Oxidation

DAVID: No weird law, but simply an all-perfect God choosing the best way. You don't know how to think about God in true theological ways.

dhw: Please stop pretending that you and you alone know the “true” theological way. Go to any church, synagogue or mosque and inform the vicar, rabbi or imam that God certainly has no human attributes, and therefore certainly doesn’t love us, care for us, or want us to worship him. As for evolution, please tell us how many theologians you know who inform us that their God used an imperfect, inefficient method to produce us, having designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 life forms although he could have produced us "de novo".

Adler used Darwin's natural theory of evolution explicitly to prove God. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion. In his mind God designed humans by my described evolution.

Black holes

DAVID: Your humanizing theories of God show your lack of theological instruction in this area of thought.

dhw: As above: If you preached your theories about God’s inefficiency and your certainty that he has no “human” attributes like love, or wanting to be worshipped, you would be laughed out of every church, synagogue and mosque in the world.

I don't follow what religions sell. You don't either.

Brain stem controls

DAVID: […] Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.

dhw: The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.

DAVID: I think we were His prime purpose.

dhw: Please tell us his other purposes - especially for designing the 99.9% of species unconnected with us.

Our food supply created by the 99.9% extinct, and the Earth's mineral resources for our use.

DAVID: Our very special brain proves it. The mouse brain cannot design commercial aircraft. It is only competent for mouse survival.

Nobody would claim that mice are as intelligent as humans. Yes, our brains are special. Now tell us why he also specially designed and had to cull the 99.9 out of 100.

Answered above and many times in the past.

Intelligence

dhw: You agree that solving problems, taking decisions etc. denote autonomous intelligence in our fellow animals. Thank you.

DAVID: I'm sure they have some simple solutions to simple challenges.

dhw: Excellent news: our fellow organisms have autonomous intelligence. So now it’s a matter of the degree of autonomous intelligence. For instance, how about ants?

Of course, individuals make decisions based on pheromones they sense.

DAVID (under “ant intelligence” which went off subject:): The issue remains, God is unknowable, but we can guess at His purposes from His creations.

dhw: And we can guess at his methods and his nature, and since nobody knows the truth, it is utterly absurd to pontificate that he is certainly not human in any way.

I didn't know you knew Him personally.

DAVID: Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.

dhw: There is no distortion other than your own. Raup says that the 99.9% of extinctions are caused by changing conditions, and the survival of the 0.1% is a matter of luck. I have no problem with this argument. You, on the other hand, introduce your God (never mentioned by Raup) and interpret the statistics as meaning that God had to obey some weird law that forces him to design and cull 99.9% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose. Sheer nonsense.

DAVID: No weird law, but simply an all-perfect God choosing the best way. You don't know how to think about God in true theological ways.

Please stop pretending that you and you alone know the “true” theological way. Go to any church, synagogue or mosque and inform the vicar, rabbi or imam that God certainly has no human attributes, and therefore certainly doesn’t love us, care for us, or want us to worship him. As for evolution, please tell us how many theologians you know who inform us that their God used an imperfect, inefficient method to produce us, having designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 life forms although he could have produced us "de novo".

“Overblown Darwin-speak”

Headline: Evolution repeats itself.

DAVID: The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.

dhw: The article went on to attack Darwin’s theory of randomness. The established fact that evolution repeats itself is not “touting” Darwin’s theory. You yourself constantly tell us that your God used evolution to produce the universe, the planet, and all life forms, including us. Are you touting Darwin’s theory?

DAVID: I refer to Darwin's theory properly, pointing out its inefficiency in explaining evolution.

How does the statement “God used evolution to produce humans” point out the inefficiency of Darwin’s theory. How does the statement “evolution repeats itself” tout the efficiency of Darwin’s theory? Your complaint that these three words are phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda is overblown anti-Darwin propaganda. I suggest we drop this subject as it's leading us nowhere.

