https://phys.org/news/2021-03-birds-discovery-loop.html

"Birds breathe with greater efficiency than humans due to the structure of their lungs—looped airways that facilitate air flows that go in one direction—a team of researchers has found through a series of lab experiments and simulations.

***

"'Unlike the air flows deep in the branches of our lungs, which oscillate back and forth as we breathe in and out, the flow moves in a single direction in bird lungs even as they inhale and exhale," explains Leif Ristroph, an associate professor at NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and the senior author of the paper. "This allows them to perform the most difficult and energetically costly activity of any animal: they can fly, and they can do so across whole oceans and entire continents and at elevations as high as Mount Everest, where the oxygen is extremely thin."

"'The key is that bird lungs are made of looped airways—not just the branches and tree-like structure of our lungs—and we found that this leads to one-way or directed flows around the loops," adds Ristroph. "This wind ventilates even the deep recesses of the lungs and brings in fresh air."

"The one-way flow of air in birds' breathing systems was discovered a century ago. But what had remained a mystery was an explanation of the aerodynamics behind this efficient breathing system.

***

"For the experiments, they built piping filled with water—to replicate air flow—and bent the piping to imitate the loop-like structure of birds' lungs—similar to the way freeways are connected by on-ramps and off-ramps. The researchers mixed microparticles into the water, which allowed them to track the direction of the water flow.

"These experiments showed that back-and-forth motions generated by breathing were transformed into one-way flows around the loops.

"'This is in essence what happens inside lungs, but now we could actually see and measure—and thus understand—what was going on," explains Ristroph, director of the Applied Mathematics Lab. "The way this plays out is that the network has loops and thus junctions, which are a bit like 'forks in the road' where the flows have a choice about which route to take."

***

"'Inertia tends to cause the flows to keep going straight rather than turn down a side street, which gets obstructed by a vortex," explains NJIT assistant professor and co-author Anand Oza. "This ends up leading to one-way flows and circulation around loops because of how the junctions are hooked up in the network."

"Ristroph points to several potential engineering uses for these findings.

"'Directing, controlling, and pumping fluids is a very common goal in many applications, from healthcare to chemical processing to the fuel, lubricant, and coolant systems in all sorts of machinery," he observes. "In all these cases, we need to pump fluids in specific directions for specific purposes, and now we've learned from birds an entirely new way to accomplish this that we hope can be used in our technologies.'"

Comment: The rate of breathing increases the caloric cost of breathing in increased exercise. The birds use lots of calories in flying, but their system of breathing is a great way to make is easier. A great design not by chance.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/cricket-avoids-being-bat-food-by-doi...

"Echolocation is great for hunting. But Holderied says it’s also a potential weakness for bats—because in the ultrasonic world, these calls are very, very loud.

“'And once you have cracked that, once you have evolved an ear that lets you hear these calls, you can simply fly away and escape into safety....”

"Which the cricket has learned to do.

“'Basically, they have a response threshold–that’s what we call it. So they only respond to sounds that are very loud.”

"And how do they respond? Well, they simply stop flying—and plummet toward the ground.

"The sword-tailed cricket can discern bats’ echolocation signals by only responding to calls of a certain volume—at which point it plummets out of their approach.

“'A rain forest is a very noisy environment. There’s insect sounds, bird sounds; there’s leaves rustling. And all of this makes it harder for you to detect something you want to hear.”

"Holderied is particularly interested in sounds from the ultrasonic range—these are frequencies our ears can’t detect. But they come in loud and clear for a sword-tailed cricket in Panama.

"Holderied and colleagues at the Universities of Bristol and Graz in Austria, recently discovered the sword-tailed cricket has a novel survival strategy when it comes to life in their noisy environment.

“'Up there, it’s mainly other insects that produce noises that stop you from detecting what you really want to detect—and that is a predator that might attack you.”

"Every night, hundreds of species of hungry bats fly around the rain forest and use echolocation to hunt for their meals, which can include the cricket.

“So we are talking neotropical rain forests, and they teem with different bat species. And most of them, or many of them, would be after insects. So the frequencies that they use to find the insect prey are covering pretty much a full echolocation-frequency range.”

