https://crev.info/2023/03/ichthyosaurs-appeared-suddenly/

"Textbooks have been teaching impressionable students two things about ichthyosaur evolution: (1) it began after the big bad Permian Extinction, and (2) the fish-lizards started simple and diversified into big ones over millions of years. Assuming Darwinism, that’s intuitive; early innovations are “primitive” and become “derived” (mature, complex, sophisticated) over long periods of time, as natural selection favors small, incremental variations.

***

"Now a team of Swedish and Norwegian palaeontologists has discovered remains of the earliest known ichthyosaur or ‘fish-lizard’ on the remote Arctic island of Spitsbergen.” The press release uses six paragraphs to tell the usual evolutionary narrative. Then, the double surprise appears:

"Unexpectedly, these vertebrae occurred within rocks that were supposedly too old for ichthyosaurs. Also, rather than representing the textbook example of an amphibious ichthyosaur ancestor, the vertebrae are identical to those of geologically much younger larger-bodied ichthyosaurs…

"...and even preserve internal bone microstructure showing adaptive hallmarks of fast growth, elevated metabolism and a fully oceanic lifestyle.

"Geochemical testing of the surrounding rock confirmed the age of the fossils at approximately two million years after the end-Permian mass extinction. Given the estimated timescale of oceanic reptile evolution, this pushes back the origin and early diversification of ichthyosaurs to before the beginning of the Age of Dinosaurs; thereby forcing a revision of the textbook interpretation and revealing that ichthyosaurs probably first radiated into marine environments prior to the extinction event.

”'Excitingly, the discovery of the oldest ichthyosaur rewrites the popular vision of Age of Dinosaurs as the emergence timeframe of major reptile lineages. It now seems that at least some groups predated this landmark interval, with fossils of their most ancient ancestors still awaiting discovery in even older rocks on Spitsbergen and elsewhere in the world,” says Benjamin Kear, researcher at Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University. (my bod)

The oldest fossils of an ichthyosaur ever found indicate that these fish-like reptiles evolved earlier than we thought – perhaps even before the world’s worst mass extinction, which hit 252 million years ago. (my bold)

"The team carried out a series of analyses ranging from rock chemistry to microscopic bone structure. “The vertebrae turned out to be from a highly advanced, fast-growing, probably warm-blooded and fully oceanic ichthyosaur,” says [Benjamin] Kear [at Uppsala University]."

Comment: this is another example of sudden appearance in the fossil record. Highly complex in very early rocks. Will we find less complex older forms? And what prior species did it arise from?? Note my bolds indicating Darwiists alasays expect precursors. Wait and see.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-oldest-3-d-heart-from-our-vertebrate-anc...

"The two-chambered organs, which date back about 380 million years, are preserved within remarkable three-dimensional fossils of ancient, armored fish called placoderms, which were the first vertebrates to develop jaws more than 400 million years ago. These jawed fish represent an evolutionary leap toward the body plan present in most animals with a backbone today—including humans. The fossils reveal that it didn’t take long for evolution to land on this basic body plan: At this point in evolutionary history, the S-shaped heart in the placoderms was already well separated from the other organs, lodged near the newly evolved jaw. The heart’s separation from the abdominal organs is still seen today.

"The fish fossils also contain livers and intestines, as well as stomachs that are so beautifully preserved that the folds of their lining are still visible. The organs are the oldest preserved in three dimensions in any jawed vertebrate.

***

"For 380-million-year-old organs, the structures didn’t look so alien from modern anatomy. The intestines were spiraled like a cinnamon bun, and the stomach had a muscular layer and a layer of glands, indicating that the fish used digestive juices. The two-lobed liver was large and probably helped keep the fish buoyant, much like shark livers do today, Ahlberg says. The heart had two chambers, similar to the hearts of jawless vertebrates such as lampreys, but the chambers were stacked so that the atrium was toward the animal’s back and the ventricle was toward its chest. That’s a shift from the arrangement seen in older jawless vertebrates, where the chambers are oriented side by side, says Maldanis, who was part of a Brazilian team that reported the first-ever fossilized vertebrate heart in 2016. (my bold)

Comment: look at what appeared so quickly. Early fish vertebrates of two types were in the Cambrian. Of course, organs cannot be seen, but must assumed to be present back then. The Ediacarans had nothing like this complexity. Only design fits.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2311012-burst-of-animal-evolution-altered-chemical...

