Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 10:42 (1198 days ago)

This thread replaces “Innovation and speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends”. We can use it to cover different subjects that probably won’t develop into full-scale discussions.

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.

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

We are not talking of need but of what God wants. If he wants humans to have a free-for-all, why should he not want evolution to develop freely?

Sea turtles
Dealt with under “Theodicy

Egnor’s latest
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?

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

We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

Introducing the brain
QUOTE: "The scientists discovered that microglia are not extending their branches at random. Instead, microglia reach out primarily to active neurons, one after another, while paying less attention to non-active neurons. Importantly, they noticed that when microglia touch an active neuron, that neuron's activity does not increase further."

DAVID: It is logical that the brain would have its electrical actions under tight controls; such a highly complex system requires design.

Amazing stuff. Thank you. Yet again we have cells performing intelligent actions as they play different parts in the functioning of their community. If we look outside ourselves and see ants doing the same thing, we might grasp the fact that evolution is a history of cells cooperating to form ever more complex communities. Each body is a community of communities, but because they're all contained within us, we don’t make the connection with the communities we can actually see. Yes, designed, but all of this evolved over billions of years. We needn’t repeat the different theories concerning how it was designed.

Brain expansion

QUOTE: “This means every brain has the same essential ingredients but with species-specific mutations to aid survival in different environments. This, argues Ms. Barrett, undermines the idea that the human brain stands apart as the pinnacle of natural selection. Sure, our brain seems impressive, but we are simply one animal among many with a noodle adapted to the task of survival. “Other animals are not inferior to humans,” Ms. Barrett writes. “Your brain is not more evolved than a rat or lizard brain, just differently evolved.”

The idea that the human brain evolved initially through the effort to improve chances of survival seems to me perfectly reasonable, but Ms Barrett’s attempt to downgrade all the amazing technical, intellectual and artistic achievements that have no connection with survival seems to me to be pointless. There are many fields in which animals are superior to us, and many in which we are superior. What does she mean by “more evolved”? Our brain is more complex, and is indeed different. That doesn’t invalidate our achievements that go beyond survival. I understand her dislike of human arrogance, and use of the term “pinnacle”, and especially our appalling disrespect for our fellow animals, but until she discovers a rat or lizard that can fly to the moon, analyse its DNA or compose a symphony, I feel she is replacing one unbalanced view with another.

Who is God?
QUOTES: “Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever.”
"When I say a problem is unsolvable, I don’t mean we should abandon it. Far from it. I love reading, writing and arguing about intractable puzzles. For example, I don’t believe in God, certainly not the God of my Catholic childhood. But I enjoy smart, imaginative theology (defined as the study of God) in the same way that I enjoy good science fiction
."

DAVID: this discussion is exactly on point with Adler's admonition that in thinking about God, realize He is a person like no other person. That is why I reject any sense of humanizing Him in discussions about what He did/does and why He did/does it.

I don’t know why you’ve called this thread “Who is God?” or why you take it as support for your silly attempts to discredit logical theories on grounds of “humanization”. The author’s point is that we probably shan’t ever solve any of the problems he has listed (e.g. God’s existence), but he enjoys discussing them. He would be the perfect man for our website.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 14:21 (1198 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

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.

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

dhw: We are not talking of need but of what God wants. If he wants humans to have a free-for-all, why should he not want evolution to develop freely?

Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all

Egnor’s latest
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?

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

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.


Introducing the brain
QUOTE: "The scientists discovered that microglia are not extending their branches at random. Instead, microglia reach out primarily to active neurons, one after another, while paying less attention to non-active neurons. Importantly, they noticed that when microglia touch an active neuron, that neuron's activity does not increase further."

DAVID: It is logical that the brain would have its electrical actions under tight controls; such a highly complex system requires design.

dhw: Amazing stuff. Thank you. Yet again we have cells performing intelligent actions as they play different parts in the functioning of their community. If we look outside ourselves and see ants doing the same thing, we might grasp the fact that evolution is a history of cells cooperating to form ever more complex communities. Each body is a community of communities, but because they're all contained within us, we don’t make the connection with the communities we can actually see. Yes, designed, but all of this evolved over billions of years. We needn’t repeat the different theories concerning how it was designed.

Yes, great design.


Brain expansion

QUOTE: “This means every brain has the same essential ingredients but with species-specific mutations to aid survival in different environments. This, argues Ms. Barrett, undermines the idea that the human brain stands apart as the pinnacle of natural selection. Sure, our brain seems impressive, but we are simply one animal among many with a noodle adapted to the task of survival. “Other animals are not inferior to humans,” Ms. Barrett writes. “Your brain is not more evolved than a rat or lizard brain, just differently evolved.”

dhw: The idea that the human brain evolved initially through the effort to improve chances of survival seems to me perfectly reasonable, but Ms Barrett’s attempt to downgrade all the amazing technical, intellectual and artistic achievements that have no connection with survival seems to me to be pointless. There are many fields in which animals are superior to us, and many in which we are superior. What does she mean by “more evolved”? Our brain is more complex, and is indeed different. That doesn’t invalidate our achievements that go beyond survival. I understand her dislike of human arrogance, and use of the term “pinnacle”, and especially our appalling disrespect for our fellow animals, but until she discovers a rat or lizard that can fly to the moon, analyse its DNA or compose a symphony, I feel she is replacing one unbalanced view with another.

I agree.


Who is God?
QUOTES: “Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever.”
"When I say a problem is unsolvable, I don’t mean we should abandon it. Far from it. I love reading, writing and arguing about intractable puzzles. For example, I don’t believe in God, certainly not the God of my Catholic childhood. But I enjoy smart, imaginative theology (defined as the study of God) in the same way that I enjoy good science fiction
."

DAVID: this discussion is exactly on point with Adler's admonition that in thinking about God, realize He is a person like no other person. That is why I reject any sense of humanizing Him in discussions about what He did/does and why He did/does it.

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve called this thread “Who is God?” or why you take it as support for your silly attempts to discredit logical theories on grounds of “humanization”. The author’s point is that we probably shan’t ever solve any of the problems he has listed (e.g. God’s existence), but he enjoys discussing them. He would be the perfect man for our website.

We do not know who God is, or if He has any human characteristics

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, December 17, 2020, 10:38 (1197 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
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.

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

dhw: We are not talking of need but of what God wants. If he wants humans to have a free-for-all, why should he not want evolution to develop freely?

DAVID: Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all.

Even if it were true that evolution has ended, that does not invalidate the theory that your God wanted a free-for-all! And the fact that humans are having a free-for-all is a clear indication that your God is perfectly capable of wanting a free-for-all, so there is absolutely no reason to insist that he couldn’t have wanted evolution itself to be a free-for all.

Egnor’s latest
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?

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

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

DAVID: You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.

This makes a mockery of all discussion. In any case, you have written two brilliant books, the basis of which is that life’s complexities only make “sense” if we accept the argument for design, i.e. for a designer, i.e. for God. You only want “sense” when you can find it, but thank you for admitting once more that your theory makes no sense to you.

Arctic squirrels
QUOTE: "Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works…”

DAVID: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed.

Maybe Arctic winters were not always as harsh as they are now, and millions of years ago, as winters gradually became harsher, the intelligent cells that run all adaptations introduced and refined these remarkable ways of countering the harshness. Exactly the same process as with all adaptation: the cell communities restructure themselves in order to meet new requirements. Just a theory – and of course one must allow for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. I find this vastly more convincing than the theory of random mutations, and also of God preprogramming the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago with squirrelly methods of countering extreme cold, or stepping in to operate on a batch of shivering squirrels as part of his goal of evolving humans.

Kangaroos
QUOTES: “Kangaroos in zoos and sanctuaries use body language to ask humans for help, much like horses and dogs do, which suggests that even wild animals can learn to engage in interspecies communication just by being around humans."

"McElligott and his colleagues studied 16 kangaroos of three different subspecies living in captivity in Australia. Using methods similar to those used in previous studies on horses, dogs and goats, the scientists first trained the kangaroos to find a tasty treat – bits of carrots, corn or sweet potatoes – in a small box. Then they closed the box in a way that made it impossible for kangaroos to open and observed how the animals responded."

DAVID: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK.

100% agreed. This one made me laugh. Animals are not wild if they have been trained by humans! I suggest the researchers devise a test for a pride of lions in the African jungle, and stand close by to see what will happen. We know that wild animals help their own species, and there are lots of symbiotic relationships in which different species also help one another (e.g. birds picking alligators’ teeth); feral children brought up by animals would be another example, though very rare.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 17, 2020, 15:29 (1197 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all.

dhw: Even if it were true that evolution has ended, that does not invalidate the theory that your God wanted a free-for-all! And the fact that humans are having a free-for-all is a clear indication that your God is perfectly capable of wanting a free-for-all, so there is absolutely no reason to insist that he couldn’t have wanted evolution itself to be a free-for all.

Apples and oysters. Designing evolution is serious work to produce proper functioning new forms. Humans fussing is at a totally insignificant level.


Egnor’s latest

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?

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

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

DAVID: You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.

dhw: This makes a mockery of all discussion. In any case, you have written two brilliant books, the basis of which is that life’s complexities only make “sense” if we accept the argument for design, i.e. for a designer, i.e. for God. You only want “sense” when you can find it, but thank you for admitting once more that your theory makes no sense to you.

Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???


Arctic squirrels
QUOTE: "Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works…”

DAVID: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed.

dhw: Maybe Arctic winters were not always as harsh as they are now, and millions of years ago, as winters gradually became harsher, the intelligent cells that run all adaptations introduced and refined these remarkable ways of countering the harshness... I find this vastly more convincing than the theory of random mutations, and also of God preprogramming the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago with squirrelly methods of countering extreme cold, or stepping in to operate on a batch of shivering squirrels as part of his goal of evolving humans.

It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.


Kangaroos

DAVID: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK.

dhw: 100% agreed. This one made me laugh. Animals are not wild if they have been trained by humans! I suggest the researchers devise a test for a pride of lions in the African jungle, and stand close by to see what will happen. We know that wild animals help their own species, and there are lots of symbiotic relationships in which different species also help one another (e.g. birds picking alligators’ teeth); feral children brought up by animals would be another example, though very rare.

Roos are not lions by any stretch. I met many in Australia.


Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, December 18, 2020, 10:33 (1196 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all.

dhw: Even if it were true that evolution has ended, that does not invalidate the theory that your God wanted a free-for-all! And the fact that humans are having a free-for-all is a clear indication that your God is perfectly capable of wanting a free-for-all, so there is absolutely no reason to insist that he couldn’t have wanted evolution itself to be a free-for all.

DAVID: Apples and oysters. Designing evolution is serious work to produce proper functioning new forms. Humans fussing is at a totally insignificant level.

Oops, I thought you thought that humans were your God’s one and only purpose for designing all these functioning new forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And if he deliberately gave his one and only goal a free run, why is it not possible that the 99% of non-human life forms also had a free run, i.e. were the product of his deliberate desire NOT to control every one of his creations.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: [...] not knowing bothers you, not me.

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

DAVID: You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.

dhw: This makes a mockery of all discussion. In any case, you have written two brilliant books, the basis of which is that life’s complexities only make “sense” if we accept the argument for design, i.e. for a designer, i.e. for God. You only want “sense” when you can find it, but thank you for admitting once more that your theory makes no sense to you.

DAVID: Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???

My memory of the two books is not as complete as yours. But perhaps you can point me to a passage in which you state explicitly that your God preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, life form, life style, econiche, strategy and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

Arctic squirrels
QUOTE: "Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works…”

DAVID: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed.

dhw: Maybe Arctic winters were not always as harsh as they are now, and millions of years ago, as winters gradually became harsher, the intelligent cells that run all adaptations introduced and refined these remarkable ways of countering the harshness... I find this vastly more convincing than the theory of random mutations, and also of God preprogramming the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago with squirrelly methods of countering extreme cold, or stepping in to operate on a batch of shivering squirrels as part of his goal of evolving humans.

DAVID: It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.

So do I, and I have explained how I think the design took place.

Kangaroos
DAVID: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK.

dhw: 100% agreed. This one made me laugh. Animals are not wild if they have been trained by humans! I suggest the researchers devise a test for a pride of lions in the African jungle, and stand close by to see what will happen. We know that wild animals help their own species, and there are lots of symbiotic relationships in which different species also help one another (e.g. birds picking alligators’ teeth); feral children brought up by animals would be another example, though very rare.

DAVID: Roos are not lions by any stretch. I met many in Australia.

Beside the point. I have agreed with your criticism of the experiment! Of course trained animals have a relationship with the humans who train them.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

DAVID: Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, December 18, 2020, 14:14 (1196 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
dhw: Oops, I thought you thought that humans were your God’s one and only purpose for designing all these functioning new forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And if he deliberately gave his one and only goal a free run, why is it not possible that the 99% of non-human life forms also had a free run, i.e. were the product of his deliberate desire NOT to control every one of his creations.

Again a weak God who is runing things second-hand. Depends upon one's view of God.


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???

dhw: My memory of the two books is not as complete as yours. But perhaps you can point me to a passage in which you state explicitly that your God preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, life form, life style, econiche, strategy and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

I specifically said He designed evolution


Arctic squirrels

DAVID: It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.

dhw: So do I, and I have explained how I think the design took place.

And I've answered I don't believe such an extreme adaptation occurred naturally.


Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

DAVID: Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, December 19, 2020, 08:18 (1195 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: I see God as a control freak only over evolutionary design creations. He doesn’t need control over our personal behaviour.

dhw: Oops, I thought you thought that humans were your God’s one and only purpose for designing all these functioning new forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And if he deliberately gave his one and only goal a free run, why is it not possible that the 99% of non-human life forms also had a free run, i.e. were the product of his deliberate desire NOT to control every one of his creations.

DAVID: Again a weak God who is runing things second-hand. Depends upon one's view of God.

Nothing weak about a God who knows what he wants and gets it. If he chose NOT to run humans, why is it out of the question that he might have chosen NOT to run evolution (apart, perhaps, from occasional dabbles)? An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???

dhw: My memory of the two books is not as complete as yours. But perhaps you can point me to a passage in which you state explicitly that your God preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, life form, life style, econiche, strategy and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

Arctic squirrels
DAVID: It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.

dhw: So do I, and I have explained how I think the design took place.

AVID: And I've answered I don't believe such an extreme adaptation occurred naturally.

By “naturally” you usually mean without God’s direct participation (preprogramming or dabbling). If God gave animals the intelligence to design their own defences against changing conditions, the adaptations would indeed be “natural”, but the term should not be equated with Darwinian randomness or with atheism. Just clarifying.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

DAVID: Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: We don't understand why quarks are quarks, and the designer isn't talking, but with our brains we can figure out lots of the mysteries. And the moral is survival is not needed to have a brain like this. This clearly means survivability is not an issue which causes any sort of any evolutionary advance. It is an unproven Darwinistic proposal. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology, and doesn't tell us how speciation happens.

How you can twist the subject of strange stars to yet another silly moan about Darwin is beyond me. In any case, “survival of the fittest” is not meant to tell us what mechanism enables organisms to turn into new species. Darwin’s theory about that was random mutations, with the beneficial ones surviving. We both reject that. The urge to survive, or to improve chances of survival, is what spurs the changes that lead to speciation. Even you will have to admit that that is the obvious reason for known adaptations. And it is perfectly possible that our brains began to change as a result of our ancestors developing or having to develop new means of surviving/improving their chances of survival. Nothing to do with strange quark stars.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 19, 2020, 15:25 (1195 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Again a weak God who is running things second-hand. Depends upon one's view of God.

dhw: Nothing weak about a God who knows what he wants and gets it. If he chose NOT to run humans, why is it out of the question that he might have chosen NOT to run evolution (apart, perhaps, from occasional dabbles)? An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.


Chimps ‘r’ not us

dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

dhw: That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

I believe they exist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it reaches insects in Jewish thought.


Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: We don't understand why quarks are quarks, and the designer isn't talking, but with our brains we can figure out lots of the mysteries. And the moral is survival is not needed to have a brain like this. This clearly means survivability is not an issue which causes any sort of any evolutionary advance. It is an unproven Darwinistic proposal. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology, and doesn't tell us how speciation happens.

dhw: How you can twist the subject of strange stars to yet another silly moan about Darwin is beyond me. In any case, “survival of the fittest” is not meant to tell us what mechanism enables organisms to turn into new species. Darwin’s theory about that was random mutations, with the beneficial ones surviving. We both reject that. The urge to survive, or to improve chances of survival, is what spurs the changes that lead to speciation. Even you will have to admit that that is the obvious reason for known adaptations. And it is perfectly possible that our brains began to change as a result of our ancestors developing or having to develop new means of surviving/improving their chances of survival. Nothing to do with strange quark stars.

As I see it, animals and plants definitely sense danger, but it is said we are the only species that recognizes eventual death. I don't see us wildly changing to avoid death. Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, December 20, 2020, 09:30 (1194 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them. You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

dhw: That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

DAVID: I believe they exist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it reaches insects in Jewish thought.

I’m not asking about Jewish thought. I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: And the moral is survival is not needed to have a brain like this. This clearly means survivability is not an issue which causes any sort of any evolutionary advance. It is an unproven Darwinistic proposal. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology, and doesn't tell us how speciation happens.

dhw: […] it is perfectly possible that our brains began to change as a result of our ancestors developing or having to develop new means of surviving/improving their chances of survival.

DAVID: As I see it, animals and plants definitely sense danger, but it is said we are the only species that recognizes eventual death. I don't see us wildly changing to avoid death. Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me. I have no idea why you would have strong doubts about its influence on evolution, other than your built-in hostility towards Darwinism.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: Note the age of the Milky Way at 12 billion years, which is just 1.78 billion years from the estimated Big Bang. As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 20, 2020, 17:59 (1194 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

dhw: You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them.

Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

dhw: And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.


Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

dhw: It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes


Chimps ‘r’ not us

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

dhw: That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

DAVID: I believe they exist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it reaches insects in Jewish thought.

dhw: I’m not asking about Jewish thought. I asked if YOU thought ants had souls. I follow Hewish thought. I f they accept ants, I do.

Strange quark stars may exist

DAVID: As I see it, animals and plants definitely sense danger, but it is said we are the only species that recognizes eventual death. I don't see us wildly changing to avoid death. Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

dhw: Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me.

Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: Note the age of the Milky Way at 12 billion years, which is just 1.78 billion years from the estimated Big Bang. As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

dhw: They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, December 21, 2020, 12:04 (1193 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

dhw: You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them.

DAVID: Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.”

dhw: And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you have still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

dhw: It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

dhw: Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me.

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

“Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: […] As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

DAVID (wrongly attributed to dhw): They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer, and the age of the Milky Way and the fact that it took time is not the most illuminating of comments.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, December 21, 2020, 15:23 (1193 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably


dhw: Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.”

My comment is a nebulous guess. We cannot know, so theory support is very thin


DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

dhw: Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you have still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

dhw: Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

Only logical with an imagined humanized God.


Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

dhw: A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

I accepted animal souls long ago. One of the few points.


Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

The only drive is a resulting adaptation within species. No proof it drives evolution


Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: […] As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

DAVID (wrongly attributed to dhw): They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

dhw: Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer, and the age of the Milky Way and the fact that it took time is not the most illuminating of comments.

No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, December 22, 2020, 10:48 (1192 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

dhw: Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.

DAVID: My comment is a nebulous guess. We cannot know, so theory support is very thin

I have not distorted anything, and your comments are not nebulous – they are explicit. But of course nobody even knows whether God exists, let alone what he is like. What unites you and me is our interest in the various possibilities.

DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

dhw: Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

DAVID: My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical.

Yes, that is logical. For the thousandth time, what is not logical is your belief that your God individually designed every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder extant and extinct as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have admitted that you have no idea why he would have used such a method, you reject all alternative methods, and we agreed to leave it at that. So please stop all this backpedalling.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

dhw: Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

DAVID: Only logical with an imagined humanized God.

And there is nothing wrong with that according to your own belief that he probably has thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

dhw: A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

DAVID: I accepted animal souls long ago. One of the few points.

Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

And:

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

DAVID: The only drive is a resulting adaptation within species. No proof it drives evolution.

For the umpteenth time, it is a theory. Nobody has proof. But since we know for a fact that organisms change themselves in order to improve their chances of survival in new conditions, the logic of the theory cannot be faulted.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. […]

dhw: Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer […]

DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 22, 2020, 15:21 (1192 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical.

dhw: Yes, that is logical. For the thousandth time, what is not logical is your belief that your God individually designed every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder extant and extinct as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have admitted that you have no idea why he would have used such a method, you reject all alternative methods, and we agreed to leave it at that. So please stop all this backpedalling.

It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?


Egnor’s latest

dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

dhw: A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

DAVID: I accepted animal souls long ago. One of the few points.

dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.


Strange quark stars may exist

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

DAVID: The only drive is a resulting adaptation within species. No proof it drives evolution.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, it is a theory. Nobody has proof. But since we know for a fact that organisms change themselves in order to improve their chances of survival in new conditions, the logic of the theory cannot be faulted.

Flat Earth is also a logical theory, but proves nothing, as is the issue of everything revolves around the Earth. What appears logical doesn't have to be.


Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. […]

dhw: Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer […]

DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

dhw: There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

Some of your questions are obviously seeking answers in areas where we are not advanced enough to have answers, providing an implication God doesn't exist or he doesn't know what He is doing. The appendix is one of the best examples I know of this spurious approach. You see appendices in every direction.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 11:12 (1191 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical.

dhw: Yes, that is logical. For the thousandth time, what is not logical is your belief that your God individually designed every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder extant and extinct as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have admitted that you have no idea why he would have used such a method, you reject all alternative methods, and we agreed to leave it at that. So please stop all this backpedalling.

DAVID: It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?

Why do you keep playing the same silly trick as above? In itself, the premise that your God directly designed every organism is not illogical. What is illogical is the premise that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. You have no idea why he would have directly designed the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, and you agreed to leave it at that.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

Strange quark stars may exist
dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.[…]

DAVID: Flat Earth is also a logical theory, but proves nothing, as is the issue of everything revolves around the Earth. What appears logical doesn't have to be.

You have agreed that the quest for improved chances of survival in changing conditions provides a reasonable explanation for changes which might lead to speciation. I have agreed that the existence of a designer is a reasonable explanation for the complexities of life. Neither theory proves anything, so should we stop proposing theories until they have been proved? The whole point of all our discussions is to test how feasible the different theories are. You and I will never know which ones are true, unless the theory of an afterlife proves to be true, and then we might learn more.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

dhw: There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

DAVID: Some of your questions are obviously seeking answers in areas where we are not advanced enough to have answers, providing an implication God doesn't exist or he doesn't know what He is doing. The appendix is one of the best examples I know of this spurious approach. You see appendices in every direction.

Of course we don’t have answers – that is why we have theism, atheism and agnosticism! You are the one with fixed beliefs, none of which are proven, and I’m sorry, but telling me that the appendix is useful does not help me to understand why I should accept your fixed belief that there is a God whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, and who in order to fulfil that purpose designed billions of galaxies and millions of life forms and natural wonders, 99% of which appear to have had no connection whatsoever with humans.

Thank you for the other articles you have posted. I have nothing to add.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 13:12 (1191 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?

dhw: Why do you keep playing the same silly trick as above? In itself, the premise that your God directly designed every organism is not illogical. What is illogical is the premise that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. You have no idea why he would have directly designed the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, and you agreed to leave it at that.

Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.


Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

dhw: I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

some Jewish theology sneaks into my belief system


Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

dhw: There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

DAVID: Some of your questions are obviously seeking answers in areas where we are not advanced enough to have answers, providing an implication God doesn't exist or he doesn't know what He is doing. The appendix is one of the best examples I know of this spurious approach. You see appendices in every direction.

dhw: Of course we don’t have answers – that is why we have theism, atheism and agnosticism! You are the one with fixed beliefs, none of which are proven, and I’m sorry, but telling me that the appendix is useful does not help me to understand why I should accept your fixed belief that there is a God whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, and who in order to fulfil that purpose designed billions of galaxies and millions of life forms and natural wonders, 99% of which appear to have had no connection whatsoever with humans.

Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.


Thank you for the other articles you have posted. I have nothing to add.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, December 24, 2020, 09:50 (1190 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning and also Our galaxy has ancient clusters

DAVID: It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?

dhw: Why do you keep playing the same silly trick as above? In itself, the premise that your God directly designed every organism is not illogical. What is illogical is the premise that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. You have no idea why he would have directly designed the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, and you agreed to leave it at that.

DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, and so I have proposed that there is something wrong with at least one of your basic premises. I have offered theistic alternatives, every one of which fits in logically with the history of evolution, as you have agreed time and time again. Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

dhw: I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

DAVID: some Jewish theology sneaks into my belief system.

That still doesn’t explain why you believe in human and animal souls but have to rely on someone else’s beliefs before you can decide whether you believe in ant souls.

Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolv ev all his creations.

If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 24, 2020, 21:40 (1190 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning and also Our galaxy has ancient clusters

DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, and so I have proposed that there is something wrong with at least one of your basic premises. I have offered theistic alternatives, every one of which fits in logically with the history of evolution, as you have agreed time and time again. Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

It is not my way. It is God's way as history tells us. The theory makes perfect sense to me. Please don't tell me how to logically think as you do in the bolded above. Since God is in change of creation how He did it is sheer undeniable history. What you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal. Since we are here against all chance ideas, Adler's thought and mine are entirely logical.


Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

dhw: I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

DAVID: some Jewish theology sneaks into my belief system.

dhw: That still doesn’t explain why you believe in human and animal souls but have to rely on someone else’s beliefs before you can decide whether you believe in ant souls.

I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls


Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, December 26, 2020, 10:56 (1188 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, […] Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

DAVID: It is not my way. It is God's way as history tells us. […] What you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal. Since we are here against all chance ideas, Adler's thought and mine are entirely logical.

Yet again you omit fifty per cent of the premises that make your theory illogical. We ended this discussion under “Fish to land animals” with an amicable agreement two weeks ago, and yet you still continue to edit your theory and protest that it is logical. I listed and acknowledged the logical premises, including Adler’s, and pinpointed the two that were not:

dhw: So far so good. But now we come to the illogical parts of your theory: 1) if God’s ONLY PURPOSE was to create H. sapiens and his food supply, why would he have chosen to directly design millions of life forms and food supplies which died out long before the first humans came on the scene and which had no connection with humans? 2) How could millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans have been “part of the goal of evolving humans?

