https://communities.springernature.com/posts/the-land-to-water-transition-led-to-a-repa...

"Cetaceans, the clade comprising whales, dolphins, and porpoises, represents one of the most emblematic group of living mammals. Besides their status of "ambassadors of the seas", it is quite remarkable that about 53 million years ago their terrestrial ancestors started a major ecological transition back into the aquatic realm, later giving rise to the most diverse group of extant fully aquatic mammals. This land-to-water transition involved a transition from a limb-based mode of locomotion on land to an axial-powered locomotion relying on oscillations of the body and underlying backbone. This was accompanied by deep modifications of their body plan such as the reduction of hindlimbs, the acquisition of pectoral, dorsal, and caudal fins, and migration of the nares on top of their skull, leading to a fish-like body shape. (my bold)

"The land-to-water transition also had drastic impacts on the vertebral column as the cetacean backbone seems more homogenous in shape compared to the vertebral column of terrestrial mammals which is composed of several well-defined regions (cervical, pectoral, anterior and posterior thoracic, lumbar, sacral, caudal), notably due to the loss of a well-defined sacral region. In addition to this apparent “de-regionalization” of the backbone, the vertebral counts of cetaceans vary broadly across species – ranging from 42 to 97 vertebrae – compared to terrestrial species, making the transposition of traditional mammalian vertebral regions to the cetacean backbone challenging. Because of this, the pattern of regionalization (or lack thereof) of the cetacean backbone has been a long-standing issue limiting our ability to compare their vertebral features with those of terrestrial mammals.

***

"Contrary to the common belief – and to our expectations – the cetacean backbone is still highly regionalized as we found between six and nine post-cervical regions. Thanks to the spectral clustering, we could group these regions into six different modules homologous across cetaceans: anterior thoracic, thoraco-lumbar, posterior lumbar (only present in some dolphins and porpoises), caudal, peduncle, and fluke. These modules and regions do not match the regions found in terrestrial mammals, indicating that the cetacean backbone has been repatterned during the land-to-water transition. For instance, we did not find a distinct sacral region but we found numerous regions in the tail, which are most likely associated to their axial-powered aquatic locomotion. Each of the modules can be attributed to either the precaudal segment of the backbone (i.e., all the vertebrae anterior to the tail) or the caudal segment (vertebrae in the tail). We therefore named our regionalization model the “Nested Regions” hypothesis as the backbone can be divided into a precaudal and caudal segment, each of which divided into several modules, which can be further divided into regions.

***

"We found that offshore dolphins and porpoises with numerous vertebrae tend to have more regions and can reach higher swimming speeds than riverine species which have fewer vertebrae. This suggests that increased vertebral counts allows for the differentiation into more numerous regions which could allow to better restrict swimming movements to specific parts of the backbone and improve hydrodynamics in comparison to riverine species which are slower but require increased maneuverability in more shallow and complex environments."

Comment: this shows the amazing number of modifications required for the mammalian spine to support an aquatic lifestyle, all in a 53-million-year period. All of these changes point to purposeful changes in short periods, a strong argument for design.

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-crowd-sourced-science-species-space.html

"...some places on Earth have far more species than others. In fact, the distribution of species across the globe follows a curiously consistent pattern: generally, there are more species closer to the equator and fewer as you move towards the poles. This "latitudinal biodiversity gradient" can be observed across many different groups of organisms over time.

"One possible explanation for the presence of more species closer to the equator is that changes in climate from the equator to the poles affects the ability of new species to evolve—a process called speciation.

***

"The fall webworm is a moth found from Mexico to Canada (a range of almost 4,000 km) whose caterpillars have either black or red heads. While this might seem like a subtle difference, caterpillars with these different colors seem to have different behaviors and appear at different times of the year, and genetic studies suggest that they are evolving into different species.

"This moth is also found throughout vastly different climates, which allowed us to explore how latitude and climate might be affecting their ability to turn from one species into two.

***

"The process of speciation occurs when two groups of organisms belonging to the same species are separated by a barrier that prevents them from reproducing. The most well-known way that this can occur is through a physical barrier between the groups, like a mountain range or a highway.

"For the fall webworm, the barrier causing them to become two different species is time. In general, moth species only appear and reproduce during the summer, and when they do, they breed for only a few weeks, at most.

"The red-headed and the black-headed fall webworms tend to emerge and reproduce at different times during the summer, and this time gap creates a barrier that is causing them to become two different species.

"Summers toward the equator tend to be much longer, so the fall webworms go through more life cycles in a year compared to northern populations, which are only able to breed once during short summers. If the red-headed and black-headed fall webworms closer to the equator have more flexibility in when they can breed, they may be able to avoid each other in time better, making speciation more effective.

***

"Using all these observations, we found that in more northerly regions with short summers, the red-headed and black-headed fall webworm caterpillars were forced to breed at the same time and had more similar coloration. This suggests that more breeding was occurring between the groups, and they looked and acted more like a single species.

"However, in their southern range, the black- and red-headed caterpillars were able to separate their generations more and had less similar coloration, meaning they may be further along in the process of becoming two species.
We found that differences in climate from the equator to the poles affect how well species can evolve when time is the barrier, mirroring the latitudinal biodiversity gradient. In short, climate can change how easily species form in the first place.

"There are approximately 2.1 million classified species on Earth, and over one million of these are insects (with many millions more undiscovered), making them the most diverse animals on the planet.

"Species are migrating, either as invasive species coming to new places, or moving poleward to escape warming climates."

Comment: unfortunately, all this tells us is what drives speciation, not how DNA is edited to design the new species.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/peru-fossils-four-legged-otter-whale-hooves

"An ancient four-legged whale walked across land on hooved toes and swam in the sea like an otter.

"The newly discovered species turned up in 2011 in a cache of fossilized bones in Playa Media Luna, a dry coastal area of Peru. Jawbones and teeth pegged it as an ancient cetacean, a member of the whale family. And more bones followed.

“'We were definitely surprised to find this type of whale in these layers, but the best surprise was its degree of completeness,” says Olivier Lambert, a paleontologist at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels.