"When animal life exploded in the oceans more than 500 million years ago, it changed the face of the planet. Now it seems the effects of that burst of evolution reached thousands of kilometres into Earth’s heart.

“'We can link a major event that is happening at the Earth’s surface with a fundamental change in the deep Earth,” says Andrea Giuliani at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.

"A huge range of animals evolved during the “Cambrian explosion”, which is thought to have begun about 541 million years ago. While some animals probably existed beforehand, the Cambrian explosion saw the emergence of many familiar groups like arthropods – which includes insects and spiders – and animals with backbones.

"Giuliani and his colleagues now say they have evidence this evolutionary blossoming had effects thousands of kilometres inside Earth.

"The team studied rocks called kimberlites, which are carried to the surface from deep inside the planet. “If we look at kimberlites, we can potentially get a more pristine signal of the deep Earth than using other magmas [molten rocks that have since cooled],” says Giuliani.

"They analysed 144 kimberlites and related rocks from 60 locations worldwide. In each kimberlite, the team looked at the mix of different types, or isotopes, of carbon. The two most common forms are carbon-12 and carbon-13, with living organisms generally absorbing the former.

"Giuilani’s team found that carbon-12 levels rose in kimberlites younger than 250 million years, probably due to huge amounts of organic matter being buried in sea-floor sediments during the Cambrian explosion.

"Some of this material was later carried into the deep Earth via tectonic plate movement. Plates can get forced down in a process called subduction, ending up in Earth’s mantle.

"It then takes a long time for this material to travel to the surface in rocks like kimberlite. “The minimum time is about 250 million years or so,” says Giuliani. Very little organic matter is thought to have been deposited 1 billion to 550 million years ago, making the Cambrian explosion the only plausible source of the organic carbon, according to Giuliana."

Comment: all by designed plan: living matter influences geological processes, all working together to provide a livable Earth for humans.

Cosmologic philosophy: inflation, no Big Bang
QUOTE: "Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began.”

dhw: A truly enlightening article. Without any of the complex scientific reasons, this is the view I have been championing throughout our discussions, so thank you for presenting it to us.

DAVID: I've only given his conclusion, not all the early considerations. The materialistic problem remains: what existed before all of this inflation/Bang? Something had to. Something made this happen: either material for a universe always existed in a different but transmutable form or it was created by an eternal mind who/which could engineer all the necessary variables precisely to allow life to appear. The additional need for fine-tuning makes a great case for a required God.

dhw: My agnosticism is based fairly and squarely on those two possibilities (with a vague form of panpsychism in between): either an infinite material universe producing an infinite number of combinations, eventually producing the one that will provide conditions for life and for life itself, or an eternal mind or minds as you describe. I find each of these equally impossible to believe in, even though one or the other must be closer to the truth (with panpsychism providing an uneasy compromise).

DAVID: Tottering on the picket fence. Panpsychism is still a mind/mental state is present.

dhw: I am not tottering. I am stuck! Panpsychism can be millions and millions of different mental states – I call it an “uneasy compromise” because of its vagueness. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am too ignorant to make a decision, but I respect the faith of those who have decided (I include atheists, as they have faith in the powers of chance), provided their beliefs cause no harm to others and they themselves show respect for beliefs that differ from their own.

I would like to repeat my thanks for the article, as I don’t want us to lose sight of its important implications.

Thank you

dhw: A truly enlightening article. Without any of the complex scientific reasons, this is the view I have been championing throughout our discussions, so thank you for presenting it to us.

DAVID: I've only given his conclusion, not all the early considerations. The materialistic problem remains: what existed before all of this inflation/Bang? Something had to. Something made this happen: either material for a universe always existed in a different but transmutable form or it was created by an eternal mind who/which could engineer all the necessary variables precisely to allow life to appear. The additional need for fine-tuning makes a great case for a required God.

dhw: My agnosticism is based fairly and squarely on those two possibilities (with a vague form of panpsychism in between): either an infinite material universe producing an infinite number of combinations, eventually producing the one that will provide conditions for life and for life itself, or an eternal mind or minds as you describe. I find each of these equally impossible to believe in, even though one or the other must be closer to the truth (with panpsychism providing an uneasy compromise).

DAVID: Tottering on the picket fence. Panpsychism is still a mind/mental state is present.

