before' is God from my view. For the reason that I don't believe your red phrase can accomplish anything without a designing mind hard at work.

dhw: The article George quoted was an attempt to convince us that there has to be a first cause, which has to be God. I argued against George’s idea that “there was no time before” the big bang (if the big bang happened). Please look at your reply, quoting Hawking: “There is no before”. You have now simply confirmed what I wrote in relation to your own beliefs. The big bang is only relevant to your design theory. There are alternative versions of a “first cause”, and the fact that you are only prepared to consider one is no justification for quoting Hawking at me!

Since this universe appears with a start of space and time, this can be turned about to say without a universe there is no space or time. So we are left with either nothing or primordial energy with no form. Or only energy in the form of God. Something must be eternal. My discussion about the geometry of spacetime is to the point our current studies do not support some sort of continuing process back to infinity. Therefore a universe has to have a start. Just following pure science.

dhw: This is an astonishing claim from someone who believes in a conscious mind of “pure energy” which engineered the big bang! Of course you believe in a before. And if you can believe in pre-existing and eternal conscious energy, you can believe in pre-existing unconscious and eternal energy and matter. The big bang may be relevant to your belief in conscious design, but it’s not relevant to a discussion on “first cause”.

DAVID: It is extremely relevant. Note the bold above. The only 'before' is God from my view. For the reason that I don't believe your red phrase can accomplish anything without a designing mind hard at work.

The article George quoted was an attempt to convince us that there has to be a first cause, which has to be God. I argued against George’s idea that “there was no time before” the big bang (if the big bang happened). Please look at your reply, quoting Hawking: “There is no before”. You have now simply confirmed what I wrote in relation to your own beliefs. The big bang is only relevant to your design theory. There are alternative versions of a “first cause”, and the fact that you are only prepared to consider one is no justification for quoting Hawking at me!

GEORGE: DHW says: "The big bang theory is irrelevant, since we cannot know what preceded it, if it happened." and "It is irrelevant because we do not know what preceded it! You say your eternal, thinking, first-cause God preceded it and caused it; I say maybe a first-cause eternal universe of constantly changing matter and energy preceded it and caused it."
DT says: "The BB is directly estimated at 13.78 bya. The science community in general accepts something started this current universe at that time, and it is not irrelevant."

George: I'm sure we have discussed this before. If the big bang happened then it created TIME as well as Space, Energy and Matter all at the same zero instant of time. There was no time "before". Of course there are theories such as Roger Penrose's cyclic universe that imagine something before, so that the creation from nothing is replaced by a phase change, but as far as I know there is no evidence for this yet, and in any case it just puts the origin further back. The alternative is an infinite regress that seems to explain nothing.

dhw: I share your proviso: “IF the big bang happened”, but even if it did, I’m afraid I find it impossible to believe that countless billions of stars and galaxies originally sprang from nothing. And what exactly does that theory explain? To me it’s just as illogical as the belief that the big bang was caused by an immaterial conscious mind which has existed for ever. The fact is, we still know very little even about the universe that we can actually observe – approx. 90% of it is supposed to consist of unknown matter and energy, though we prefer to call it “dark” so that it can take on some kind of official identity. We have nothing but theories about what lies beyond or what happened before. An “infinite regress” is just as likely as any other theory.

DAVID: Irrelevant only in your philosophy. The fact that this current universe had a timed appearance which is unexplained is entirely relevant. At Hawking's 70th birthday conference it was fully accepted in a Guth, etc. article there is no before, before the big Bang. Further you are describing a theory known as a 'Big Bounce' which requires a curved universe spacetime and this one is measured as flat.

dhw: This is an astonishing claim from someone who believes in a conscious mind of “pure energy” which engineered the big bang! Of course you believe in a before. And if you can believe in pre-existing and eternal conscious energy, you can believe in pre-existing unconscious and eternal energy and matter. The big bang may be relevant to your belief in conscious design, but it’s not relevant to a discussion on “first cause”.

It is extremely relevant. Note the bold above. The only 'before' is God from my view. For the reason that I don't believe your red phrase can accomplish anything without a designing mind hard at work..