[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw: :-)

Please stop backpedalling.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls? […]

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

As above, I see nothing illogical in your individual basic premises. It is their combination which leads to you having no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method to fulfil your version of his purpose.

The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 26, 2020, 17:01 (1188 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw: :-)

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.


Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls? […]

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

They don't think, but reqact.


Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans. > [/b]

DAVID: In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

dhw: As above, I see nothing illogical in your individual basic premises. It is their combination which leads to you having no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method to fulfil your version of his purpose.

Final repeat: He chose the mechanism and that is fine with me.


The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

dhw: A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

Please accept that chemicals do modify basic brain functioning which will modify what thoughts the soul can create using the brain networks as its only means of creating thought.


Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

dhw: It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!

I'll grant you common descent which is simply obvious. I'm happy which Arthur Russel Wallace.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, December 27, 2020, 11:14 (1187 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw:[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw: :-)

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

I will only stop if you stop repeating the logical parts of your theory - as if somehow they justified the illogical parts - and misrepresenting my objections. You have reiterated that “God designed all stages of evolution” and “God prefers to evolve all his creations” (though you equate evolution with direct design), the logic of which by itself I do NOT dispute if we accept God’s existence. But then you wrongly say my complaint is “God shouldn’t have done it this way”, and “what you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal”. I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

dhw: A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

DAVID: Please accept that chemicals do modify basic brain functioning which will modify what thoughts the soul can create using the brain networks as its only means of creating thought.

I am the one who asks you to accept that chemicals which affect our brains also affect our thoughts, and this suggests that our brains are the source of our thoughts. We needn’t pursue the argument here, though, as it is dealt with in detail on the Egnor thread.

Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

dhw: It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!

DAVID: I'll grant you common descent which is simply obvious. I'm happy which Arthur Russel Wallace.

Once more, developmental embryology is not a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, regardless of what you think is obvious, and regardless of Wallace.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 27, 2020, 14:46 (1187 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

I will only stop if you stop repeating the logical parts of your theory - as if somehow they justified the illogical parts - and misrepresenting my objections. You have reiterated that “God designed all stages of evolution” and “God prefers to evolve all his creations” (though you equate evolution with direct design), the logic of which by itself I do NOT dispute if we accept God’s existence. But then you wrongly say my complaint is “God shouldn’t have done it this way”, and “what you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal”. I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussions.


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

dhw: So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

Automatic reactions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, December 28, 2020, 08:21 (1186 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

How can you find my objection unreasonable when you admit that you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method to fulfil your idea of his purpose? I bring it up whenever you emphasize that every life form, innovation, strategy, natural wonder etc. must have been directly designed by God. This website is a forum for discussion, and if you make such statements, and elsewhere you insist that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, I have every right to challenge your logic. I also have every right to propose alternative theories, and you have every right to challenge them. Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

dhw: So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

DAVID: Automatic reactions.

So their souls don’t think? Not much point in having them, is there?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, December 28, 2020, 13:25 (1186 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedaling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

dhw: How can you find my objection unreasonable when you admit that you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method to fulfil your idea of his purpose? I bring it up whenever you emphasize that every life form, innovation, strategy, natural wonder etc. must have been directly designed by God. This website is a forum for discussion, and if you make such statements, and elsewhere you insist that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, I have every right to challenge your logic. I also have every right to propose alternative theories, and you have every right to challenge them. Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

dhw: So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

DAVID: Automatic reactions.

dhw: So their souls don’t think? Not much point in having them, is there?

In Judaism an animal soul is different from a human soul. One of the observations I accept.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, 09:11 (1185 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)

There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 02:06 (1184 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for can unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.


dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)

dhw: There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

Your theories are all coherent for a humanized God, using your consistent primacies.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 11:54 (1184 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above: [dhw: now bolded below]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

DAVID: And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for an unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.

To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

dhw: There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

DAVID: Your theories are all coherent for a humanized God, using your consistent primacies.

I do not have “consistent primacies”. I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 18:41 (1184 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above: [dhw: now bolded below]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

DAVID: And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for an unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.

dhw: To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

And I've told you ad nauseum, God obviously uses evolution to evolve the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life until He reaches His goal of humans with consciousness. and He does all by design of every stage. This is my firm unshakeable belief, based on all the evidence I have studied, starting as an agnostic.


dhw: There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

DAVID: Your theories are all coherent for a humanized God, using your consistent primacies.

dhw: I do not have “consistent primacies”. I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, December 31, 2020, 08:53 (1183 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above: [dhw: now bolded below]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

DAVID: And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for an unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.

dhw: To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

DAVID: And I've told you ad nauseum, God obviously uses evolution to evolve the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life until He reaches His goal of humans with consciousness. and He does all by design of every stage. This is my firm unshakeable belief, based on all the evidence I have studied, starting as an agnostic.

It makes no difference where you started from or how firm and unshakeable your belief may be: both of us accept evolution as a fact, but you have no idea why, if your God’s goal was H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans or with their food supply. If you cannot find a logical reason why he would have done so, the inference has to be that this particular part of your theory may be wrong.

dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Torpor

QUOTES: "Life is hard for small animals in the wild, but they have many solutions to the challenges of their environment.

While it is technically possible to induce torpor in humans chemically, torpor is a very complex physiological process, and there are many aspects of it scientists still don't fully understand."

DAVID: The final comment above suggests that this process would be hard to evolve naturally. It is such an integrated and convoluted physiological process involving multiple alterations in metabolism, it must have been designed by God to have this degree of convergence in evolution.

The first quote explains the convergence, as all life forms must adapt to existing conditions or die. Similar conditions will give rise to similar solutions. In my view, the complexities involved in the different processes of adaptation definitely require design, and this can be explained by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all life forms are composed. The complexities of this mechanism itself may well be regarded as evidence for the existence of God. However – just to clarify – your comment seems to indicate that he directly designed the process of torpor itself (as opposed to the mechanism by which animals design “many solutions to the challenges of their environment”). I find this difficult to believe, especially if one applies your anthropocentric theory (as bolded above) to every survival strategy in the history of life on Earth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 31, 2020, 23:19 (1182 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

DAVID: And I've told you ad nauseum, God obviously uses evolution to evolve the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life until He reaches His goal of humans with consciousness. and He does all by design of every stage. This is my firm unshakeable belief, based on all the evidence I have studied, starting as an agnostic.

It makes no difference where you started from or how firm and unshakeable your belief may be: both of us accept evolution as a fact, but you have no idea why, if your God’s goal was H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans or with their food supply. If you cannot find a logical reason why he would have done so, the inference has to be that this particular part of your theory may be wrong.

There is no inference on my part, that I am wrong. it is perfectly logical for God to chose to evolve humans by designing every stage. It is all your problem. For God create4s all of history.


dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

dhw: I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions with some similarity to ours.

And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.


Torpor

QUOTES: "Life is hard for small animals in the wild, but they have many solutions to the challenges of their environment.

While it is technically possible to induce torpor in humans chemically, torpor is a very complex physiological process, and there are many aspects of it scientists still don't fully understand."

DAVID: The final comment above suggests that this process would be hard to evolve naturally. It is such an integrated and convoluted physiological process involving multiple alterations in metabolism, it must have been designed by God to have this degree of convergence in evolution.

dhw: The first quote explains the convergence, as all life forms must adapt to existing conditions or die. Similar conditions will give rise to similar solutions. In my view, the complexities involved in the different processes of adaptation definitely require design, and this can be explained by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all life forms are composed. The complexities of this mechanism itself may well be regarded as evidence for the existence of God. However – just to clarify – your comment seems to indicate that he directly designed the process of torpor itself (as opposed to the mechanism by which animals design “many solutions to the challenges of their environment”). I find this difficult to believe, especially if one applies your anthropocentric theory (as bolded above) to every survival strategy in the history of life on Earth.

Torpor aids survival in adverse circumstances. The survivors are needed in the ecosystems to which they contribute.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 01, 2021, 11:07 (1182 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It makes no difference where you started from or how firm and unshakeable your belief may be: both of us accept evolution as a fact, but you have no idea why, if your God’s goal was H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans or with their food supply. If you cannot find a logical reason why he would have done so, the inference has to be that this particular part of your theory may be wrong.

DAVID: There is no inference on my part, that I am wrong. it is perfectly logical for God to chose to evolve humans by designing every stage. It is all your problem. For God creates all of history.

As usual, you focus on one part of your theory (God designing every stage of human evolution), omitting the rest of it: if his sole purpose was to design every stage of human evolution, why did he directly design millions of life forms, strategies etc. that had no connection with humans? You have no idea. Please stop backpedalling.

dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

dhw: I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions with some similarity to ours.

DAVID: And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.

No it doesn’t. That is why I offer different theories concerning what might have been his purpose and method (if he exists). You can see the logic behind every single one. The only theory on offer which leaves you with no idea why he would have chosen a particular method to achieve a particular purpose is yours.

Every Life Is on Fire (entered on the Egnor thread)

DAVID: Whatever life is it requires a constant source of energy: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6524/38?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2020-12-31

Nobody can possibly deny this obvious truth!

QUOTE: "It is rare for modern science to engage ancient religious texts; these traditions are more often nonoverlapping magisteria (2), if not fundamentally incompatible. Every Life Is on Fire shows that scripture can enrich our scientific interest in living systems, providing an ethical, moral, and even spiritual context. For the reader willing to brave metaphorical land mines, there is much to be learned by exploring the border regions, whether between physics and biology, between science and religion, or between life and lifeless matter.

DAVID: There is more to life than just matter. The metaphysical and the source of energy to be absorbed are equally important. Just matter is one portion of the considerations. Teh materialists view is half baked.

Of course there is more to life than matter, and more ways to approach it than through science. Materialists don’t have to deny the existence, importance or teaching qualities of ethics, morals, culture, art, music, religion, philosophy etc! How does this prove that we have free will, or that consciousness is not an emergent product of the brain, as you claim in your materialist role?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 01, 2021, 15:47 (1182 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There is no inference on my part, that I am wrong. it is perfectly logical for God to chose to evolve humans by designing every stage. It is all your problem. For God creates all of history.

dhw: As usual, you focus on one part of your theory (God designing every stage of human evolution), omitting the rest of it: if his sole purpose was to design every stage of human evolution, why did he directly design millions of life forms, strategies etc. that had no connection with humans? You have no idea. Please stop backpedalling.

No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.


dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

dhw: I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions with some similarity to ours.

DAVID: And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.

dhw: No it doesn’t. That is why I offer different theories concerning what might have been his purpose and method (if he exists). You can see the logic behind every single one. The only theory on offer which leaves you with no idea why he would have chosen a particular method to achieve a particular purpose is yours.

The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.


Every Life Is on Fire (entered on the Egnor thread)

DAVID: Whatever life is it requires a constant source of energy: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6524/38?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2020-12-31

Nobody can possibly deny this obvious truth!

QUOTE: "It is rare for modern science to engage ancient religious texts; these traditions are more often nonoverlapping magisteria (2), if not fundamentally incompatible. Every Life Is on Fire shows that scripture can enrich our scientific interest in living systems, providing an ethical, moral, and even spiritual context. For the reader willing to brave metaphorical land mines, there is much to be learned by exploring the border regions, whether between physics and biology, between science and religion, or between life and lifeless matter.

DAVID: There is more to life than just matter. The metaphysical and the source of energy to be absorbed are equally important. Just matter is one portion of the considerations. Teh materialists view is half baked.

dhw: Of course there is more to life than matter, and more ways to approach it than through science. Materialists don’t have to deny the existence, importance or teaching qualities of ethics, morals, culture, art, music, religion, philosophy etc! How does this prove that we have free will, or that consciousness is not an emergent product of the brain, as you claim in your materialist role?

My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 02, 2021, 09:22 (1181 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: As usual, you focus on one part of your theory (God designing every stage of human evolution), omitting the rest of it: if his sole purpose was to design every stage of human evolution, why did he directly design millions of life forms, strategies etc. that had no connection with humans? You have no idea. Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.

All stages of what? Your staunch position is that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and food supply, but first of all he designed millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens, and you have no idea why he did so. But still you continue to present sections of your theory in isolation as if they somehow justified your staunch faith in the inexplicable and illogical COMBINATION of your different beliefs.

DAVID: And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.

dhw: No it doesn’t. That is why I offer different theories concerning what might have been his purpose and method (if he exists). You can see the logic behind every single one. The only theory on offer which leaves you with no idea why he would have chosen a particular method to achieve a particular purpose is yours.

DAVID: The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.

Firstly, that does not alter the fact that your own theory presents you with a problem of logic, and you have no idea how to solve it. Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: There is more to life than just matter. The metaphysical and the source of energy to be absorbed are equally important. Just matter is one portion of the considerations. Teh materialists view is half baked.

dhw: Of course there is more to life than matter, and more ways to approach it than through science. Materialists don’t have to deny the existence, importance or teaching qualities of ethics, morals, culture, art, music, religion, philosophy etc! How does this prove that we have free will, or that consciousness is not an emergent product of the brain, as you claim in your materialist role?

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

Cambrian Explosion

QUOTE: “We hence extend the roots of the Cambrian Explosion itself into the Ediacaran, where total group lophotrochozoans such as Namacalathus show a combination of features that became typical of both later lophophorates and representatives of the entoproctan-molluscan-annelidan branch."

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 02, 2021, 15:15 (1181 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.

dhw: All stages of what? Your staunch position is that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and food supply, but first of all he designed millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens, and you have no idea why he did so. But still you continue to present sections of your theory in isolation as if they somehow justified your staunch faith in the inexplicable and illogical COMBINATION of your different beliefs.

Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

DAVID: The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.

dhw: Firstly, that does not alter the fact that your own theory presents you with a problem of logic, and you have no idea how to solve it.

It is your logic problem, not mine

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.


Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

dhw: Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

A dead brain has no consciousness, but the same material as a live brain with consciousness. That difference materialism cannot explain. God created the mechanism to absorb energy and use it to be alive.


Cambrian Explosion

QUOTE: “We hence extend the roots of the Cambrian Explosion itself into the Ediacaran, where total group lophotrochozoans such as Namacalathus show a combination of features that became typical of both later lophophorates and representatives of the entoproctan-molluscan-annelidan branch."

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

Later Cambrians are enormously different from the organisms of this article. You are right to compare it to the rapid appearance of humans from apes, as life is probably 3.8 byo, and six million years of advance to humans is a drop in the bucket.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 03, 2021, 10:59 (1180 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

DAVID: No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.

dhw: All stages of what? Your staunch position is that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and food supply, but first of all he designed millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens, and you have no idea why he did so. But still you continue to present sections of your theory in isolation as if they somehow justified your staunch faith in the inexplicable and illogical COMBINATION of your different beliefs.

DAVID: Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

However, you have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he would have directly designed every individual life form, econiche etc. that preceded humans, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You agreed to leave it at that. I will stick to the agreement if you will.

DAVID: The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.

dhw: Firstly, that does not alter the fact that your own theory presents you with a problem of logic, and you have no idea how to solve it.

DAVID:
It is your logic problem, not mine.

If you have no idea how to explain the above, you can hardly claim that it is logical.

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

dhw: Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

DAVID: A dead brain has no consciousness, but the same material as a live brain with consciousness. That difference materialism cannot explain. God created the mechanism to absorb energy and use it to be alive.

Nobody can explain the difference. Life and consciousness are a complete mystery to everyone on this planet. The mystery is not solved by claiming that some mysterious unknown conscious being created life and consciousness – but see the Egnor thread for a compromise.

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

DAVID: Later Cambrians are enormously different from the organisms of this article. You are right to compare it to the rapid appearance of humans from apes, as life is probably 3.8 byo, and six million years of advance to humans is a drop in the bucket.

I thought it was 4 million years from first hominids to H. sapiens, and 55 million years is approximately 14 times longer, so the unexplained Cambrian leap to new species is not such a big deal as was previously thought.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 03, 2021, 14:40 (1180 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

dhw: However, you have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he would have directly designed every individual life form, econiche etc. that preceded humans, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You agreed to leave it at that. I will stick to the agreement if you will.

I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

I never try to se any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.


Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

dhw: Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

DAVID: A dead brain has no consciousness, but the same material as a live brain with consciousness. That difference materialism cannot explain. God created the mechanism to absorb energy and use it to be alive.

Nobody can explain the difference. Life and consciousness are a complete mystery to everyone on this planet. The mystery is not solved by claiming that some mysterious unknown conscious being created life and consciousness – but see the Egnor thread for a compromise.

OK


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

DAVID: Later Cambrians are enormously different from the organisms of this article. You are right to compare it to the rapid appearance of humans from apes, as life is probably 3.8 byo, and six million years of advance to humans is a drop in the bucket.

dhw: I thought it was 4 million years from first hominids to H. sapiens, and 55 million years is approximately 14 times longer, so the unexplained Cambrian leap to new species is not such a big deal as was previously thought.

We broke off from the unknown common ancestor about six million years ago. My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 04, 2021, 08:46 (1179 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

dhw: However, you have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he would have directly designed every individual life form, econiche etc. that preceded humans, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You agreed to leave it at that. I will stick to the agreement if you will.

DAVID: I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

I do not disagree. As recently as yesterday on the Egnor thread , I repeated my agreement with your logic: “The only part of your theory which I would agree is based on science is the claim that the complexities of life are so immense that design is a logical conclusion. This is why, in all our discussions, and in all my own alternative explanations of evolution and of life and consciousness, I allow for a designer.” There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern. I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: I never try to see any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.

Then you should stop telling us that he had only one purpose (to create H. sapiens), that he wants total control, that he knows exactly how to get what he wants, that he plans everything in advance. And after having told us that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and thinks logically like us, why should you assume that he does NOT have thought patterns, emotions and logical ideas similar to ours? You rightly tell us the only way we can get to know him is through his works. So why shouldn't we try? And frankly, if people believe he exists, I’d have thought they would really want to know the nature of a being who can do whatever he likes with them. I don’t know why you think “any human purpose” should be avoided. Is there an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not try to understand what thy Maker might like or not like, or why he hath created thee, or why he hath created millions of extinct creatures that have no connection with thee? We cannot know if he exists or what he is like, but that shouldn’t stop us from discussing the possibilities! The whole purpose of this website is to discuss all the unsolved mysteries and their possible solutions!

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. […] I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.[…]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 04, 2021, 15:28 (1179 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

dhw: I do not disagree. As recently as yesterday on the Egnor thread , I repeated my agreement with your logic: “The only part of your theory which I would agree is based on science is the claim that the complexities of life are so immense that design is a logical conclusion. This is why, in all our discussions, and in all my own alternative explanations of evolution and of life and consciousness, I allow for a designer.” There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern.

The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns,.


DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: I never try to see any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.

dhw: Then you should stop telling us that he had only one purpose (to create H. sapiens), that he wants total control, that he knows exactly how to get what he wants, that he plans everything in advance. And after having told us that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and thinks logically like us, why should you assume that he does NOT have thought patterns, emotions and logical ideas similar to ours? You rightly tell us the only way we can get to know him is through his works. So why shouldn't we try? And frankly, if people believe he exists, I’d have thought they would really want to know the nature of a being who can do whatever he likes with them. I don’t know why you think “any human purpose” should be avoided. Is there an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not try to understand what thy Maker might like or not like, or why he hath created thee, or why he hath created millions of extinct creatures that have no connection with thee? We cannot know if he exists or what he is like, but that shouldn’t stop us from discussing the possibilities! The whole purpose of this website is to discuss all the unsolved mysteries and their possible solutions!

As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. […] I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.[…]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 05, 2021, 11:32 (1178 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern.

DAVID: The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

You have accepted my complaint, but you absolutely refuse to accept that you have accepted it. You do not have “one singular belief”. You believe that we were God’s sole purpose, and you believe that he directly designed every single life form, food supply, natural wonder etc., and you agree that 99% of these life forms had no connection with humans. On Thursday, 10 December, under “fish to land animals transition”, I quoted the following exchange three times, in answer to three more of your attempts to dodge the issue. How many more times do you want me to quote it?

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)


dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns.

And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.
[…]
DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. […]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

DAVID: After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

And I have pointed out that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years (you say six), the 55 million years of the Cambrian period gives plenty of time for other species to evolve from their ancestors – especially if we discount Darwin’s random mutations and substitute Shapiro’s intelligent cells as the driving force behind speciation.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 05, 2021, 13:43 (1178 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

dhw: You have accepted my complaint, but you absolutely refuse to accept that you have accepted it. You do not have “one singular belief”. You believe that we were God’s sole purpose, and you believe that he directly designed every single life form, food supply, natural wonder etc., and you agree that 99% of these life forms had no connection with humans. On Thursday, 10 December, under “fish to land animals transition”, I quoted the following exchange three times, in answer to three more of your attempts to dodge the issue. How many more times do you want me to quote it?

I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.


DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)


dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns.

dhw: And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.

Your God is way more humanized than my approach to Him.

[…]
DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

dhw: I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

I know what you oppose. We can't change each other.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. […]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

DAVID: After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

dhw: And I have pointed out that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years (you say six), the 55 million years of the Cambrian period gives plenty of time for other species to evolve from their ancestors – especially if we discount Darwin’s random mutations and substitute Shapiro’s intelligent cells as the driving force behind speciation.

You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 06, 2021, 08:56 (1177 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.

Of course it’s simple and logical on its own. But you have again left out your belief that although designing H. sapiens and his food supply was your God’s one and only purpose, he directly designed every life form, food supply, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, and 99% of these had no connection with humans. Once again I quote:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)


dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns.

dhw: And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.

DAVID: Your God is way more humanized than my approach to Him.

How do you know the extent to which God has humanized thought patterns?
[…]

DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

dhw: I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

DAVID: I know what you oppose. We can't change each other.

You acknowledged that you had no idea how to explain the COMBINATION of your beliefs, and we agreed to leave it at that. But since you go on insisting that your God designed every non-human and unconnected life form etc., and did so to fulfil his purpose of designing H. sapiens, I have no choice but to go on reminding you that the COMBINATION of your beliefs makes no sense even to you.

Cambrian Explosion
DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. […]

DAVID:[…] You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

The article is based on the recent discovery of “exceptional fossils” proving that there were transitional forms from Ediacarans to Cambrians. It is astonishing that there are still fossils dating from 500 million years ago! We really can’t expect a continuous line of fossilized transitional forms. I am not denying the complexity. I am simply pointing out that 55 million years is a helluva long time, and the latest discoveries confirm that the process of evolution is a slope and not a cliff, and that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution” (your own words, bolded above). So I don’t find it impossible to believe that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years, other complex forms can evolve from simpler forms in 55 million years – especially if we substitute cellular intelligence for Darwin’s random mutations.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 06, 2021, 14:36 (1177 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.

dhw: Of course it’s simple and logical on its own. But you have again left out your belief that although designing H. sapiens and his food supply was your God’s one and only purpose, he directly designed every life form, food supply, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.

Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages


dhw: :-)

I left your Cheshire cat smile.

DAVID: I know what you oppose. We can't change each other.

dhw: You acknowledged that you had no idea how to explain the COMBINATION of your beliefs, and we agreed to leave it at that. But since you go on insisting that your God designed every non-human and unconnected life form etc., and did so to fulfil his purpose of designing H. sapiens, I have no choice but to go on reminding you that the COMBINATION of your beliefs makes no sense even to you.

More contortion. You are the confused one. My beliefs make perfect sense to me since I believe in God and what He does. I can't know why He made the choices of creation methods He used.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID:[…] You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

dhw: The article is based on the recent discovery of “exceptional fossils” proving that there were transitional forms from Ediacarans to Cambrians. It is astonishing that there are still fossils dating from 500 million years ago! We really can’t expect a continuous line of fossilized transitional forms. I am not denying the complexity. I am simply pointing out that 55 million years is a helluva long time, and the latest discoveries confirm that the process of evolution is a slope and not a cliff, and that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution” (your own words, bolded above). So I don’t find it impossible to believe that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years, other complex forms can evolve from simpler forms in 55 million years – especially if we substitute cellular intelligence for Darwin’s random mutations.

You can't explain the mysterious source of cellular intelligence on a chance basis, so the theory is quite hollow. It didn't just appear our of nowhere. And the human breakaway from apes is estimated by science as over six million years. Are you purposely sticking to four million out of some sort of defiance against me?

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, January 07, 2021, 09:11 (1176 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.

dhw: Of course it’s simple and logical on its own. But you have again left out your belief that although designing H. sapiens and his food supply was your God’s one and only purpose, he directly designed every life form, food supply, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages.

You have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he first directly designed millions of life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

dhw::-)

DAVID: I left your Cheshire cat smile.

Then let me restore your agreement to the above, since you continue to ignore what you agreed to:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)

But still you refuse to leave it at that, and you continue to ignore the COMBINATION of your beliefs that makes no sense even to you. If you stick to the above agreement, we can end this discussion.

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID:[…] You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

dhw: The article is based on the recent discovery of “exceptional fossils” proving that there were transitional forms from Ediacarans to Cambrians. It is astonishing that there are still fossils dating from 500 million years ago! We really can’t expect a continuous line of fossilized transitional forms. I am not denying the complexity. I am simply pointing out that 55 million years is a helluva long time, and the latest discoveries confirm that the process of evolution is a slope and not a cliff, and that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution” [...] So I don’t find it impossible to believe that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years, other complex forms can evolve from simpler forms in 55 million years – especially if we substitute cellular intelligence for Darwin’s random mutations.

DAVID: You can't explain the mysterious source of cellular intelligence on a chance basis, so the theory is quite hollow. It didn't just appear our of nowhere.

How often do I have to repeat that I do not accept the chance theory, and cellular intelligence may well have been designed by your God?

DAVID: And the human breakaway from apes is estimated by science as over six million years. Are you purposely sticking to four million out of some sort of defiance against me?

The more websites we consult, the hazier it all gets. I’m not defying you, and I’m quite happy to accept six million years. It makes no difference to my argument. This is the website I consulted:


Human Evolution: A Timeline of Early Hominids [Infographic ...

earthhow.com/human-evolution-timeline/

(My apologies: owing to my technical incompetence, I can't get a direct link. I'm sure you'll know what to do!)

QUOTE: "For about 4 million years, human evolution has been a long, long process. From the early hominids to modern humans, we are in the process of evolving at this very moment.
About 3.9 – 2.55 million years ago, Australopithecus Afarensis was the earliest form of hominids.
Archaeologists dug up fossils in the Afar Triangle of Africa, hence the name “Afarensis”."