I am not tottering. I am stuck! Panpsychism can be millions and millions of different mental states – I call it an “uneasy compromise” because of its vagueness. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am too ignorant to make a decision, but I respect the faith of those who have decided (I include atheists, as they have faith in the powers of chance), provided their beliefs cause no harm to others and they themselves show respect for beliefs that differ from their own.

I would like to repeat my thanks for the article, as I don’t want us to lose sight of its important implications.

Cosmologic philosophy: inflation, no Big Bang

QUOTE: "Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began.”

A truly enlightening article. Without any of the complex scientific reasons, this is the view I have been championing throughout our discussions, so thank you for presenting it to us.

DAVID: I've only given his conclusion, not all the early considerations. The materialistic problem remains: what existed before all of this inflation/Bang? Something had to. Something made this happen: either material for a universe always existed in a different but transmutable form or it was created by an eternal mind who/which could engineer all the necessary variables precisely to allow life to appear. The additional need for fine-tuning makes a great case for a required God.

dhw: My agnosticism is based fairly and squarely on those two possibilities (with a vague form of panpsychism in between): either an infinite material universe producing an infinite number of combinations, eventually producing the one that will provide conditions for life and for life itself, or an eternal mind or minds as you describe. I find each of these equally impossible to believe in, even though one or the other must be closer to the truth (with panpsychism providing an uneasy compromise).

Tottering on the picket fence. Panpsychism is still a mind/mental state is present.

Survival
DAVID: The quote [see bold below] means, as you know, means survival dos not produce the next species in evolution, God does.

dhw: It means no such thing. If your God produced all the new species, and specially designed their new mechanisms (e.g. flippers for legs) to improve their chances of survival, then he did his designing to ensure that the changes which led to speciation enabled the new species to survive. That is the connection between survival and new species which your bolded statement [...] denies.

DAVID: Survival does not speciate, God does, my only important point. Of course God wants survival of His new designs.

dhw: And according to your theory, the changes which he designs and which lead to speciation (e.g. legs into flippers plus all the other changes to pre-whales) are made to improve chances of survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” However, you are determined to ignore your earlier remark, so we may as well drop the subject.

Thank you.

QUOTE: "Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began.”

A truly enlightening article. Without any of the complex scientific reasons, this is the view I have been championing throughout our discussions, so thank you for presenting it to us.

DAVID: I've only given his conclusion, not all the early considerations. The materialistic problem remains: what existed before all of this inflation/Bang? Something had to. Something made this happen: either material for a universe always existed in a different but transmutable form or it was created by an eternal mind who/which could engineer all the necessary variables precisely to allow life to appear. The additional need for fine-tuning makes a great case for a required God.

My agnosticism is based fairly and squarely on those two possibilities (with a vague form of panpsychism in between): either an infinite material universe producing an infinite number of combinations, eventually producing the one that will provide conditions for life and for life itself, or an eternal mind or minds as you describe. I find each of these equally impossible to believe in, even though one or the other must be closer to the truth (with panpsychism providing an uneasy compromise).

Survival
DAVID: The quote [see bold below] means, as you know, means survival dos not produce the next species in evolution, God does.

dhw: It means no such thing. If your God produced all the new species, and specially designed their new mechanisms (e.g. flippers for legs) to improve their chances of survival, then he did his designing to ensure that the changes which led to speciation enabled the new species to survive. That is the connection between survival and new species which your bolded statement [...] denies.

DAVID: Survival does not speciate, God does, my only important point. Of course God wants survival of His new designs.

And according to your theory, the changes which he designs and which lead to speciation (e.g. legs into flippers plus all the other changes to pre-whales) are made to improve chances of survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” However, you are determined to ignore your earlier remark, so we may as well drop the subject.

DAVID: The quote means, as you know, means survival dos not produce the next species in evolution, God does.

dhw: It means no such thing. If your God produced all the new species, and specially designed their new mechanisms (e.g. flippers for legs) to improve their chances of survival, then he did his designing to ensure that the changes which led to speciation enabled the new species to survive. That is the connection between survival and new species which your bolded statement above denies.

Survival does not speciate, God does, my only important point. Of course God wants survival of His new designs.

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he would have used to fulfil his purposes.

DAVID: I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. […]

dhw: Of course the theory is unproven, as is your own theory of automaticity, but you have as usual dodged the point, which is that autonomous intelligence does not exclude a designer, and so your conclusion from “straight biochemistry” is no more and no less a “hope” than Shapiro’s, which also allows for a designer.