"Echolocation is great for hunting. But Holderied says it’s also a potential weakness for bats—because in the ultrasonic world, these calls are very, very loud.

“'And once you have cracked that, once you have evolved an ear that lets you hear these calls, you can simply fly away and escape into safety....”

"Which the cricket has learned to do. (my bold)

“'Basically, they have a response threshold–that’s what we call it. So they only respond to sounds that are very loud.”

"And how do they respond? Well, they simply stop flying—and plummet toward the ground.

“'Sometimes they don’t even drop all the way to the ground. So if the calls are louder, they stop flying for a longer period of time–that means a longer drop. But if they stop for just a half a second, that might not be enough time for them to hit the ground. And after this half a second, they start flying again, but they’re never actually crashing. But they drop out of the bat’s approach vector.'”

Comment: How did crickets learn to do this? See the bold. It involves lots of analytic thought summarizing the sound, noting that bats appear for meals. Analysis by cricket survivors must be achieved and passed on to all crickets. How is that done? Not language. I'll stick with implanted instinct. Just as with the bees biting rose leaves causes more immediate flowering. Bee waggling dances transmit concrete ideas of distance and direction to good flowers, nothing more. Where did that come from? Only dhw knows: they think like we do.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/learning-without-a-brain-11595527115?mod=searchresults&...

"Slime molds, for example, are very large single-celled organisms that can agglomerate into masses, creeping across the forest floor and feeding on decaying plants. (One type is called dog vomit slime mold, which gives you an idea of what they look like.) They can also retreat into a sort of freeze-dried capsule form, losing much of their protein and DNA in the process, and stay that way for months. But just add water and the reconstituted slime mold is good as new.

"They are also fussy eaters. If you put them down on top of their favorite meal of agar and Quaker oats and add salt or quinine to one part of it, they’ll avoid that part, at least at first. The biologists Aurele Bousard and Audrey Dussutour at the University of Toulouse and colleagues used this fact to show that slime molds can learn in a simple way called habituation. If the only way to get the oats is to eat the salt too, the molds eventually get used to it and stop objecting. Remarkably, this information somehow persists for up to a month, even through their period of dessicated hibernation.

"Flatworms are equally weird. Cut one into a hundred pieces and each piece will regenerate into a perfect new worm.

***

"Santosh Manicka and Michael Levin of Tufts University argue in the special issue that regeneration involves a kind of cognition. The process is remarkably robust: You can move the cells that usually make a head to the tail location, and they will somehow figure out how to make a tail instead. The researchers argue that this ability to take multiple paths to achieve the same goal requires a kind of intelligence.

"Regeneration involves the standard mechanisms that allow the DNA in a cell to manufacture proteins. But Dr. Levin and his colleagues have shown that flatworm cells also communicate information through electricity, signaling to other nearby cells in much the way that neurons do. In experiments that would make Dr. Frankenstein proud, the researchers altered those electrical signals to produce a worm that consistently regenerates with two heads, or even one that grows the head of another related species of flatworm.

"This research has some practical implications: It would be great if human accident victims could grow back their limbs as easily as flatworms do. But the studies also speak to a profound biological and philosophical conundrum. Where do cognition and intelligence come from? How could natural selection turn single-celled amoebas into homo sapiens? Dr. Levin thinks that the electrical communications that help flatworms regenerate might have evolved into the subtler mechanisms of brain communication. Those creepy slime molds and flatworms might help to explain how humans got smart."

Comment: We have covered this material before. The bold is a good question if you are an atheist, but simple if you believe the intelligence is God's and given to the living organisms in cellular genomes. Such intelligence doesn't arise out of thin air or by chance, and it certainly can't evolve from simple one-celled starting life, whose start is still totally unknown to us.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2228801-some-starfish-like-animals-see-without-eye...

Brittlestars, marine animals that look a little like starfish, may see without eyes by changing the colour of their bodies.

"While we already knew that brittlestars have photoreceptors all along their bodies, we didn’t know exactly how they worked until now. The discovery could help explain how other related marine creatures, like sea urchins, are also able to see without eyes.