***

"Big, possibly webbed feet and long toes would have allowed P. pacificus to dog-paddle or swim freestyle. And like modern otters and beavers, this whale’s vertebrae suggest that its tail also functioned as a paddle. With tiny hooves and strong legs and hips, the animal could walk on land. But “it was definitely a better swimmer than walker,” Lambert says.

"Whales got their start on land and gradually adapted to a water-dwelling lifestyle. The first amphibious whales emerged more than 50 million years ago near what’s now India and Pakistan. The new species shares some similar features with Maiacetus and Rodhocetus, two early whales from that area. P. pacificus’ age supports the idea that whales migrated across the South Atlantic and around South America to the Pacific Ocean in their first 10 million years of existence."

Comment: Obviously, as previously discussed, flippers do not just appear de novo but in stages.

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/05/from-bears-to-whales-a-difficult-transition-2/

"So cetaceans have nostrils on the tops of their heads, called “blowholes” because at the surface they blow moisture-laden air out of them. Blowholes are unusual not just because of their anatomical location. They are very unlike the nostrils of other mammals. The blowhole of a cetacean is surrounded by thick muscular “lips” that keep the hole tightly closed except when the animal makes a deliberate effort to open it at the surface. Total submersion thus takes less effort for cetaceans than for animals that must actively exclude water from their air passages.

***

"Bones cannot protect the lungs of an animal at such high pressures, so cetacean lungs collapse during deep dives. To make this possible, their rib cages have many “floating ribs” that are not attached to the breastbone. Cetaceans also have diaphragms that are oriented nearly parallel to the spine rather than perpendicular to it (as in humans). Anesthesiologists...point out that “the large area of contact between lung and diaphragm in cetaceans allows for the diaphragm to smoothly collapse the lung along the lungs’ shortest dimension” (belly to back).

"There’s another reason why cetaceans’ lungs must collapse during deep dives. Air contains nitrogen, which under high pressure can be absorbed from the lungs into the blood. When pressure is reduced the nitrogen can bubble out of the blood, causing potentially fatal decompression sickness (“the bends”). By collapsing their lungs and expelling the air, cetaceans avoid this problem.

"But collapsing a lung introduces a different problem: how to re-inflate it quickly at the surface. To insure that tissues in their collapsed air sacs do not stick to each other, the lungs of deep-diving mammals contain special “surfactants” with anti-adhesive properties.

***

"Flukes are shaped like airplane wings, with a streamlined foil profile, rounded leading edge, and long tapered trailing edge. Biologists who analyzed flukes in 2007 concluded that they are “generally comparable or better for lift generation than engineered foils.

***

"...the testicles are inside the body. In most mammals (even sea lions) the testicles are outside the body, because sperm production normally requires a temperature several degrees below normal body temperature. In cetaceans, the testicles are cooled below body temperature by countercurrent heat exchangers. Veins carry cool blood from the dorsal fin and flukes to the testicles, where it flows through a network of veins that pass between arteries carrying warm blood in the opposite direction. The arterial blood is thereby cooled before it reaches the testicles.

***

"Female cetaceans have specialized nipples for suckling their young underwater. The mother’s nipples are recessed in two slits. According to Slijper, “while suckling their young, cetaceans move very slowly; the calf follows behind and approaches the nipple from the back. The cow then turns a little to the side, so that the calf has easier access to the nipple, which has meanwhile emerged from its slit. Since the calf lacks proper lips, it has to seize the nipple between the tongue and the tip of its palate.

"Then the mother forcefully squirts milk into the calf’s mouth. Even after the calf lets go, milk can often be seen squirting from the nipple. Young calves cannot stay underwater as long as adults; they have to surface frequently to breathe. So the milk is three to four times as concentrated as the milk of cows and goats; it has the consistency of condensed milk or liquid yogurt. The calf thereby receives much more nourishment in a much shorter time.

***

"Even if the transition were perfectly documented with intermediate forms, however, it would not answer the “how” questions. How did the features needed for a fully aquatic lifestyle originate? How would the hind limbs of a sea lion turn into a fluke (which is very different)? How would a male’s testicles become simultaneously internalized and surrounded by countercurrent heat exchange systems? How would a female develop specialized nursing organs to inject milk forcibly into her calf? Indeed, why would any of these changes occur? Sea lions are already well adapted to their amphibious lives."

Comment: Many of these changes are irreducibly complex: note internal testes must be cooled so the internalization must have had simultaneous development of a circulatory cooling system. Not by chance.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230329091933.htm

"A research group...has investigated both the genetic information and structure of the photoreceptor rhodopsin, responsible for detecting dim light, of whale sharks to investigate how they can see in the dim light at extreme depths. The research group compared the whale sharks to zebra sharks, which are considered their closest relative, and brown-banded bamboo sharks, which are in the same group: the order orectolobiformes -- commonly known as carpet sharks.

***

"The research revealed that the whale sharks' rhodopsin can efficiently detect blue light -- the most common wavelength of light in the deep-sea -- because two amino acid substitutions shifted the light spectra that rhodopsin detects, making it sensitive to blue wavelengths. However, one of the amino acid substitutions defies conventional wisdom, as it corresponds to a mutation at a position known to cause congenital stationary night blindness in humans.

"The researchers found that the amino acid substitutions make the whale shark rhodopsin less thermally stable, it decays rapidly at 37 ºC, compared to human or other of sharks' rhodopsin without the substitution. However, at deep-sea temperatures -- well below 37 ºC -- the functionality of the whale shark rhodopsin can be maintained, suggesting that this unique adaptation evolved for life in the low-temperature low-light deep-sea environment."

Comment: another specific change that had to be designed. Not by chance

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/23_september_2022/4...