DAVID: And I feel the RNA article follows standard text book theory that cells automatically produce all their products.

dhw: I respect your feelings, and I wish you would acknowledge that your theory is no less “hopeful” than mine, and cellular intelligence – a theory supported by some notable experts in the field who also deserve respect – does not exclude a designer God but (if he exists) simply changes the method he uses to achieve whatever his purpose might be.

DAVID: My answer is in 'giraffe' today: "like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes. You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!! […]

dhw: Answered on the giraffe thread, but when scientists in the field such as McLintock, Margulis (“I do think consciousness is a property of all living cells") and Shapiro champion the concept of cellular intelligence, you could perhaps be just a little more cautious in your dismissal of the idea. And once again, please note that it does NOT exclude your God as the possible designer, which was your original objection to my theory.

All covered in previous entries. At the organ level all is automatic with intelligently programmed cells doing their work

dhw: So if survival is required, and your God makes the changes that lead to speciation in order to improve the organism’s required chances of survival, how does that come to mean that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”?

DAVID: The quote means, as you know, means survival dos not produce the next species in evolution, God does.

It means no such thing. If your God produced all the new species, and specially designed their new mechanisms (e.g. flippers for legs) to improve their chances of survival, then he did his designing to ensure that the changes which led to speciation enabled the new species to survive. That is the connection between survival and new species which your bolded statement above denies.

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he would have used to fulfil his purposes.

DAVID: I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. […]

dhw: Of course the theory is unproven, as is your own theory of automaticity, but you have as usual dodged the point, which is that autonomous intelligence does not exclude a designer, and so your conclusion from “straight biochemistry” is no more and no less a “hope” than Shapiro’s, which also allows for a designer.

DAVID: And I feel the RNA article follows standard text book theory that cells automatically produce all their products.

dhw: I respect your feelings, and I wish you would acknowledge that your theory is no less “hopeful” than mine, and cellular intelligence – a theory supported by some notable experts in the field who also deserve respect – does not exclude a designer God but (if he exists) simply changes the method he uses to achieve whatever his purpose might be.

DAVID: My answer is in 'giraffe' today: "like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes. You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!! […]

Answered on the giraffe thread, but when scientists in the field such as McLintock, Margulis (“I do think consciousness is a property of all living cells") and Shapiro champion the concept of cellular intelligence, you could perhaps be just a little more cautious in your dismissal of the idea. And once again, please note that it does NOT exclude your God as the possible designer, which was your original objection to my theory.

DAVID: . God drives evolution and sustainable survival is simply required.

dhw: So if survival is required, and your God makes the changes that lead to speciation in order to improve the organism’s required chances of survival, how does that come to mean that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”?

The quote means, as you know, means survival dos not produce the next species in evolution, God does.

Crocodiles change skull forms

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he would have used to fulfil his purposes.

DAVID: I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. […]

dhw: Of course the theory is unproven, as is your own theory of automaticity, but you have as usual dodged the point, which is that autonomous intelligence does not exclude a designer, and so your conclusion from “straight biochemistry” is no more and no less a “hope” than Shapiro’s, which also allows for a designer.

DAVID: And I feel the RNA article follows standard text book theory that cells automatically produce all their products.

dhw: I respect your feelings, and I wish you would acknowledge the point that your theory is no less “hopeful” than mine, and cellular intelligence – a theory supported by some notable experts in the field who also deserve respect – does not exclude a designer God but (if he exists) simply changes the method he uses to achieve whatever his purpose might be.

My answer is in 'giraffe' today: "like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes. You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!! Accept it, even if you want cells to think to fit your pet theories. Kinney (above) is looking for what I describe. Many of my 'design entries' here is the result he is looking for: how the molecules do it." The cells are automatic in their actions.

dhw: The quibbling is entirely yours. Do you or do you not accept that if your God exists, and if he specially designed the whale’s flippers (and all the other changes that led to speciation) in order to improve its chances of survival, it is illogical to argue that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”? As for extinctions, you are the one who claims that your God is in total control. And so we need to know if he engineers the environmental conditions that cause extinctions, or if he merely follows them and pops in to design new species that can cope with or exploit these new conditions. Either way, he will still have to make sure that the innovations which lead to new species enable them to survive until he decides to replace them too.

DAVID: Your bold above makes my point. God drives evolution and sustainable survial is simply required.

So if survival is required, and your God makes the changes that lead to speciation in order to improve the organism’s required chances of survival, how does that come to mean that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”?