Black holes

DAVID: So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.

dhw: You insist that God created the billions of stars etc. and the 99.9% of extinct species for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food, you can't tell us why, and you even tell us that his method was imperfect and inefficient, and then you tell me that I think he did it wrong! No, YOU do! I have no idea why he would have created the billions of stars etc., and they are a factor in my uncertainty over his existence. However, as far as the 99.9% are concerned, I have offered you three THEISTIC reasons for their existence and extinction, but you prefer your own theory that God made a mess of things.

DAVID: Your humanizing theories of God show your lack of theological instruction in this area of thought.

As above: If you preached your theories about God’s inefficiency and your certainty that he has no “human” attributes like love, or wanting to be worshipped, you would be laughed out of every church, synagogue and mosque in the world.

Brain stem controls

DAVID: […] Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.

dhw: The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.

DAVID: I think we were His prime purpose.

Please tell us his other purposes - especially for designing the 99.9% of species unconnected with us.

DAVID: Our very special brain proves it. The mouse brain cannot design commercial aircraft. It is only competent for mouse survival.

Nobody would claim that mice are as intelligent as humans. Yes, our brains are special. Now tell us why he also specially designed and had to cull the 99.9 out of 100.

Intelligence

dhw: You agree that solving problems, taking decisions etc. denote autonomous intelligence in our fellow animals. Thank you.

DAVID: I'm sure they have some simple solutions to simple challenges.

Excellent news: our fellow organisms have autonomous intelligence. So now it’s a matter of the degree of autonomous intelligence. For instance, how about ants?

DAVID (under “ant intelligence” which went off subject:): The issue remains, God is unknowable, but we can guess at His purposes from His creations.

And we can guess at his methods and his nature, and since nobody knows the truth, it is utterly absurd to pontificate that he is certainly not human in any way.

Oxidation

DAVID: Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.

dhw: There is no distortion other than your own. Raup says that the 99.9% of extinctions are caused by changing conditions, and the survival of the 0.1% is a matter of luck. I have no problem with this argument. You, on the other hand, introduce your God (never mentioned by Raup) and interpret the statistics as meaning that God had to obey some weird law that forces him to design and cull 99.9% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose. Sheer nonsense.

No weird law, but simply an all-perfect God choosing the best way. You don't know how to think about God in true theological ways.

“Overblown Darwin-speak”

Quote: Evolution repeats itself.

DAVID: We are now arguing at a different level. You are now defending evolution as if I attacked the term. I attacked the constant misuse of the term by Darwinians. The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.

dhw: The article went on to attack Darwin’s theory of randomness. The established fact that evolution repeats itself is not “touting” Darwin’s theory. You yourself constantly tell us that your God used evolution to produce the universe, the planet, and all life forms, including us. Are you touting Darwin’s theory?

I refer to Darwin's theory properly, pointing out its inefficiency in explaining evolution.

Black holes

DAVID: I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.

dhw: Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.

DAVID: So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.

dhw: You insist that God created the billions of stars etc. and the 99.9% of extinct species for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food, you can't tell us why, and you even tell us that his method was imperfect and inefficient, and then you tell me that I think he did it wrong! No, YOU do! I have no idea why he would have created the billions of stars etc., and they are a factor in my uncertainty over his existence. However, as far as the 99.9% are concerned, I have offered you three THEISTIC reasons for their existence and extinction, but you prefer your own theory that God made a mess of things.

Your humanizing theories of God show your lack of theological instruction in this area of thought.

Brain stem controls

dhw:. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.

DAVID: Another dhw jibe at how un-'special' humans are. Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.

dhw;The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.

I think we were His prime purpose. Our very special brain proves it. The mouse brain cannot design commercial aircraft. It is only competent for mouse survival.

DAVID: As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."

dhw: As in the other thread, you have completely ignored the problem under discussion, which is why your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.

There is no distortion other than your own. Raup says that the 99.9% of extinctions are caused by changing conditions, and the survival of the 0.1% is a matter of luck. I have no problem with this argument. You, on the other hand, introduce your God (never mentioned by Raup) and interpret the statistics as meaning that God had to obey some weird law that forces him to design and cull 99.9% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose. Sheer nonsense.