"More than 50 million years ago, terrestrial ancestors of dolphins and whales reinvaded the oceans in one of the most revolutionary events in mammalian history. The transition from land to sea required marked remodeling of the terrestrial mammalian form to withstand high hydrostatic pressures at depth, exponential increases in drag forces when moving locomotor appendages through water, and extreme breath-hold durations when diving (exceeding 3 hours in Cuvier’s beaked whales, Ziphius cavirostris). The changes were so radical that evolutionary selection pressures seem insurmountable. Yet, the transitions did occur, resulting in 47 extant cetacean (dolphin and whale) family lineages that radiated throughout the global oceans. How this evolutionary leap was accomplished has been the subject of much speculation. On page 1452 of this issue, Lillie et al continue this multimillennial investigation on aquatic adaptations in cetaceans, detailing how specialized vascular networks provide protection for their brains during submergence." (my bold)

Comment: land mammals dove into various waters fifty million years ago to make whales and dolphins. "Evolutionary insurmountable pressures" is Darwin-speak for the necessary scramble to find enough mutations to do the job. A designer fits the bill. It not just whales and dolphins, all aquatic mammals come from land.

The article summary

Retia mirabilia: Protecting the cetacean brain from locomotion-generated blood pressure pulses

"Cetaceans have massive vascular plexuses (retia mirabilia) whose function is unknown. All cerebral blood flow passes through these retia, and we hypothesize that they protect cetacean brains from locomotion-generated pulsatile blood pressures. We propose that cetaceans have evolved a pulse-transfer mechanism that minimizes pulsatility in cerebral arterial-to-venous pressure differentials without dampening the pressure pulses themselves. We tested this hypothesis using a computational model based on morphology from 11 species and found that the large arterial capacitance in the retia, coupled with the small extravascular capacitance in the cranium and vertebral canal, could protect the cerebral vasculature from 97% of systemic pulsatility. Evolution of the retial complex in cetaceans—likely linked to the development of dorsoventral fluking—offers a distinctive solution to adverse locomotion-generated vascular pulsatility.

"Numerous cardiovascular adaptations allow cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses) to make extraordinary breath-hold dives, but some of the adaptations are group specific. The blood supply to the cetacean brain and spinal cord differs radically from that in pinnipeds, passing through a series of massive retia mira-bilia, or vascular networks located in the thorax, vertebral canal, and cranial cavity. Such differences indicate that diving cetaceans and pinnipeds face different vascular challenges". (my bold)

Comment: all of those aquatic mammals came from land animals. The article shows the complex morphological circulatory changes that had to occur/evolve for full (whales) or parttime (seals) aquatic activities to happen. The fact this all happened in a short period sure smells of design. A simple explanation of the physiological problem:

https://www.sciencealert.com/an-anatomical-quirk-could-explain-why-whale-brains-arent-p...

Humans have concocted all sorts of equipment to help us overcome the intense water pressures of the ocean's depths.

Yet our fellow mammalians, the cetaceans (dolphins, whales, and porpoises), can somehow go far deeper while completely naked – and stay down for hours without taking a breath.

And these animals are working against more than just external pressure – fluking, the powerful up-and-down movement of a whale's tail, can create internal pressure that builds up on their cardiovascular system. For land-dwelling animals, we'd simply exhale that pressure out. But cetaceans don't have that luxury.

When cetaceans dive holding their breath, each tail kick sends waves of increased pressure coursing through their abdomen and thorax, and into the bloodstream.

If these pressure pulses reached their brains it would pulverize the delicate capillaries that perfuse it. So where does all that extra pressure go?

A new study may have found the answer: a mysterious, massive network of blood vessels collectively called the retia mirabilia may act as a a literal safety net to buffer this pressure.

***

While most mammals have fairly direct blood flow to the brain, cetaceans' blood goes through the retia mirabilia, which is Latin for "wonderful net", a network of blood vessels (both veins and arteries).

While this structure has been studied for decades, its function has remained largely mysterious.

With their modeling the team found the retia mirabilia has the potential to protect cetaceans' brains from a whopping 97 percent of pressure pulses.

Comment: more extreme complexity to be an aquatic mammal.

In Egypt where a very early group of whale fossils exist, forty million years ago:

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-egyptians-fossil-amphibious-whale.html

"The fossil was found in the Fayum region, a part of Egypt that was once covered by sea and is home to Whale Valley, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

"The newly discovered species, which was more than three metres (10 feet) long and weighed about 600 kilograms (about 1,320 pounds), has been named Phiomicetus anubis.

The problem is the actual fossil found:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2021.1368

"The new species is based on a partial skeleton, revealing the most basal protocetid whale known from Africa. Moreover, the new specimen further shows that early protocetid whales were more diversified in their anatomy and feeding behaviour than was previously thought."

Comment: Please download the article and see the fossil bones (in red) found and the imagined rest; the head and snout, a sixth vertebrae and a couple ribs!!! The head apparently is similar to other previously found fossils. Note the second illustration which shows its placement in the whale series where amazingly legs disappear in earlier forms and reappear in this fossil. How? Why are legs reimagined?

The ID take:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/evolutionary-imagination-and-belief-drive-false-claim...

"Was It a Whale?
Consistent with all of this, the paper notes in the abstract that what they did find was “a partial skeleton,” later stating, “The new species is based on a partial skeleton.” A complete description of the bones is provided later in the paper as follows:

"an associated partial skeleton of a single individual including the cranium, the right mandible, incomplete left mandible, isolated teeth, the fifth cervical, and the sixth thoracic vertebrae and ribs. The holotype is the only known specimen.

"Perhaps this organism had four legs. Perhaps it had flippers. Perhaps it was closely related to whales. Perhaps it has nothing to do with whales. No one really knows. The simple fact of the matter is that we know hardly anything about this creature because, again, so very little of it was found. Forcing this species into an evolutionary paradigm to fit preconceived ideas about cetacean evolution, and promulgating headlines about a “four-legged whale,” is beyond belief. Actually, I take that back. Belief — belief in an evolutionary paradigm — is the thing that’s driving these headlines.

"Imagination. Belief. That’s putting it politely, which I insist upon doing. We all have imaginations, and we all have beliefs. So in that sense this is understandable. But if I weren’t so polite, a variety of other terms could be used to describe telling the public this fossil represents a “four-legged whale.'”