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves bbautonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

dhw: And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

DAVID: Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he would have used to fulfil his purposes.

DAVID: I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. […]

dhw: Of course the theory is unproven, as is your own theory of automaticity, but you have as usual dodged the point, which is that autonomous intelligence does not exclude a designer, and so your conclusion from “straight biochemistry” is no more and no less a “hope” than Shapiro’s, which also allows for a designer.

DAVID: And I feel the RNA article follows standard text book theory that cells automatically produce all their products.

I respect your feelings, and I wish you would acknowledge the point that your theory is no less “hopeful” than mine, and cellular intelligence – a theory supported by some notable experts in the field who also deserve respect – does not exclude a designer God but (if he exists) simply changes the method he uses to achieve whatever his purpose might be.

Survival

DAVID: Still quibbling. God must provide surviving species so the next step can appear from His design. You have forgotten extinctions (non-survival) advanced evolution each time.

dhw: The quibbling is entirely yours. Do you or do you not accept that if your God exists, and if he specially designed the whale’s flippers (and all the other changes that led to speciation) in order to improve its chances of survival, it is illogical to argue that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”? As for extinctions, you are the one who claims that your God is in total control. And so we need to know if he engineers the environmental conditions that cause extinctions, or if he merely follows them and pops in to design new species that can cope with or exploit these new conditions. Either way, he will still have to make sure that the innovations which lead to new species enable them to survive until he decides to replace them too.

Your bold above makes my point. God drives evolution and sustainable survial is simply required.

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

dhw: And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

DAVID: Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he used to fulfil his purposes.

DAVID: I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. The RNA entry today discusses tight controls for exact controlled processes.

dhw: See “giraffe plumbing” for the RNA entry. Of course the theory is unproven, as is your own theory of automaticity, but you have as usual dodged the point, which is that autonomous intelligence does not exclude a designer, and so your conclusion from “straight biochemistry” is no more and no less a “hope” than Shapiro’s, which also allows for a designer.

And I feel the RNA article follows standard text book theory that cells automatically produce all their products.

dhw: Your point was also that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” You have accepted that if your God exists, and if he designed the innovations that have led to new species, the whale’s flippers were designed to improve its chances of survival. So do you now accept that there is a causal link between innovations and improving chances of survival?

DAVID: Still quibbling. God must provide surviving species so the next step can appear from His design. You have forgotten extinctions (non-survival) advanced evolution each time.

The quibbling is entirely yours. Do you or do you not accept that if your God exists, and if he specially designed the whale’s flippers (and all the other changes that led to speciation) in order to improve its chances of survival, it is illogical to argue that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”? As for extinctions, you are the one who claims that your God is in total control. And so we need to know if he engineers the environmental conditions that cause extinctions, or if he merely follows them and pops in to design new species that can cope with or exploit these new conditions. Either way, he will still have to make sure that the innovations which lead to new species enable them to survive until he decides to replace them too.

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

dhw: And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

DAVID: Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he used to fulfil his purposes.

DAVID: I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. The RNA entry today discusses tight controls for exact controlled processes.

See “giraffe plumbing” for the RNA entry. Of course the theory is unproven, as is your own theory of automaticity, but you have as usual dodged the point, which is that autonomous intelligence does not exclude a designer, and so your conclusion from “straight biochemistry” is no more and no less a “hope” than Shapiro’s, which also allows for a designer.

Survival

DAVID: Pure quibble. Survival is not the driver of evolution is my only point.

dhw: It is not your only point. On Monday 27 September you wrote: “Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” That is what I object to, since you yourself believe that your God provides organisms with new features in order to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: My point remains: God drives evolution, survival doesn't.

dhw: Your point was also that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” You have accepted that if your God exists, and if he designed the innovations that have led to new species, the whale’s flippers were designed to improve its chances of survival. So do you now accept that there is a causal link between innovations and improving chances of survival?

Still quibbling. God must provide surviving species so the next step can appear from His design. You have forgotten extinctions (non-survival) advanced evolution each time

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

dhw: And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

DAVID: Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he used to fulfil his purposes.

I don't dodge your rigid theories. Autonomous cell intelligence is unproven theory based on the outside appearance of how cells work. The RNA entry today discusses tight controls for exact controlled processes.

DAVID: Pure quibble. Survival is not the driver of evolution is my only point.

dhw: It is not your only point. On Monday 27 September you wrote: “Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” That is what I object to, since you yourself believe that your God provides organisms with new features in order to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: My point remains: God drives evolution, survival doesn't.