“Overblown Darwin-speak”

Quote: Evolution repeats itself.

David calls this “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda".

dhw: Evolution is defined as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. Do you disagree? Of course this process entails repetition – otherwise there would be no link between organisms and their ancestors. And so it is a simple statement of fact that (the process of) evolution repeats itself in different ways. Nothing phony, overblown or Darwin-speak propaganda about it.

DAVID: We are now arguing at a different level. You are now defending evolution as if I attacked the term. I attacked the constant misuse of the term by Darwinians. The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.

The article went on to attack Darwin’s theory of randomness. The established fact that evolution repeats itself is not “touting” Darwin’s theory. You yourself constantly tell us that your God used evolution to produce the universe, the planet, and all life forms, including us. Are you touting Darwin’s theory?

Black holes

DAVID: I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.

dhw: Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.

DAVID: So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.

You insist that God created the billions of stars etc. and the 99.9% of extinct species for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food, you can't tell us why, and you even tell us that his method was imperfect and inefficient, and then you tell me that I think he did it wrong! No, YOU do! I have no idea why he would have created the billions of stars etc., and they are a factor in my uncertainty over his existence. However, as far as the 99.9% are concerned, I have offered you three THEISTIC reasons for their existence and extinction, but you prefer your own theory that God made a mess of things.

Brain stem controls

dhw:. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.

DAVID: Another dhw jibe at how un-'special' humans are. Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.

The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.

Oxidation

DAVID: As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."

dhw: As in the other thread, you have completely ignored the problem under discussion, which is why your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: It was a misuse of the word evolution when all that is shown is repeated adaptations, not new species which is true evolution.

dhw: Evolution repeats itself” is not a definition but an observation. Evolution is defined as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. Do you disagree? Of course this process entails repetition – otherwise there would be no link between organisms and their ancestors. And so it is a simple statement of fact that (the process of) evolution repeats itself in different ways. Nothing phony, overblown or Darwin-speak propaganda about it.

We are now arguing at a different level. You are now defending evolution as if I attacked the term. I attacked the constant misuse of the term by Darwinians. The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.

Black holes

DAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.

dhw: Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.

DAVID: Well, I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.

dhw: Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.

So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.

Brain stem controls

QUOTE: “How far does the brain’s control over body biology go?”

dhw: A fascinating question. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.

Another dhw jibe at how un-'special' humans are. Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.

DAVID: God controls all.

dhw: So in order to produce us and our food, your omniscient and omnipotent God kept changing environmental conditions and deliberately designing new species which he knew he would have to cull because they were not the species he actually wanted to design, and he deliberately kept “adjusting” for some 3+ billion years’ worth of unsuitable conditions and irrelevant species until he had finished adjusting, got rid of the 99.9% of irrelevant conditions and species, and finally produced us plus food. But this could not possibly have been a process of experimentation. It simply had to be his very own imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you devised for him.

DAVID: As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."

As in the other thread, you have completely ignored the problem under discussion, which is why your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."

dhw: It’s nice of you to stand up for Darwin, although you call his theory “undefendable”. But I still don’t understand how the straightforward statement of fact that “evolution repeats itself” can be viewed as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.

DAVID: It was a misuse of the word evolution when all that is shown is repeated adaptations, not new species which is true evolution.

“Evolution repeats itself” is not a definition but an observation. Evolution is defined as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. Do you disagree? Of course this process entails repetition – otherwise there would be no link between organisms and their ancestors. And so it is a simple statement of fact that (the process of) evolution repeats itself in different ways. Nothing phony, overblown or Darwin-speak propaganda about it.

Black holes

DAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.

dhw: Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.

DAVID: Well, I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.

Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.

Brain stem controls

QUOTE: “How far does the brain’s control over body biology go?”

A fascinating question. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.

Oxidation

DAVID: God controls all.

dhw: So in order to produce us and our food, your omniscient and omnipotent God kept changing environmental conditions and deliberately designing new species which he knew he would have to cull because they were not the species he actually wanted to design, and he deliberately kept “adjusting” for some 3+ billion years’ worth of unsuitable conditions and irrelevant species until he had finished adjusting, got rid of the 99.9% of irrelevant conditions and species, and finally produced us plus food. But this could not possibly have been a process of experimentation. It simply had to be his very own imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you devised for him.