Comment: And we should trust Darwinist "findings"?

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-egyptians-fossil-amphibious-whale.html

"The fossil was found in the Fayum region, a part of Egypt that was once covered by sea and is home to Whale Valley, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

"The newly discovered species, which was more than three metres (10 feet) long and weighed about 600 kilograms (about 1,320 pounds), has been named Phiomicetus anubis.

"Egypt's environment ministry said in a statement Wednesday that the species of whale "was the most ferocious and ancient in Africa".

"'The whale had both the ability to walk on land and swim in the sea," it said, adding that the discovery was evidence of the evolution of whales from land mammals to marine mammals.

"'An anatomical study of the fossil shows that this new species of whale is completely different from other known species," the ministry said.

"It was a "large predator with large, powerful jaws" that allowed it to "control the environment in which it lived'".

Earlier findings:

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-newly-fossil-whale-intermediate-stage.html

"Protocetids are a group of early, semi-aquatic whales known from the middle of the Eocene, a geological epoch that began 56 million years ago and ended 33.9 million years ago. Protocetid remains have been found in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

"While modern whales are fully aquatic and use their tails to propel themselves through the water, most protocetids are thought to have been semi-aquatic and swam mainly with their limbs.

"In their PLOS ONE paper, Gingerich and his colleagues describe a new genus and species, Aegicetus gehennae, the first late-Eocene protocetid. Its body shape is similar to that of other ancient whales of its time, such as the famous Basilosaurus.

"The researchers suggest that an undulatory swimming style might represent a transitional stage between the foot-powered swimming of early whales and the tail-powered swimming of modern whales.

"'Early protocetid whales living 47 to 41 million years ago were foot-powered swimmers. Later, starting about 37 million years ago, whales became tail-powered swimmers," said Gingerich, a professor emeritus in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and curator emeritus at the U-M Museum of Paleontology.

"'This newly discovered fossil whale, Aegicetus, was intermediate in time and form and was transitional functionally in having the larger and more powerful vertebral column of a tail-powered swimmer," said Gingerich, who is also a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology and of anthropology."

Comment: a transitional form which does not require the later complex physiological changes necessary for full aquatic life.

Fine tuning

dhw: Your non-acceptance does not explain why the theory is not feasible.

DAVID: It is feasible with a weak human, as I've told you before.

dhw: Why wanting a free-for-all and creating it should make your God into a weak human I really don’t know. It makes me wonder how you can then go on to champion the idea of free will, if your God is such a control freak.

I see God as a control freak only over evolutionary design creations. He doesn't need control over our personal behavior

Sea turtles

dhw: No you haven’t. When asked why your God would have directly designed all those non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., you replied that you had no idea.

DAVID: My 'no idea' only applies to God's obvious choice to evolve us, rather than direct creation.

dhw: See my post of December 10 under “Evolution: fish to land animals transition”, in which I repeated the questions you couldn’t answer concerning your God’s method of designing humans by first designing millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans. It was this problem which finally elicited from you the response: “You are correct. I have no idea why he uses that method.”

Smile: Same silliness. God did it for his own reasons and I simply accept it. You are asking why so why don't you answer? I know: free-for-all, a weak concept of God.

Egnor’s latest

dhw: ...Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

DAVID: Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.

dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

DAVID: He didn't tell me.

dhw: I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

Ask Him. I don't know, but not knowing bothers you, not me.

Venus fly trap
QUOTES: Based on the number of action potentials triggered by the prey animal during its attempts to free itself, the carnivorous plant estimates whether the prey is big enough—whether it is worth setting the elaborate digestion in motion.
"'In the process, we noticed that the fingerprint of the genes active in the hair differs from that of the other cell types in the trap," says Schulz.

DAVID:: A highly complex system that must have been designed. The insect is digested by powerful enzymes. This means when the enzymes were developed a protection for the tissues of the trap must have been designed also. Not by chance.

dhw: There is clearly no end to the versatility of the cell. It could have been designed to create the countless number of life forms that have come and gone, or still exist, in a constantly changing free-for-all,

dhw: Under God's designing mind.[/i][/b]

dhw: [/b] This is your comment, not mine. But I have always accepted the possibility that your God designed the original cells.

Accepted.

DAVID: It creates a concept of God I do not accept.

dhw: Your non-acceptance does not explain why the theory is not feasible.

DAVID: It is feasible with a weak human, as I've told you before.

Why wanting a free-for-all and creating it should make your God into a weak human I really don’t know. It makes me wonder how you can then go on to champion the idea of free will, if your God is such a control freak.

Sea turtles
DAVID: Your same old complaint. For me God creates all. History tells us what He did, and I've told you why I think His results have logical reasons.

dhw: No you haven’t. When asked why your God would have directly designed all those non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., you replied that you had no idea.

DAVID: My 'no idea' only applies to God's obvious choice to evolve us, rather than direct creation.

See my post of December 10 under “Evolution: fish to land animals transition”, in which I repeated the questions you couldn’t answer concerning your God’s method of designing humans by first designing millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans. It was this problem which finally elicited from you the response: “You are correct. I have no idea why he uses that method.”

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

dhw: ...Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

DAVID: Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.

dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

DAVID: He didn't tell me.

I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

Venus fly trap
QUOTES: Based on the number of action potentials triggered by the prey animal during its attempts to free itself, the carnivorous plant estimates whether the prey is big enough—whether it is worth setting the elaborate digestion in motion.
"'In the process, we noticed that the fingerprint of the genes active in the hair differs from that of the other cell types in the trap," says Schulz.

DAVID:: A highly complex system that must have been designed. The insect is digested by powerful enzymes. This means when the enzymes were developed a protection for the tissues of the trap must have been designed also. Not by chance.

dhw: There is clearly no end to the versatility of the cell. It could have been designed to create the countless number of life forms that have come and gone, or still exist, in a constantly changing free-for-all,

dhw: Under God's designing mind.