Cosmology

QUOTE: "But the meaning of eROSITA’s mushroom clouds is clear: Something went bang in the center of the Milky Way around 15 million to 20 million years ago, around the same time hyenas and weasels were emerging on Earth.”

DAVID: It all gets complexer and complexer and God has not explained why all the weirdness. But is always tums out the weird is necessary, and makes us agree God knows what He is doing and how everything we see must be necessarily designed for creation.

I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

Genome complexity

QUOTE: "Starting as a single cell, organisms undergo millions of generations of divisions to ultimately generate the bones, heart, brain and other components that make up a living being. The mainspring within this intricate process is the transfer of DNA through each subsequent cell split within discrete packets called chromosomes."

DAVID: This is another example where all parts must be designed to appear at the same time for life to continue, not step by step. Chance developments cannot do this.

The quote highlights the continuity of evolution through the activities of cells, and I agree with you: belief in chance requires blind faith, and the complexities of the cell are the strongest evidence for design. However, I need not repeat the problems I have regarding an eternally conscious, sourceless designer.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 07, 2021, 14:30 (1176 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages.

dhw: You have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he first directly designed millions of life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.


dhw: But still you refuse to leave it at that, and you continue to ignore the COMBINATION of your beliefs that makes no sense even to you. If you stick to the above agreement, we can end this discussion.

It makes perfect sense to me. As long as you keep misinterpreting and telling me how I should think I'll keep responding. God chose his methods for His reasons. Sim ple, logical.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: And the human breakaway from apes is estimated by science as over six million years. Are you purposely sticking to four million out of some sort of defiance against me?

dhw: The more websites we consult, the hazier it all gets. I’m not defying you, and I’m quite happy to accept six million years. It makes no difference to my argument. This is the website I consulted:


Human Evolution: A Timeline of Early Hominids [Infographic ...

earthhow.com/human-evolution-timeline/

(My apologies: owing to my technical incompetence, I can't get a direct link. I'm sure you'll know what to do!)

QUOTE: "For about 4 million years, human evolution has been a long, long process. From the early hominids to modern humans, we are in the process of evolving at this very moment.
About 3.9 – 2.55 million years ago, Australopithecus Afarensis was the earliest form of hominids.
Archaeologists dug up fossils in the Afar Triangle of Africa, hence the name “Afarensis”."

The difference in time is the pre-hominins that existed after the breakaway. I won't bother to list the species for this discussion.


Cosmology

QUOTE: "But the meaning of eROSITA’s mushroom clouds is clear: Something went bang in the center of the Milky Way around 15 million to 20 million years ago, around the same time hyenas and weasels were emerging on Earth.”

DAVID: It all gets complexer and complexer and God has not explained why all the weirdness. But is always tums out the weird is necessary, and makes us agree God knows what He is doing and how everything we see must be necessarily designed for creation.

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, a,l in preparation for us starting only six mya

Genome complexity

QUOTE: "Starting as a single cell, organisms undergo millions of generations of divisions to ultimately generate the bones, heart, brain and other components that make up a living being. The mainspring within this intricate process is the transfer of DNA through each subsequent cell split within discrete packets called chromosomes."

DAVID: This is another example where all parts must be designed to appear at the same time for life to continue, not step by step. Chance developments cannot do this.

dhw: The quote highlights the continuity of evolution through the activities of cells, and I agree with you: belief in chance requires blind faith, and the complexities of the cell are the strongest evidence for design. However, I need not repeat the problems I have regarding an eternally conscious, sourceless designer.

Would you be happier with a flesh and blood designer, the kind we can easily recognize?

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 08, 2021, 11:14 (1175 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages.

dhw: You have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he first directly designed millions of life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.

You do not “know” that designing millions of non-human life forms etc. WAS your God’s choice of method in order to fulfil the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. Both premises (design everything, one purpose) are YOUR choice as an explanation of life’s history. But you are right, neither of us can explain YOUR choice, and that is why you agreed that you had no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative versions of method and purpose are logical, but you prefer your inexplicable version. I wish you would leave it at that.

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: QUOTE: "For about 4 million years, human evolution has been a long, long process. From the early hominids to modern humans…”

DAVID: The difference in time is the pre-hominins that existed after the breakaway. I won't bother to list the species for this discussion.

Thank you. I’m quite happy to accept the 6 million figure anyway. The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

Cosmology

QUOTE: "But the meaning of eROSITA’s mushroom clouds is clear: Something went bang in the center of the Milky Way around 15 million to 20 million years ago, around the same time hyenas and weasels were emerging on Earth.”

DAVID: […] it always tums out the weird is necessary, and makes us agree God knows what He is doing and how everything we see must be necessarily designed for creation.

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

Genome complexity

dhw: The quote highlights the continuity of evolution through the activities of cells, and I agree with you: belief in chance requires blind faith, and the complexities of the cell are the strongest evidence for design. However, I need not repeat the problems I have regarding an eternally conscious, sourceless designer.

DAVID: Would you be happier with a flesh and blood designer, the kind we can easily recognize?

Of course not. I am not “happy” with any of the theories on offer. That is why I remain agnostic.

Junk DNA

DAVID: Most DNA is purposeful which means it developed from design rather than by chance. The 'junk theory' to support Darwinism is totally dead as this article demonstrates.

Just to repeat earlier comments on this: I agree about design, but there is no reason at all why a Darwinist should not argue that natural selection explains the survival of anything that is useful. In other words, the purposefulness of DNA supports Darwinism, but it does not support those Darwinists who attempt to use junk DNA as an argument against design.

Biological complexity (two articles)

DAVID: A cell is organized soup with multiple side-by-side reaction The design of the complex processes is extremely detailed. Never by chance.

DAVID: A designer required. Without the pores working from the start along with all the processes functioning life couldn't work.

This is where I must redress the balance of my own comments on most of the articles you quote. Biological complexity even at the microscopic level of a single cell is too great for me to believe in chance as the creator of life.

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 08, 2021, 15:28 (1175 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.

dhw: You do not “know” that designing millions of non-human life forms etc. WAS your God’s choice of method in order to fulfil the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. Both premises (design everything, one purpose) are YOUR choice as an explanation of life’s history. But you are right, neither of us can explain YOUR choice, and that is why you agreed that you had no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative versions of method and purpose are logical, but you prefer your inexplicable version. I wish you would leave it at that.

Fine. Don't raise the issue again.


Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.


Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

dhw: You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.


Biological complexity (two articles)

DAVID: A cell is organized soup with multiple side-by-side reaction The design of the complex processes is extremely detailed. Never by chance.

DAVID: A designer required. Without the pores working from the start along with all the processes functioning life couldn't work.

This is where I must redress the balance of my own comments on most of the articles you quote. Biological complexity even at the microscopic level of a single cell is too great for me to believe in chance as the creator of life.

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 09, 2021, 08:54 (1174 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.

dhw: You do not “know” that designing millions of non-human life forms etc. WAS your God’s choice of method in order to fulfil the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. Both premises (design everything, one purpose) are YOUR choice as an explanation of life’s history. But you are right, neither of us can explain YOUR choice, and that is why you agreed that you had no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative versions of method and purpose are logical, but you prefer your inexplicable version. I wish you would leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine. Don't raise the issue again.

Same agreement as before. :-)

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.

I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

dhw: You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 09, 2021, 15:03 (1174 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.


Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

dhw: You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.


Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it .

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 10, 2021, 09:31 (1173 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

DAVID: The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.

Agreed, but my point is that 55 million years is a long time, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.[…]

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

DAVID: You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.

There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

You have not commented on the important point that structural change takes place in response to environmental change and not in advance of it.

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

DAVID: It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it.

Sorry, but I think it does, and our long discussion on “brain expansion” covered all aspects of this explanation, which I’m reluctant to go through again. But nobody “knows” how speciation or brain expansion occurred – we can only theorize.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 10, 2021, 14:56 (1173 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

DAVID: The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.

dhw: Agreed, but my point is that 55 million years is a long time, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'" And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. Consider the evolution of simpler technologies: the automobile or computer. As Bill Gates put it, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Both cars and computers are examples of progressive creation: the sudden appearance of major innovations followed by variations on pre-existing themes. It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

http://www.arn.org/eic/eic/Welcome.html


Cosmology

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

DAVID: You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

'
Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!


Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

dhw: You have not commented on the important point that structural change takes place in response to environmental change and not in advance of it.

Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.


DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

DAVID: It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it.

dhw: Sorry, but I think it does, and our long discussion on “brain expansion” covered all aspects of this explanation, which I’m reluctant to go through again. But nobody “knows” how speciation or brain expansion occurred – we can only theorize.

Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 11, 2021, 10:40 (1172 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”...

DAVID: The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.

dhw: Agreed, but my point is that 55 million years is a long time, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'"

Maybe he wrote that before the new discoveries of pre-Cambrian links.In any case, it does not invalidate my argument. See below for the difference cellular intelligence makes.

DAVID: And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. […] It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

Of course it’s progressive creation! Evolution is the history of innovations and variations on pre-existing themes! Nobody can explain the innovations, which is why we theorize. 55 million years is a huge expanse of time. But regardless of time, some of us doubt that random mutations would explain the complexities. Cellular intelligence, responding to the demands and opportunities arising out of new conditions, makes all the difference by eliminating chance as the driving force. But it's a theory, not a proven fact.

Cosmology

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

DAVID: You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

DAVID: It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it.

dhw: Sorry, but I think it does, and our long discussion on “brain expansion” covered all aspects of this explanation, which I’m reluctant to go through again. But nobody “knows” how speciation or brain expansion occurred – we can only theorize.

DAVID: Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago.

I'd hoped you would not re-open the “brain expansion” thread. We've been over this umpteen times. It is perfectly feasible that local conditions made it necessary or advantageous for particular groups of apes to descend from the trees. It is perfectly feasible that a change of environment would have resulted in changes to the brain, as it learned to solve new problems. We KNOW that the brain changes when it accomplishes new tasks. Remember?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 11, 2021, 14:54 (1172 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'"

dhw: Maybe he wrote that before the new discoveries of pre-Cambrian links.In any case, it does not invalidate my argument. See below for the difference cellular intelligence makes.

its an old quote.


DAVID: And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. […] It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

dhw: Of course it’s progressive creation! Evolution is the history of innovations and variations on pre-existing themes! Nobody can explain the innovations, which is why we theorize. 55 million years is a huge expanse of time. But regardless of time, some of us doubt that random mutations would explain the complexities. Cellular intelligence, responding to the demands and opportunities arising out of new conditions, makes all the difference by eliminating chance as the driving force. But it's a theory, not a proven fact.

I'd love proof of how speciation happens.


Cosmology

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts


Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

dhw: That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation .


DAVID: Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago.

dhw: I'd hoped you would not re-open the “brain expansion” thread. We've been over this umpteen times. It is perfectly feasible that local conditions made it necessary or advantageous for particular groups of apes to descend from the trees. It is perfectly feasible that a change of environment would have resulted in changes to the brain, as it learned to solve new problems. We KNOW that the brain changes when it accomplishes new tasks. Remember?

Thank you for the just-so stories. Our special brain has that ability to adapt. The ape brain is so simple it doesn't need it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 09:07 (1171 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'"

dhw: Maybe he wrote that before the new discoveries of pre-Cambrian links.In any case, it does not invalidate my argument. See below for the difference cellular intelligence makes.

DAVID: its an old quote.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

DAVID: And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. […] It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

dhw: Of course it’s progressive creation! Evolution is the history of innovations and variations on pre-existing themes! Nobody can explain the innovations, which is why we theorize. 55 million years is a huge expanse of time. But regardless of time, some of us doubt that random mutations would explain the complexities. Cellular intelligence, responding to the demands and opportunities arising out of new conditions, makes all the difference by eliminating chance as the driving force. But it's a theory, not a proven fact.

DAVID: I'd love proof of how speciation happens.

So would we all. But until we have it, we can only theorize, and some theories are more logical than others. For instance, we both agree that random mutations are unlikely designers.

Cosmology

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

DAVID: We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts.

I doubt if anyone would disagree. What does that have to do with you and Dawkins both hoping that science will one day support your unscientific faith in your diametrically opposed interpretation of the facts we know?

Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

dhw: That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago.

dhw: I'd hoped you would not re-open the “brain expansion” thread. We've been over this umpteen times. It is perfectly feasible that local conditions made it necessary or advantageous for particular groups of apes to descend from the trees. It is perfectly feasible that a change of environment would have resulted in changes to the brain, as it learned to solve new problems. We KNOW that the brain changes when it accomplishes new tasks. Remember?

DAVID: Thank you for the just-so stories. Our special brain has that ability to adapt. The ape brain is so simple it doesn't need it.

I am not disputing the superiority of our brains. Why “just-so”? Nobody knows how or why humans diverged from apes. What I have written makes perfect sense, as we know that life forms respond to changing conditions either by adapting or by dying, and we know that the brain changes in RESPONSE to new conditions We’ve been over all this umpteen times. I don’t know why you want to repeat the arguments.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 21:02 (1171 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmology

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

DAVID: We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree. What does that have to do with you and Dawkins both hoping that science will one day support your unscientific faith in your diametrically opposed interpretation of the facts we know?

There is lots we can agree upon.


Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

dhw: That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

dhw: I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind. And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 09:05 (1170 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmology

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

DAVID: We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree. What does that have to do with you and Dawkins both hoping that science will one day support your unscientific faith in your diametrically opposed interpretation of the facts we know?

DAVID: There is lots we can agree upon.

You both interpret the known facts in such a way that you reach diametrically opposed conclusions while both claiming that your particular faith is based on science. At least you have the grace to acknowledge that your conclusion is a matter of faith and not science. Dawkins would probably object vehemently if told that his hope of “embracing” all the mysteries of life “within the natural” is as much a matter of unscientific faith as that of any of the beliefs he dares to call delusional.

Far out cosmology

DAVID: Amazing new methods, with findings both Dawkins and I can agree upon!!!

I should imagine you would even agree that there is life and reproduction on Earth, and evolution happened, and we humans are here, and we are conscious, and we need food. That does not make your respective faiths in a God (you) or in the power of science eventually to prove that there is no God (Dawkins) any less unscientific.

Crocodiles

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

dhw: I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind.

How can you call that evidence? You are merely repeating your belief and telling us that it is the only possibility! Of course innovation requires an explanation, but at least we KNOW that life forms change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. You are right to say that we do not have a continuous line of fossils from millions and millions of years ago tracing every single innovation from bacteria to humans. Nor would it be reasonable to expect such miracles of preservation. How does that prove that your God designed every innovation in advance of changing conditions? And design is not what I am querying.

DAVID: And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains.

That is a different subject dealt with ad nauseam under “brain expansion”.

Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 18:34 (1170 days ago) @ dhw

Far out cosmology

DAVID: Amazing new methods, with findings both Dawkins and I can agree upon!!!

dhw: I should imagine you would even agree that there is life and reproduction on Earth, and evolution happened, and we humans are here, and we are conscious, and we need food. That does not make your respective faiths in a God (you) or in the power of science eventually to prove that there is no God (Dawkins) any less unscientific.

Same point from me: scientific findings are the only facts we can use to theorize.


Crocodiles

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

dhw: I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind.

dhw: How can you call that evidence? You are merely repeating your belief and telling us that it is the only possibility! Of course innovation requires an explanation, but at least we KNOW that life forms change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. You are right to say that we do not have a continuous line of fossils from millions and millions of years ago tracing every single innovation from bacteria to humans. Nor would it be reasonable to expect such miracles of preservation. How does that prove that your God designed every innovation in advance of changing conditions? And design is not what I am querying.

I stick to the point a designing mind is necessary


DAVID: And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains.

dhw: That is a different subject dealt with ad nauseam under “brain expansion”.

It still is evidence.


Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

dhw: I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

Only a mind can make these designs.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, January 14, 2021, 09:18 (1169 days ago) @ David Turell

Far out cosmology

DAVID: Amazing new methods, with findings both Dawkins and I can agree upon!!!

dhw: I should imagine you would even agree that there is life and reproduction on Earth, and evolution happened, and we humans are here, and we are conscious, and we need food. That does not make your respective faiths in a God (you) or in the power of science eventually to prove that there is no God (Dawkins) any less unscientific.

DAVID: Same point from me: scientific findings are the only facts we can use to theorize.

And same point from me: you and Dawkins derive totally opposite conclusions from the same facts, and you both share a blind, completely unscientific faith/hope that one day science will prove that your respective conclusions are correct. Meanwhile, you continue to shout each other down.

Crocodiles

dhw: […] what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind.

dhw: How can you call that evidence? You are merely repeating your belief and telling us that it is the only possibility! Of course innovation requires an explanation, but at least we KNOW that life forms change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. You are right to say that we do not have a continuous line of fossils from millions and millions of years ago tracing every single innovation from bacteria to humans. Nor would it be reasonable to expect such miracles of preservation. How does that prove that your God designed every innovation in advance of changing conditions? And design is not what I am querying.

DAVID: I stick to the point a designing mind is necessary

And that is not what I am querying. What evidence do you have that evolutionary innovations take place IN ADVANCE of (and not IN RESPONSE TO) the conditions they are designed to cope with?

DAVID: And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains.

dhw: That is a different subject dealt with ad nauseam under “brain expansion”.

DAVID: It still is evidence.

It is no more “evidence” of your proposal than it is of mine, as repeated ad nauseam under “Brain expansion”: namely, that the brain enlarged AS A RESULT of having to implement new ideas (including making new artefacts, coping with new conditions, exploiting new discoveries etc.) – a process familiar to us from studies of how the modern brain RESPONDS to new demands. We really don’t need to go over all this again, do we?

Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

dhw: I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

DAVID: Only a mind can make these designs.

It is possible that all life forms have “minds” of their own – not in the human sense, but in the form of cellular intelligence which, in turn, may be the product of the mind you call God. I don’t know why you want to go over the same old argument again. I only wanted to thank you, to express my humble admiration for such ingenuity, and to support your argument for design!

Magic embryology

QUOTE: None of this could happen without forces that squeeze, bend and tug the growing animal into shape. Even when it reaches adulthood, its cells will continue to respond to pushing and pulling — by each other and from the environment.

Once again we see that cells respond to the environment. The whole process is based on cooperation between the cells themselves, as they interact with the conditions in which they find themselves. We should bear in mind that every species is the result of millions and millions of years of such cooperation. Once the combination works, the cell communities settle into their particular pattern of conduct (so vividly illustrated here) until something new causes them to change (or to disappear).

DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

45,000 year old cave art

DAVID: Look at the art. It is impressive.

I could only see one picture, but it certainly is impressive. Our ancient ancestors were clearly a lot more sophisticated than was once thought! Many thanks for this.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 14, 2021, 20:29 (1169 days ago) @ dhw

Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

dhw: I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

DAVID: Only a mind can make these designs.

dhw: It is possible that all life forms have “minds” of their own – not in the human sense, but in the form of cellular intelligence which, in turn, may be the product of the mind you call God. I don’t know why you want to go over the same old argument again. I only wanted to thank you, to express my humble admiration for such ingenuity, and to support your argument for design!

Thank you. You have your pet theory and I have mine, never to meet in the middle.


Magic embryology

QUOTE: None of this could happen without forces that squeeze, bend and tug the growing animal into shape. Even when it reaches adulthood, its cells will continue to respond to pushing and pulling — by each other and from the environment.

dhw: Once again we see that cells respond to the environment. The whole process is based on cooperation between the cells themselves, as they interact with the conditions in which they find themselves. We should bear in mind that every species is the result of millions and millions of years of such cooperation. Once the combination works, the cell communities settle into their particular pattern of conduct (so vividly illustrated here) until something new causes them to change (or to disappear).

Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.


DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

dhw: Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

At least you are staying either/or


45,000 year old cave art

DAVID: Look at the art. It is impressive.

dhw: I could only see one picture, but it certainly is impressive. Our ancient ancestors were clearly a lot more sophisticated than was once thought! Many thanks for this.

You are welcome. Only one picture presented, but very impressive.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 15, 2021, 09:02 (1168 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

QUOTE: None of this could happen without forces that squeeze, bend and tug the growing animal into shape. Even when it reaches adulthood, its cells will continue to respond to pushing and pulling — by each other and from the environment.

dhw: Once again we see that cells respond to the environment. The whole process is based on cooperation between the cells themselves, as they interact with the conditions in which they find themselves. We should bear in mind that every species is the result of millions and millions of years of such cooperation. Once the combination works, the cell communities settle into their particular pattern of conduct (so vividly illustrated here) until something new causes them to change (or to disappear).

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

dhw: Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

DAVID: At least you are staying either/or.

Of course. I am an agnostic and I do not claim to know anything – from the existence of God to the way a possible God might think and work. But I must confess to having grave doubts about certain theories regarding speciation. Two examples are Darwin’s theory of random mutations as the source of innovations, and your own theory of evolution, which we have agreed not to discuss any more.
There now follow four natural wonders – many thanks for these – which amazingly combine to form a complete explanation of how organisms follow the pattern I have outlined above.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

Of course not by chance. However, as usual you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

Plants repel their own toxins

Quote: "To their surprise, the researchers found that tobacco plants which had been transformed so they could no longer produced two proteins involved in the biosynthesis of the diterpene glycosides and thus also not form the defensive substances otherwise stored in the leaves in large amounts, showed conspicuous symptoms of self-poisoning: they were sick, unable to grow normally, and could no longer reproduce.

DAVID: Same song, second verse: there is no way this could develop unless both the toxins and the defenses appeared simultaneously. Only careful design fits.

Same song, second verse. The disturbance caused the plants to become sick. This is the stage you always omit. The toxins kill. The defences (the wonderful part of Nature’s Wonders) are then developed to counter the threat and prevent the sickness.

Insects can adapt to leg amputation

DAVID: It doesn't take many neurons to find an adaptation. Either learned or built-in response.

Yes, a clear example of how the neurons find a way of coping with the new situation. Not simultaneous appearance of “threat” and “antidote”, but cause and effect: new condition, cells respond.


Some eels hunt in packs

QUOTE: Researchers witnessed the electric eels working together to herd small fish into tightly packed balls. Groups of up to 10 eels periodically split off to form cooperative hunting parties.

DAVID: this obvious cooperation will delight dhw.

It does indeed. As with ants and all other social life forms, we have a perfect image for the way cell communities cooperate. In this case, it’s not defence but attack – cooperative communities design their own strategies for both. Thank you for presenting us with such clear examples of how evolution works through cooperative responses to environmental conditions.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 15, 2021, 22:19 (1168 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

The only evolution you have enthusiastically described is adaptations of simple changes in existing species. No explanation of speciation which involves the addition of massive amounts of new information in new DNA. My source is God.


DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

dhw: Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

DAVID: At least you are staying either/or.

Of course. I am an agnostic and I do not claim to know anything – from the existence of God to the way a possible God might think and work. But I must confess to having grave doubts about certain theories regarding speciation. Two examples are Darwin’s theory of random mutations as the source of innovations, and your own theory of evolution, which we have agreed not to discuss any more.
There now follow four natural wonders – many thanks for these – which amazingly combine to form a complete explanation of how organisms follow the pattern I have outlined above.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

Of course not by chance. However, as usual you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

The only way by your system is bit by bit improvement, which his impossible when the toxins kill!!!


Plants repel their own toxins

Quote: "To their surprise, the researchers found that tobacco plants which had been transformed so they could no longer produced two proteins involved in the biosynthesis of the diterpene glycosides and thus also not form the defensive substances otherwise stored in the leaves in large amounts, showed conspicuous symptoms of self-poisoning: they were sick, unable to grow normally, and could no longer reproduce.

DAVID: Same song, second verse: there is no way this could develop unless both the toxins and the defenses appeared simultaneously. Only careful design fits.

dhw: Same song, second verse. The disturbance caused the plants to become sick. This is the stage you always omit. The toxins kill. The defences (the wonderful part of Nature’s Wonders) are then developed to counter the threat and prevent the sickness.

No answer to the problem. If toxins kill how do the dead invent an antidote? You back to just-so dreaming. The quote denies your theory.


Insects can adapt to leg amputation

DAVID: It doesn't take many neurons to find an adaptation. Either learned or built-in response.

dhw: Yes, a clear example of how the neurons find a way of coping with the new situation. Not simultaneous appearance of “threat” and “antidote”, but cause and effect: new condition, cells respond.


Some eels hunt in packs

QUOTE: Researchers witnessed the electric eels working together to herd small fish into tightly packed balls. Groups of up to 10 eels periodically split off to form cooperative hunting parties.

DAVID: this obvious cooperation will delight dhw.

dhw: It does indeed. As with ants and all other social life forms, we have a perfect image for the way cell communities cooperate. In this case, it’s not defence but attack – cooperative communities design their own strategies for both. Thank you for presenting us with such clear examples of how evolution works through cooperative responses to environmental conditions.

you are welcome

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 16, 2021, 10:35 (1167 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

dhw: Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

DAVID: The only evolution you have enthusiastically described is adaptations of simple changes in existing species. No explanation of speciation which involves the addition of massive amounts of new information in new DNA. My source is God.

I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The only way by your system is bit by bit improvement, which his impossible when the toxins kill!!!

Once again you miss the point, although it is staring you in the face even now. What do you think our scientists are trying to do to counter the murderous Covid-19? Let me spell it out for you. They are trying to accelerate the process by which cells develop a defence against new threats. In Nature, whole species may be wiped out (99% of life forms have disappeared), or alternatively there will be survivors which eventually find a solution. Bacteria are the most obvious example. We can kill them by the million, but they always bounce back. First the threat, then the response.

Plants repel their own toxins

DAVID: No answer to the problem. If toxins kill how do the dead invent an antidote? You back to just-so dreaming. The quote denies your theory.

As above, if the survivors do not find an antidote, the species disappears. You seem to think that in a pandemic everybody dies! So long as there are survivors, there is a chance that they will find an antidote. We are currently using the same process that has existed in Nature since life began. Or do you think that life and evolution began with H. sapiens? First the problem, then the solution (we hope).