***

"By looking at the two closely related species, Sumner-Rooney and her colleagues were able to surmise that O. wendtii was able to orientate itself towards differing contrasts of light, but O. pumila could not. Sumner-Rooney says this skill comes in handy as “it makes it easier to find somewhere to hide” in complex visual environments like a coral reef.

"The researchers put individuals from the two species in a 60-centimetre-diameter cylindrical tank. They coloured a narrow band of the tank’s wall black with a white border, and left the rest of the tank’s wall a uniform grey.

"Because the black and white bands were so close to one another, the light that reflected off them clashed to create a light intensity identical to that from the grey parts of the wall. This means an animal that can simply sense light wouldn’t be able to identify the black band. O. wendtii did tend to recognise the black band and crawl towards it to seek shelter, but O. pumila did not.

"Why one species has this ability and the other doesn’t may come down to the fact that O. wendtii changes colour, unlike O. pumila. O. wendtii is a deep, red-brown colour in the light and a pale beige in the dark.

"Using a combination of microscopic observations and RNA sequencing, the researchers speculate that in light, the animal’s pigment-containing cells constrict the photoreceptors. This means that they can only receive light from one direction, giving the brittlestars more detailed information about the contrast of their surroundings.

"Sea urchins that can “see” without eyes also have these pigment-containing cells."

Comment: Real eyes started this way.

DAVID: How did this evolve by chance. There is no way a bear could try going to sleep for months and survive without preparation by a designer:
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-learning-from-the-bears.html

QUOTE: "Grizzly bears spend many months in hibernation, but their muscles do not suffer from the lack of movement."

DAVID: Non-essential amino acids are an interesting observation. They must have been designed just for this very special process and therefore are required to be in these bears. There are 20 essential amino acids that are left-handed and must be present for life to exist. It is not known if these special proteins exist anywhere else. The grizzly DNA requires this behavior to happen each year. Bears did not just decide to require this process. Note my bold: "Nature perfected a way". Pure Darwin illogical thinking. How about a designer!

dhw: Thank you for yet another fascinating “wonder”. Of course the argument applies to all creatures that hibernate, and to all creatures that adapt successfully to difficult conditions. And of course these adaptations do not develop by chance, and of course the bear didn’t “decide to require this process.” The conditions required this process, and we know that countless species have died out when they are unable to cope with new conditions. “Nature perfected a way” suggests to me that there is a mechanism at work (possibly designed by your God) which enables SOME species to survive while others go extinct. It is what Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering” carried out by intelligent cells. It’s just a theory, but it removes the need for your God to preprogramme or dabble every single adaptation in every single species that survives (while 90% or so die out), in anticipation of every environmental change, whether local or global, for 3.X thousand million years, all for the purpose of designing one species. Either the cells work out a solution, or the organism dies – hence the long, long history of changing life forms. So much simpler and so much more logical than your theory. Ockham would rejoice.

Ockham as a priest would totally disagree with you, but your suggestion that doing without God is simpler than accepting him is an unreasonable denial of the need for very complex design as the bears demonstrate. This is why you cannot dismiss design arguments and sit on your fence. We cannot know how this appeared, since fossils don't talk, but design does. The climate these bears live in has no food supply for many months, but unlike birds they do not migrate, as the land to be covered is too far away. But animals can migrate as in Africa with the Wildebeest movements in Kenya with much shorter distances. Did the bears think we can't get that far so lets sleep? The bears did not know how far 'far' is without trying. Darwinists will say those that tried died but the smart ones stayed and slept. And skip over the very complex physiological design issue of no movement and no urine output as one set of examples of the problems to be overcome. Ockham would rejoice in the simple solution of God does it. As for smart cells, they can only make tiny adjustments , which is all we have demonstrated in the current science studies. The gaps in the fossil record don't fit the theory, as Gould noted. What is also known is the North Pole was tropical with palm trees at in ancient time. Bears or their forebears could have moved as the climate changed, but some stayed and achieved the changes. I'll stick with God speciates, simple!