This is your comment, not mine. But I have always accepted the possibility that your God designed the original cells.

dhw: I know we differ. That doesn’t explain why you think the free-for-all theory (unlike the satisfaction theory) is not feasible.

DAVID: It creates a concept of God I do not accept.

dhw: Your non-acceptance does not explain why the theory is not feasible.

It is feasible with a weak human, as I've told you before.

Sea turtles

DAVID: Your same old complaint. For me God creates all. History tells us what He did, and I've told you why I think His results have logical reasons.

dhw: No you haven’t. When asked why your God would have directly designed all those non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., you replied that you had no idea.

My 'no idea' only applies to God's obvious choice to evolve us, rather than direct creation.

Egnor’s latest

DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

dhw: ...Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.[/i]

DAVID: Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.

dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

He didn't tell me.

Venus fly trap
QUOTES: Based on the number of action potentials triggered by the prey animal during its attempts to free itself, the carnivorous plant estimates whether the prey is big enough—whether it is worth setting the elaborate digestion in motion.
"'In the process, we noticed that the fingerprint of the genes active in the hair differs from that of the other cell types in the trap," says Schulz.

DAVID:: A highly complex system that must have been designed. The insect is digested by powerful enzymes. This means when the enzymes were developed a protection for the tissues of the trap must have been designed also. Not by chance.

dhw: There is clearly no end to the versatility of the cell. It could have been designed to create the countless number of life forms that have come and gone, or still exist, in a constantly changing free-for-all,

dhw: Under God's designing mind.

Far out cosmology
QUOTES:"...no matter how big our Universe actually is, that doesn’t mean it’s the only one. Even if the Universe is infinite, there can be others; remember that some infinities are bigger than others.
"If “nothing” is the nothingness of empty space, but empty space started off in an inflationary state, not only will it give rise to a Universe like ours, but an extraordinarily large (and possibly infinite) number of independent Universes will arise as well. Each one will be filled with its own particles, antiparticles, radiation, and whatever forms of energy are allowed."

I’m afraid I’m inclined to switch off when I read such comments. How can infinity have various sizes? How can nothing turn into a universe of different materials? And why “multiverses”? If the universe is infinite, it can contain countless numbers of galaxies and solar systems and empty spaces and whatever you can think of. What does he mean, then, by the word “universe”?

You are correct to reject this garbage. Lots of stupid commentary out there.

dhw: I know we differ. That doesn’t explain why you think the free-for-all theory (unlike the satisfaction theory) is not feasible.

DAVID: It creates a concept of God I do not accept.

Your non-acceptance does not explain why the theory is not feasible.

Sea turtles
dhw: Nobody knows whether God exists, let alone what his reasons might have been. However, your theory that he taught the turtles to navigate so that they could provide food for the humans who would arrive millions and millions of years later is not part of the known history of evolution.

DAVID: Agreed, but a good way for God to handle things.

dhw: Since you agree, perhaps you will now stop pretending that your God’s direct design of every life form as part of the goal of evolving humans and their food supply “follows known history of evolution”. I don’t know by what criteria millions of long dead life forms and food supplies unconnected with humans are a “good” way to handle the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Your same old complaint. For me God creates all. History tells us what He did, and I've told you why I think His results have logical reasons.

No you haven’t. When asked why your God would have directly designed all those non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., you replied that you had no idea.

Egnor’s latest
dhw:...please stop pretending that evolution involves gazing into a crystal ball. The theory I have proposed involves REACTING to conditions, not forecasting them.
And:
dhw: My closing comment on your theory was: “I find it quite absurd to picture an animal happily munching its supper on the seashore, dozing off, and then finding that its legs have turned into fins, and a voice says “Go thou into the water!” What other way do you think he might have designed the process?

DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

dhw: So now you have your God conducting nine lots of operations on pre-whales instead of just the one, and you think this makes your theory more feasible. I suggest that each change was designed by the intelligent cell communities finding new ways of adapting to life in the water and thereby improving the pre-whale’s chances of surviving. Nothing to do with sitting on my agnostic’s fence. Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

DAVID: Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.

So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

Venus fly trap
QUOTES: Based on the number of action potentials triggered by the prey animal during its attempts to free itself, the carnivorous plant estimates whether the prey is big enough—whether it is worth setting the elaborate digestion in motion.
"'In the process, we noticed that the fingerprint of the genes active in the hair differs from that of the other cell types in the trap," says Schulz.

DAVID:: A highly complex system that must have been designed. The insect is digested by powerful enzymes. This means when the enzymes were developed a protection for the tissues of the trap must have been designed also. Not by chance.

There is clearly no end to the versatility of the cell. It could have been designed to create the countless number of life forms that have come and gone, or still exist, in a constantly changing free-for-all,

Far out cosmology
QUOTES:"...no matter how big our Universe actually is, that doesn’t mean it’s the only one. Even if the Universe is infinite, there can be others; remember that some infinities are bigger than others.
"If “nothing” is the nothingness of empty space, but empty space started off in an inflationary state, not only will it give rise to a Universe like ours, but an extraordinarily large (and possibly infinite) number of independent Universes will arise as well. Each one will be filled with its own particles, antiparticles, radiation, and whatever forms of energy are allowed."

I’m afraid I’m inclined to switch off when I read such comments. How can infinity have various sizes? How can nothing turn into a universe of different materials? And why “multiverses”? If the universe is infinite, it can contain countless numbers of galaxies and solar systems and empty spaces and whatever you can think of. What does he mean, then, by the word “universe”?

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: I simply see we differ in many ways. Why not?

dhw: I know we differ. That doesn’t explain why you think the free-for-all theory (unlike the satisfaction theory) is not feasible.

It creates a concept of God I do not accept.

Sea turtles

dhw: Nobody knows whether God exists, let alone what his reasons might have been. However, your theory that he taught the turtles to navigate so that they could provide food for the humans who would arrive millions and millions of years later is not part of the known history of evolution.