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 16, 2021, 15:27 (1167 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

dhw: Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

DAVID: The only evolution you have enthusiastically described is adaptations of simple changes in existing species. No explanation of speciation which involves the addition of massive amounts of new information in new DNA. My source is God.

dhw: I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent. Thus God has to do direct design at those times when eh new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The only way by your system is bit by bit improvement, which is impossible when the toxins kill!!!

dhw: Once again you miss the point, although it is staring you in the face even now. What do you think our scientists are trying to do to counter the murderous Covid-19? Let me spell it out for you. They are trying to accelerate the process by which cells develop a defence against new threats. In Nature, whole species may be wiped out (99% of life forms have disappeared), or alternatively there will be survivors which eventually find a solution. Bacteria are the most obvious example. We can kill them by the million, but they always bounce back. First the threat, then the response.

The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.


Plants repel their own toxins

DAVID: No answer to the problem. If toxins kill how do the dead invent an antidote? You back to just-so dreaming. The quote denies your theory.

dhw: As above, if the survivors do not find an antidote, the species disappears. You seem to think that in a pandemic everybody dies! So long as there are survivors, there is a chance that they will find an antidote. We are currently using the same process that has existed in Nature since life began. Or do you think that life and evolution began with H. sapiens? First the problem, then the solution (we hope).

The virus are not internally made toxins which must come initially with the antidote internally also. No comparison at all.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 17, 2021, 09:33 (1166 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

dhw: I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

DAVID: In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent. Thus God has to do direct design at those times when eh new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs.

Not instead of! Precise designs for complex new needs is exactly what I am proposing, and even in your vague description above, you have your God RESPONDING to new needs: he has to do direct design “when the new needs are extremely complicated”! But in your version, he improvises when he looks into his crystal ball and sees a new problem on the way: “I see that pre-whales are going to run short of food. I’d better step in and operate on them by turning their legs into flippers, and then tell them to start hunting in the water.” Your alternative to this takes place 3.8 billion years ago, when he is busily devising programmes for every undabbled life form, lifestyle, econiche, strategy and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history: “Ah, I see that my pre-whales are going to run short of food in Year X, so I’d better devise a programme for leg-to-flipper change.”

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet again you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:
"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.
“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”

The same process is used as a defence against threats from inside and outside. It’s common sense anyway that problems precede solutions, and I really don’t know why you think history tells us that the process is reversed (whales) or, at best, synchronized to originate simultaneously (snakes). If life forms don’t adapt to changing conditions or find ways of countering threats to their existence, they disappear, and that means RESPONSE to new needs.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 17, 2021, 14:06 (1166 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

dhw: I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

DAVID: In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent. Thus God has to do direct design at those times when eh new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs.

dhw: Not instead of! Precise designs for complex new needs is exactly what I am proposing, and even in your vague description above, you have your God RESPONDING to new needs: he has to do direct design “when the new needs are extremely complicated”! But in your version, he improvises when he looks into his crystal ball and sees a new problem on the way: “I see that pre-whales are going to run short of food. I’d better step in and operate on them by turning their legs into flippers, and then tell them to start hunting in the water.” Your alternative to this takes place 3.8 billion years ago, when he is busily devising programmes for every undabbled life form, lifestyle, econiche, strategy and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history: “Ah, I see that my pre-whales are going to run short of food in Year X, so I’d better devise a programme for leg-to-flipper change.”

You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet again you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

dhw: They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:
"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.
“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”

The same process is used as a defence against threats from inside and outside. It’s common sense anyway that problems precede solutions, and I really don’t know why you think history tells us that the process is reversed (whales) or, at best, synchronized to originate simultaneously (snakes). If life forms don’t adapt to changing conditions or find ways of countering threats to their existence, they disappear, and that means RESPONSE to new needs.

Your response is off point. My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or
animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous. That implies only design works. It is not, which came first chicken or egg. This actually exists in us. Our stomach acid has a pH of one, an extreme acid to dissolve food, but our stomach lining handles it without problems. How did that develop?

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 18, 2021, 09:02 (1165 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent.Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Not instead of! Precise designs for complex new needs is exactly what I am proposing, and even in your vague description above, you have your God RESPONDING to new needs: he has to do direct design “when the new needs are extremely complicated”! […]

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

dhw: They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:

"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.
“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”
The same process is used as a defence against threats from inside and outside. It’s common sense anyway that problems precede solutions, and I really don’t know why you think history tells us that the process is reversed (whales) or, at best, synchronized to originate simultaneously (snakes). If life forms don’t adapt to changing conditions or find ways of countering threats to their existence, they disappear, and that means RESPONSE to new needs.

DAVID: Your response is off point. My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.

Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category?

DAVID: That implies only design works. It is not, which came first chicken or egg. This actually exists in us. Our stomach acid has a pH of one, an extreme acid to dissolve food, but our stomach lining handles it without problems. How did that develop?

There is no need to change the example. Of course only design works. Whether the design is done by your God or by the organisms themselves makes no difference to the process: it goes against all reason to argue as you do that solutions either precede the problems they are meant to solve (whales) or they originate simultaneously (snakes).

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTES: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)
"At a small scale, there’s no “thought” of adaptation, there’s simply change based on chemistry and physics. At a higher, population scale, we can’t see these hidden complexities, so it all seems like adaptation. Quite simply, molecules are not intelligently evolved. (David's bold)
"Constructive neutral evolution is a beautiful theory that highlights exactly how complex evolution is, and that it goes well beyond “survival of the fittest”. Sometimes, things just uselessly evolve."

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

Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. Maybe one day scientists will say these molecules are not useless, and you will claim that proves God is at work, and Darwinists will say this supports natural selection; as it stands, you should be flummoxed by your God designing something useless, but a Darwinist can say that so long as the molecules do no harm, there is no reason for them to disappear, as with junk DNA, which – if there is such a thing – is still here.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 18, 2021, 16:50 (1165 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

dhw: And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series..


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

dhw: They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:

DAVID: Your response is off point. My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.


dhw: Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category?

Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.


DAVID: That implies only design works. It is not, which came first chicken or egg. This actually exists in us. Our stomach acid has a pH of one, an extreme acid to dissolve food, but our stomach lining handles it without problems. How did that develop?

dhw: There is no need to change the example. Of course only design works. Whether the design is done by your God or by the organisms themselves makes no difference to the process: it goes against all reason to argue as you do that solutions either precede the problems they are meant to solve (whales) or they originate simultaneously (snakes).

It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTES: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)
"At a small scale, there’s no “thought” of adaptation, there’s simply change based on chemistry and physics. At a higher, population scale, we can’t see these hidden complexities, so it all seems like adaptation. Quite simply, molecules are not intelligently evolved. (David's bold)
"Constructive neutral evolution is a beautiful theory that highlights exactly how complex evolution is, and that it goes well beyond “survival of the fittest”. Sometimes, things just uselessly evolve."

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

dhw: Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. Maybe one day scientists will say these molecules are not useless, and you will claim that proves God is at work, and Darwinists will say this supports natural selection; as it stands, you should be flummoxed by your God designing something useless, but a Darwinist can say that so long as the molecules do no harm, there is no reason for them to disappear, as with junk DNA, which – if there is such a thing – is still here.

Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 11:24 (1164 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

dhw: And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? Or do you really think he sits looking into his crystal ball and sees that next week there’ll be a food shortage on land, so he’d better step in and turn legs into flippers before telling the pre-whales that they’ll find food in the water? I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.

dhw: Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category? [David's bold]

DAVID: Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.
And
DAVID: It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.

Once again you assume that when there’s a problem, every individual immediately dies. My “apparently” referred to the illogicality of your implied agreement that eight of the snakes had a problem first and solved it second, whereas the other two solved the problem at the same time as they (or your God) created it. Nobody knows how any of these mechanisms work, but I see no reason why cells should be able to work out solutions to problems from outside, and yet unable to work out solutions to problems arising from their own activities. ALL innovations and adaptations entail new forms of cooperation between the cell communities, and that applies whether your God manipulated every one directly, or gave them the power to do their own self-modifications. In any case, I don't really understand why this is so important to you, unless you think that somehow eight-snakes problem followed by solution doesn't count, whereas two-snakes simultaneity proves that God designed all speciation, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in advance of any need. I’ll avoid bringing in the rest of your theory of evolution, as agreed.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

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

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

dhw: Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. [etc. – I shan’t reproduce the rest of my response, as I’m going to have to repeat it.]

DAVID: Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

You have missed the point. Junk DNA is an analogy, so I’ll scrap it. 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 15:17 (1164 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

dhw: New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? ... I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

I have an entirely unknotted view. God prepared the pre-whale a way to enter a watery environment. But He didn't change hippos!!! So they keep wading. God speciates.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.
And
DAVID: It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.

dhw: Once again you assume that when there’s a problem, every individual immediately dies. My “apparently” referred to the illogicality of your implied agreement that eight of the snakes had a problem first and solved it second, whereas the other two solved the problem at the same time as they (or your God) created it. Nobody knows how any of these mechanisms work, but I see no reason why cells should be able to work out solutions to problems from outside, and yet unable to work out solutions to problems arising from their own activities. ALL innovations and adaptations entail new forms of cooperation between the cell communities, and that applies whether your God manipulated every one directly, or gave them the power to do their own self-modifications. In any case, I don't really understand why this is so important to you, unless you think that somehow eight-snakes problem followed by solution doesn't count, whereas two-snakes simultaneity proves that God designed all speciation, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in advance of any need. I’ll avoid bringing in the rest of your theory of evolution, as agreed.

Your faith in cell intelligence is overwhelming, as you simply agree the poison appears with the solution at the same time with cell magic. My point is God design is required, cells are n ot ctaht smart.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

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

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

DAVID: Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

dhw: You have missed the point. Junk DNA is an analogy, so I’ll scrap it. 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 11:15 (1163 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

dhw: New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? ... I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

DAVID: I have an entirely unknotted view. God prepared the pre-whale a way to enter a watery environment. But He didn't change hippos!!! So they keep wading. God speciates.

What on earth have hippos got to do with it? Hippos managed perfectly well as they were. Pre-whales must have needed to change (it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time, water offered them better prospects of survival than land). How does that come to mean that God must have operated on their legs before they entered the water?

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: Your faith in cell intelligence is overwhelming, as you simply agree the poison appears with the solution at the same time with cell magic. My point is God design is required, cells are n ot ctaht smart.

I do NOT agree! My version is that ALL the snakes had a problem and subsequently solved it for themselves. If this discussion is to continue, we’d better clarify your own version: do you believe the cell communities of the eight snakes solved the external problem themselves (problem first, solution followed), but your God had to step in and solve the internal problem of the other two (designing problem and solution simultaneously)? Or did he step in to operate on all ten? If all ten, why are you bothering to distinguish between external and internal?

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?

dhw: 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

DAVID: We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.

And you have not commented on 1), 2), 3) or 4), which support Darwinian evolution and raise huge questions for your own theory. As regards RNA folding:

DAVID: I love the strange Darwinist discussion in bold. Folding and unfolding must have a reason and purpose. Why does it bother to form a knot in the first place, instead of directly forming?

Why do you expect me to answer your question? Do please explain why your God bothered to make RNA form a knot in the first place.

Balance of Nature

DAVID: Most ecosystems are important but happen accidently. […]

Ecosystems are important to the organisms that live in them! Your acknowledgement that they happen accidentally fits in with the apparently higgledy-piggledy coming and going that constitutes the history of life. This suggests that if there is such a being as God, he deliberately set up a system which would result in ever changing ecosystems and life forms without any specific plan.

Neanderthal birth canal differs

QUOTE: Babies didn’t need to twist, and heads emerged sideways instead of facing backwards. On the other hand, while this potentially meant that births could have been somewhat faster, with less risk of infants getting stuck, the babies’ longer skulls meant it was still a tight squeeze.

DAVID: if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

It’s always interesting to hear a dualist talk of the brain as the source of intelligence - it’s a good thing you accepted my materialism/dualism compromise! Why do you claim that we are more intelligent? Recent research suggests that they were just as intelligent as sapiens at the time of their co-existence. As regards your question, it’s just one more in the long line of questions arising from your theory that your God designed absolutely everything although you have no idea why. (See also snake venom, useless evolution, RNA folding, balance of Nature…)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 01:25 (1162 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

dhw: What on earth have hippos got to do with it? Hippos managed perfectly well as they were. Pre-whales must have needed to change (it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time, water offered them better prospects of survival than land). How does that come to mean that God must have operated on their legs before they entered the water?

Since I believe God speciates, He decided they were OK as waders


Snakes repel their own venom

dhw: I do NOT agree! My version is that ALL the snakes had a problem and subsequently solved it for themselves. If this discussion is to continue, we’d better clarify your own version: do you believe the cell communities of the eight snakes solved the external problem themselves (problem first, solution followed), but your God had to step in and solve the internal problem of the other two (designing problem and solution simultaneously)? Or did he step in to operate on all ten? If all ten, why are you bothering to distinguish between external and internal?

The problem is only with the snakes who are protected from their own poison. We have venus trap plants who are protected from their own digestive enzymes, our stomachs protected from severe pH acid levels, etc. This exists all throughout biology. It requires simultaneous development, therefore design.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?

dhw: 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

DAVID: We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.

dhw: And you have not commented on 1), 2), 3) or 4), which support Darwinian evolution and raise huge questions for your own theory.

I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

As regards RNA folding:


dhw: Why do you expect me to answer your question? Do please explain why your God bothered to make RNA form a knot in the first place.

The Darwinists asked the stupid question I didn't.


Balance of Nature

DAVID: Most ecosystems are important but happen accidently. […]

dhw: Ecosystems are important to the organisms that live in them! Your acknowledgement that they happen accidentally fits in with the apparently higgledy-piggledy coming and going that constitutes the history of life. This suggests that if there is such a being as God, he deliberately set up a system which would result in ever changing ecosystems and life forms without any specific plan.

The issue is they have a specific God-given design with top predators for food supply.


Neanderthal birth canal differs

DAVID: if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

dhw: It’s always interesting to hear a dualist talk of the brain as the source of intelligence - it’s a good thing you accepted my materialism/dualism compromise! Why do you claim that we are more intelligent? Recent research suggests that they were just as intelligent as sapiens at the time of their co-existence. As regards your question, it’s just one more in the long line of questions arising from your theory that your God designed absolutely everything although you have no idea why.

I agreed to your compromise. My dualist soul uses my very intelligent brain.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 12:28 (1162 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

dhw: […] Hippos managed perfectly well as they were. Pre-whales must have needed to change (it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time, water offered them better prospects of survival than land). How does that come to mean that God must have operated on their legs before they entered the water?

DAVID: Since I believe God speciates, He decided they were OK as waders.

Obviously they were OK as waders, since they survived OK as waders. So what was the point of mentioning them? Pre-whales probably would not have survived on land, and that is why they entered the water. How does that come to mean that your God must have operated to change their legs into flippers before they did so?

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The problem is only with the snakes who are protected from their own poison. We have venus trap plants who are protected from their own digestive enzymes […] etc. This exists all throughout biology. It requires simultaneous development, therefore design.

I’m not arguing against design. Cellular intelligence could do the designing. Why do you constantly ignore my questions? I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?

dhw: 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

DAVID: I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

That is not my assertion! You claim that your God designed useless molecules, as if somehow this made a mockery of Darwinian evolution. (Same problem with RNA folding.) It doesn’t. It makes a mockery of your interpretation of evolution and your God’s role in it. The fact that you have no idea how to explain your interpretation hardly justifies your attack on Darwinian evolution, let alone your absurd claim that I’m suggesting God doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s YOUR theory about what God does that requires and fails to get an explanation from you.

Balance of Nature

DAVID: Most ecosystems are important but happen accidently. […]

dhw: […] Your acknowledgement that they happen accidentally fits in with the apparently higgledy-piggledy coming and going that constitutes the history of life. This suggests that if there is such a being as God, he deliberately set up a system which would result in ever changing ecosystems and life forms without any specific plan.

DAVID: The issue is they have a specific God-given design with top predators for food supply.

No problem. The problem arises when you try to make out that every ecosystem in life’s history was geared to a single purpose. I shan’t repeat what you think that was.

Neanderthal birth canal differs

DAVID: ...if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

dhw: It’s always interesting to hear a dualist talk of the brain as the source of intelligence - it’s a good thing you accepted my materialism/dualism compromise! [...]

DAVID: I agreed to your compromise. My dualist soul uses my very intelligent brain.

That was not my compromise! You agree that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain”. A “soul” without consciousness or intelligence could hardly use anything! The compromise is that what we might call our immaterial self is an emergent product of the brain (materialism) but it is possible that the product itself may survive the death of its source, as an independent entity (NDEs – dualism). I note that the original question and the subject of Neanderthal intelligence have been dropped.

Genome complexity: plants swap organelles, DNA intact

QUOTE: "[…] Hertle points out that once a mosaic cell in a graft callus starts to produce roots, shoots and flowers, it could give rise to a new species or subspecies, especially if cell walls open wide enough to admit nuclear genomes."

DAVID: I can easily see this as a God-designed method for plant evolution and new species creation.

And I can easily see it as a method whereby intelligent cells (possibly God-designed) are able to produce new species or subspecies.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 19:21 (1162 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Since I believe God speciates, He decided they were OK as waders.

dhw: Obviously they were OK as waders, since they survived OK as waders. So what was the point of mentioning them? Pre-whales probably would not have survived on land, and that is why they entered the water. How does that come to mean that your God must have operated to change their legs into flippers before they did so?

I repeat, I believe only God can speciate. There is a variety of strange types: seals penguins, etc., who use water to feed but remain land based. God's choice. It proves there no necessity to became entirely aquatic.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The problem is only with the snakes who are protected from their own poison. We have venus trap plants who are protected from their own digestive enzymes […] etc. This exists all throughout biology. It requires simultaneous development, therefore design.

dhw: I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

Only simultaneous design will work. If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote? I'm not discussing external poison!!! You are simply avoiding my proposition. I assume God at work here and probably helping with external poisoning.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

dhw: That is not my assertion! You claim that your God designed useless molecules, as if somehow this made a mockery of Darwinian evolution.

It is the Darwinists who claim the molecules are useless and survived by habit!!!! My answer above suffices.


Neanderthal birth canal differs

dhw: I note that the original question and the subject of Neanderthal intelligence have been dropped.

It is obvious they were quite intelligent.


Genome complexity: plants swap organelles, DNA intact

QUOTE: "[…] Hertle points out that once a mosaic cell in a graft callus starts to produce roots, shoots and flowers, it could give rise to a new species or subspecies, especially if cell walls open wide enough to admit nuclear genomes."

DAVID: I can easily see this as a God-designed method for plant evolution and new species creation.

dhw: And I can easily see it as a method whereby intelligent cells (possibly God-designed) are able to produce new species or subspecies.

Well, our theories still differ. Good for more debate.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 22, 2021, 09:38 (1161 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology
DAVID: I repeat, I believe only God can speciate. There is a variety of strange types: seals penguins, etc., who use water to feed but remain land based. God's choice. It proves there no necessity to became entirely aquatic.

You don’t need to keep repeating your belief or to tell us about other species. Just tell us why you think that your God must have popped in to operate on some pre-whales’ legs before they entered the water, and that it’s not possible that these animals found they had a better chance of survival in the water, and in time their bodies adapted to the new environment – a process which included legs being transformed into flippers.

Snakes repel their own venom.
dhw: I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

DAVID: Only simultaneous design will work. If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote? I'm not discussing external poison!!! You are simply avoiding my proposition. I assume God at work here and probably helping with external poisoning.

In answer to your question, maybe the internal poison doesn’t always kill. We kill millions of bacteria with our medications, but others survive and find an “antidote”. Maybe in the same way, some snakes died but others survived. I like your answer to my question, since “probably” leaves open the possibility that your God did not help. This can only mean that he may have given the eight snakes the wherewithal to find their own way of surviving external poisons. I would suggest that the same mechanism for doing so would also be present in the two snakes that needed to find antidotes to the poison from within.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution
DAVID: I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

dhw: That is not my assertion! You claim that your God designed useless molecules, as if somehow this made a mockery of Darwinian evolution.

DAVID: It is the Darwinists who claim the molecules are useless and survived by habit!!!! My answer above suffices.

You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” I have told you what happened to natural selection. According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them. If they turn out to be useful, then of course natural selection will preserve them. No problem then for Darwinian evolution. However, you also wrote: “And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!” That’s you talking about terrible mistakes, not the authors of the article, and since you believe that your God designed absolutely everything, I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

Macrophages
QUOTE: "The researchers note that the diverse responses to opposing cues may allow macrophages to more readily adapt to changing environments, as well as to quickly transition from attack mode to focusing on tissue repair.”

DAVID: Very clever design to have these cells multitask.

Yes indeed. The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

De novo or orphan genes
QUOTES: The authors describe bursts of innovation: upon the origin of placental mammals, 357 novel genes; upon the origin of the metazoan, 1,189 novel genes; upon the origin of the land plants, 1,167 novel genes; and upon the origin of the flowering plants, 2,525 novel genes.
"[..] This leads the authors to infer massive gene losses and frequent horizontal gene transfer in the history of life.

DAVID: Gould's gaps and punctuation stares at you in your face. Behe laughs about the losses. This question is not 'wide open' as this discontinuity is perfect evidence of God the designer at work stepping in.

The article is a complete vindication of my description of the process, under Evolution: a different view with loss of traits; not Behe. On 18 September 2020, 11.09, I wrote: “The process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection.” However, I should have included horizontal gene transfer. I see absolutely no reason why you should regard the discontinuity as evidence of God stepping in. I would say it is due to the fact that environmental change occurs in bursts, and speciation is a consequence of cell communities responding to new requirements and/or opportunities provided by those changes, whether local or global. If existing structures cannot cope with or exploit these changes, they will die – hence the extinction of 99% of past species. But the source of the ability to change (adapt or innovate) remains an open question, and your God is a possible answer to that question.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 22, 2021, 19:33 (1161 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology
You don’t need to keep repeating your belief or to tell us about other species. Just tell us why you think that your God must have popped in to operate on some pre-whales’ legs before they entered the water, and that it’s not possible that these animals found they had a better chance of survival in the water, and in time their bodies adapted to the new environment – a process which included legs being transformed into flippers.

We have no proof that stepwise adaptions result in speciation, so it remains a nice theory. The massive evidence of gaps is strongly against it.


Snakes repel their own venom.
dhw: I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

DAVID: Only simultaneous design will work. If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote? I'm not discussing external poison!!! You are simply avoiding my proposition. I assume God at work here and probably helping with external poisoning.

dhw: In answer to your question, maybe the internal poison doesn’t always kill.

Why dodge? The discussion is all about lethal poisons.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: It is the Darwinists who claim the molecules are useless and survived by habit!!!! My answer above suffices.

You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” I have told you what happened to natural selection. According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them.

So natural selection allowed useless evolution like junk DNA? Chance at work?

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

The high-speed reactions with errors have been discussed ad nauseum.


Macrophages
QUOTE: "The researchers note that the diverse responses to opposing cues may allow macrophages to more readily adapt to changing environments, as well as to quickly transition from attack mode to focusing on tissue repair.”

DAVID: Very clever design to have these cells multitask.

dhw: Yes indeed. The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

This in only clever immune system design. Stop clutching at straws.


De novo or orphan genes
QUOTES: The authors describe bursts of innovation: upon the origin of placental mammals, 357 novel genes; upon the origin of the metazoan, 1,189 novel genes; upon the origin of the land plants, 1,167 novel genes; and upon the origin of the flowering plants, 2,525 novel genes.
"[..] This leads the authors to infer massive gene losses and frequent horizontal gene transfer in the history of life.

DAVID: Gould's gaps and punctuation stares at you in your face. Behe laughs about the losses. This question is not 'wide open' as this discontinuity is perfect evidence of God the designer at work stepping in.

dhw: The article is a complete vindication of my description of the process, under Evolution: a different view with loss of traits; not Behe. On 18 September 2020, 11.09, I wrote: “The process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection.” However, I should have included horizontal gene transfer. I see absolutely no reason why you should regard the discontinuity as evidence of God stepping in. I would say it is due to the fact that environmental change occurs in bursts, and speciation is a consequence of cell communities responding to new requirements and/or opportunities provided by those changes, whether local or global. If existing structures cannot cope with or exploit these changes, they will die – hence the extinction of 99% of past species. But the source of the ability to change (adapt or innovate) remains an open question, and your God is a possible answer to that question.

The gaps between species are strong evidence for God coding DNA to create increasing complexity, a hallmark of our evolution. I still propose God speciating. Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions. Of course new complexity requires bursts of innovation. No Darwin here.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 23, 2021, 12:59 (1160 days ago) @ David Turell

Water to land limb changes

DAVID: The gaps tell us speciation is not due to simple step-by-step adaptations. You may ask for transitional forms, and they exist with huge gaps. From my viewpoint, the gaps tell us design is real.

You expect to find a complete fossil record of every change from 400-350 million years ago! Nobody knows what stages may have filled the gaps between the few miraculously surviving fossils. But I agree that design is real: some organisms adapt to new conditions and may complexify through improvements as further aids to survival, and there has to be a mechanism enabling these adaptations and improvements. I propose (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence. I find this more convincing than random mutations and divine programmes or dabbles to produce every change. But these are all unproven theories. See below:

Cambrian explosion

dhw: I’ll leave you, Bechly and the other experts to haggle over percentages, and will happily accept your original statement that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution.”

DAVID: Yes, each stage has some connection, as you try to ignore the complexity gap.

If there is a connection, the only gap is the time between innovations, which I suggest is caused by the irregularity of environmental changes. See above for complexity.

Magic embryology

DAVID: We have no proof that stepwise adaptions result in speciation, so it remains a nice theory. The massive evidence of gaps is strongly against it.
And under “De novo or orphan genes”:
DAVID: The gaps between species are strong evidence for God coding DNA to create increasing complexity, a hallmark of our evolution.

See above for the unproven theories. The lack of fossils does not provide “massive evidence” for anything, let alone an unknown, sourceless mind which has preprogrammed or dabbled every single change.

Snakes repel their own venom.

DAVID: If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote?[…].

dhw: [...] maybe the internal poison doesn’t always kill.

DAVID: Why dodge? The discussion is all about lethal poisons.

All the poisons, internal and external, are lethal, but that does not mean they kill every individual organism. If eight survivors find an antidote, why can't the other two?

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” […] According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them.

DAVID: So natural selection allowed useless evolution like junk DNA? Chance at work?