I'm sure we have discussed this before. If the big bang happened then it created TIME as well as Space, Energy and Matter all at the same zero instant of time. There was no time "before". Of course there are theories such as Roger Penrose's cyclic universe that imagine something before, so that the creation from nothing is replaced by a phase change, but as far as I know there is no evidence for this yet, and in any case it just puts the origin further back. The alternative is an infinite regress that seems to explain nothing.

I share your proviso: “IF the big bang happened”, but even if it did, I’m afraid I find it impossible to believe that countless billions of stars and galaxies originally sprang from nothing. And what exactly does that theory explain? To me it’s just as illogical as the belief that the big bang was caused by an immaterial conscious mind which has existed for ever. The fact is, we still know very little even about the universe that we can actually observe – approx. 90% of it is supposed to consist of unknown matter and energy, though we prefer to call it “dark” so that it can take on some kind of official identity. We have nothing but theories about what lies beyond or what happened before. An “infinite regress” is just as likely as any other theory.

DAVID: Irrelevant only in your philosophy. The fact that this current universe had a timed appearance which is unexplained is entirely relevant. At Hawking's 70th birthday conference it was fully accepted in a Guth, etc. article there is no before, before the big Bang. Further you are describing a theory known as a 'Big Bounce' which requires a curved universe spacetime and this one is measured as flat.

This is an astonishing claim from someone who believes in a conscious mind of “pure energy” which engineered the big bang! Of course you believe in a before. And if you can believe in pre-existing and eternal conscious energy, you can believe in pre-existing unconscious and eternal energy and matter. The big bang may be relevant to your belief in conscious design, but it’s not relevant to a discussion on “first cause”.

dhw: I can accept the argument for a “first cause”, but the rest makes me squirm, even though I am not an atheist. A causeless supreme intelligence is no more likely than a causeless universe of constantly changing matter and energy, in which an eternity and infinity of combinations has eventually thrown together the rudimentary ingredients for life and intelligence. (The big bang theory is irrelevant, since we cannot know what preceded it, if it happened.) […]

DAVID: I didn't comment, because I agree with most of it, and had nothing to add. But the bolded statement makes me comment. The BB is directly estimated at 13.78 bya. The science community in general accepts something started this current universe at that time, and it is not irrelevant.

dhw: It is irrelevant because we do not know what preceded it! You say your eternal, thinking, first-cause God preceded it and caused it; I say maybe a first-cause eternal universe of constantly changing matter and energy preceded it and caused it.

Irrelevant only in your philosophy. The fact that this current universe had a timed appearance which is unexplained is entirely relevant. At Hawking's 70th birthday conference it was fully accepted in a Guth, etc. article there is no before, before the big Bang. Further you are describing a theory known as a 'Big Bounce' which requires a curved universe spacetime and this one is measured as flat.

DHW says: "The big bang theory is irrelevant, since we cannot know what preceded it, if it happened." and "It is irrelevant because we do not know what preceded it! You say your eternal, thinking, first-cause God preceded it and caused it; I say maybe a first-cause eternal universe of constantly changing matter and energy preceded it and caused it."

DT says: "The BB is directly estimated at 13.78 bya. The science community in general accepts something started this current universe at that time, and it is not irrelevant."

I'm sure we have discussed this before. If the big bang happened then it created TIME as well as Space, Energy and Matter all at the same zero instant of time. There was no time "before". Of course there are theories such as Roger Penrose's cyclic universe that imagine something before, so that the creation from nothing is replaced by a phase change, but as far as I know there is no evidence for this yet, and in any case it just puts the origin further back. The alternative is an infinite regress that seems to explain nothing.

On another point
DT says: "If human thought emerged in a universe without a wise and benevolent creator, then our thought would be, at best, well adjusted for survival and reproduction, but not for truth. In particular, our knowledge of the norms of reason depend on God’s wise benevolence.”