As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."

dhw: It’s nice of you to stand up for Darwin, although you call his theory “undefendable”. But I still don’t understand how the straightforward statement of fact that “evolution repeats itself” can be viewed as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.

It was a misuse of the word evolution when all that is shown is repeated adaptations, not new species which is true evolution.

Black holes

DAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.

dhw: Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.

Well, I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need

dhw: I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Would’t you agree?

DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting. […]

dhw: Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

DAVID: God controls all.

So in order to produce us and our food, your omniscient and omnipotent God kept changing environmental conditions and deliberately designing new species which he knew he would have to cull because they were not the species he actually wanted to design, and he deliberately kept “adjusting” for some 3+ billion years’ worth of unsuitable conditions and irrelevant species until he had finished adjusting, got rid of the 99.9% of irrelevant conditions and species, and finally produced us plus food. But this could not possibly have been a process of experimentation. It simply had to be his very own imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you devised for him.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."

It’s nice of you to stand up for Darwin, although you call his theory “undefendable”. But I still don’t understand how the straightforward statement of fact that “evolution repeats itself” can be viewed as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.

Common descent

DAVID: Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.

dhw: “Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.

DAVID: Agreed.

Thank you. At least some of Darwin’s theory is therefore defendable.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.

DAVID: Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.

dhw: Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.

DAVID: Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Black holes

DAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.

Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.

Oxidation

dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?

DAVID: I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.

dhw: Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

God controls all.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.”

No reason offered.

Forced repeat: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.">

dhw: Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

DAVID: Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.

dhw: “Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.

Agreed.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.

DAVID: Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.

dhw: Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.

Thank you.

dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.

dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?

DAVID: I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.

Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.”

No reason offered.

dhw: Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

DAVID: Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.

“Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.

DAVID: Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.

Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.

Oxidation

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.

dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.

dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?

I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

DAVID: I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.

dhw: If by “naturalist” you mean “atheist” then of course you are not a naturalist. However, if you believe that your God developed new life forms out of earlier life forms, then you accept the theory of common descent.

Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.

Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.

dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.

Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

DAVID: I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.

If by “naturalist” you mean “atheist” then of course you are not a naturalist. However, if you believe that your God developed new life forms out of earlier life forms, then you accept the theory of common descent.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.

Oxidation

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.

dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale."

dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."

DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.

dhw: Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

QUOTE: "A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body."

DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.

dhw: Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

QUOTE: "In a fascinating and contentious new paper, Andre Kessler, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, and his doctoral student, Michael Mueller, argue that the behavior of some plants can fit into a certain definition of intelligence".

DAVID: this is either a naturally developed defense mechanism or an intelligently designed system. dhw will pick the former.

dhw: I’m delighted to see that here you are no longer denying the concept of cellular intelligence. [...] I have always qualified my support for this theory by acknowledging that cellular intelligence may or may not have been designed by your God – depending on whether he actually exists.

DAVID: Delighted you are delighted.

And you will continue to delight me by not contradicting yourself in future posts.

Oxidation

dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.

dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.

Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale."

dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."

DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.

dhw: Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

QUOTE: "A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body."

DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.

dhw: Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

Plant responses to predators

QUOTE: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-flower-could-be-defined-as-intelligent-scientists-say...

QUOTE: "In a fascinating and contentious new paper, Andre Kessler, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, and his doctoral student, Michael Mueller, argue that the behavior of some plants can fit into a certain definition of intelligence.

DAVID: this is either a naturally developed defense mechanism or an intelligently designed system. dhw will pick the former.

dhw: I’m delighted to see that here you are no longer denying the concept of cellular intelligence, as demonstrated through certain plants and championed for many decades by authors such as McClintock and Margulis and further developed by Shapiro. I have always qualified my support for this theory by acknowledging that cellular intelligence may or may not have been designed by your God – depending on whether he actually exists,

Delighted you are delighted

Oxidation

dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.

dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose (which also happened to involve the special design and culling of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose). Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare

QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.

dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."

DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.

dhw: Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.

I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

QUOTE"A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body.

DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.

dhw: Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.

Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.

dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.

DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.

DAVID: I know where it extends.

dhw: So please stop pretending that it is confined to DNA editing bacteria.

DAVID: That is its only source of fact basis.

And what is the “fact basis” for your theory that there is a God who designs every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc.? Meanwhile, the splendid article “Consciousness: is sentience everywhere?” called upon the evidence (your own word to underpin your God theories) provided by a famous evolutionary biologist, a cognitive psychologist, a plant biologist and a medical scientist. And I have no doubt that Shapiro himself would have drawn upon the evidence collated from other sources. And here comes yet more evidence:

Plant responses to predators

QUOTE: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-flower-could-be-defined-as-intelligent-scientists-say...

QUOTE: "In a fascinating and contentious new paper, Andre Kessler, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, and his doctoral student, Michael Mueller, argue that the behavior of some plants can fit into a certain definition of intelligence.

DAVID: this is either a naturally developed defense mechanism or an intelligently designed system. dhw will pick the former.

I’m delighted to see that here you are no longer denying the concept of cellular intelligence, as demonstrated through certain plants and championed for many decades by authors such as McClintock and Margulis and further developed by Shapiro. I have always qualified my support for this theory by acknowledging that cellular intelligence may or may not have been designed by your God – depending on whether he actually exists,

Oxidation

dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.

dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose (which also happened to involve the special design and culling of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose). Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare

QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.

dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."

DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.

Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

QUOTE"A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body.

DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.

Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.

Cyanobacteria

DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.

dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.

DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.

DAVID: I know where it extends.

dhw: So please stop pretending that it is confined to DNA editing bacteria.

That is its only source of fact basis.

Oxidation

dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.

dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?

God does not control each cyanobacterium at work,

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare

“QUOTE: The bacteria had taken a phage and repurposed it for warfare with other bacteria, now using it to kill competing bacteria."

DAVID: God designs what we need if we look for it.

dhw: Sounds as if your God (if he exists) designed a great big free-for-all, as all organisms are left to work out their own ways of winning the war for survival.

QUOTE…evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.

dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda.

I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.

dhw: You have convinced yourself that “evolution repeats itself” is phony, “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, even though it introduces an article which attacks Darwin’s theory of randomness. If I said that God's use of "evolution requires extinctions", or "has resulted in countless varieties of organisms, lifestyles, strategies etc.", would that be overblown Darwin-speak propaganda" just because I haven't said evolution requires speciation?

DAVID: The headline called it "EVOLUTION" Did the article describe evolution? No! It described repeated similar adaptations within species.

This is one of the silliest discussions we have ever had. I will leave you to your Darwinophobic interpretation of a title which introduces the fact that in the course of evolution, the same species may repeat earlier solutions to the same problems. (See also under “bacteria use bacteriophages”.)

Cyanobacteria

DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.

dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.

DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.

DAVID: I know where it extends.

So please stop pretending that it is confined to DNA editing bacteria.

Oxygen and the Cambrian (now the nature of God)

DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.

dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.

DAVID: I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.

dhw: You have admitted that “everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in”, “there are as many forms of God as people invent him”, whoever he is, is “up for grabs”, and he is “totally unknown”. If someone chooses to invent a God who creates a free-for-all, enjoys what he does, wants to be worshipped, hates boredom, then it is totally absurd for you to claim that their invention must be wrong, just because it conflicts with your own invention.

DAVID: I am allowed to choose what I wish.

And so is everyone else, which is why we have these discussions concerning the feasibility of our invented versions.

Oxidation

dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.

So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare

“QUOTE: The bacteria had taken a phage and repurposed it for warfare with other bacteria, now using it to kill competing bacteria."

DAVID: God designs what we need if we look for it.

Sounds as if your God (if he exists) designed a great big free-for-all, as all organisms are left to work out their own ways of winning the war for survival.