There would be no pressure for harmless molecules or junk DNA to be discarded. It would not disprove natural selection, but it would raise the question of why a designer God would deliberately design something useless, let alone that makes "terrible mistakes".

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

DAVID: The high-speed reactions with errors have been discussed ad nauseum.

And your only explanation was that your God was unable to avoid incorporating the harmful ones, tried to correct them, often failed, and left it to humans to try and correct them. How does this mean that I say God doesn’t know what he is doing?

Macrophages

dhw: The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

DAVID: This in only clever immune system design. Stop clutching at straws.

Stem cells are not confined to the immune system, and can also deliberately change their function. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that when cells change their structure (adaptation/innovation) to meet new needs, it suggests that they have the ability to change their structure to meet new needs?

De novo or orphan genes

DAVID: […] this discontinuity is perfect evidence of God the designer at work stepping in.

dhw: […] I see no reason why you should regard the discontinuity as evidence of God stepping in. I would say it is due to the fact that environmental change occurs in bursts, and speciation is a consequence of cell communities responding to new requirements and/or opportunities provided by those changes, whether local or global. […]

DAVID: I still propose God speciating. Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions.

Did he? You eventually agreed that he had only found examples of species modifications (e.g. among bears). Now please explain your objection to my explanation of discontinuity.

An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: In this case the salmonella reprogram the Krebs cycle by altering DNA in the invaded cells!!! Not their own DNA, which Shapiro studied, but to me editing is editing.

Agreed. Another example of bacteria working out their own means of survival. I have no idea why your God would have preprogrammed or dabbled with this nasty salmonella to poison us. Do you? Maybe the “editing” is the product of the autonomous intelligence which Shapiro thinks is present in all cells.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 23, 2021, 19:05 (1160 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes repel their own venom.

DAVID: Why dodge? The discussion is all about lethal poisons.


dhw: All the poisons, internal and external, are lethal, but that does not mean they kill every individual organism. If eight survivors find an antidote, why can't the other two?

Still dodging. We know the poison kills others in the two snakes that are self-protected. Self-protection must be simultaneously designed. The eight otheres have no place in this discussion


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” […] According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them.

DAVID: So natural selection allowed useless evolution like junk DNA? Chance at work?

dhw: There would be no pressure for harmless molecules or junk DNA to be discarded. It would not disprove natural selection, but it would raise the question of why a designer God would deliberately design something useless, let alone that makes "terrible mistakes".

The appendix was ' a useless vestige' until its immune purpose was found.


dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

DAVID: The high-speed reactions with errors have been discussed ad nauseum.

dhw: And your only explanation was that your God was unable to avoid incorporating the harmful ones, tried to correct them, often failed, and left it to humans to try and correct them. How does this mean that I say God doesn’t know what he is doing?

God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.


Macrophages

dhw: The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

DAVID: This in only clever immune system design. Stop clutching at straws.

dhw: Stem cells are not confined to the immune system, and can also deliberately change their function. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that when cells change their structure (adaptation/innovation) to meet new needs, it suggests that they have the ability to change their structure to meet new needs?

Stem cells follow given embryological rules.


De novo or orphan genes

DAVID: I still propose God speciating. Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions.

Did he? You eventually agreed that he had only found examples of species modifications (e.g. among bears). Now please explain your objection to my explanation of discontinuity.

Behe also discussed mammoths vs elephants I didn't mention before because of book explanation complexity, in explaining disappearance of a species in a section called 'speciation by degradation' (page 195), a comparison of DNA in both: mammoths disappeared due to "2,000 amino acid residues mutated,..500 damaged genes, 26 seriously degraded". The two species separated seven million years ago. This is the only actual speciation event he covered. You are correct, the rest is adaptive. Your explanation is fine but ignores the huge gaps in function between new species from old.


An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: In this case the salmonella reprogram the Krebs cycle by altering DNA in the invaded cells!!! Not their own DNA, which Shapiro studied, but to me editing is editing.

dhw: Agreed. Another example of bacteria working out their own means of survival. I have no idea why your God would have preprogrammed or dabbled with this nasty salmonella to poison us. Do you? Maybe the “editing” is the product of the autonomous intelligence which Shapiro thinks is present in all cells.

Interesting: did you note I understand Shapiro's contributions to evolution research, but I still reject your wild extrapolations. Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 24, 2021, 08:14 (1159 days ago) @ David Turell

Snakes repel their own venom.

dhw: All the poisons, internal and external, are lethal, but that does not mean they kill every individual organism. If eight survivors find an antidote, why can't the other two?

DAVID: Still dodging. We know the poison kills others in the two snakes that are self-protected. Self-protection must be simultaneously designed. The eight otheres have no place in this discussion.

Of course they have a place! The question in both cases is how the antidote originated. If, as you appear to agree, enough of the eight-snake species survived the external poison and found an antidote without your God popping in with the goody-bag, it’s possible that enough of the two-snake species survived the internal poison and did the same.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: There would be no pressure for harmless molecules or junk DNA to be discarded. It would not disprove natural selection, but it would raise the question of why a designer God would deliberately design something useless, let alone that makes "terrible mistakes".

DAVID: The appendix was ' a useless vestige' until its immune purpose was found.

Now you are trying to prove there is no junk. That is no answer to the question of why your God would have designed molecules which according to you made terrible mistakes.

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.[…]

DAVID: God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.

It’s your theory that God is trying (and often failing) to correct the errors resulting from his design. How does that explain why he designed molecules that make terrible mistakes? And how does that make me “guilty” of saying God doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s you who have no idea why God would do what you claim he does. So maybe your theory is wrong.

Macrophages

dhw: Stem cells are not confined to the immune system, and can also deliberately change their function. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that when cells change their structure (adaptation/innovation) to meet new needs, it suggests that they have the ability to change their structure to meet new needs?

DAVID: Stem cells follow given embryological rules.

Stem cells take on different functions, as do the macrophages, and this could be the key to speciation. They repeat their new functions (= “follow rules”) once the new system has been established.

De novo or orphan genes

DAVID: Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions.

dhw: Did he? You eventually agreed that he had only found examples of species modifications (e.g. among bears). Now please explain your objection to my explanation of discontinuity.

DAVID: Behe also discussed mammoths vs elephants I didn't mention before because of book explanation complexity, in explaining disappearance of a species […] The two species separated seven million years ago. This is the only actual speciation event he covered. You are correct, the rest is adaptive. Your explanation is fine but ignores the huge gaps in function between new species from old.

Species disappearing has nothing to do with speciation. Thank you for acknowledging my fine explanation, which explained discontinuity, which = the huge gaps.

An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

dhw: Another example of bacteria working out their own means of survival. I have no idea why your God would have preprogrammed or dabbled with this nasty salmonella to poison us. Do you? Maybe the “editing” is the product of the autonomous intelligence which Shapiro thinks is present in all cells.

DAVID: Interesting: did you note I understand Shapiro's contributions to evolution research, but I still reject your wild extrapolations.

They are not wild extrapolations. Do you really want me to repeat the quotes reproduced in your own book, in which Shapiro explicitly describes cellular intelligence and its crucial role in evolutionary innovation?

DAVID: Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

I’m afraid your suggestion that maybe bad bacteria have an unknown beneficial purpose is not a very convincing explanation of why your God directly designed bad bacteria. Maybe he did NOT directly design them, but – theistic explanation - they were/are part of a free-for-all resulting from his design of cellular intelligence devoted to finding ways of survival.

Colliding galaxies

DAVID: […] dhw worries that the universe is too large and complicated and wonders why God did it that over-sized way. Not to worry, NASA says the number of galaxies in the hundreds of billions not trillions:

I couldn’t care less whether NASA says hundreds of billions or trillions (they can’t possibly know anyway). I merely ask why you think your God designed all the galaxies, old and new, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. But in the light of the thread on human evolution, maybe you think there are hundreds of billions (not trillions) of ETs out there as well?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 24, 2021, 19:19 (1159 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes repel their own venom.

DAVID: Still dodging. We know the poison kills others in the two snakes that are self-protected. Self-protection must be simultaneously designed. The eight otheres have no place in this discussion.

dhw: it’s possible that enough of the two-snake species survived the internal poison and did the same.

Same hopeful dodge. It obviously requires simultaneous design.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.[…]

DAVID: God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.

dhw: It’s your theory that God is trying (and often failing) to correct the errors resulting from his design. How does that explain why he designed molecules that make terrible mistakes?

The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.


An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

dhw: I’m afraid your suggestion that maybe bad bacteria have an unknown beneficial purpose is not a very convincing explanation of why your God directly designed bad bacteria. Maybe he did NOT directly design them, but – theistic explanation - they were/are part of a free-for-all resulting from his design of cellular intelligence devoted to finding ways of survival.

Your usual sop to theism. Remember cellular intelligence is just an unproven theory


Colliding galaxies

DAVID: […] dhw worries that the universe is too large and complicated and wonders why God did it that over-sized way. Not to worry, NASA says the number of galaxies in the hundreds of billions not trillions:

dhw: I couldn’t care less whether NASA says hundreds of billions or trillions (they can’t possibly know anyway). I merely ask why you think your God designed all the galaxies, old and new, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. But in the light of the thread on human evolution, maybe you think there are hundreds of billions (not trillions) of ETs out there as well?

We can't know, but can look with SETI without a positive result so far.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 25, 2021, 09:04 (1158 days ago) @ David Turell

Snakes repel their own venom.

dhw: If…enough of the eight-snake species survived the external poison and found an antidote without your God popping in with the goody-bag, it’s possible that enough of the two-snake species survived the internal poison and did the same.

DAVID: Same hopeful dodge. It obviously requires simultaneous design.

Ah well, I’ll settle for the (theistic) implications of your argument: species either die out, or survivors find their own antidotes to poisons and cures for diseases. Your God only “probably” helps - though how he can help without providing the antidotes and cures I don’t know - but that leaves the possibility that he doesn’t help. I’m happy to go along with this possibility. Thank you. Meanwhile, however, there are two varieties of snake for which your God had to directly provide the goody–bag, because you know that no individual could possibly have survived otherwise. I don’t know how you know, but shall we leave it at that?

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.[…]

DAVID: God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.

dhw: It’s your theory that God is trying (and often failing) to correct the errors resulting from his design. How does that explain why he designed molecules that make terrible mistakes?

DAVID: The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.

A good design with errors doesn’t sound like a good design to me. We’ve now digressed from the original article, which did not even mention mistakes, and are back to theodicy. In this context, I’d prefer to talk about cells. If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them! As with humans and their (God-given?) free will, it’s obviously not your God’s fault if cells decide to make what we consider to be bad choices. Thank you for supporting the case for cells that know what they’re doing.

An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

dhw: I’m afraid your suggestion that maybe bad bacteria have an unknown beneficial purpose is not a very convincing explanation of why your God directly designed bad bacteria. Maybe he did NOT directly design them, but – theistic explanation - they were/are part of a free-for-all resulting from his design of cellular intelligence devoted to finding ways of survival.

DAVID: Your usual sop to theism. Remember cellular intelligence is just an unproven theory.

1) It is not a sop. I am an agnostic. 2) Once more: ALL theories, including your own and the God theory, are unproven. If they were proven, we would not be having these discussions. However, my theory provides a logical explanation for bad bacteria, which I suggest has more substance than a theory which provides no logical explanation.

Colliding galaxies

DAVID: […] dhw worries that the universe is too large and complicated and wonders why God did it that over-sized way. Not to worry, NASA says the number of galaxies in the hundreds of billions not trillions:

dhw: I couldn’t care less whether NASA says hundreds of billions or trillions (they can’t possibly know anyway). I merely ask why you think your God designed all the galaxies, old and new, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. But in the light of the thread on human evolution, maybe you think there are hundreds of billions (not trillions) of ETs out there as well?

DAVID: We can't know, but can look with SETI without a positive result so far.

Apart from “with SETI”, that sums up all our theories about all the unsolved mysteries. Hence agnosticism.

Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 25, 2021, 15:20 (1158 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes repel their own venom.

Ah well, I’ll settle for the (theistic) implications of your argument: ..I don’t know how you know, but shall we leave it at that?

Fine.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

dhw: This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

dhw: Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

The real point is CO2 has been up and down in vast shifts all through Earth history. The current manufactured hysteria is all political from the UN to get more money to poor third world countries. There are better charitable ways

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 09:03 (1157 days ago) @ David Turell

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

DAVID: Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

There is no distortion of biochemistry. We are dealing with the same “mistakes”, but please note that we have now diverged from the article we began with, which dealt with a useless but harmless molecular mechanism, and are back on the subject of theodicy. I am challenging the claim that a design with “errors” is a good design, that the designer is not responsible for “errors” in his design, and that if cells were designed to know the rules but break them, then the designer must have given them the autonomous ability to know and break them! But I am suggesting that if your God exists, he may not have WANTED to design life forms that were so perfect they would live for ever, and he may have WANTED the ever changing and unpredictable history of life and evolution that has produced the vast range of life forms from bacteria to humans. What you call “mistakes and “errors” would all be part of the great free-for-all, since mistakes and errors are only what we humans would regard as the bad side of a process which demands constant change – diversion from what exists into something that has not existed before. Not Darwin’s randomness, not your God’s error-prone design, but the result of deliberate change as intelligent cells (origin unknown, but possibly designed by your God) adjust to or exploit or succumb to new conditions. (See also below, on catastrophes.)

Repairing DNA breaks
DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

Controlling rate of RNAs

DAVID: processes need speed controls and this is one of them. It reeks of design. Note my bold. The high speed of these processes is illustrated, from our knowledge that the bacteria replicating every 20 minutes. Occasional molecular mistakes must be expected.

Agreed. And if God designed them, and if God is a competent designer, we can assume that he designed what he wanted to design. You always moan that a God who deliberately designed a free-for-all is somehow weak. Don’t you think a God who designed something which was bound to make “mistakes”, and tried but often failed to correct them, is weaker than a God who designs what he wants to design?

Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

dhw: This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.”

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

dhw: Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

DAVID: The real point is CO2 has been up and down in vast shifts all through Earth history. The current manufactured hysteria is all political from the UN to get more money to poor third world countries. There are better charitable ways.

I don’t wish to enter into discussions on the validity or the current politics of climate change. You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 01:49 (1156 days ago) @ dhw

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

DAVID: Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

dhw: There is no distortion of biochemistry. We are dealing with the same “mistakes”, but please note that we have now diverged from the article we began with, which dealt with a useless but harmless molecular mechanism, and are back on the subject of theodicy. I am challenging the claim that a design with “errors” is a good design,

I still challenge this as a distortion of the understanding of function of living biochemistry that forms life. You recognize the high speed needed, with trillions of reaction occurring constantly. In the soup the molecules either react properly to exactitude of action but being free in the soup, means free to make a mistake so they are really free to react improperly. In my opinion. It cannot be rigidly correct 100% of the time. Life requires the high speed in a soup. God cannot do it better, and that doesn't make Him a bad designer as you like to imply. This is the best that can be done. And 3.8 by's prove the point. We are here despite all your worry about the errors. Not as bad as your view.


Repairing DNA breaks
DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

dhw: Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

I think He couldn't


Controlling rate of RNAs

DAVID: processes need speed controls and this is one of them. It reeks of design. Note my bold. The high speed of these processes is illustrated, from our knowledge that the bacteria replicating every 20 minutes. Occasional molecular mistakes must be expected.

dhw: Agreed. You always moan that a God who deliberately designed a free-for-all is somehow weak. Don’t you think a God who designed something which was bound to make “mistakes”, and tried but often failed to correct them, is weaker than a God who designs what he wants to design?

I accept the fact without a moan, He cannot create something that lives with no molecular mistakes. Bothers you more than me.


Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

dhw: This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.”

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

dhw: Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

DAVID: The real point is CO2 has been up and down in vast shifts all through Earth history. The current manufactured hysteria is all political from the UN to get more money to poor third world countries. There are better charitable ways.

dhw: I don’t wish to enter into discussions on the validity or the current politics of climate change. You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

I think God is in control of the original design of the overall weather pattern systems. My entries into 'privileged planet' show that.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 13:01 (1156 days ago) @ David Turell

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

DAVID: Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

dhw: There is no distortion of biochemistry. We are dealing with the same “mistakes”, but please note that we have now diverged from the article we began with, which dealt with a useless but harmless molecular mechanism, and are back on the subject of theodicy. I am challenging the claim that a design with “errors” is a good design […]…

DAVID: I still challenge this as a distortion of the understanding of function of living biochemistry that forms life. You recognize the high speed needed, with trillions of reaction occurring constantly. In the soup the molecules either react properly to exactitude of action but being free in the soup, means free to make a mistake so they are really free to react improperly. In my opinion. It cannot be rigidly correct 100% of the time. Life requires the high speed in a soup. God cannot do it better, and that doesn't make Him a bad designer as you like to imply. This is the best that can be done. And 3.8 by's prove the point. We are here despite all your worry about the errors. Not as bad as your view.

The article which started this discussion was about a harmless molecular structure that served no purpose and so you thought it negated Darwinian natural selection. (See the heading.) When I challenged your conclusion, you switched the subject to high speed molecules and “mistakes”, and referred me to our discussion on “God’s error corrections”. This in turn leads to theodicy – and we are no longer talking about the odd blip. The problem is the major blips: i.e. diseases and their causes, and in the wider framework, why your God would have deliberately (as you think) designed the bad cells, bacteria, viruses etc. and everything else which we humans consider to be “bad”. Our next exchange follows on from this:

Repairing DNA breaks

DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

dhw: Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

DAVID: I think He couldn't.

Interesting that your God is incapable of designing what he wants, tries hard to make up for it (but often fails), and yet you always moan that my hypothesis of a God who designs exactly what he wants (namely the free-for-all which has produced the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution) makes him seem “weak”.

DAVID (under “Controlling rate of RNAs”): I accept the fact without a moan, He cannot create something that lives with no molecular mistakes. Bothers you more than me.

But don’t you think a God who designs what he wants to design is less weak than a God who can’t design what he wants to design, and tries hard but often in vain to correct the “errors”?

Plants control carbon cycle

dhw: You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: I think God is in control of the original design of the overall weather pattern systems. My entries into 'privileged planet' show that.

You drew our attention to catastrophes and to humans upsetting the balance of Nature. This raises the interesting question of whether your God deliberately designed catastrophes and indeed all the environmental changes, global and local, that have accompanied (and I suggest also triggered) both extinctions and the arrival of new species. I’m not sure what you mean by “overall weather patterns”, so perhaps you could be more precise. Do you think he controls/controlled all the environmental changes, global and local, that accompanied (triggered) evolutionary changes, or do you think he set up a system through which environmental changes were/are left to chance?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 17:57 (1156 days ago) @ dhw

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: I still challenge this as a distortion of the understanding of function of living biochemistry that forms life. You recognize the high speed needed, with trillions of reaction occurring constantly. In the soup the molecules either react properly to exactitude of action but being free in the soup, means free to make a mistake so they are really free to react improperly. In my opinion. It cannot be rigidly correct 100% of the time. Life requires the high speed in a soup. God cannot do it better, and that doesn't make Him a bad designer as you like to imply. This is the best that can be done. And 3.8 by's prove the point. We are here despite all your worry about the errors. Not as bad as your view.

dhw: The article which started this discussion was about a harmless molecular structure that served no purpose and so you thought it negated Darwinian natural selection. (See the heading.) When I challenged your conclusion, you switched the subject to high speed molecules and “mistakes”, and referred me to our discussion on “God’s error corrections”. This in turn leads to theodicy – and we are no longer talking about the odd blip. The problem is the major blips: i.e. diseases and their causes, and in the wider framework, why your God would have deliberately (as you think) designed the bad cells, bacteria, viruses etc. and everything else which we humans consider to be “bad”. Our next exchange follows on from this:

Repairing DNA breaks

DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

dhw: Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

DAVID: I think He couldn't. >

dhw: Interesting that your God is incapable of designing what he wants, tries hard to make up for it (but often fails), and yet you always moan that my hypothesis of a God who designs exactly what he wants (namely the free-for-all which has produced the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution) makes him seem “weak”.

Now we are returning to God's personality discussion. I think if Him as highly purposeful with the process of evolution absolutely directed toward the production of humans with big brain consciousness. The broad bush is for econiches to provide food for all and is practical and not higgledy-piggledy. Your failure to see God's purpose muddles your approach.


DAVID (under “Controlling rate of RNAs”): I accept the fact without a moan, He cannot create something that lives with no molecular mistakes. Bothers you more than me.

dhw: But don’t you think a God who designs what he wants to design is less weak than a God who can’t design what he wants to design, and tries hard but often in vain to correct the “errors”?

You still don't understand the biochemistry of life with high-speed reactions. The molecules are free to make mistakes to have the system work at the speed it does. This design we have works, as evolutionary history shows. That is a positive not your persistent negative dark view.


Plants control carbon cycle

dhw: You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: I think God is in control of the original design of the overall weather pattern systems. My entries into 'privileged planet' show that.

dhw: You drew our attention to catastrophes and to humans upsetting the balance of Nature. This raises the interesting question of whether your God deliberately designed catastrophes and indeed all the environmental changes, global and local, that have accompanied (and I suggest also triggered) both extinctions and the arrival of new species. I’m not sure what you mean by “overall weather patterns”, so perhaps you could be more precise. Do you think he controls/controlled all the environmental changes, global and local, that accompanied (triggered) evolutionary changes, or do you think he set up a system through which environmental changes were/are left to chance?'

I don't much of anything chance-caused. I see God in tight control. La Nina and El Nino are recognized Pacific patterns that control all weather over the globe. Monsoon rain patterns are another.

Miscellany; Asian weather patterns from ancient times

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 19:19 (1156 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study shows the importance of the Himalayan rise:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-unravels-hidden-eastern-asia-honey.html

"A study has revealed for the first time the ancient origins of one of the world's most important ecosystems by unlocking the mechanism which determined the evolution of its mountains and how they shaped the weather there as well as its flora and fauna.

"It was previously thought Southern Tibet and the Himalaya were instrumental in turning the once barren land of eastern Asia into lush forests and abundant coastal regions which became home to a rich array of plant, animal and marine life, including some of the world's rarest species. But new findings, published today in the journal Science Advances, conversely show Northern Tibet played the more influential role in this transformation which began more than 50 million years ago.

"Scientists from a UK-China partnership used an innovative climate model to simulate vegetation and plant diversity, combined with spectacular new fossil finds, to discover how this unique biodiversity hotspot evolved.

***

"The findings showed that from the late Paleogene to the early Neogene age, some 23-40 million years ago, the growth of the north and northeastern portion of Tibet was the most important factor because it increased rainfall, especially winter rainfall, over eastern Asia where dry winter conditions existed before.

"This allowed the development of a stable, wet and warm climate, conducive to the evolution of vast and varied plants and animal species which formed the biodiversity hotspot known today for supplying more than a billion people with fresh water and providing ingredients used for lifesaving pharmaceutical drugs. Rare species of monkey, tiger, leopard, bear, fox, mongoose, hedgehog, seal, dolphin, and sea lion all live in this abundant ecosystem.

"Earlier research has mainly investigated the impact of Tibetan mountain building much further to the South when India collided with Asia around 55 million years ago, leading to the rise of the Himalaya mountains and, eventually, the vast arid Tibetan Plateau. However, recent work is increasingly showing the creation of the modern Tibetan plateau was complex, and did not rise as one monolithic block as originally believed.

***

"'The topography of northern Tibet decreases the East Asian winter monsoon winds in the southern part of China, causing wetter winters in eastern Asia and this allows the expansion of vegetation and biodiversity."

"So enigmatic was the drastic change that even in Chinese folklore this area is known as the 'Land of Fish and Rice', due to its immense productivity.

"Without the growth in Northern Tibetan mountains, none of this would exist. But our research should also be taken as a cautionary tale," Professor Valdes explained.

"'A unique set of tectonic and stable climatic conditions over millions of years allowed the development of this rare species rich region of South East Asia.

***

"Professor Zhekun Zhou, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' XTBG, who led on the fossil analysis, said: "So effectively, without northern Tibetan growth, there would be no 'land of milk and honey' in eastern Asia. This research represents a significant breakthrough in understanding how this remarkably rich region of mountainous terrain and diverse plant life formed.'"

Comment: The issue of climate patterns is partially solved by this study. Drifting continents and subduction cause mountain ranges which then influence climate patterns. Part of God's design for a privileged planet. Special ecosystems are vital for life to continue.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 08:53 (1148 days ago) @ dhw

Einstein theory

DAVID: A great review of the whole history and all the wonders about the universe it has produced:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einstein-theory-general-relativity-gravity-black-ho...

DAVID: a ten minute read well worth it.

Thank you. It took me more than ten minutes, but was well worth the time spent. Just one quote:

General relativity has become the foundation for today’s understanding of the cosmos. But the current picture is far from complete. Plenty of questions remain about mysterious matter and forces, about the beginnings and the end of the universe, about how the science of the big meshes with quantum mechanics, the science of the very small.”

While we marvel at the extent of what we know, the fact of the matter (I use the phrase deliberately) is that we know next to nothing!

Xxxxxx

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 15:43 (1148 days ago) @ dhw

Einstein theory

DAVID: A great review of the whole history and all the wonders about the universe it has produced:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einstein-theory-general-relativity-gravity-black-ho...

DAVID: a ten minute read well worth it.

dhw: Thank you. It took me more than ten minutes, but was well worth the time spent. Just one quote:

General relativity has become the foundation for today’s understanding of the cosmos. But the current picture is far from complete. Plenty of questions remain about mysterious matter and forces, about the beginnings and the end of the universe, about how the science of the big meshes with quantum mechanics, the science of the very small.”

While we marvel at the extent of what we know, the fact of the matter (I use the phrase deliberately) is that we know next to nothing!

And with that 'nothing' we try to debate about God and His works.


Xxxxxx

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

dhw: I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

Of course, I meant God designed their steel-like web making. Whether they stumbled accidently on hoisting heavy prey is a definite possibility. Spiders don't usually do this so it is difficult for me to assume God taught a special class to this isolated group. I think they accidently stumbled into it and it worked and became an instinct. I am convinced many instinctual activities developed just that way. We train dogs by repetition and then they react as if instinctual. Observation and memory may teach these special spiders..

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 05, 2021, 08:56 (1147 days ago) @ David Turell

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

dhw: I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

DAVID: Of course, I meant God designed their steel-like web making. Whether they stumbled accidently on hoisting heavy prey is a definite possibility. Spiders don't usually do this so it is difficult for me to assume God taught a special class to this isolated group. I think they accidently stumbled into it and it worked and became an instinct. I am convinced many instinctual activities developed just that way. We train dogs by repetition and then they react as if instinctual. Observation and memory may teach these special spiders.