I don't see how this follows. The principles of two-valued logic, which is the basis of reason, follow from the idea that any proposition is either true or false. To survive we need to know what is true and what is false in the world about us. Thus our ability to reason can evolve, it does not need to be pre-programmed by a creator.

DAVID: I didn't comment, because I agree with most of it, and had nothing to add. But the bolded statement makes me comment. The BB is directly estimated at 13.78 bya. The science community in general accepts something started this current universe at that time, and it is not irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because we do not know what preceded it! You say your eternal, thinking, first-cause God preceded it and caused it; I say maybe a first-cause eternal universe of constantly changing matter and energy preceded it and caused it.

GEORGE: I came across this review on Twitter, which claims that "God is Back"!
It mentions Plantinga whose ideas have been discussed here before.
https://www.newsmax.com/robkoons/theism-atheism-alexander-pruss/2018/12/27/id/896083/

Alexander Pruss however does not seem to have crossed you paths before.
Of course as an atheist I doubt if their arguments are any better than before.
The idea that everything has a cause is questionable to begin with.

DAVID: George, thank you for this interesting website. Pruss has an interesting Thomist approach, which I tend to follow.

dhw: Many thanks, George, for your continued interest. As an agnostic, I agree with you about the arguments, as I’ll explain in a moment, but I do think everything has a cause except for the one great problem of how “everything” began!

QUOTE: “Since we know that the universe had a first cause, Collins’s argument gives us reason to think that that first cause is intelligent and purposeful — in fact, that its purposes include the fulfillment of human aspirations for knowledge.
In my own chapter in the book, I build on work by C. S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga to show that, in the absence of the existence of God, all human knowledge would be impossible. If human thought emerged in a universe without a wise and benevolent creator, then our thought would be, at best, well adjusted for survival and reproduction, but not for truth. In particular, our knowledge of the norms of reason depend on God’s wise benevolence.”

I can accept the argument for a “first cause”, but the rest makes me squirm, even though I am not an atheist. A causeless supreme intelligence is no more likely than a causeless universe of constantly changing matter and energy, in which an eternity and infinity of combinations has eventually thrown together the rudimentary ingredients for life and intelligence. (The big bang theory is irrelevant, since we cannot know what preceded it, if it happened.) The choice then lies between top-down, in which a know-it-all intelligence without a cause (God) engineers the progress from inorganic materials to single cell to human intelligence, and bottom up, in which mindless chance is the cause that initiates the same process. I find both theories equally impossible to believe, which of course is why I remain agnostic. (A third option is a kind of panpsychism, which we needn’t go into here.

I’m a little surprised that David has not pounced on “wise and benevolent” as “humanizations”, not to mention the fact that the history of life has always largely been one of eat or be eaten, which I find hard to equate with benevolence. I don’t know how this can be called “wisdom” either.

I didn't comment, because I agree with most of it, and had nothing to add. But the bolded statement makes me comment. The BB is directly estimated at 13.78 bya. The science community in general accepts something started this current universe at that time, and it is not irrelevant.

Alexander Pruss however does not seem to have crossed you paths before.
Of course as an atheist I doubt if their arguments are any better than before.
The idea that everything has a cause is questionable to begin with.

DAVID: George, thank you for this interesting website. Pruss has an interesting Thomist approach, which I tend to follow.

Many thanks, George, for your continued interest. As an agnostic, I agree with you about the arguments, as I’ll explain in a moment, but I do think everything has a cause except for the one great problem of how “everything” began!

QUOTE: “Since we know that the universe had a first cause, Collins’s argument gives us reason to think that that first cause is intelligent and purposeful — in fact, that its purposes include the fulfillment of human aspirations for knowledge.
In my own chapter in the book, I build on work by C. S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga to show that, in the absence of the existence of God, all human knowledge would be impossible. If human thought emerged in a universe without a wise and benevolent creator, then our thought would be, at best, well adjusted for survival and reproduction, but not for truth. In particular, our knowledge of the norms of reason depend on God’s wise benevolence.”