Your point was also that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” You have accepted that if your God exists, and if he designed the innovations that have led to new species, the whale’s flippers were designed to improve its chances of survival. So do you now accept that there is a causal link between innovations and improving chances of survival?

Crocodiles change skull forms
dhw: Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

dhw: And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

DAVID: Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

As usual, you dodge the issue. Autonomous intelligence does not exclude God the designer. It simply changes the method he used to fulfil his purposes.

Survival
dhw: I asked if you thought your God changed pre-whale legs into flippers in order to improve their chances of survival. You said he did. This means you think your God does his dabbles (speciation) in order to improve an organism’s chances of survival. It does not mean that survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.

DAVID: Pure quibble. Survival is not the driver of evolution is my only point.

dhw: It is not your only point. On Monday 27 September you wrote: “Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” That is what I object to, since you yourself believe that your God provides organisms with new features in order to improve their chances of survival.

My point remains: God drives evolution, survival doesn't

Brain cells
QUOTE: “We’re going to have to learn what all these cell types are and try to figure out how they all work together.”

dhw: […] Our cell communities provide an admirable example of how well things CAN work, but also of how any breakdown in cooperation, or any interference from outside, can result in catastrophe. I would also apply these observations to the problem of theodicy which is so troubling to believers. From cells to nations, your God has provided the same formula: “I’ve given you the means. Now it’s up to you how you use them.”

DAVID: And we've done that, and cells carefully follow His instructions.

dhw: What instructions do they carefully follow when they fall ill or die?

DAVID: Apoptosis and death is built in.

dhw: But you keep telling us (under “Theodicy”) that the system makes its own uncontrollable mistakes, and your God has tried hard to provide countermeasures, though he doesn’t always succeed.

Of course.

Crocodiles change skull forms
DAVID: […] to call this evolution is ridiculous. It is the same species adapting epigenetically as time and environment require. Just another example of having to interpret the constant propaganda protecting the Darwin paradigm.

dhw: For a change, I agree with you. This is where Darwin himself and his followers play around with the term “species”. Such minor adaptations only lead to variations, not to completely different life forms. Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

dhw: And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

DAVID: Pure quibble. Survival is not the driver of evolution is my only point.

It is not your only point. On Monday 27 September you wrote: “Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.” That is what I object to, since you yourself believe that your God provides organisms with new features in order to improve their chances of survival.

Brain cells
QUOTE: “We’re going to have to learn what all these cell types are and try to figure out how they all work together.”

dhw: […] Our cell communities provide an admirable example of how well things CAN work, but also of how any breakdown in cooperation, or any interference from outside, can result in catastrophe. I would also apply these observations to the problem of theodicy which is so troubling to believers. From cells to nations, your God has provided the same formula: “I’ve given you the means. Now it’s up to you how you use them.”

DAVID: And we've done that, and cells carefully follow His instructions.

dhw: What instructions do they carefully follow when they fall ill or die?

DAVID: Apoptosis and death is built in.

But you keep telling us (under “Theodicy”) that the system makes its own uncontrollable mistakes, and your God has tried hard to provide countermeasures, though he doesn’t always succeed.

Crocodiles change skull forms
DAVID: […] to call this evolution is ridiculous. It is the same species adapting epigenetically as time and environment require. Just another example of having to interpret the constant propaganda protecting the Darwin paradigm.

dhw: For a change, I agree with you. This is where Darwin himself and his followers play around with the term “species”. Such minor adaptations only lead to variations, not to completely different life forms. Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

DAVID: Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, no evidence.

And what evidence is there that instead of giving cells autonomous intelligence, your God devised a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single innovation, or came along and did a dabble for those he hadn’t programmed. If the one is “simply hope”, then so is the other.

Survival
DAVID: It is your circles. I've agreed survival is required.

dhw: So why do you keep telling us that survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species?

DAVID: Because God speciates, and in one case from no survivors (precursors) in the Cambrian

I asked if you thought your God changed pre-whale legs into flippers in order to improve their chances of survival. You said he did. This means you think your God does his dabbles (speciation) in order to improve an organism’s chances of survival. It does not mean that survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.

Pure quibble. Survival is not the driver of evolution is my only point.