So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.

Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

plate tectonics

QUOTES: Collins readily admits that there was a fair bit of guesswork involved in producing the model – which is why it’s never been done before.

“No one’s put their neck out enough to get it cut off by trying to produce these models – because everything on them is controversial,” he explains. “For every interpretation of every rock in the middle of Africa or whatever, somebody else will have a different age, or think it was formed in a different tectonic setting.”

This model is very much a first step, Collins says, “but you’ve got to start somewhere”.

It is indeed fascinating, but these quotes are a delightful caveat!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 05, 2021, 15:22 (1147 days ago) @ dhw

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

dhw: I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

DAVID: Of course, I meant God designed their steel-like web making. Whether they stumbled accidently on hoisting heavy prey is a definite possibility. Spiders don't usually do this so it is difficult for me to assume God taught a special class to this isolated group. I think they accidently stumbled into it and it worked and became an instinct. I am convinced many instinctual activities developed just that way. We train dogs by repetition and then they react as if instinctual. Observation and memory may teach these special spiders.

dhw: So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.


I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders


Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

dhw: This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.


plate tectonics

QUOTES: Collins readily admits that there was a fair bit of guesswork involved in producing the model – which is why it’s never been done before.

“No one’s put their neck out enough to get it cut off by trying to produce these models – because everything on them is controversial,” he explains. “For every interpretation of every rock in the middle of Africa or whatever, somebody else will have a different age, or think it was formed in a different tectonic setting.”

This model is very much a first step, Collins says, “but you’ve got to start somewhere”.

dhw: It is indeed fascinating, but these quotes are a delightful caveat!

Agreed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 06, 2021, 11:32 (1146 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

dhw: This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 06, 2021, 19:03 (1146 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

I know. I find it illogical you can still consider chance causation or drag in panpsychism as a form of mind (God lite).


Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

dhw: This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

dhw: Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 07, 2021, 11:03 (1145 days ago) @ David Turell

How we see color

DAVID: Do we all see exactly the same shade?:
https://theconversation.com/do-you-see-red-like-i-see-red-151650?utm_medium=email&u...

QUOTE: "Is the red I see the same as the red you see?”

Nothing new here. It's the usual problem leading to the subjectivity of all perception and to epistemology, which we’ve discussed many times.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

DAVID: I know. I find it illogical you can still consider chance causation or drag in panpsychism as a form of mind (God lite).

Hold on, hold on! I do not consider spiders to be the first cause! I would regard them and their webs as the products of evolution, as cell communities (possibly designed by your God) find their own ways of surviving. My scepticism concerns your fixed belief that although your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he directly preprogrammed or dabbled every other life form etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. And to be honest, even if the spider is essential to our human food supply and environment, I would still find it hard to believe your God programmed it 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to operate on the cells of a bunch of pre-spiders.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

dhw: Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 07, 2021, 14:13 (1145 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

DAVID: I know. I find it illogical you can still consider chance causation or drag in panpsychism as a form of mind (God lite).

dhw: Hold on, hold on! I do not consider spiders to be the first cause! I would regard them and their webs as the products of evolution, as cell communities (possibly designed by your God) find their own ways of surviving. My scepticism concerns your fixed belief that although your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he directly preprogrammed or dabbled every other life form etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. And to be honest, even if the spider is essential to our human food supply and environment, I would still find it hard to believe your God programmed it 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to operate on the cells of a bunch of pre-spiders.

Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

dhw: Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

dhw: More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 12:43 (1143 days ago) @ David Turell

For some reason, I forgot to post the first two replies yesterday! My apologies.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: […] if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

DAVID: Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.

You have missed out at least half of our discussion! I have questioned your illogical interpretation of your God’s purpose (to design H. sapiens) and method (to design millions of individual life forms etc. unconnected with humans), and I have offered you several alternative theistic answers (including experimentation, God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible. But I know you are happy with your illogical theory of evolution and your lack of any answer to the problem of theodicy. I don’t want you to be unhappy, so perhaps we should leave it at that.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

dhw: More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing? You even have a ready-made analogy here. Would it have been easier for your God to have designed furniture, telephones, computers, cars, planes, rockets etc. himself instead of giving humans the ability to do their own designing?

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept. The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.

Balance of nature

QUOTE: We’ve warmed the atmosphere, raised sea levels, erased countless species and forged an uncertain future for humankind and the planet.

DAVID:…. human stupidity or hubris? We not smart enough to leave alone the structure God have us to start with. With this evidence of stupidity and poor analysis of consequences who are we to judge God's works critically?

I’d say it’s human stupidity AND hubris, but who is judging your God’s works critically in our discussions? You raised the problem of errors and of theodicy, and you also have no idea why your God would have designed millions of life forms that had no connection with humans, even though he only wanted to design humans! Discussing theodicy and criticising your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method is a criticism of your interpretation, not of your God!

Highest speed claw snapping

QUOTE: Intriguingly, the observations also revealed that sometimes the resulting water jets caused “cavitation”, where rapid changes in water pressure cause bubbles to form – and when they pop, they release an immense amount of energy, enough to degrade the steel of boat propellers. (David’s bold for emphasis)

But why do amphipods snap their claws in the first place?

DAVID: Is this a slowly developed adaptation, and if so 'why' as the authors pose? If it appeared all at once it had to designed to make everything work and be protected from such force.

Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 18:54 (1143 days ago) @ dhw

For some reason, I forgot to post the first two replies yesterday! My apologies.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.

dhw: You have missed out at least half of our discussion! ....God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible.

What are you smoking? God is never human. Look at the bold; totally humanizing as your version of God bumbles along changing His mind. Your version of God's actions and thoughts are logical only if He is very human in His thought processes and reasons. I've not changed.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

dhw: More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing?

As a designer I have done exactly that. Simple direct design is quick and easy.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...


Balance of nature

QUOTE: We’ve warmed the atmosphere, raised sea levels, erased countless species and forged an uncertain future for humankind and the planet.

DAVID:…. human stupidity or hubris? We not smart enough to leave alone the structure God have us to start with. With this evidence of stupidity and poor analysis of consequences who are we to judge God's works critically?

dhw: Discussing theodicy and criticising your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method is a criticism of your interpretation, not of your God!

Agreed


Highest speed claw snapping

QUOTE: Intriguingly, the observations also revealed that sometimes the resulting water jets caused “cavitation”, where rapid changes in water pressure cause bubbles to form – and when they pop, they release an immense amount of energy, enough to degrade the steel of boat propellers. (David’s bold for emphasis)

But why do amphipods snap their claws in the first place?

DAVID: Is this a slowly developed adaptation, and if so 'why' as the authors pose? If it appeared all at once it had to designed to make everything work and be protected from such force.

dhw: Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 11:57 (1142 days ago) @ David Turell

MAX PLANCK

dhw: I hesitate to cross swords with such an eminent scientist who can't answer back, but hold on. “Matter as such does not exist”, but matter exists? Everything we know of has to originate, but how does that come to mean it doesn’t exist “as such”?

DAVID: The atom is pure energy particles is his meaning.

That does not mean that matter doesn’t exist/is not real.

dhw: I’m going to risk philosophical life and limb here, but I truly believe that matter is real. I don’t know how it originated, but maybe…just maybe…it has always been there. Hold on for the next mystery…

DAVID: But, remember E=mc2. At the plasma stage our universe was pure energy in a plasma state.

That does not mean that matter is not real, or that the process of energy producing matter has not gone on for eternity.

dhw: Why didn’t he just say there had to be a first cause, and he believed it was a spiritual being named God, instead of all this tangled sophistry?

DAVID: I can't speak for him, but a first cause MUST exist eternally.

I have just said that I wish he had said so, instead of all the sophistry.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.

dhw: You have missed out at least half of our discussion! ....God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible.

DAVID: What are you smoking? God is never human. Look at the bold; totally humanizing as your version of God bumbles along changing His mind. Your version of God's actions and thoughts are logical only if He is very human in His thought processes and reasons. I've not changed.

I have not said that God is human, and I have not said he is bumbling along or changing his mind. You have agreed it is possible (originally, it was probable) that your God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. (That does not mean he has two arms, two legs and a beard.) Getting new ideas is part of the process of creativity. This is not bumbling or mind-changing. And why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing?

DAVID: As a designer I have done exactly that. Simple direct design is quick and easy.

There are lots of things that are quick and easy. I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...


Please don’t do this. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with Egnor’s misuse of dualism v materialism to “prove” that we have free will. You have completely ignored my response to Egnor's half-baked argument (I shan't reproduce my response here). Please stick to the subject.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 14:52 (1142 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: You have missed out at least half of our discussion! ....God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible.

DAVID: What are you smoking? God is never human. Look at the bold; totally humanizing as your version of God bumbles along changing His mind. Your version of God's actions and thoughts are logical only if He is very human in His thought processes and reasons. I've not changed.

dhw: I have not said that God is human, and I have not said he is bumbling along or changing his mind. You have agreed it is possible (originally, it was probable) that your God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Getting new ideas is part of the process of creativity. This is not bumbling or mind-changing. And why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing?

DAVID: As a designer I have done exactly that. Simple direct design is quick and easy.

dhw: There are lots of things that are quick and easy. I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

A pure directionless view of evolution


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...

dhw: Please don’t do this. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with Egnor’s misuse of dualism v materialism to “prove” that we have free will. You have completely ignored my response to Egnor's half-baked argument (I shan't reproduce my response here). Please stick to the subject.

Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 11, 2021, 09:20 (1141 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: […] why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

DAVID: Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him.

Same silly objection to his having human characteristics although according to you he probably/possibly has human characteristics. Of course if he exists he has a purpose. But all you can think of is that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Hence your illogical theory of evolution dealt with on the other thread. Creating something of interest is a purpose.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

DAVID: A pure directionless view of evolution.

That does not explain why it is easier to perform a million operations than to give the task to the life forms themselves. And what direction do you see in the 99% of individually designed, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the directly designed bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...

dhw: Please don’t do this. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with Egnor’s misuse of dualism v materialism to “prove” that we have free will. You have completely ignored my response to Egnor's half-baked argument (I shan't reproduce my response here). Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting.

There are lots of things that are interesting, but you raised the subject of Egnor on free will, and then ignored my response. I thought you wanted to discuss or even defend his viewpoint.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

Every life form has to have food. But according to you every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. So please tell us whether you think claw-snapping is part of the goal of evolving humans or of supplying food to humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 11, 2021, 16:53 (1141 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: […] why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

DAVID: Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him.

Same silly objection to his having human characteristics although according to you he probably/possibly has human characteristics. Of course if he exists he has a purpose. But all you can think of is that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Hence your illogical theory of evolution dealt with on the other thread. Creating something of interest is a purpose.

Notice you've invented a very minor purpose at that.


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

DAVID: A pure directionless view of evolution.

dhw: That does not explain why it is easier to perform a million operations than to give the task to the life forms themselves. And what direction do you see in the 99% of individually designed, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the directly designed bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting.

dhw: There are lots of things that are interesting, but you raised the subject of Egnor on free will, and then ignored my response. I thought you wanted to discuss or even defend his viewpoint.

I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

dhw: Every life form has to have food. But according to you every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. So please tell us whether you think claw-snapping is part of the goal of evolving humans or of supplying food to humans.

Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 12, 2021, 11:22 (1140 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: […] why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

DAVID: Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him.

dhw: Same silly objection to his having human characteristics although according to you he probably/possibly has human characteristics. Of course if he exists he has a purpose. But all you can think of is that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Hence your illogical theory of evolution dealt with on the other thread. Creating something of interest is a purpose.

DAVID: Notice you've invented a very minor purpose at that.

So once more, please tell us why you think your interested God created all the life forms, including humans, and their food supplies.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

DAVID: A pure directionless view of evolution.

dhw: That does not explain why it is easier to perform a million operations than to give the task to the life forms themselves. And what direction do you see in the 99% of individually designed, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the directly designed bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

DAVID: Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.

Totally irrelevant to the questions I am asking. But I’ll rephrase them for you: what direction do you see in the 99% of preplanned, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the preplanned bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting.

dhw: There are lots of things that are interesting, but you raised the subject of Egnor on free will, and then ignored my response. I thought you wanted to discuss or even defend his viewpoint.

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

His subject was free will, and he totally ignored the cause-and-effect argument against free will.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

dhw: Every life form has to have food. But according to you every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. So please tell us whether you think claw-snapping is part of the goal of evolving humans or of supplying food to humans.

DAVID: Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

Yes, we know that, and that has always been the case with every life form that ever existed. So do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God pre-planned claw-snapping, or popped in to construct a special claw-snapability in order to provide humans with their food supply? My question is serious, because the only alternatives to your theory are random mutations and cellular intelligence.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 12, 2021, 16:18 (1140 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: So once more, please tell us why you think your interested God created all the life forms, including humans, and their food supplies.

None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.

dhw: Totally irrelevant to the questions I am asking. But I’ll rephrase them for you: what direction do you see in the 99% of preplanned, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the preplanned bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

You've again ignored necessary food supply. I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

dhw: His subject was free will, and he totally ignored the cause-and-effect argument against free will.

Define your cause and effect rebuttal. Brain responses per Libet?


Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

dhw: Yes, we know that, and that has always been the case with every life form that ever existed. So do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God pre-planned claw-snapping, or popped in to construct a special claw-snapability in order to provide humans with their food supply? My question is serious, because the only alternatives to your theory are random mutations and cellular intelligence.

You have never told us where cellular intelligence comes from except possibly God. We both reject random mutations, so that leaves God in charge or cell intelligence out of nowhere or chance. Very weak.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 13, 2021, 12:20 (1139 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: So once more, please tell us why you think your interested God created all the life forms, including humans, and their food supplies.

DAVID: None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.

Nobody “knows” any of the answers, including whether God exists. That is why we theorize and test the logic of the different theories. You are sure he is interested. So what logic makes you sure he did not create life (including humans) in order to have something to be interested in? And why are you so insistent that he had a purpose, but then so scared of telling us what you think that purpose might have been?

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: [ignoring a question:) Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.

dhw: Totally irrelevant to the questions I am asking. But I’ll rephrase them for you: what direction do you see in the 99% of preplanned, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the preplanned bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

DAVID: You've again ignored necessary food supply

For the thousandth time, ALL forms of life are part of the food supply for other forms of life, but that does not mean they were all part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.

So what was the point in your raising the question in the first place if you are not prepared to offer an answer and yet dismiss a possible answer even though you agree that it is logical?


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

dhw: His subject was free will, and he totally ignored the cause-and-effect argument against free will.

DAVID: Define your cause and effect rebuttal. Brain responses per Libet?

Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts! February 9:

EGNOR: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept. The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

dhw: Yes, we know that, and that has always been the case with every life form that ever existed.So do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God pre-planned claw-snapping, or popped in to construct a special claw-snapability in order to provide humans with their food supply? My question is serious, because the only alternatives to your theory are random mutations and cellular intelligence.

DAVID: You have never told us where cellular intelligence comes from except possibly God. We both reject random mutations, so that leaves God in charge or cell intelligence out of nowhere or chance. Very weak.

Yet again, you refuse to answer my question. I’ll restate it in even more radical terms: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

I don’t know often you want me to repeat the three explanations I have offered for cellular intelligence, but here they are again: your God, chance, some form of panpsychism. But I find all three equally unconvincing. Our discussion, however, centres on Chapter 2 of life, which concerns how evolution progresses, not how it originated. Hence the question which I have asked and which you have not answered.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 13, 2021, 19:13 (1139 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.

dhw: So what logic makes you sure he did not create life (including humans) in order to have something to be interested in? And why are you so insistent that he had a purpose, but then so scared of telling us what you think that purpose might have been?

The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: You've again ignored necessary food supply


dhw: For the thousandth time, ALL forms of life are part of the food supply for other forms of life, but that does not mean they were all part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging.

No dodge. You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex


DAVID: I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.

dhw: So what was the point in your raising the question in the first place if you are not prepared to offer an answer and yet dismiss a possible answer even though you agree that it is logical?

Some subjects are presented for completeness without answers known. Why not?>


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

dhw: Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts! February 9:

EGNOR: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept.

I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Yet again, you refuse to answer my question. I’ll restate it in even more radical terms: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

dhw: I don’t know often you want me to repeat the three explanations I have offered for cellular intelligence, but here they are again: your God, chance, some form of panpsychism. But I find all three equally unconvincing. Our discussion, however, centres on Chapter 2 of life, which concerns how evolution progresses, not how it originated. Hence the question which I have asked and which you have not answered.

You know my expected answer. God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 14, 2021, 16:00 (1138 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

DAVID: None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.

dhw: So what logic makes you sure he did not create life (including humans) in order to have something to be interested in? And why are you so insistent that he had a purpose, but then so scared of telling us what you think that purpose might have been?

DAVID: The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?

I have asked why he created life including humans, and you keep chickening out of answering. I don’t know why you regard the creation of something interesting as not being purposeful.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: You've again ignored necessary food supply

dhw: For the thousandth time, ALL forms of life are part of the food supply for other forms of life, but that does not mean they were all part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex.

That does not mean it is one continuing process from bacteria to H. sapiens! It is one continuing process which according to you has encompassed the direct design of millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans, though you insist that the only purpose of all those extinct life forms was to enable your God to design humans.

DAVID: I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.

dhw: So what was the point in your raising the question in the first place if you are not prepared to offer an answer and yet dismiss a possible answer even though you agree that it is logical?

DAVID: Some subjects are presented for completeness without answers known. Why not?

All our subjects are “without answers known”. That is why they are open to discussion. And then we test the various possible explanations. I see that as the purpose of this forum.

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept.

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You know my expected answer. God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 14, 2021, 18:45 (1138 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?

dhw: I have asked why he created life including humans, and you keep chickening out of answering. I don’t know why you regard the creation of something interesting as not being purposeful.

God does not need anything to interest Him. He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.


Fin to limb genes


DAVID: You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex.

dhw: That does not mean it is one continuing process from bacteria to H. sapiens! It is one continuing process which according to you has encompassed the direct design of millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans, though you insist that the only purpose of all those extinct life forms was to enable your God to design humans.

I think God could have designed humans without the bush, but what we would we eat? Therefore He evolved a huge bush.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

dhw: I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

My answer above is in full support of that approach you cited. I'm with Egnor.


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You know my expected answer. God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

I've told you over and over I don't know which mechanism God used for each and every design, but I have shown in recent entries the strong evidence of pre-planning in antecedent DNAs.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, February 15, 2021, 12:33 (1137 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

DAVID: The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?

dhw: I have asked why he created life including humans, and you keep chickening out of answering. I don’t know why you regard the creation of something interesting as not being purposeful.

DAVID: God does not need anything to interest Him.

I didn’t know you were that pally with your God. When did he tell you this?

DAVID: He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.

Ah, he only tells you the reasons he did NOT have for creating life. ;-) And yes, religions are full of guesswork. How does that come to mean that God is interested in us (your belief) but didn’t create life because he wanted to create something that would interest him?

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex.

dhw: That does not mean it is one continuing process from bacteria to H. sapiens! It is one continuing process which according to you has encompassed the direct design of millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans, though you insist that the only purpose of all those extinct life forms was to enable your God to design humans.

DAVID: I think God could have designed humans without the bush, but what we would we eat? Therefore He evolved a huge bush.

So he evolved a huge bush, 99% of which no longer exists and had no connection with us, so that we could eat the present bush. See your own quotes under “Theodicy….”

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

dhw: I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

DAVID: My answer above is in full support of that approach you cited. I'm with Egnor.

Egnor never mentioned cause and effect. That was my complaint!

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID:I've told you over and over I don't know which mechanism God used for each and every design, but I have shown in recent entries the strong evidence of pre-planning in antecedent DNAs.

You have told us over and over again that your God either preprogrammed the first cells with all the advances, or stepped in to dabble. At different times you have favoured one over the other. On the thread “more genomic evidence”, you have at last mentioned a “mechanism for advance”, which ties in neatly with the theory of cellular intelligence. None of the articles on DNA provide “strong evidence” of pre-planning, unless you mean evidence for a mechanism which enabled later life forms to create the changes that led to speciation.

The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, February 15, 2021, 22:55 (1137 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.

dhw: Ah, he only tells you the reasons he did NOT have for creating life. ;-) And yes, religions are full of guesswork. How does that come to mean that God is interested in us (your belief) but didn’t create life because he wanted to create something that would interest him?

Again pure humanizing


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

dhw: I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

DAVID: My answer above is in full support of that approach you cited. I'm with Egnor.

dhw: Egnor never mentioned cause and effect. That was my complaint!

And I've said cause and effecf are very weak theories.


Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID:I've told you over and over I don't know which mechanism God used for each and every design, but I have shown in recent entries the strong evidence of pre-planning in antecedent DNAs.

dhw: You have told us over and over again that your God either preprogrammed the first cells with all the advances, or stepped in to dabble. At different times you have favoured one over the other. On the thread “more genomic evidence”, you have at last mentioned a “mechanism for advance”, which ties in neatly with the theory of cellular intelligence. None of the articles on DNA provide “strong evidence” of pre-planning, unless you mean evidence for a mechanism which enabled later life forms to create the changes that led to speciation.

And my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

dhw: A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

You shipped my comment: Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.

My thought is the entire sets of layers of information and controls in the genome manages what the cells are told to do. Top down not bottom up.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 12:20 (1136 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

DAVID: He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.

dhw: Ah, he only tells you the reasons he did NOT have for creating life. And yes, religions are full of guesswork. How does that come to mean that God is interested in us (your belief) but didn’t create life because he wanted to create something that would interest him?

DAVID: Again pure humanizing

Nothing wrong with that. See “theodicy”.

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: Egnor never mentioned cause and effect. That was my complaint!

DAVID: And I've said cause and effecf are very weak theories.

You agreed that before we can talk of free will, we need to know what we are meant to be free from. The fact that you don’t believe your decisions are influenced by all the factors I listed (heredity, upbringing, chance events etc.) does not make the theory “weak”. You believe in the alternative version, which I also presented. Egnor didn’t even consider either version, and that was why I objected to his simplistic approach to the subject.

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply? […]

DAVID: And my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

So was this “coding” a specific programme designed 3.8 billion years ago for every single advancement in the history of evolution? Or did your God pop in from time to time to insert new programmes long before they were needed? Or could it have been in the form of a mechanism which could work out advancements as and when required or facilitated? Please answer.

The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

dhw: A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

DAVID: You shipped my comment: Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.
My thought is the entire sets of layers of information and controls in the genome manages what the cells are told to do. Top down not bottom up
.

Yes indeed, nobody knows. Hence my three alternatives in the questions asked above, which I hope you will answer directly. Can you think of any alternatives to these three explanations?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 18:02 (1136 days ago) @ dhw

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply? […]

DAVID: And my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

dhw: So was this “coding” a specific programme designed 3.8 billion years ago for every single advancement in the history of evolution? Or did your God pop in from time to time to insert new programmes long before they were needed? Or could it have been in the form of a mechanism which could work out advancements as and when required or facilitated? Please answer.

I have. God either programs in advance or steps in to dabble. Adaptations do not lead to speciation, and that is as far as organisms can go on their own.


The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

dhw: A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

DAVID: You shipped my comment: Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.
My thought is the entire sets of layers of information and controls in the genome manages what the cells are told to do. Top down not bottom up
.

dhw: Yes indeed, nobody knows. Hence my three alternatives in the questions asked above, which I hope you will answer directly. Can you think of any alternatives to these three explanations?

Answered above. God is in charge of new species creation.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 13:38 (1135 days ago) @ David Turell

Evol: always advancing or not?

QUOTE: "[…] it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"

DAVID: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward

But one would have thought that a God who, according to you, had just one purpose and was always in full control of evolution, would have moved steadily forward in his pursuit of his goal. Hence my repeating ad nauseam my question why you think he didn’t, and your ad nauseam insistence that it’s all logical though you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his purpose this way.

Extreme extremophiles

QUOTE: "Learning more about how the organisms have adapted to their freezing home far from food may also give us clues about how life evolved […]

DAVID: Just more evidence showing how tough life is, surviving everywhere.

It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms. It makes you wonder if this astonishing ability of organisms to adapt to all conditions isn’t evidence of an in-built mechanism both for adaptation and for speciation, as opposed to your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled life forms and food supplies “as part of the goal of evolving humans”.

High speed claw snapping

DAVID: […] my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

dhw: So was this “coding” a specific programme designed 3.8 billion years ago for every single advancement in the history of evolution? Or did your God pop in from time to time to insert new programmes long before they were needed? Or could it have been in the form of a mechanism which could work out advancements as and when required or facilitated?

DAVID: God either programs in advance or steps in to dabble. Adaptations do not lead to speciation, and that is as far as organisms can go on their own.


It is sometimes impossible to draw a clear line between adaptation and speciation: one can argue that legs becoming flippers is adaptation to new conditions, and every other stage in the switch from pre-whale to whale is the same. But I’m not pretending to know how all innovations originated! That is one of the many mysteries we all grapple with. Hence such theories as divine pre-planning, divine dabbling, random mutations and cellular intelligence.

Physical change in speciation

QUOTE: "...neo-Darwinism must explain not only how hardware features mutated into existence but also how the biological operating software came into existence and could then be modified successfully in dramatic ways.
***
"Materialist thinkers contend that every feature of brain, mind, and consciousness arose via cause-effect physics and chemistry accounted for by neo-Darwinism. In that case, they first need to explain how biological software is created and stored in animals, and then how such software can be mutated by accident just in time to operate new biological hardware. Solve those problems first, before claiming human consciousness is mere biochemistry."

Yet another article flogging the case against chance, which we agreed on long ago. Why don’t these good folk consider the possibility that the ability of ALL organisms to change their structures lies in a form of intelligence which has gradually evolved into the superintelligence of human self-awareness? ALL organisms are composed of cells, and even you believe in common descent. This means that throughout thousands of millions of years, cells have learned to cooperate and combine in forming one new structure after another. You believe these were divinely programmed or dabbled, but the cells would still have had to cooperate and combine, whether he did it or they did it for themselves. The PROCESS of restructuring is the same. Hardware/software is an unnecessary image. Of course all parts of the organism must function together if it is to survive. The great problem is how the ability of cells to reorganize themselves arose in the first place, which is the same as asking what is the origin of life. Nobody knows.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

Nobody ever said they were.