QUOTE: "Grizzly bears spend many months in hibernation, but their muscles do not suffer from the lack of movement."

DAVID: Non-essential amino acids are an interesting observation. They must have been designed just for this very special process and therefore are required to be in these bears. There are 20 essential amino acids that are left-handed and must be present for life to exist. It is not known if these special proteins exist anywhere else. The grizzly DNA requires this behavior to happen each year. Bears did not just decide to require this process. Note my bold: "Nature perfected a way". Pure Darwin illogical thinking. How about a designer!

Thank you for yet another fascinating “wonder”. Of course the argument applies to all creatures that hibernate, and to all creatures that adapt successfully to difficult conditions. And of course these adaptations do not develop by chance, and of course the bear didn’t “decide to require this process.” The conditions required this process, and we know that countless species have died out when they are unable to cope with new conditions. “Nature perfected a way” suggests to me that there is a mechanism at work (possibly designed by your God) which enables SOME species to survive while others go extinct. It is what Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering” carried out by intelligent cells. It’s just a theory, but it removes the need for your God to preprogramme or dabble every single adaptation in every single species that survives (while 90% or so die out), in anticipation of every environmental change, whether local or global, for 3.X thousand million years, all for the purpose of designing one species. Either the cells work out a solution, or the organism dies – hence the long, long history of changing life forms. So much simpler and so much more logical than your theory. Ockham would rejoice.

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-learning-from-the-bears.html

"Grizzly bears spend many months in hibernation, but their muscles do not suffer from the lack of movement.

"A grizzly bear only knows three seasons during the year. Its time of activity starts between March and May. Around September the bear begins to eat large quantities of food. And sometime between November and January, it falls into hibernation. From a physiological point of view, this is the strangest time of all. The bear's metabolism and heart rate drop rapidly. It excretes neither urine nor feces. The amount of nitrogen in the blood increases drastically and the bear becomes resistant to the hormone insulin.

"A person could hardly survive this four-month phase in a healthy state. Afterwards, he or she would most likely have to cope with thromboses or psychological changes. Above all, the muscles would suffer from this prolonged period of disuse. Anyone who has ever had an arm or leg in a cast for a few weeks or has had to lie in bed for a long time due to an illness has probably experienced this.

"Not so the grizzly bear. In the spring, the bear wakes up from hibernation, perhaps still a bit sluggish at first, but otherwise well. Many scientists have long been interested in the bear's strategies for adapting to its three seasons.

***

"For me, the beauty of our work was to learn how nature has perfected a way to maintain muscle functions under the difficult conditions of hibernation," says Mugahid. "If we can better understand these strategies, we will be able to develop novel and non-intuitive methods to better prevent and treat muscle atrophy in patients." ( my bold)

***

"As the researchers reported in the journal Scientific Reports, they found proteins in their experiments that strongly influence a bear's amino acid metabolism during hibernation. As a result, its muscle cells contain higher amounts of certain non-essential amino acids (NEAAs)."

Comment: Non-essential amino acids are an interesting observation. They must have been designed just for this very special process and therefore are required to be in these bears. There are 20 essential amino acids that are left-handed and must be present for life to exist. It is not known if these special proteins exist anywhere else. The grizzly DNA requires this behavior to happen each year. Bears did not just decide to require this process. Note my bold: "Nature perfected a way". Pure Darwin illogical thinking. How about a designer!

DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.

dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.

dhw: It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.

DAVID: Those exploding stars created the elements needed for life. God works through the processes built into the universe. I keep telling you God evolves His goals.

dhw: There are believed to be about 10 billion galaxies and a billion trillion stars in the observable universe (not to mention the unobservable universe). Do you honestly believe that every single one of them was specially designed to explode and create the elements needed for life on Planet Earth? And yes, you keep telling me that God evolves his goals, and for you “evolve” means specially designed, and for you his “goals” means everything he designed is for the single goal of producing H. sapiens. That is what we keep arguing about. It makes nonsense of the history.

If God created the universe the current universe tells us what He wanted. History is not a caricature, as you imp,ly , but what Her wanted.

DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.

dhw: Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.

DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

dhw: Your first statement is certainly true, if God exists, but history does not tell us that he did it your way! I do wish you hadn’t written your second statement. How can you, a human being, tell us that something is logical provided we do not apply human logic to it? You have spent years applying human logic to the case for design as evidence of a designer. What would you say to an atheist whose only answer to your logic was that blind chance is logically the creator provided we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history, because the impersonal universe cannot be “humanized”? (See also under “whale adaptation”.)

You accept and then refuse to accept that God, as the Creator, can do what He wishes how He wishes. The argument for a designer is very clear in logic, but not related to God's decisions of methodology.

dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.

dhw: It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.

DAVID: Those exploding stars created the elements needed for life. God works through the processes built into the universe. I keep telling you God evolves His goals.

There are believed to be about 10 billion galaxies and a billion trillion stars in the observable universe (not to mention the unobservable universe). Do you honestly believe that every single one of them was specially designed to explode and create the elements needed for life on Planet Earth? And yes, you keep telling me that God evolves his goals, and for you “evolve” means specially designed, and for you his “goals” means everything he designed is for the single goal of producing H. sapiens. That is what we keep arguing about. It makes nonsense of the history.

DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.

dhw: Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.

DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

Your first statement is certainly true, if God exists, but history does not tell us that he did it your way! I do wish you hadn’t written your second statement. How can you, a human being, tell us that something is logical provided we do not apply human logic to it? You have spent years applying human logic to the case for design as evidence of a designer. What would you say to an atheist whose only answer to your logic was that blind chance is logically the creator provided we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history, because the impersonal universe cannot be “humanized”? (See also under “whale adaptation”.)

DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.

dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.

dhw: It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.

Those exploding stars created the elements needed for life. God works through the processes built into the universe. I keep telling you God evolves His goals.

DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.

dhw: And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.

DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.

dhw: Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.

The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.

dhw: As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!

They are all human explanations for God we cannot know, except through His creations and the history of how those creations appeared.

DAVID You still can't recognize I accept what God created and don't try to guess why.

dhw: Your guesses are described above (in bold), and my agnosticism does not provide any explanation for what you yourself cannot explain.

I don't try to explain and I recognize your agnosticism can't, especially as you humanize God..

dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.

It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.

DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.

dhw: And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.

DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.

Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.

DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.

dhw: As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!

DAVID You still can't recognize I accept what god created and don't try to guess why.

Your guesses are described above (in bold), and my agnosticism does not provide any explanation for what you yourself cannot explain.

DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.

dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.

I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.

DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.

dhw: And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.

You like guessing. I don't try.

DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.

dhw: As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!

You still can't recognize I accept what god created a nd don't try to guess why.

Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.

dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.

DAVID: I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.

dhw: Of course you don’t know them, but you kid yourself that you do, because you insist that your combined choice of purpose (why have you left that out?) and method was his, as above. My God, just like yours, would definitely know his reasons for creating life, and you have absolutely no grounds for assuming that those reasons are not logical by human standards and are inaccessible to humans.

DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.

And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.

DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.

As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!

DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.

dhw: I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.

DAVID: You might well ask why God waited 13.78 billion years to produce humans. Why not do it all at once?

dhw: It is you who should be asking that question, since it is you who insist that he specially designed all the non-life-bearing solar systems in order to design one planet, and he designed all the living forms in order to design one species! Yet again, you take the history, acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would choose such a roundabout way of designing the only thing he wanted to design, but refuse to acknowledge that maybe he didn’t wait 13.78 billion years just in order to specially design Planet Earth, and maybe he didn’t wait 3.X billion years just in order to specially design a succession of hominids and homos before specially designing the only homo he wanted to design. As always, it is your theory about the purpose that makes the method inexplicable.

I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.

DAVID: My God is not human…

dhw: Nobody imagines that God is human.

DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.

dhw: There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!

DAVID: And lose His full control? That is your humanized God.

Yet again you refuse to say why you think a God who wishes to maintain full control is not human, whereas a God who deliberately sacrifices control is human.

DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.

dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.

DAVID: I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.

dhw: Of course you don’t know them, but you kid yourself that you do, because you insist that your combined choice of purpose (why have you left that out?) and method was his, as above. My God, just like yours, would definitely know his reasons for creating life, and you have absolutely no grounds for assuming that those reasons are not logical by human standards and are inaccessible to humans.

Any supposition about His reasons care simply guesses.

DAVID: It is not entirely inaccessible, as we can make logical human guesses as you have, but that is all they ever will be, guesses. Thus I accept His choices without question.

dhw: Of course they are guesses, but what you accept without question is that YOUR incomprehensible version of his “choices” is HIS version!

As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning

dhw: I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.

DAVID: You might well ask why God waited 13.78 billion years to produce humans. Why not do it all at once?

It is you who should be asking that question, since it is you who insist that he specially designed all the non-life-bearing solar systems in order to design one planet, and he designed all the living forms in order to design one species! Yet again, you take the history, acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would choose such a roundabout way of designing the only thing he wanted to design, but refuse to acknowledge that maybe he didn’t wait 13.78 billion years just in order to specially design Planet Earth, and maybe he didn’t wait 3.X billion years just in order to specially design a succession of hominids and homos before specially designing the only homo he wanted to design. As always, it is your theory about the purpose that makes the method inexplicable.

DAVID: My God is not human…

dhw: Nobody imagines that God is human.

DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.

dhw: There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!

DAVID: And lose His full control? That is your humanized God.

Yet again you refuse to say why you think a God who wishes to maintain full control is not human, whereas a God who deliberately sacrifices control is human.

DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.

dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.

DAVID: I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.

Of course you don’t know them, but you kid yourself that you do, because you insist that your combined choice of purpose (why have you left that out?) and method was his, as above. My God, just like yours, would definitely know his reasons for creating life, and you have absolutely no grounds for assuming that those reasons are not logical by human standards and are inaccessible to humans.

DAVID: It is not entirely inaccessible, as we can make logical human guesses as you have, but that is all they ever will be, guesses. Thus I accept His choices without question.

Of course they are guesses, but what you accept without question is that YOUR incomprehensible version of his “choices” is HIS version!

DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.

dhw: I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.

You might well ask why God waited 13.78 billion years to produce humans. Why not do it all at once?

dhw: You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.

DAVID: My God is not human…

dhw: Nobody imagines that God is human.

DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.

dhw: There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!

And lose His full control? That is your humanized God.

DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.

dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.

I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.

DAVID: […] if God is the creator, what we see is what and how He created it. Thus, God evolved life.

dhw: Of course if he exists he evolved life! And all the theistic alternatives I have offered you are on that basis, and you have agreed that all of them fit life’s history. But they are logical, and you fall back on your “humanizing” mantra, as if you know your God has no human characteristics (thereby ignoring the fact that we cannot know his thoughts or his nature) and, since you have no idea why he would have chosen the purpose and method you impose on him, you entrench yourself in the firm belief that his logic must be different from and and inaccessible to all human reason and logic.

It is not entirely inaccessible, as we can make logical human guesses as you have, but that is all they ever will be, guesses. Thus I accept His choices without question.

dhw: I have no problem with the concept of God being all-powerful and non-human, and being fully purposeful in reaching his goals. I note the plural, which contradicts your theory that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and he “had to design” all the other earlier life forms because he had decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.

I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.

dhw: You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.

DAVID: My God is not human…

Nobody imagines that God is human.

DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.

There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!

DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.

And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.

DAVID: […] if God is the creator, what we see is what and how He created it. Thus, God evolved life.

Of course if he exists he evolved life! And all the theistic alternatives I have offered you are on that basis, and you have agreed that all of them fit life’s history. But they are logical, and you fall back on your “humanizing” mantra, as if you know your God has no human characteristics (thereby ignoring the fact that we cannot know his thoughts or his nature) and, since you have no idea why he would have chosen the purpose and method you impose on him, you entrench yourself in the firm belief that his logic must be different from and and inaccessible to all human reason and logic.

dhw: I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.