DAVID: Agreed, but a good way for God to handle things.

dhw: Since you agree, perhaps you will now stop pretending that your God’s direct design of every life form as part of the goal of evolving humans and their food supply “follows known history of evolution”. I don’t know by what criteria millions of long dead life forms and food supplies unconnected with humans are a “good” way to handle the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.

Your same old complaint. For me God creates all. History tells us what He did, and I've told you why I think His results have logical reasons.

Egnor’s latest
dhw:...please stop pretending that evolution involves gazing into a crystal ball. The theory I have proposed involves REACTING to conditions, not forecasting them. The problem of fossil gaps would be solved if there were a continuous fossil record of every creature that ever lived.

DAVID: The crystal ball is required for animals to jump into aquatic life. They are my strongest argument for design being required.

dhw: I would suggest this is your weakest argument – complexity being your strongest. If an animal sees that there is more food in the water than there is on the land, and it has a better chance of surviving in the water, then it will enter the water. The necessary adaptations will then follow.

DAVID: The problem unsolved is how does that happen. I'll stick with God designing.

dhw: Of course nobody knows how the process of adaptation/innovation works. That is why we have theories. My closing comment on your theory was: “I find it quite absurd to picture an animal happily munching its supper on the seashore, dozing off, and then finding that its legs have turned into fins, and a voice says “Go thou into the water!” What other way do you think he might have designed the process?

DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

dhw: So now you have your God conducting nine lots of operations on pre-whales instead of just the one, and you think this makes your theory more feasible. I suggest that each change was designed by the intelligent cell communities finding new ways of adapting to life in the water and thereby improving the pre-whale’s chances of surviving. Nothing to do with sitting on my agnostic’s fence. Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.

dhw: Of course we are, but each of defends his own theories and looks for faults in the reasoning underlying the other’s theories. I have based the above theory on your own beliefs and simply ask why you think it’s not feasible.

DAVID: I simply see we differ in many ways. Why not?

I know we differ. That doesn’t explain why you think the free-for-all theory (unlike the satisfaction theory) is not feasible.

Sea turtles
DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

dhw: A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.[…]

DAVID: Your usual distortion of evolution as conducted by God. You don't know His reasons either. Why should I? I'm simply following known history of evolution.

dhw: Nobody knows whether God exists, let alone what his reasons might have been. However, your theory that he taught the turtles to navigate so that they could provide food for the humans who would arrive millions and millions of years later is not part of the known history of evolution.

DAVID: Agreed, but a good way for God to handle things.

Since you agree, perhaps you will now stop pretending that your God’s direct design of every life form as part of the goal of evolving humans and their food supply “follows known history of evolution”. I don’t know by what criteria millions of long dead life forms and food supplies unconnected with humans are a “good” way to handle the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.

Egnor’s latest
dhw:...please stop pretending that evolution involves gazing into a crystal ball. The theory I have proposed involves REACTING to conditions, not forecasting them. The problem of fossil gaps would be solved if there were a continuous fossil record of every creature that ever lived.

DAVID: The crystal ball is required for animals to jump into aquatic life. They are my strongest argument for design being required.

dhw: I would suggest this is your weakest argument – complexity being your strongest. If an animal sees that there is more food in the water than there is on the land, and it has a better chance of surviving in the water, then it will enter the water. The necessary adaptations will then follow.

DAVID: The problem unsolved is how does that happen. I'll stick with God designing.

dhw: Of course nobody knows how the process of adaptation/innovation works. That is why we have theories. My closing comment on your theory was: “I find it quite absurd to picture an animal happily munching its supper on the seashore, dozing off, and then finding that its legs have turned into fins, and a voice says “Go thou into the water!” What other way do you think he might have designed the process?

DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

So now you have your God conducting nine lots of operations on pre-whales instead of just the one, and you think this makes your theory more feasible. I suggest that each change was designed by the intelligent cell communities finding new ways of adapting to life in the water and thereby improving the pre-whale’s chances of surviving. Nothing to do with sitting on my agnostic’s fence. Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: Accept that you and I have totally different views of God's personality and capabilities. Neither of us can know if we are right or wrong about our opinions. We are allowed to differ.

dhw: Of course we are, but each of defends his own theories and looks for faults in the reasoning underlying the other’s theories. I have based the above theory on your own beliefs and simply ask why you think it’s not feasible.

I simply see we differ in many ways. Why not?

Sea turtles
DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

dhw: A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.[…]

DAVID: Your usual distortion of evolution as conducted by God. You don't know His reasons either. Why should I? I'm simply following known history of evolution.

dhw: Nobody knows whether God exists, let alone what his reasons might have been. However, your theory that he taught the turtles to navigate so that they could provide food for the humans who would arrive millions and millions of years later is not part of the known history of evolution.

Agreed, but a good way for God to handle things.

Egnor’s latest
dhw:…please stop pretending that evolution involves gazing into a crystal ball. The theory I have proposed involves REACTING to conditions, not forecasting them. The problem of fossil gaps would be solved if there were a continuous fossil record of every creature that ever lived.

DAVID: The crystal ball is required for animals to jump into aquatic life. They are my strongest argument for design being required.

dhw: I would suggest this is your weakest argument – complexity being your strongest. If an animal sees that there is more food in the water than there is on the land, and it has a better chance of surviving in the water, then it will enter the water. The necessary adaptations will then follow.

DAVID: The problem unsolved is how does that happen. I'll stick with God designing.

dhw: Of course nobody knows how the process of adaptation/innovation works. That is why we have theories. My closing comment on your theory was: “I find it quite absurd to picture an animal happily munching its supper on the seashore, dozing off, and then finding that its legs have turned into fins, and a voice says “Go thou into the water!” What other way do you think he might have designed the process?

We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

DAVID: Evolutionary novelty means what? Not variation within species.

Correct. It means innovation, which is what is needed for speciation! That is the whole point of his theory.

Aquatic mammals
DAVID: There is one reason to assume God has to experiment. He doesn't know how to create, i.e., a weak god.