DAVID: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.

Do you believe we are descended from apes or don’t you?


Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 18:27 (1135 days ago) @ dhw

Evol: always advancing or not?

QUOTE: "[…] it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"

DAVID: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward

dhw: But one would have thought that a God who, according to you, had just one purpose and was always in full control of evolution, would have moved steadily forward in his pursuit of his goal. Hence my repeating ad nauseam my question why you think he didn’t, and your ad nauseam insistence that it’s all logical though you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his purpose this way.

My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical. The Darwinian article is discussing the viability of the 'fitness' theory, and finds evolution doesn't really fit it. God wanted us but was not at high speed over 3.8 billion years


Extreme extremophiles

QUOTE: "Learning more about how the organisms have adapted to their freezing home far from food may also give us clues about how life evolved […]

DAVID: Just more evidence showing how tough life is, surviving everywhere.

dhw: It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

Physical change in speciation

QUOTE: "...neo-Darwinism must explain not only how hardware features mutated into existence but also how the biological operating software came into existence and could then be modified successfully in dramatic ways.
***
"Materialist thinkers contend that every feature of brain, mind, and consciousness arose via cause-effect physics and chemistry accounted for by neo-Darwinism. In that case, they first need to explain how biological software is created and stored in animals, and then how such software can be mutated by accident just in time to operate new biological hardware. Solve those problems first, before claiming human consciousness is mere biochemistry."

dhw: ALL organisms are composed of cells, and even you believe in common descent. This means that throughout thousands of millions of years, cells have learned to cooperate and combine in forming one new structure after another. You believe these were divinely programmed or dabbled, but the cells would still have had to cooperate and combine, whether he did it or they did it for themselves. The PROCESS of restructuring is the same. Hardware/software is an unnecessary image. Of course all parts of the organism must function together if it is to survive. The great problem is how the ability of cells to reorganize themselves arose in the first place, which is the same as asking what is the origin of life. Nobody knows.

We ID folks believe only a designer had to do it.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

dhw: Nobody ever said they were.

DAVID: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.

dhw: Do you believe we are descended from apes or don’t you?

Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.>


Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

dhw: No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.

I can only look at the real history and not question why God did it the way it appeared. It resulted in more sapiens immunity noting bad bugs were around.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 11:16 (1134 days ago) @ David Turell

Evol: always advancing or not?

QUOTE: "[…] it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"

DAVID: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward

dhw: But one would have thought that a God who, according to you, had just one purpose and was always in full control of evolution, would have moved steadily forward in his pursuit of his goal. Hence my repeating ad nauseam my question why you think he didn’t, and your ad nauseam insistence that it’s all logical though you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his purpose this way.

DAVID: My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical.

Yes of course God, if he exists, must have chosen to set up the process of evolution, and yes of course he is responsible for the history of life. How does that explain your theory that he only had one purpose – to design H. sapiens – and proceeded to design anything but H. sapiens?

DAVID: The Darwinian article is discussing the viability of the 'fitness' theory, and finds evolution doesn't really fit it.

And “more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory”. But you believe in directionality – because according to you every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: God wanted us but was not at high speed over 3.8 billion years.

So your God had only one purpose, and was mighty slow in even beginning to fulfil it, and so he quickly designed millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans. You don’t think it might just be possible that he actually wanted to have the vast variety of life forms that preceded ours and had no connection with ours?

Extreme extremophiles

QUOTE: "Learning more about how the organisms have adapted to their freezing home far from food may also give us clues about how life evolved […]

DAVID: Just more evidence showing how tough life is, surviving everywhere.

dhw: It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

DAVID: Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

Physical change in speciation

dhw: ALL organisms are composed of cells, and even you believe in common descent. This means that throughout thousands of millions of years, cells have learned to cooperate and combine in forming one new structure after another. You believe these were divinely programmed or dabbled, but the cells would still have had to cooperate and combine, whether he did it or they did it for themselves. The PROCESS of restructuring is the same. Hardware/software is an unnecessary image. Of course all parts of the organism must function together if it is to survive. The great problem is how the ability of cells to reorganize themselves arose in the first place, which is the same as asking what is the origin of life. Nobody knows.

DAVID: We ID folks believe only a designer had to do it.

I know what you believe. Now please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

dhw: Nobody ever said they were.

DAVID: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.

dhw: Do you believe we are descended from apes or don’t you?

DAVID: Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.

You and the materialists still believe that we are descended from a common ape ancestor. So what is the new percentage meant to prove?

Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

dhw: No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.)

DAVID: I can only look at the real history and not question why God did it the way it appeared. It resulted in more sapiens immunity noting bad bugs were around.

I am not disputing the real history. For some reason, you always present your interpretation of history and God’s role in it as if it were a fact. It’s not. It’s a theory, and you refuse to question the logic of your theory.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 18:11 (1134 days ago) @ dhw

Evol: always advancing or not?

DAVID: My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical.

dhw: Yes of course God, if he exists, must have chosen to set up the process of evolution, and yes of course he is responsible for the history of life. How does that explain your theory that he only had one purpose – to design H. sapiens – and proceeded to design anything but H. sapiens?

Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history, as in the bold..


DAVID: The Darwinian article is discussing the viability of the 'fitness' theory, and finds evolution doesn't really fit it.

dhw: And “more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory”. But you believe in directionality – because according to you every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: God wanted us but was not at high speed over 3.8 billion years.

dhw: So your God had only one purpose, and was mighty slow in even beginning to fulfil it, and so he quickly designed millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans. You don’t think it might just be possible that he actually wanted to have the vast variety of life forms that preceded ours and had no connection with ours?

Again, purpose forgotten or conveniently omitted: necessary food supply for a huge human population .


Extreme extremophiles

dhw: It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

DAVID: Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No sttruggle.


Physical change in speciation

DAVID: We ID folks believe only a designer had to do it.

dhw: I know what you believe. Now please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may cerate mistakes.


Chimps ‘r’ not us

DAVID: Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.

dhw: You and the materialists still believe that we are descended from a common ape ancestor. So what is the new percentage meant to prove?

God required for new highly different designs. We are amazingly different. Bo simple change.


Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

dhw: No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.)

DAVID: I can only look at the real history and not question why God did it the way it appeared. It resulted in more sapiens immunity noting bad bugs were around.

dhw: I am not disputing the real history. For some reason, you always present your interpretation of history and God’s role in it as if it were a fact. It’s not. It’s a theory, and you refuse to question the logic of your theory.

I luckily have you to question me. :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 19, 2021, 11:08 (1133 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical.

dhw: Yes of course God, if he exists, must have chosen to set up the process of evolution, and yes of course he is responsible for the history of life. How does that explain your theory that he only had one purpose – to design H. sapiens – and proceeded to design anything but H. sapiens?

DAVID: Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history, as in the bold.

No “inversion”. The problem you so desperately try to avoid is why a God whose only purpose was to “evolve” (by which you mean design) H. sapiens plus food supply chose to evolve the millions of other life forms plus their food supplies which constitute the 99% that had no connection with humans. (The other 1% is the thread from bacteria to humans, in case you haven’t cottoned on.)

DAVID: Again, purpose forgotten or conveniently omitted: necessary food supply for a huge human population.

Cracked record. The food supply for the millions of extinct life forms did not provide food for humans. How many more times? “The current bush is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” (D.Turell)

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

DAVID: Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No struggle.

It makes no difference whether it’s easy or hard: please tell us what purpose other than survival these organisms might have had in “adapting to their freezing home”.

Physical change in speciation

dhw: …please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may cerate mistakes.

It’s not “secondhand” if God gave them the intelligence to do it, and of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?

Chimps ‘r’ not us

DAVID: Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.

dhw: You and the materialists still believe that we are descended from a common ape ancestor. So what is the new percentage meant to prove?

DAVID: God required for new highly different designs. We are amazingly different. Bo simple change.

But you believe that your God directly designed EVERY life form! That’s one of the major problems with your whole theory! If God had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens (plus food supply) – why did he design all the other life forms (plus food supplies) that had no connection with H. sapiens?

Antibiotic honey

DAVID: There are many steps in making honey. Not by chance. The process was designed.

Only included so that I can thank you for another wonderful article. And yes, those bees are clever designers, aren’t they!

insects silence plant defenses

DAVID: War between organisms is a part of life. What the plants are capable of producing affords secondary defenses, not immediate lethal. That allows the insects to try to adapt, but as I view it, enzymes are enormous complex molecules that God might have designed.

According to you, survival is not a struggle but is easy thanks to your God’s designs. But we are still faced with the obvious fact that survival is the prime motive for the behaviour of both plants and insects. Thank you for using the word “might” in “might have designed”. We are slowly coming closer together in our use of vocabulary.

Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.
Be a climate realist.

DAVID: I am a twin with this guy. I knew all the material presented long ago.

This is really scary. We, the innocent public, are in trouble either way, whether the dangers are real or the vested interests have created a tissue of lies about them. The article is scrupulously fair, though, in acknowledging the very real problems, and restricting the scepticism to the forecasts. I shouldn’t really take part in this discussion, because like most of us, I have no way of knowing how accurate the crystal-ball-gazers might be. But I would still say that the effects of pollution and of human interference with Nature are already devastating, and it is clear that drastic changes are needed if these effects are to be kept under control.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 19, 2021, 19:38 (1133 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history,

dhw: The problem you so desperately try to avoid is why a God whose only purpose was to “evolve” (by which you mean design) H. sapiens plus food supply

God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.


Extreme extremophiles

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No struggle.

dhw: It makes no difference whether it’s easy or hard: please tell us what purpose other than survival these organisms might have had in “adapting to their freezing home”.

No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.


Physical change in speciation

dhw: …please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.

dhw: It’s not “secondhand” if God gave them the intelligence to do it, and of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?

Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.
Be a climate realist.

DAVID: I am a twin with this guy. I knew all the material presented long ago.

dhw: This is really scary. We, the innocent public, are in trouble either way, whether the dangers are real or the vested interests have created a tissue of lies about them. The article is scrupulously fair, though, in acknowledging the very real problems, and restricting the scepticism to the forecasts. I shouldn’t really take part in this discussion, because like most of us, I have no way of knowing how accurate the crystal-ball-gazers might be. But I would still say that the effects of pollution and of human interference with Nature are already devastating, and it is clear that drastic changes are needed if these effects are to be kept under control.

A public interest entry. This guy was 'fair' and not like the global warming scare-folks. The UN IPPC is a money-gathering ploy: enough scare, more money donated out of fright. Just go back to the Climategate emails to see the farce. I've read them. And to be perfectly clear, I've read Gore's first alarming book with its debunked claims.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 20, 2021, 11:33 (1132 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history,

dhw: The problem you so desperately try to avoid is why a God whose only purpose was to “evolve” (by which you mean design) H. sapiens plus food supply chose to evolve the millions of other life forms plus their food supplies which constitute the 99% that had no connection with humans. (The other 1% is the thread from bacteria to humans, in case you haven’t cottoned on.)

DAVID: God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.

Unfortunately you left out the bold, which you always try to ignore anyway. The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: [..] Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No struggle.

dhw: It makes no difference whether it’s easy or hard: please tell us what purpose other than survival these organisms might have had in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

Physical change in speciation

dhw: …please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.

dhw: It’s not “secondhand” if God gave them the intelligence to do it, and of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?

DAVID: Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

Dear Dr Turell, have you never heard of people and animals dying from errors in the system (i.e. various well-known diseases), from lack of resistance to bad bacteria and viruses, or from an inability to cope with new conditions?

Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.
Be a climate realist.

DAVID: I am a twin with this guy. I knew all the material presented long ago.

dhw: This is really scary. We, the innocent public, are in trouble either way, whether the dangers are real or the vested interests have created a tissue of lies about them. The article is scrupulously fair, though, in acknowledging the very real problems, and restricting the scepticism to the forecasts. I shouldn’t really take part in this discussion, because like most of us, I have no way of knowing how accurate the crystal-ball-gazers might be. But I would still say that the effects of pollution and of human interference with Nature are already devastating, and it is clear that drastic changes are needed if these effects are to be kept under control.

DAVID: A public interest entry. This guy was 'fair' and not like the global warming scare-folks. The UN IPPC is a money-gathering ploy: enough scare, more money donated out of fright. Just go back to the Climategate emails to see the farce. I've read them. And to be perfectly clear, I've read Gore's first alarming book with its debunked claims.

I can’t argue with any of this. I have no idea what the future holds. I have simply said that our present way of life is already creating huge damage to the environment and to all life including our own. You yourself have posted articles explaining how we are upsetting the balance of Nature. Something has to change.

Landing on Mars

QUOTE: "The mission’s goal is to roll around Jezero Crater and collect rock samples from the river delta and an ancient lake that might hold evidence of past Martian life.”

DAVID: Just bringing the news to this site.

Thank you. It’s hit the headlines over here too. Despite the huge expense, I find this thrilling, as an example of humankind’s “perseverance” in the quest for clues to the mystery of life and the nature of the universe we live in.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 20, 2021, 21:44 (1132 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.

dhw: Unfortunately you left out the bold, which you always try to ignore anyway. The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

Your objection is totally illogical. My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history. The huge bush is food supply. I never dodge this point of view. And you cannot demolish it, no matter hoe much you complain.


Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

It did in the sense I have given. So life wouold exist always.


Physical change in speciation

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.
d?[/i]

DAVID: Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

dhw: Dear Dr Turell, have you never heard of people and animals dying from errors in the system (i.e. various well-known diseases), from lack of resistance to bad bacteria and viruses, or from an inability to cope with new conditions?

My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.


Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

Be a climate realist.[/i]

DAVID: A public interest entry. This guy was 'fair' and not like the global warming scare-folks. The UN IPPC is a money-gathering ploy: enough scare, more money donated out of fright. Just go back to the Climategate emails to see the farce. I've read them. And to be perfectly clear, I've read Gore's first alarming book with its debunked claims.

dhw: I can’t argue with any of this. I have no idea what the future holds. I have simply said that our present way of life is already creating huge damage to the environment and to all life including our own. You yourself have posted articles explaining how we are upsetting the balance of Nature. Something has to change.

It will have to be human nature


Landing on Mars

QUOTE: "The mission’s goal is to roll around Jezero Crater and collect rock samples from the river delta and an ancient lake that might hold evidence of past Martian life.”

DAVID: Just bringing the news to this site.

dhw: Thank you. It’s hit the headlines over here too. Despite the huge expense, I find this thrilling, as an example of humankind’s “perseverance” in the quest for clues to the mystery of life and the nature of the universe we live in.

The pictures it sent are fabulous.

https://www.universetoday.com/150197/perseverance-has-landed-here-are-its-first-picture...

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 21, 2021, 11:13 (1131 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.

dhw: The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

DAVID: Your objection is totally illogical. My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history.

But if he exists, he also chose to evolve millions of other life forms, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, but you insist that humans were his only purpose, and so you have no idea why he chose to evolve all the other life forms. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: The huge bush is food supply.

But the huge bush of the past was not for humans, and you insist that every life form etc. was "part of the goal of evolving humans".! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I never dodge this point of view. And you cannot demolish it, no matter hoe much you complain.

You have just repeated the same dodges that you have been using for months if not years. Please stop it, and let’s move on.

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

DAVID: It did in the sense I have given. So life would exist always.

And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

Physical change in speciation

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.

dhw: [referring to autonomous cellular intelligence): […] of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?]

DAVID: Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

dhw: Dear Dr Turell, have you never heard of people and animals dying from errors in the system (i.e. various well-known diseases), from lack of resistance to bad bacteria and viruses, or from an inability to cope with new conditions?

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 21, 2021, 21:51 (1131 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

dhw: The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

DAVID: Your objection is totally illogical. My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history.

dhw: But if he exists, he also chose to evolve millions of other life forms, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, but you insist that humans were his only purpose, and so you have no idea why he chose to evolve all the other life forms. Please stop dodging!

It is not a dodge. You don't accept my logic just as I don't accept the illogic of your complaint.

dhw: You have just repeated the same dodges that you have been using for months if not years. Please stop it, and let’s move on.

Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.


Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

DAVID: It did in the sense I have given. So life would exist always.

dhw: And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

Of course life will survive, but I see a difference of approach. Life is built to survive but evolution does not depend upon survival to drive it, which you imply


Physical change in speciation


DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

Organisms make minor adaptations by using information in their cell's DNA. That is all we know. You want cell committees to do the work to avoid direct actions by God. We will always differ on the point.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, February 22, 2021, 13:25 (1130 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history.

dhw: But if he exists, he also chose to evolve millions of other life forms, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, but you insist that humans were his only purpose, and so you have no idea why he chose to evolve all the other life forms. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: It is not a dodge. You don't accept my logic just as I don't accept the illogic of your complaint.

What logic? You have agreed that you have no idea why a God with a single purpose (H. sapiens plus food supply) would directly create millions of now extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

dhw: You have just repeated the same dodges that you have been using for months if not years. Please stop it, and let’s move on.

DAVID: Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.

Done – until the next time you raise the issue!

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

DAVID: It did in the sense I have given. So life would exist always.

dhw: And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

DAVID: Of course life will survive, but I see a difference of approach. Life is built to survive but evolution does not depend upon survival to drive it, which you imply.

What do you think is the purpose of adaptation, if it is not to survive? What do you think is the purpose of innovations if it is not to improve chances of survival?

Physical change in speciation

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

DAVID: Organisms make minor adaptations by using information in their cell's DNA. That is all we know. You want cell committees to do the work to avoid direct actions by God. We will always differ on the point.

You dismissed the theory of cellular intelligence because it would make mistakes, and I have pointed out to you that what you believe is your God’s direct handiwork has resulted in the mistakes that cause horrendous diseases etc. etc. Hence theodicy. Your scepticism concerning the autonomous ability of cells to design innovations is a separate subject. Please stick to the point.

Neanderthal contributions

QUOTES: "It was recently shown that the major genetic risk factor associated with becoming severely ill with COVID-19 when infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is inherited from Neandertals.
In contrast to the previously described Neandertal haplotype that increases the risk for severe COVID-19, this Neandertal haplotype is protective against severe disease.

DAVID: More evidence that interbreeding of human types aided in our overall immunities. Since different environments had different viruses the different disease experiences were combined in sapiens as as final product of evolution.

It would appear that we have inherited good and bad genetic factors from our ancestors, which is hardly surprising.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, February 22, 2021, 19:05 (1130 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: It is not a dodge. You don't accept my logic just as I don't accept the illogic of your complaint.

dhw: What logic? You have agreed that you have no idea why a God with a single purpose (H. sapiens plus food supply) would directly create millions of now extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

Why can't you accept the logic that God chose td evolve us from bacteria?

DAVID: Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.

dhw: Done – until the next time you raise the issue!

Fine


Extreme extremophiles

dhw: And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

DAVID: Of course life will survive, but I see a difference of approach. Life is built to survive but evolution does not depend upon survival to drive it, which you imply.

dhw: What do you think is the purpose of adaptation, if it is not to survive? What do you think is the purpose of innovations if it is not to improve chances of survival?

I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.


Physical change in speciation

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

DAVID: Organisms make minor adaptations by using information in their cell's DNA. That is all we know. You want cell committees to do the work to avoid direct actions by God. We will always differ on the point.

dhw: You dismissed the theory of cellular intelligence because it would make mistakes, and I have pointed out to you that what you believe is your God’s direct handiwork has resulted in the mistakes that cause horrendous diseases etc. etc. Hence theodicy. Your scepticism concerning the autonomous ability of cells to design innovations is a separate subject. Please stick to the point.

My response to God's creation of life and the inherent mistakes that occur are unavoidable from the model of biochemistry that life must use in actively living.


Neanderthal contributions

QUOTES: "It was recently shown that the major genetic risk factor associated with becoming severely ill with COVID-19 when infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is inherited from Neandertals.
In contrast to the previously described Neandertal haplotype that increases the risk for severe COVID-19, this Neandertal haplotype is protective against severe disease.

DAVID: More evidence that interbreeding of human types aided in our overall immunities. Since different environments had different viruses the different disease experiences were combined in sapiens as as final product of evolution.

dhw: It would appear that we have inherited good and bad genetic factors from our ancestors, which is hardly surprising.

Agreed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 12:53 (1129 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: Why can't you accept the logic that God chose to evolve us from bacteria?

How often do I have to repeat that the problem is why, if he only wanted to evolve [design] us, he also designed millions of life forms that had no connection with us? Please stop dodging, and let’s move on.

DAVID: Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.

dhw: Done – until the next time you raise the issue!

DAVID: Fine

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: What do you think is the purpose of adaptation, if it is not to survive? What do you think is the purpose of innovations if it is not to improve chances of survival?

DAVID: I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.

Of course not. Adaptation alone enables organisms to survive as themselves. But the argument goes that the same process that enables organisms to change their own structures may have enabled them to innovate as well as adapt. But innovation too would be motivated by the drive to improve chances of survival. Please tell us what other driving force you believe would motivate innovation.

Physical change in speciation

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.[…]

DAVID: My response to God's creation of life and the inherent mistakes that occur are unavoidable from the model of biochemistry that life must use in actively living.

You dismissed the theory of cellular intelligence because it would make mistakes. The model of biochemistry you say your God used produced “unavoidable” mistakes. Maybe the model of biochemistry your God used is the intelligent cell. With the same result.

How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

It seems as if one of the evolutionary mechanisms did work. Slower growth. So if your God didn’t bother about it, are you saying that the plant found this “partial remedy” all by itself? Sounds like some form of cellular intelligence then. One must always bear in mind the extinction of species – cellular intelligence does not solve all the problems. Hence the 99% extinction rate. No need to faff around trying to explain why God designed a system full of errors, plus bad bacteria and bad viruses. Let’s just assume he designed what he wanted to design – the system that led to the great and ever changing bush of life. What could be more interesting?

Transposons

DAVID: We know that transposons jump around, but not what controls the jumping. Chance or programmed?

I have read that the person who first discovered transposons was the Nobel-prize-winning Barbara McClintock. She was also a firm believer in cellular intelligence.Just thought it was worth mentioning.

Dualism

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

QUOTE: Epiphenomenalism, which I understand more precisely as the view that brain events cause conscious events, but conscious events never cause brain events, is self-defeating.

I don’t know what he means by “self-defeating”, but I would have assumed that if there is a soul, its thoughts will depend very largely on information delivered by the brain, and after processing the information, the soul will then use the brain to give material implementation to its conscious thoughts.

DAVID: I view the brain as a physical instrument the soul must use to form my immaterial conscious 'me'.

For once we agree on this description of dualism, following the process I have summarized above.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 16:49 (1129 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.

dhw: ...Please tell us what other driving force you believe would motivate innovation.

God of course

How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

It seems as if one of the evolutionary mechanisms did work. Slower growth... Let’s just assume he designed what he wanted to design – the system that led to the great and ever changing bush of life. What could be more interesting?

Back to a human God who needs interestng events.


Transposons

DAVID: We know that transposons jump around, but not what controls the jumping. Chance or programmed?

dhw: I have read that the person who first discovered transposons was the Nobel-prize-winning Barbara McClintock. She was also a firm believer in cellular intelligence. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

I know her role.


Dualism

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body


QUOTE: Epiphenomenalism, which I understand more precisely as the view that brain events cause conscious events, but conscious events never cause brain events, is self-defeating.

dhw: I don’t know what he means by “self-defeating”, but I would have assumed that if there is a soul, its thoughts will depend very largely on information delivered by the brain, and after processing the information, the soul will then use the brain to give material implementation to its conscious thoughts.

DAVID: I view the brain as a physical instrument the soul must use to form my immaterial conscious 'me'.

dhw: For once we agree on this description of dualism, following the process I have summarized above.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 12:13 (1128 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.

dhw: ...Please tell us what other driving force you believe would motivate innovation.

DAVID: God of course.

That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

It seems as if one of the evolutionary mechanisms did work. Slower growth... Let’s just assume he designed what he wanted to design – the system that led to the great and ever changing bush of life. What could be more interesting?

DAVID: Back to a human God who needs interestng events.

Why “needs”? Why not “wants” or, to use your own word: “desires”, as in your belief that he seems to be “full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.

Dualism (Swinburne)

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

DAVID: The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body.

That has nothing to do with the blatant contradiction between his two statements. If the material brain determines the properties of the immaterial soul, how can it be said that nothing in the body “entails what happens to my conscious life”?

Slime mold

QUOTE: “The ability to store and recover information gives an organism a clear advantage when searching for food or avoiding harmful environments, and has been traditionally linked to organisms that have a nervous system. A new study authored by Mirna Kramar (MPIDS) and Prof. Karen Alim (TUM and MPIDS) challenges this view by uncovering the surprising abilities of a highly dynamic, single-celled organism to store and retrieve information about its environment.

QUOTE: "The authors highlight that the ability of Physarum to form memories is intriguing given the simplicity of this living network. "It is remarkable that the organism relies on such a simple mechanism and yet controls it in such a fine-tuned way. These results present an important piece of the puzzle in understanding the behavior of this ancient organism and at the same time point to universal principles underlying behavior."

David, you have often dismissed the concept of cellular intelligence because cells do not have what we recognize as a brain. This entry clearly suggests that brain and nervous system are NOT prerequisities for intelligent behaviour.

Viruses

DAVID: What this seems to mean is that viruses are not an aberrant life form but necessary to the overall balance scheme for living organisms. That tells us there are good and bad viruses just like good and bad bacteria, good and bad predator animals, and good and bad humans, all playing a role in our reality.

Yes indeed. This is the great problem of theodicy. Your Swinburne tells us of God’s omnipotence and “perfect goodness” (though I don’t know how he knows, or even what his criteria are), so how come God created so much that has turned out to be bad? If he’s omnipotent, he could have created whatever he wanted to create. So he must have wanted to create the bad. But if he’s all good, why would he want to create the bad? Out of interest, may I ask you whether your concept of God includes “perfect goodness” (whatever that may mean)?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 15:53 (1128 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 15:59

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

To make living easier.


How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: Back to a human God who needs interesting events.

dhw: Why “needs”? Why not “wants” or, to use your own word: “desires”, as in your belief that he seems to be “full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.

The quote stands on it own. God 'desires' are not equivalent to human desires.