I can accept the argument for a “first cause”, but the rest makes me squirm, even though I am not an atheist. A causeless supreme intelligence is no more likely than a causeless universe of constantly changing matter and energy, in which an eternity and infinity of combinations has eventually thrown together the rudimentary ingredients for life and intelligence. (The big bang theory is irrelevant, since we cannot know what preceded it, if it happened.) The choice then lies between top-down, in which a know-it-all intelligence without a cause (God) engineers the progress from inorganic materials to single cell to human intelligence, and bottom up, in which mindless chance is the cause that initiates the same process. I find both theories equally impossible to believe, which of course is why I remain agnostic. (A third option is a kind of panpsychism, which we needn’t go into here.

I’m a little surprised that David has not pounced on “wise and benevolent” as “humanizations”, not to mention the fact that the history of life has always largely been one of eat or be eaten, which I find hard to equate with benevolence. I don’t know how this can be called “wisdom” either.

George: I came across this review on Twitter, which claims that "God is Back"!
It mentions Plantinga whose ideas have been discussed here before.

https://www.newsmax.com/robkoons/theism-atheism-alexander-pruss/2018/12/27/id/896083/

Alexander Pruss however does not seem to have crossed you paths before.
Of course as an atheist I doubt if their arguments are any better than before.
The idea that everything has a cause is questionable to begin with.

George, thank you for this interesting website. Pruss has an interesting Thomist approach, which I tend to follow.

https://www.newsmax.com/robkoons/theism-atheism-alexander-pruss/2018/12/27/id/896083/

Alexander Pruss however does not seem to have crossed you paths before.
Of course as an atheist I doubt if their arguments are any better than before.
The idea that everything has a cause is questionable to begin with.

dhw: We agree on convergence, which is not an issue between us. Whether God designed every example of convergence or gave cells the intelligence to solve each problem as it arose IS an issue, but this has nothing to do with bad viruses and bacteria and the good folk of Cape Verde having evolved a defence against malaria. You are dodging again.

DAVID: How do you know the Cape Verde folks didn't have a chance lucky mutation? No God. It happens.

dhw: I’m sure the Darwinians you despise so much will be delighted at your belief in the beneficial powers of chance mutations. As you said in the early days of our discussion on errors, when these could change the course of evolution: “What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God’s plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!” You hurriedly withdrew that when you realized the implications, but now you are happy to accept a random mutation which solves a problem that neither your God’s “backups” nor our finest scientists have been able to solve. I’m not discounting chance, but I reckon intelligent cells are a more likely explanation.

You endlessly review past history and distort it. In evolution I said a chance beneficial mutation but not exactly what God wanted could be allowed. Still feel that way. But DARC is a chance mutation with no species change. The modified hemoglobin mutation accidently thwarts malaria while it is damaging hemoglobins. Pure Behe theory, which he has covered!

dhw: I seem to be the one who detects purpose, while you endow your God with less and less control: off go the molecules, disobeying your God’s instructions, and now we have beneficial mutations resulting from chance.

DAVID: I have God in full control of his systems, other than molecular errors while living. I've said above the Cape Verdian mutation could well be chance. But this is not full blown evolution of species, which my 'original theory' concerned, only an adaptation, which go on all the time, mainly epigenetically. Don't overstep your argument. God speciates.

dhw: You have identified two forms of error in the system: evolutionary and disease-causing. You do not have your God in full control of his systems if he can’t control the errors that cause disease! You kept talking about backups which sometimes succeed and sometimes don’t. Now we have random mutations which succeed where your God failed. As far as evolution is concerned, do you or do you not accept that adaptation goes ahead without your God’s intervention? If so, do you or do you not accept that (theistic version) your God must have created a mechanism enabling cells to change their structure in accordance with the demands of the environment?

God controls evolution by designing the new genomes in each subsequent stage. The bold is total distortion of my presentation. After evolution has ended in an existing species, H. sapiens, a chance mutation, DARC, creates a damaged imperfect hemoglobin and accidently thwarts malaria. Another of this type accident, sickle cell, causes severe disease in the homozygous. Sickle cell reduces oxygen carrying capacity. I can't find a study on DARC handling oxygen. I do not believe God arranged for the accident. Hemoglobin happens to contain a large number of mutations of no consequence.

dhw: There is no disagreement here. The question is why a God who wishes us no harm would design the harmful bacteria and viruses.