Not “how to create”, but how to create what he wants. According to your latest proposal, he knows how to create all the non-human life forms that ever existed, but: “God’s ability to directly create humans was limited. That involves two considerations: 1) God had some personal limitation…” Experimentation seems to me to be a feasible way of your God dealing with the weakness YOU have attributed to him, and it would explain all the life forms that have no connection with humans..

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”
DAVID: I see God as purely creating, and reviewing what He did. We cannot know His reaction to it.

dhw: Strange. A couple of days ago you were sure he was interested in his creations, and you were sure “He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” And all I’m suggesting is that if he’s interested in his creations, likes them, and finds satisfaction in them, then maybe that’s what he created them for. And all I ask is why you don’t regard this suggestion as feasible.

DAVID: Accept that you and I have totally different views of God's personality and capabilities. Neither of us can know if we are right or wrong about our opinions. We allowed to differ.

Of course we are, but each of defends his own theories and looks for faults in the reasoning underlying the other’s theories. I have based the above theory on your own beliefs and simply ask why you think it’s not feasible.

Sea turtles
DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

dhw: A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.[…]

DAVID: Your usual distortion of evolution as conducted by God. You don't know His reasons either. Why should I? I'm simply following known history of evolution.

Nobody knows whether God exists, let alone what his reasons might have been. However, your theory that he taught the turtles to navigate so that they could provide food for the humans who would arrive millions and millions of years later is not part of the known history of evolution.

Theoretical origin of life:
dhw: I don’t think you need to be a brilliant scientist to “see the problems in trying to understand the origin of life”. Nor do you have to be a brilliant philosopher to see the problems in trying to understand how the mystery of life’s origin can be solved by attributing it to an unknown inventor who never had an origin.

DAVID: And yet you are always puzzled by the need for a designer. It is a problem you will never get around.

I think you’re right. And I’m always puzzled by the ability of theists and atheists to ignore the problems raised by their beliefs and disbeliefs. But I am not unhappy on my fence, and I learn from the arguments of both sides.

Egnor’s latest
dhw:…please stop pretending that evolution involves gazing into a crystal ball. The theory I have proposed involves REACTING to conditions, not forecasting them. The problem of fossil gaps would be solved if there were a continuous fossil record of every creature that ever lived.

DAVID: The crystal ball is required for animals to jump into aquatic life. They are my strongest argument for design being required.

dhw: I would suggest this is your weakest argument – complexity being your strongest. If an animal sees that there is more food in the water than there is on the land, and it has a better chance of surviving in the water, then it will enter the water. The necessary adaptations will then follow.

DAVID: The problem unsolved is how does that happen. I'll stick with God designing.

Of course nobody knows how the process of adaptation/innovation works. That is why we have theories. My closing comment on your theory was: “I find it quite absurd to picture an animal happily munching its supper on the seashore, dozing off, and then finding that its legs have turned into fins, and a voice says “Go thou into the water!” What other way do you think he might have designed the process?

DAVID: Shapiro's modifications are only adaptations within species. The rest is pure interesting theory about a possible way/method to speciation.

dhw: He specifies “evolutionary novelty” You may disagree with him, but at least you can stop pretending that he does not mean what he says.

Evolutionary novelty means what? Not variation within species.

Aquatic mammals
DAVID: Theoretically your version of a weaker God might need to experiment. Your

DAVID: Experimentation is your way of presenting a weak God. Not my image of God.

dhw: If he is incapable of directly designing what he wants, please give me a reason for his direct creation of all the life forms unconnected with what he wants. Ah, but you “have no idea why he uses that method”. How about experimentation, then? And just try to have a little more respect for inventors who experiment in order to produce what they are looking for.

There is one reason to assume God has to experiment. He doesn't know how to create, i.e., a weak god.

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: Because I don't view God as creating for His own self-interest.

dhw: This is not the most enlightening form of discussion: imagine yourself saying to Dawkins: “Why is my design argument not feasible?” Answer: “Because I have a different view.”'

Accept that you and I have totally different views of God's personality and capabilities. Neither of us can know if we are right or wrong about our opinions. We allowed to differ.

Sea turtles

DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

dhw: A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.

DAVID: Accounted for by the process of evolution, which I fell God conducted.

dhw: Yes, all life forms are accounted for by the process of evolution. And you have your God designing every one of them, and…hallelujah! – you have no idea why your God would have chosen your method of designing millions of life forms that had no connection with humans (and their food supply) in order to design humans and their food supply.

Your usual distortion of evolution as conducted by God. You don't know His reasons either. Why should I? I'm simply following known history of evolution

Theoretical origin of life:
DAVID: The Shapiro who is my hero is Robert. See my bold. His book, Origins is from 1986 and he could easily see the problems in trying to understand the origin of life, about which we are obviously no closer to a reasonable theory. His book is one of the first I read to divorce myself from Darwin. I've not presented the lengthy descriptions of all the current attempts to make an advance, just the obvious frustrations of the reviewing author. This problem is why I think it is a major proof of the need for a designer God.

dhw: I don’t think you need to be a brilliant scientist to “see the problems in trying to understand the origin of life”. Nor do you have to be a brilliant philosopher to see the problems in trying to understand how the mystery of life’s origin can be solved by attributing it to an unknown inventor who never had an origin.

And yet you are always puzzled by the need for a designer. It is a problem you will never get around.

DAVID: 'Cellular intelligence' is your distortion of his theory, which I don't accept. My statement above about Shapiro is how I view his contribution.

dhw: This is getting sillier and sillier. Yet again, as quoted a few days ago from your book: SHAPIRO: "Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities." And for good measure: “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”

DAVID: Shapiro's modifications are only adaptations within species. The rest is pure interesting theory about a possible way/method to speciation.

He specifies “evolutionary novelty” You may disagree with him, but at least you can stop pretending that he does not mean what he says.

Aquatic mammals
DAVID: Theoretically your version of a weaker God might need to experiment. Your theories always seem to weaken God's abilities.

dhw: You can hardly weaken them more than by suggesting that “God’s ability to directly create humans was limited. That involves two considerations: 1) God had some personal limitation.” (The second was the silly argument about food supplies being created for humans millions of years before humans arrived.) I really can’t see why the possibility of personal limitation excludes the possibility that in order to get what he wanted, he had to experiment.