QUOTE…evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.

I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda.

Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations

DAVID: Species adaptation is not evolution!!! And yes, adaptations are repetitious. True use of the word evolution requires speciation. My point, to which you are blinded as usual, the word 'evolution' is over sold.

dhw: You have convinced yourself that “evolution repeats itself” is phony, “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, even though it introduces an article which attacks Darwin’s theory of randomness. If I said that God's use of "evolution requires extinctions", or "has resulted in countless varieties of organisms, lifestyles, strategies etc.", would that be overblown Darwin-speak propaganda" just because I haven't said evolution requires speciation?

The headline called it "EVOLUTION" Did the article describe evolution? No! It described repeated similar adaptations within species.

Cyanobacteria

DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.

dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???

DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.

dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.

DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.

dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.

DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.

I know where it extends.

Oxygen and the Cambrian

QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."

DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.

dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.

DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.

dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.

DAVID: I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.

dhw: You have admitted that “everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in”, “there are as many forms of God as people invent him”, whoever he is, is “up for grabs”, and he is “totally unknown”. If someone chooses to invent a God who creates a free-for-all, enjoys what he does, wants to be worshipped, hates boredom, then it is totally absurd for you to claim that their invention must be wrong, just because it conflicts with your own invention.

I am allowed to choose what I wish.

Oxidation

QUOTES: "Poulton, Bekker and colleagues discovered that the rare sulfur isotope signatures disappear but then reappear, suggesting multiple O2 rises and falls in the atmosphere during the GOE. This was no single "event."
"'Earth wasn't ready to be oxygenated when oxygen starts to be produced. Earth needed time to evolve biologically, geologically and chemically to be conducive to oxygenation," Ostrander said. "It's like a teeter totter. You have oxygen production, but you have so much oxygen destruction, nothing's happening. We're still trying to figure out when we've completely tipped the scales and Earth could not go backwards to an anoxic atmosphere."

dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, I would call it a designer adjusting.

DAVID: The article is at the level of species adaptation, not speciation which is the real evolution. You always defend Darwinists.

dhw: The article deals with an aspect of evolution which clearly opposes Darwin’s theory of randomness. Do you disagree that the process of evolution includes repetitions? There is nothing pro or anti Darwin in the title, so why do you claim that the headline is phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.

DAVID: Species adaptation is not evolution!!! And yes, adaptations are repetitious. True use of the word evolution requires speciation. My point, to which you are blinded as usual, the word 'evolution' is over sold.

You have convinced yourself that “evolution repeats itself” is phony, “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, even though it introduces an article which attacks Darwin’s theory of randomness. If I said that God's use of "evolution requires extinctions", or "has resulted in countless varieties of organisms, lifestyles, strategies etc.", would that be overblown Darwin-speak propaganda" just because I haven't said evolution requires speciation?

Cyanobacteria

DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.

dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???

DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.

dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.

DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.

dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.

DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.

You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.

Oxygen and the Cambrian

QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."

DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.

dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.

DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.

dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.

DAVID: I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.

You have admitted that “everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in”, “there are as many forms of God as people invent him”, whoever he is, is “up for grabs”, and he is “totally unknown”. If someone chooses to invent a God who creates a free-for-all, enjoys what he does, wants to be worshipped, hates boredom, then it is totally absurd for you to claim that their invention must be wrong, just because it conflicts with your own invention.

Oxidation

QUOTES: "Poulton, Bekker and colleagues discovered that the rare sulfur isotope signatures disappear but then reappear, suggesting multiple O2 rises and falls in the atmosphere during the GOE. This was no single "event."
"'Earth wasn't ready to be oxygenated when oxygen starts to be produced. Earth needed time to evolve biologically, geologically and chemically to be conducive to oxygenation," Ostrander said. "It's like a teeter totter. You have oxygen production, but you have so much oxygen destruction, nothing's happening. We're still trying to figure out when we've completely tipped the scales and Earth could not go backwards to an anoxic atmosphere."

If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?