Brain cells
QUOTE: “We’re going to have to learn what all these cell types are and try to figure out how they all work together.”

dhw: This statement typifies what for me is becoming more and more obvious: we are a community of cell communities, and as in all communities, individuals and groups must work together if they are to function properly. This observation can be extended from the cells of the brain to ants in their colonies and to whole nations of humans. Without efficient cooperation you have illness in the body and war between nations. Our cell communities provide an admirable example of how well things CAN work, but also of how any breakdown in cooperation, or any interference from outside, can result in catastrophe. I would also apply these observations to the problem of theodicy which is so troubling to believers. From cells to nations, your God has provided the same formula: “I’ve given you the means. Now it’s up to you how you use them.”

DAVID: And we've done that, and cells carefully follow His instructions.

dhw: What instructions do they carefully follow when they fall ill or die?

Apoptosis and death is built in.

Crocodiles change skull forms
DAVID: Actually fascinating in that crocs and their relatives are cycling back and forth between certain parameters and forms. But to call this evolution is ridiculous. It is the same species adapting epigenetically as time and environment require. Just another example of having to interpret the constant propaganda protecting the Darwin paradigm.

dhw: For a change, I agree with you. This is where Darwin himself and his followers play around with the term “species”. Such minor adaptations only lead to variations, not to completely different life forms. Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

Your hopeful bold is simply hope. Since Darwin's time, n o evidence.

dhw: So why do you keep telling us that survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species?

DAVID: Because God speciates, and in one case from no survivors (precursors) in the Cambrian

I asked if you thought your God changed pre-whale legs into flippers in order to improve their chances of survival. You said he did. This means you think your God does his dabbles (speciation) in order to improve an organism’s chances of survival. It does not mean that survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.

Brain cells
QUOTE: “We’re going to have to learn what all these cell types are and try to figure out how they all work together.”

dhw: This statement typifies what for me is becoming more and more obvious: we are a community of cell communities, and as in all communities, individuals and groups must work together if they are to function properly. This observation can be extended from the cells of the brain to ants in their colonies and to whole nations of humans. Without efficient cooperation you have illness in the body and war between nations. Our cell communities provide an admirable example of how well things CAN work, but also of how any breakdown in cooperation, or any interference from outside, can result in catastrophe. I would also apply these observations to the problem of theodicy which is so troubling to believers. From cells to nations, your God has provided the same formula: “I’ve given you the means. Now it’s up to you how you use them.”

DAVID: And we've done that, and cells carefully follow His instructions.

What instructions do they carefully follow when they fall ill or die?

Crocodiles change skull forms
DAVID: Actually fascinating in that crocs and their relatives are cycling back and forth between certain parameters and forms. But to call this evolution is ridiculous. It is the same species adapting epigenetically as time and environment require. Just another example of having to interpret the constant propaganda protecting the Darwin paradigm.

For a change, I agree with you. This is where Darwin himself and his followers play around with the term “species”. Such minor adaptations only lead to variations, not to completely different life forms. Where you and I disagree is on the potential of the mechanism that produces variations: if the cells can reorganize themselves autonomously in this minor manner (I presume you agree they are not preprogrammed to do so and your God does not do a dabble), then perhaps they are also capable of major reorganization when required or allowed to do so by major changes in the environment.

Survival

DAVID: It is your circles. I've agreed survival is required.

dhw: So why do you keep telling us that survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species?

Because God speciates, and in one case from no survivors (precursors) in the Cambrian

Mediocrity theory not reasonable
QUOTE: A planet may have the right properties for harboring life — the right chemical composition, distance to the main star, atmosphere, magnetic field, etc. — and there would still be no guarantee that life would exist there.

Sheer common sense. Who on earth came up with the “mediocrity theory”?!

Brain cells
QUOTE: “We’re going to have to learn what all these cell types are and try to figure out how they all work together.”

dhw: This statement typifies what for me is becoming more and more obvious: we are a community of cell communities, and as in all communities, individuals and groups must work together if they are to function properly. This observation can be extended from the cells of the brain to ants in their colonies and to whole nations of humans. Without efficient cooperation you have illness in the body and war between nations. Our cell communities provide an admirable example of how well things CAN work, but also of how any breakdown in cooperation, or any interference from outside, can result in catastrophe. I would also apply these observations to the problem of theodicy which is so troubling to believers. From cells to nations, your God has provided the same formula: “I’ve given you the means. Now it’s up to you how you use them.”

And we've done that, and cells carefully follow His instructions