DAVID: Experimentation is your way of presenting a weak God. Not my image of God.

If he is incapable of directly designing what he wants, please give me a reason for his direct creation of all the life forms unconnected with what he wants. Ah, but you “have no idea why he uses that method”. How about experimentation, then? And just try to have a little more respect for inventors who experiment in order to produce what they are looking for.

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: I see God as purely creating, and reviewing what He did. We cannot know His reaction to it.

dhw: Strange. A couple of days ago you were sure he was interested in his creations, and you were sure “He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” And all I’m suggesting is that if he’s interested in his creations, likes them, and finds satisfaction in them, then maybe that’s what he created them for. And all I ask is why you don’t regard this suggestion as feasible.

DAVID: Because I don't view God as creating for His own self-interest.

This is not the most enlightening form of discussion: imagine yourself saying to Dawkins: “Why is my design argument not feasible?” Answer: “Because I have a different view.”

Sea turtles
dhw: I can't help wondering how his design of a turtle navigation system was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans".

DAVID: Part of ecosystems. […]

dhw: All organisms are and were part of present and past ecosystems for food supply. How does that make all of them “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

dhw: A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.

DAVID: Accounted for by the process of evolution, which I fell God conducted.

Yes, all life forms are accounted for by the process of evolution. And you have your God designing every one of them, and…hallelujah! – you have no idea why your God would have chosen your method of designing millions of life forms that had no connection with humans (and their food supply) in order to design humans and their food supply.

Theoretical origin of life:
DAVID: The Shapiro who is my hero is Robert. See my bold. His book, Origins is from 1986 and he could easily see the problems in trying to understand the origin of life, about which we are obviously no closer to a reasonable theory. His book is one of the first I read to divorce myself from Darwin. I've not presented the lengthy descriptions of all the current attempts to make an advance, just the obvious frustrations of the reviewing author. This problem is why I think it is a major proof of the need for a designer God.

I don’t think you need to be a brilliant scientist to “see the problems in trying to understand the origin of life”. Nor do you have to be a brilliant philosopher to see the problems in trying to understand how the mystery of life’s origin can be solved by attributing it to an unknown inventor who never had an origin.

Shapiro’s theory of “natural genetic engineering”
dhw: … please stop pretending that Shapiro does not propose cellular intelligence as the driving force of evolutionary innovation, and that his theory applies only to bacteria.

DAVID: 'Cellular intelligence' is your distortion of his theory, which I don't accept. My statement above about Shapiro is how I view his contribution.

dhw: This is getting sillier and sillier. Yet again, as quoted a few days ago from your book: SHAPIRO: "Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities." And for good measure: “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”

Shapiro's modifications are only adaptations within species. The rest is pure interesting theory about a possible way/method to speciation .

Aquatic mammals
dhw: There is no proof for any of my theories or of yours, including the existence of God. I asked why your proposal that your God’s abilities were limited EXCLUDED experimentation.

DAVID: Theoretically your version of a weaker God might need to experiment. Your theories always seem to weaken God's abilities.

dhw: You can hardly weaken them more than by suggesting that “God’s ability to directly create humans was limited. That involves two considerations: 1) God had some personal limitation.” (The second was the silly argument about food supplies being created for humans millions of years before humans arrived.) I really can’t see why the possibility of personal limitation excludes the possibility that in order to get what he wanted, he had to experiment.

Experimentation is your way of presenting a weak God. Not my image of God.

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”
DAVID: I see God as purely creating, and reviewing what He did. We cannot know His reaction to it.

dhw: Strange. A couple of days ago you were sure he was interested in his creations, and you were sure “He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” And all I’m suggesting is that if he’s interested in his creations, likes them, and finds satisfaction in them, then maybe that’s what he created them for. And all I ask is why you don’t regard this suggestion as feasible.

Because I don't view God as creating for His own self-interest.

Sea turtles
dhw: I can't help wondering how his design of a turtle navigation system was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans".

DAVID: Part of ecosystems. […]

dhw: All organisms are and were part of present and past ecosystems for food supply. How does that make all of them “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

dhw: A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.

Accounted for by the process of evolution, which I fell God conducted.

DAVID: 'Cellular intelligence' is your distortion of his theory, which I don't accept. My statement above about Shapiro is how I view his contribution.

This is getting sillier and sillier. Yet again, as quoted a few days ago from your book: SHAPIRO: "Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities." And for good measure: “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification…”

Aquatic mammals
dhw: There is no proof for any of my theories or of yours, including the existence of God. I asked why your proposal that your God’s abilities were limited EXCLUDED experimentation.

DAVID: Theoretically your version of a weaker God might need to experiment. Your theories always seem to weaken God's abilities.

You can hardly weaken them more than by suggesting that “God’s ability to directly create humans was limited. That involves two considerations: 1) God had some personal limitation.” (The second was the silly argument about food supplies being created for humans millions of years before humans arrived.) I really can’t see why the possibility of personal limitation excludes the possibility that in order to get what he wanted, he had to experiment.

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”
DAVID: I see God as purely creating, and reviewing what He did. We cannot know His reaction to it.

Strange. A couple of days ago you were sure he was interested in his creations, and you were sure “He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” And all I’m suggesting is that if he’s interested in his creations, likes them, and finds satisfaction in them, then maybe that’s what he created them for. And all I ask is why you don’t regard this suggestion as feasible.

Sea turtles
dhw: I can't help wondering how his design of a turtle navigation system was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans".

DAVID: Part of ecosystems. […]

dhw: All organisms are and were part of present and past ecosystems for food supply. How does that make all of them “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

DAVID: Surprise!! Food supply.

A quick google suggests that the modern sea turtle goes back about 100 million years, so I suppose you could argue that this was part of the 1% of your God’s direct designs to evolve humans and their food supply (never eaten one myself, but luckily I've survived so far). That just leaves 99% to be accounted for.