DAVID: Again, theodicy. It comes down to God knowing what He is doing, even as we can question why.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he knows what he is doing. It is you who have put together the above two premises which don’t make sense, so maybe YOU don’t know what he is doing. See the "errors" post.

dhw: We agree on convergence, which is not an issue between us. Whether God designed every example of convergence or gave cells the intelligence to solve each problem as it arose IS an issue, but this has nothing to do with bad viruses and bacteria and the good folk of Cape Verde having evolved a defence against malaria. You are dodging again.

DAVID: How do you know the Cape Verde folks didn't have a chance lucky mutation? No God. It happens.

I’m sure the Darwinians you despise so much will be delighted at your belief in the beneficial powers of chance mutations. As you said in the early days of our discussion on errors, when these could change the course of evolution: “What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God’s plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!” You hurriedly withdrew that when you realized the implications, but now you are happy to accept a random mutation which solves a problem that neither your God’s “backups” nor our finest scientists have been able to solve. I’m not discounting chance, but I reckon intelligent cells are a more likely explanation.

dhw: I seem to be the one who detects purpose, while you endow your God with less and less control: off go the molecules, disobeying your God’s instructions, and now we have beneficial mutations resulting from chance.

DAVID: I have God in full control of his systems, other than molecular errors while living. I've said above the Cape Verdian mutation could well be chance. But this is not full blown evolution of species, which my 'original theory' concerned, only an adaptation, which go on all the time, mainly epigenetically. Don't overstep your argument. God speciates.

You have identified two forms of error in the system: evolutionary and disease-causing. You do not have your God in full control of his systems if he can’t control the errors that cause disease! You kept talking about backups which sometimes succeed and sometimes don’t. Now we have random mutations which succeed where your God failed. As far as evolution is concerned, do you or do you not accept that adaptation goes ahead without your God’s intervention? If so, do you or do you not accept that (theistic version) your God must have created a mechanism enabling cells to change their structure in accordance with the demands of the environment?

Our threads are overlapping, but I don't have time now to combine them.

DAVID: My suggestion about bacteria and viruses is that most of them have purposeful functions, as you know.

dhw: There is no disagreement here. The question is why a God who wishes us no harm would design the harmful bacteria and viruses.

Again, theodicy. It comes down to God knowing what He is doing, even as we can question why.

DAVID: Of course convergence is an issue as brilliantly raised by Conway Morris. You always slip into the position that cell intelligence may be from God. He and I feel it is from God. Depends on which side of a coin you favor.

dhw: We agree on convergence, which is not an issue between us. Whether God designed every example of convergence or gave cells the intelligence to solve each problem as it arose IS an issue, but this has nothing to do with bad viruses and bacteria and the good folk of Cape Verde having evolved a defence against malaria. You are dodging again.

How do you know the Cape Verde folks didn't have a chance lucky mutation? No God. It happens.

DAVID: Note the Y chromosome article and the counter point to Gould and woolly Darwin pontifications, none of which hold water. As for DARC we all recognize an occasional chance mutation is beneficial. And therefore note, not God-given. But this is not speciation where God rules.

dhw: See the relevant article on Y and on Gould. Are you saying here that the Cape Verdian immunity was due to a chance mutation? This opens the door to your original “errors” theory that chance mutations changed the course of evolution. How “occasional” is occasional, and if chance can create a defence against a disease which even now we humans have trouble controlling, then why stop there? I seem to be the one who detects purpose, while you endow your God with less and less control: off go the molecules, disobeying your God’s instructions, and now we have beneficial mutations resulting from chance.

I have God in full control of his systems, other than molecular errors while living. I've said above the Cape Verdian mutation could well be chance. But this is not full blown evolution of species, which my 'original theory' concerned, only an adaptation, which go on all the time, mainly epigenetically. Don't overstep your argument. God speiates.