DAVID: I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.

dhw; I have no problem with the concept of God being all-powerful and non-human, and being fully purposeful in reaching his goals. I note the plural, which contradicts your theory that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and he “had to design” all the other earlier life forms because he had decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years.

You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.

dhw: [/b] You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.

My God is not human and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want. He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.

DAVID: You keep calling my thoughts as irrational. I don't find them that way. The God you attempt to describe in your supposed theism mode is just a humanized form who acts irrationally.

dhw: It is you who have no idea why your God would have chosen your interpretation of his goal and method, as bolded above. So of course it is your thoughts that are irrational. You have accepted that the alternatives I have offered are perfectly logical/rational and fit in with the history, but they do not fit in with your theory and so you reject them all!

I reject them as guesses not recognizing what history shows: if God is the creator, what we see is what and how He created it. Thus, God evolved life.

DAVID: I don't try to find God's choice of method as logical or illogical. I simply accept His choice.

dhw: You simply accept your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and have no idea why he would act in such an illogical way!

DAVID: I don't try to understand His logic, as it is all guesses. That is logical. That is an answer.

dhw: So you would rather maintain your fixed belief in a guess which defies all human logic, and assume that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans.

See above. Again you apply human logic to a concealed God. God's works tell us what He did, and it is patently obvious that evolution is the way He chose. You are the illogical one.

DAVID: I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.

I have no problem with the concept of God being all-powerful and non-human, and being fully purposeful in reaching his goals. I note the plural, which contradicts your theory that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and he “had to design” all the other earlier life forms because he had decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years. You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.

DAVID: You keep calling my thoughts as irrational. I don't find them that way. The God you attempt to describe in your supposed theism mode is just a humanized form who acts irrationally.

It is you who have no idea why your God would have chosen your interpretation of his goal and method, as bolded above. So of course it is your thoughts that are irrational. You have accepted that the alternatives I have offered are perfectly logical/rational and fit in with the history, but they do not fit in with your theory and so you reject them all!

DAVID: I don't try to find God's choice of method as logical or illogical. I simply accept His choice.

You simply accept your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and have no idea why he would act in such an illogical way!

DAVID: I don't try to understand His logic, as it is all guesses. That is logical. That is an answer.

So you would rather maintain your fixed belief in a guess which defies all human logic, and assume that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans.

dhw: I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.

I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.

DAVID: I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events. And later: ….nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.

dhw: We agree on the history of events: there is a universe, there is Planet Earth, there is life, and life began with single cells and evolved into multicellular organisms, of which we are the latest and – with our special degree of consciousness – the most complex. If God exists, it was all his doing. The comment to which you have replied, now bolded, is the area of your woolly guesswork with no real substance.

DAVID: You forget, with faith, we accept God's work as God's work. We can only guess at His reasoning. You are perfectly describing my God and find it irrational, which is just your problem and why you are an agnostic.

dhw: YOU find it irrational, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve the purpose you impose on him! This has nothing to do with my agnosticism, since the rational alternatives I offer are all theistic!

You keep calling my thoughts as irrational. I don't find them that way. The God you attempt to describe in your supposed theism mode is just a humanized form who acts irrationally.

DAVID (under “feedback loops”): I find nothing illogical in my theories. Pretending that I do is silly. It does not advance our discussion. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: I have also bolded your theory above, and you say to me: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” In that case, you cannot possibly find it logical. Indeed, you even go so far as to say that God’s logic must be different from human logic!

I don't try to find God's choice of method as logical or illogical. I simply accept His choice.

DAVID: Same tired mantra: I don't try to guess at God's reasoning. And I do fully feel His choice was logical and reasonable for Him. As you humanize god, you don't.

dhw: Same tired mantra. Nothing to do with humanizing God. YOU cannot understand his logic (“have no idea”), so once more, how can you possibly claim that you find nothing illogical in your theories, and how do you know that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans? This is indeed a tired mantra because so far you have never answered either question.

I don't try to understand His logic, as it is all guesses. That is logical. That is an answer.