Dualism (Swinburne)

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

DAVID: The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body.

dhw: That has nothing to do with the blatant contradiction between his two statements. If the material brain determines the properties of the immaterial soul, how can it be said that nothing in the body “entails what happens to my conscious life”?

The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.


Slime mold

dhw: David, you have often dismissed the concept of cellular intelligence because cells do not have what we recognize as a brain. This entry clearly suggests that brain and nervous system are NOT prerequisities for intelligent behaviour.

Why did you erase my comment? "Comment: A physical-chemical mechanism is shown to easily replace a complex neuron network to create a mechanism of memory. This is much more understandable attribute than how slime mold solves mazes, but offers an answer: Thick and thin tubules respond to faint chemical traces from the maze goal and draws it forward by following intensity of the trace chemical." I obviously knew a brain is not needed!!!!!


Viruses

DAVID: What this seems to mean is that viruses are not an aberrant life form but necessary to the overall balance scheme for living organisms. That tells us there are good and bad viruses just like good and bad bacteria, good and bad predator animals, and good and bad humans, all playing a role in our reality.

Yes indeed. This is the great problem of theodicy. Your Swinburne tells us of God’s omnipotence and “perfect goodness” (though I don’t know how he knows, or even what his criteria are), so how come God created so much that has turned out to be bad? If he’s omnipotent, he could have created whatever he wanted to create. So he must have wanted to create the bad. But if he’s all good, why would he want to create the bad? Out of interest, may I ask you whether your concept of God includes “perfect goodness” (whatever that may mean)?

It's your British Swinburne, not mine. As a Christian theologian he has extremes of belief I
ignore, using only parts of his ideas I agree with. God is good is acceptable to me. Viruses are so common and numerous God obviously created and used them for his purposes. The 'bad' forms are our interpretation of them. There may be good involved.

Miscellany: how algae find light

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 18:57 (1128 days ago) @ David Turell

They need to use it and tehy can find it:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-celled-algae-rotate.html

"The tiny alga, which is found abundantly in fresh-water ponds across the world, swims by beating its two flagella, hair-like structures that adopt a whip-like movement to move the cell. These flagella beat in much the same way as the cilia in the human respiratory system.

"Chlamydomonas cells are able to sense light through a red eye spot and can react to it, known as phototaxis. The cell rotates steadily as it propels itself forwards using a sort of breaststroke, at a rate of about once or twice a second, so that its single eye can scan the local environment.

***

"The researchers discovered that the flagella were able to move the Chlamydomonas in a clockwise fashion with each power stroke, and then anticlockwise on the reverse stroke—akin to how a swimmer rocks back and forth when switching from one arm to another. Except here the cell feels no inertia.

"Furthermore, they also deduced how simply by exerting slightly different forces on the two flagella, the alga can even steer, rather than just move in a straight line.

"The researchers were able to show that by adding in an additional influence, such as light, the alga can navigate left or right by knowing which flagellum to stroke harder than the other.

"Dr. Kirsty Wan, who led the study said: "The question of how a cell makes these types of precise decisions can be a matter of life or death. It's quite a remarkable feat of both physics and biology, that a single cell with no nervous system to speak of is able to do this...It's an age-old mystery that my group is currently working hard to solve."

"For the study, the researchers were able to test various scenarios to determine which variables were influencing the trajectory. Their study showed that by varying different parameters, such as if one flagella is slightly stronger than another, the tilt plane of the flagella or its beat pattern, the algae can manipulate its own movement."

Comment: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 25, 2021, 12:53 (1127 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

DAVID: To make living easier.

“Easier”? All the home comforts? Please stop messing about with language. What do you mean here by “living” if not survival?

Dualism (Swinburne)

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

DAVID: The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body.

dhw: That has nothing to do with the blatant contradiction between his two statements. If the material brain determines the properties of the immaterial soul, how can it be said that nothing in the body “entails what happens to my conscious life”?

DAVID: The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.

If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?”

Slime mold

dhw: David, you have often dismissed the concept of cellular intelligence because cells do not have what we recognize as a brain. This entry clearly suggests that brain and nervous system are NOT prerequisities for intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: Why did you erase my comment? "Comment: A physical-chemical mechanism is shown to easily replace a complex neuron network to create a mechanism of memory. This is much more understandable attribute than how slime mold solves mazes, but offers an answer: Thick and thin tubules respond to faint chemical traces from the maze goal and draws it forward by following intensity of the trace chemical." I obviously knew a brain is not needed!!!!!

I didn’t need to quote you! I am delighted at your agreement with the article that there is a mechanism which enables organisms to act intelligently even though they do not have a brain or a nervous system.

How algae find light

QUOTE: The question of how a cell makes these types of precise decisions can be a matter of life or death. It's quite a remarkable feat of both physics and biology, that a single cell with no nervous system to speak of is able to do this...It's an age-old mystery that my group is currently working hard to solve."

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

red light stimulates moth sex

DAVID: No explanation of why it is important:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2268874-moth-species-becomes-more-sexually-active-...

QUOTE: "An Asian-Australian moth becomes more sexually active under red light than under another colour of light or in the dark.”

I have a theory. The Asian-Australian moth is actually descended from European moths (American as well?) who frequent various districts in towns and cities in which certain buildings are dedicated to sexual activities frowned on by the authorities (many of whom nevertheless make use of them). The moths will subconsciously have associated the red light with the activity associated with the red light. I am applying for a research grant to investigate this extremely important evidence of causative links between human and insect behaviour, and I do hope you will support my application.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 00:06 (1126 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

DAVID: To make living easier.

dhw: “Easier”? All the home comforts? Please stop messing about with language. What do you mean here by “living” if not survival?

God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought


Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.

dhw: If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?”

Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above


How algae find light

QUOTE: The question of how a cell makes these types of precise decisions can be a matter of life or death. It's quite a remarkable feat of both physics and biology, that a single cell with no nervous system to speak of is able to do this...It's an age-old mystery that my group is currently working hard to solve."

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

dhw: You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

For once we agree, but only at the tiny level of minor adaptations


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

God has reasons why He picks and chooses. He won't tell us why.


red light stimulates moth sex

DAVID: No explanation of why it is important:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2268874-moth-species-becomes-more-sexually-active-...

QUOTE: "An Asian-Australian moth becomes more sexually active under red light than under another colour of light or in the dark.”

dhw: I have a theory. The Asian-Australian moth is actually descended from European moths (American as well?) who frequent various districts in towns and cities in which certain buildings are dedicated to sexual activities frowned on by the authorities (many of whom nevertheless make use of them). The moths will subconsciously have associated the red light with the activity associated with the red light. I am applying for a research grant to investigate this extremely important evidence of causative links between human and insect behaviour, and I do hope you will support my application.

I will. :-) :-) :-) :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 26, 2021, 14:24 (1126 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

DAVID: To make living easier.

dhw: “Easier”? All the home comforts? Please stop messing about with language. What do you mean here by “living” if not survival?

DAVID: God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought

Survival is anything but a sure thing for living organisms. That’s why 99% of them have died out. I really don’t know what motive you can think of for adaptation and innovation other than to facilitate survival.

DAVID: These immobile organisms are surviving. The point I am making is life always survives, so survival is not an issue that drives evolution. Life designed peremptorily to survive. Opposite to the Darwin approach. Extremophiles make the concept clear.

Life is not an organism. Organisms adapt or die. Extremophiles do indeed make the concept clear: some organisms can adapt, and others can’t. Those that can, survive. Those that can’t, do not survive. It’s what you like to call the truism of the Darwinian approach, but the very mention of Darwin seems to make you believe that a truism can’t be true..

Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.

dhw: If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?

DAVID: Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above.

Of course. But if a sick brain causes sick consciousness, how can anyone possibly say “nothing that happens in my body/brain entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life?” You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Swinburne. Thank you for your support.

How algae find light

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

dhw: You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

DAVID: For once we agree, but only at the tiny level of minor adaptations.

An important step forward. If your God exists and designed an autonomous mechanism to make precise decisions without any input from him, it is not impossible to imagine that the same mechanism might make “precise decisions” that lead to major as well as minor adaptations.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

DAVID: God has reasons why He picks and chooses. He won't tell us why.

If God exists, no one can disagree with you. We can only discuss one another’s interpretations of his actions and possible reasons for those actions. So I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, he would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 18:17 (1126 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought

dhw: Survival is anything but a sure thing for living organisms. That’s why 99% of them have died out. I really don’t know what motive you can think of for adaptation and innovation other than to facilitate survival.

If it is not a sure thing, explain all the extremophiles I've presented. Life is built to survive, so it is not a problem in my view. Survival, Darwin style, does not drive evolution. we've covered my views before.


DAVID: These immobile organisms are surviving. The point I am making is life always survives, so survival is not an issue that drives evolution. Life designed peremptorily to survive. Opposite to the Darwin approach. Extremophiles make the concept clear.

dhw: Life is not an organism. Organisms adapt or die. Extremophiles do indeed make the concept clear: some organisms can adapt, and others can’t. Those that can, survive. Those that can’t, do not survive. It’s what you like to call the truism of the Darwinian approach, but the very mention of Darwin seems to make you believe that a truism can’t be true.

Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the first is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.


Dualism (Swinburne)

dhw: If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?

DAVID: Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above.

dhw: Of course. But if a sick brain causes sick consciousness, how can anyone possibly say “nothing that happens in my body/brain entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life?” You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Swinburne. Thank you for your support.

I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.


How algae find light

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

dhw: You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

DAVID: For once we agree, but only at the tiny level of minor adaptations.

dhw: An important step forward. If your God exists and designed an autonomous mechanism to make precise decisions without any input from him, it is not impossible to imagine that the same mechanism might make “precise decisions” that lead to major as well as minor adaptations.

We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

DAVID: God has reasons why He picks and chooses. He won't tell us why.

dhw: If God exists, no one can disagree with you. We can only discuss one another’s interpretations of his actions and possible reasons for those actions. So I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, he would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

Miscellany: does' extinct' mean really extinct

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 18:40 (1126 days ago) @ David Turell

No, it depends upon what humans find and the conclude:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-bird-believed-extinct-years-borneo.html

"Back sometime between 1843 and 1848 a bird now called the black-browed babbler was captured by naturalist Carl A.L.M. Schwaner. Records of the find are sketchy, but it appeared the bird had been captured on the island of Java. That finding was the one and only piece of evidence of the bird's existence—it is currently labeled as "data deficient" in ornithology texts. The bird was put into storage, and for the next 170 years, there were no further reports of its existence. Over time, the bird and its history became known as "the biggest enigma in Indonesian ornithology." Most in the field assumed it had gone extinct. Then, last year, a pair of researchers, Muhammad Rizky Fauzan and Muhammad Suranto captured a bird that they could not identify on the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo. They took pictures of it and sent them to colleagues, then released the bird.

"As the team conducted research on the bird in the pictures, it soon became clear that its description matched that of the bird in storage in the Netherlands. A closer look confirmed that it was indeed the same species—a living black-browed babbler.

"The bird was caught in Kalimantan, near the center of the island of Borneo, and its discovery proves the bird was only thought to be extinct because people were looking for it in the wrong place. Its existence also raises the question of how many of its species are living in Borneo, and whether it is at risk." (my bold)

Comment: 'At risk' is based only upon human judgement, which is this case is obviously faulty. With 99% extinct, why should we fight to save species other than the ones humans are known to be currently damaging??

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 09:20 (1125 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought

dhw: Survival is anything but a sure thing for living organisms. That’s why 99% of them have died out. […]

DAVID: If it is not a sure thing, explain all the extremophiles I've presented. Life is built to survive, so it is not a problem in my view. Survival, Darwin style, does not drive evolution. we've covered my views before.

I answered this last time:

dhw: Life is not an organism. Organisms adapt or die. Extremophiles do indeed make the concept clear: some organisms can adapt, and others can’t. Those that can, survive. Those that can’t, do not survive. It’s what you like to call the truism of the Darwinian approach, but the very mention of Darwin seems to make you believe that a truism can’t be true.

DAVID: Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the first is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.

You mean survival of the fittest, and I have just said that it is a truism, and I agree that it is circular reasoning, but you simply ignore the fact that it is not “life” but life forms that survive or do not survive. If you do not agree that organisms adapt in order to survive, please tell us what other reason you think they have for adapting.

Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above.

dhw: Of course. But if a sick brain causes sick consciousness, how can anyone possibly say “nothing that happens in my body/brain entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life?” You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Swinburne. […]

DAVID: I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.

And your statement above confirms that in direct contrast to Swinburne, you believe that what happens in your brain affects what happens in your conscious life (“creates a sick consciousness”). Why don’t you just say you agree with me, as you did on the “theodicy” thread?

How algae find light

DAVID: We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.

Why “imagined”? If my theories are “imagined”, so are they all, including your own. If, as you agree, your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to make “minor” decisions, why do you consider it to be beyond your God’s powers to enable them to make “major” decisions? Don’t forget that even for you, the intelligent behaviour of cells has a 50/50 chance of being the result of their own intelligence.

cetaceans get much less cancer

dhw: […] I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, [your God] would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

“Trained”? What does that mean? He popped in to give cetaceans courses on how to prevent cancer? All because their immunity was essential to his pursuit of his one and only goal, which was to directly design us? I am not attacking Adler. You have told us repeatedly that he does not deal with your theory of evolution. And I have always noted your term “committee” to replace my term “community”. It’s what one might call your effort to ridicule the theory by “humanizing” cells!

Packing DNA and repairing it

DAVID: Corrected typos in the title. Surprised you didn't note the cellular intelligence provided by God's coding DNA to handle this.

I really can’t comment on all the articles you post, and there was nothing I could add to this one. But I like your new comment. I have no problem with the idea that your God might have been the designer of cellular intelligence.

Extinction

QUOTE: "[…] its discovery proves the bird was only thought to be extinct because people were looking for it in the wrong place. Its existence also raises the question of how many of its species are living in Borneo, and whether it is at risk." (David’s bold)

DAVID: 'At risk' is based only upon human judgement, which is this case is obviously faulty. With 99% extinct, why should we fight to save species other than the ones humans are known to be currently damaging??

I don’t understand your comment. Of course only humans can judge if it’s at risk. And what is wrong with trying to save a species? If those that we are damaging deserve our efforts to preserve them, why shouldn’t we try to preserve other species as well?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 21:20 (1125 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.

dhw: I have just said that it is a truism, and I agree that it is circular reasoning, If you do not agree that organisms adapt in order to survive, please tell us what other reason you think they have for adapting.

Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.


Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.

dhw: And your statement above confirms that in direct contrast to Swinburne, you believe that what happens in your brain affects what happens in your conscious life (“creates a sick consciousness”). Why don’t you just say you agree with me, as you did on the “theodicy” thread?

I agreed with you. What else do you want?


How algae find light

DAVID: We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.

dhw: Why “imagined”? If my theories are “imagined”, so are they all, including your own. If, as you agree, your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to make “minor” decisions, why do you consider it to be beyond your God’s powers to enable them to make “major” decisions?

We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

cetaceans get much less cancer

dhw: […] I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, [your God] would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

dhw: He popped in to give cetaceans courses on how to prevent cancer? All because their immunity was essential to his pursuit of his one and only goal, which was to directly design us? I am not attacking Adler. You have told us repeatedly that he does not deal with your theory of evolution.

Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never go into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.


Extinction

QUOTE: "[…] its discovery proves the bird was only thought to be extinct because people were looking for it in the wrong place. Its existence also raises the question of how many of its species are living in Borneo, and whether it is at risk." (David’s bold)

DAVID: 'At risk' is based only upon human judgement, which is this case is obviously faulty. With 99% extinct, why should we fight to save species other than the ones humans are known to be currently damaging??

dhw: I don’t understand your comment. Of course only humans can judge if it’s at risk. And what is wrong with trying to save a species? If those that we are damaging deserve our efforts to preserve them, why shouldn’t we try to preserve other species as well?

I would send time and money only on stopping human damage. Natural extinctions should be ignored.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 09:22 (1124 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.

dhw: I have just said that it is a truism, and I agree that it is circular reasoning, If you do not agree that organisms adapt in order to survive, please tell us what other reason you think they have for adapting.

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on, but of course in your case we have a God who directly designs every life form anyway, and so he could always step in and perform operations on the latest batch of survivors to ensure that they did survive and that they then diversified. Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.

dhw: And your statement above confirms that in direct contrast to Swinburne, you believe that what happens in your brain affects what happens in your conscious life (“creates a sick consciousness”). Why don’t you just say you agree with me, as you did on the “theodicy” thread?

DAVID: I agreed with you. What else do you want?

You didn’t – you merely stood by your statement. Thank you for now agreeing with me that Swinburne was wrong. :-)

How algae find light

DAVID: We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.

dhw: Why “imagined”? If my theories are “imagined”, so are they all, including your own. If, as you agree, your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to make “minor” decisions, why do you consider it to be beyond your God’s powers to enable them to make “major” decisions?

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

Again, you merely reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining to me why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have now explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

cetaceans get much less cancer

dhw: […] I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, [your God] would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

dhw: He popped in to give cetaceans courses on how to prevent cancer? All because their immunity was essential to his pursuit of his one and only goal, which was to directly design us? I am not attacking Adler. You have told us repeatedly that he does not deal with your theory of evolution.

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never go into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

The theory that your God directly designed every species, natural wonder etc. in the history of life as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of biochemistry. The biochemistry would remain the same if your God designed every change or gave organisms the power to design their own changes. In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

Extinction

dhw: […] what is wrong with trying to save a species? If those that we are damaging deserve our efforts to preserve them, why shouldn’t we try to preserve other species as well?

DAVID: I would spend time and money only on stopping human damage. Natural extinctions should be ignored.

Well, I’m a softie. But I’m not consistent in my thinking. I would like to see the complete extinction of the bad bacteria and viruses you think your God directly created, but I’m all in favour of preserving the nice guys!

Are kookie theories justified?

QUOTE: "The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. (David’s bold)

A lovely article, very well suited to the AgnosticWeb! Thank you.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 16:05 (1124 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

dhw: I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on,...Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)


How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you merely reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining to me why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have now explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never goes into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

dhw: In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.


Are kookie theories justified?

QUOTE: "The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. (David’s bold)

dhw: A lovely article, very well suited to the AgnosticWeb! Thank you.

Delighted to present it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 01, 2021, 13:47 (1123 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

dhw: I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on,...Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

DAVID: God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)
And:
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

So your God, who is in total control of evolution, built organisms to survive, although 99% of them are extinct, but he built the extreme extremophiles to ensure that 1% would survive. I admit to being confused. Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

DAVID: The second aspect is origin of life theories. Since the Earth was not that hospitable at life's origin, whatever came first had to possess these same abilities for survival.

I agree. And the ability to adapt to changing conditions is fundamental to survival. That is the whole purpose of adaptation. But for some reason I simply cannot understand, you say that survival and improving chances of survival were NOT the purpose of adaptation and all the complex innovations that led from bacteria to humans.

DAVID: The great oxygenation event occurred much later and was a much easier way to create energy as we measure it in calories of heat. Of course antioxidants had to be added to control the oxygenation process, all part of good design. My view is always opposite Darwin. He emphasized survival to get rid of God. In my view God provides survival. We are diametrically opposite. There is no middle ground.

So God provides the mechanisms for survival, and that means survival is not the purpose of the mechanisms. I don’t get it. As for your attack on Darwin, you know as well as I do that he was an agnostic and saw “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species) He emphasized survival, because whether your God did or did not preprogramme or dabble every evolutionary innovation, it would make no sense at all for the innovation NOT to be geared to coping with existing conditions. And even devout Christians can believe that organisms descended from other organisms, and that pre-whale legs can have turned to flippers in order to help them adapt to life in the water.

How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never goes into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

dhw: [...] In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

Chixculub

DAVID: Not volcanoes says latest study:
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-asteroid-crater-case-dinosaur-extinction.html

"Researchers believe they have closed the case of what killed the dinosaurs, definitively linking their extinction with an asteroid that slammed into Earth 66 million years ago by finding a key piece of evidence: asteroid dust inside the impact crater.

DAVID: this is how real science works. Keep searching until the key proving evidence appears. In theoretical science, the theory must be based on existing known facts, not a network of guesswork.

I must confess I didn’t even know that Chixculub was in doubt! I support your plea for agnosticism (“keep searching”) until “key proving evidence” appears, and for theories to be based on existing known facts.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 01, 2021, 16:26 (1123 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)
And:
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

dhw: Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.


DAVID: The great oxygenation event occurred much later and was a much easier way to create energy as we measure it in calories of heat. Of course antioxidants had to be added to control the oxygenation process, all part of good design. My view is always opposite Darwin. He emphasized survival to get rid of God. In my view God provides survival. We are diametrically opposite. There is no middle ground.

dhw: So God provides the mechanisms for survival, and that means survival is not the purpose of the mechanisms....it would make no sense at all for the innovation NOT to be geared to coping with existing conditions. And even devout Christians can believe that organisms descended from other organisms, and that pre-whale legs can have turned to flippers in order to help them adapt to life in the water.

God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.


How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

dhw: It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

It remains an unproven theoretical conjecture.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.


Chixculub

DAVID: Not volcanoes says latest study:
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-asteroid-crater-case-dinosaur-extinction.html

"Researchers believe they have closed the case of what killed the dinosaurs, definitively linking their extinction with an asteroid that slammed into Earth 66 million years ago by finding a key piece of evidence: asteroid dust inside the impact crater.

DAVID: this is how real science works. Keep searching until the key proving evidence appears. In theoretical science, the theory must be based on existing known facts, not a network of guesswork.

dhw: I must confess I didn’t even know that Chixculub was in doubt! I support your plea for agnosticism (“keep searching”) until “key proving evidence” appears, and for theories to be based on existing known facts.

Not much is 100% proven.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 13:16 (1122 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)
And:
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

dhw: Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

DAVID: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

How algae find light

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

dhw: It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

DAVID: It remains an unproven theoretical conjecture.

So does your God theory and every theory that tries to explain every unsolved mystery.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

Neanderthal research

QUOTE: "Thus, Neandertals had a similar capacity to us to produce the sounds of human speech, and their ear was "tuned" to perceive these frequencies. This change in the auditory capacities in Neandertals, compared with their ancestors from Atapuerca, parallels archaeological evidence for increasingly complex behavioral patterns, including changes in stone tool technology, domestication of fire and possible symbolic practices. Thus, the study provides strong evidence in favor of the coevolution of increasingly complex behaviors and increasing efficiency in vocal communication throughout the course of human evolution."

DAVID: This study is based on preserved ear bones. Its weakness is the assumption that the auditory area of the brain was structurally advanced enough to handle the sounds of speech and make speech. My guess is, yes it was.

I have never understood the assumption that sapiens invented language. Does anyone seriously believe that earlier forms of human did not communicate? All life forms have means of communication, and our fellow animals use sound as one method. It seems to me that there would be a natural progression from a small range of sounds to a larger range of sounds as pre-sapiens expanded the range of subjects to be communicated. The brain would change and the other related parts of the anatomy would change in response to these new requirements. The more we invent and discover, the more sounds we need. Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 18:17 (1122 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

dhw: Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

Flippers are not an advance in evolution, just a side step to allow mammals into living in water. Flippers are speciation, not adaptation. Survival does not drive evolution, bacteria still here and working proves the point, evolution was never necessary for their survival.


DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

dhw: There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

My point: survival as used by Darwinists is not necessary to drive evolution. God does it.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

dhw: That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

Another distorted twist. Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

Neanderthal research

QUOTE: "Thus, Neandertals had a similar capacity to us to produce the sounds of human speech, and their ear was "tuned" to perceive these frequencies. This change in the auditory capacities in Neandertals, compared with their ancestors from Atapuerca, parallels archaeological evidence for increasingly complex behavioral patterns, including changes in stone tool technology, domestication of fire and possible symbolic practices. Thus, the study provides strong evidence in favor of the coevolution of increasingly complex behaviors and increasing efficiency in vocal communication throughout the course of human evolution."

DAVID: This study is based on preserved ear bones. Its weakness is the assumption that the auditory area of the brain was structurally advanced enough to handle the sounds of speech and make speech. My guess is, yes it was.

dhw: I have never understood the assumption that sapiens invented language. Does anyone seriously believe that earlier forms of human did not communicate? All life forms have means of communication, and our fellow animals use sound as one method. It seems to me that there would be a natural progression from a small range of sounds to a larger range of sounds as pre-sapiens expanded the range of subjects to be communicated. The brain would change and the other related parts of the anatomy would change in response to these new requirements. The more we invent and discover, the more sounds we need. Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

We fully agree. My quotes (first book) from "The Ape That Spoke", John MacCrone, 1991 supports our position. .

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 11:55 (1121 days ago) @ David Turell

I asked David what purpose whale flippers may have had other than to improve chances of survival in the water.

DAVID: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

dhw: Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

DAVID: Flippers are not an advance in evolution, just a side step to allow mammals into living in water. Flippers are speciation, not adaptation. Survival does not drive evolution, bacteria still here and working proves the point, evolution was never necessary for their survival.

Dealt with under “pre-planning”. Thank you for agreeing that speciation does NOT serve the purpose of advancing evolution (see your first comment above), but allows for an improvement to the organism’s chances of survival - or do you not regard “living” as being essential to survival?

DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

dhw: There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

DAVID: My point: survival as used by Darwinists is not necessary to drive evolution. God does it.

Please forget your antipathy towards Darwin and Darwinists. If your God provides organisms with adaptability, and adaptability is what enables organisms to survive, how can you say that survival is an “empty concept” and is not a motive (= a driving force) for whatever adaptive changes your God preprogrammes or dabbles?

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

dhw: That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

DAVID: Another distorted twist. Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

And I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but you keep telling me that Adler does not deal with your theory that your God directly designed every life form, and 99% had no connection with humans, although humans were your God’s only goal. We should not be arguing about what Adler says and doesn’t say. It’s another red herring. Please deal with the issues.

Neanderthal research

dhw: Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

DAVID: We fully agree. My quotes (first book) from "The Ape That Spoke", John MacCrone, 1991 supports our position.

I’m only reproducing this in order to celebrate our full agreement! It does sometimes happen! And as there are a few people out there who actually follow our discussions, let me once more reassure them that despite the fierce battles we wage on this website, David and I are actually the best of friends! :-)

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: After almost 70 years of research no one is any closer to figuring out the first steps, and my sneaking suspicion is we will never know.

More agreement, and a very apt comment for the AgnosticWeb.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 16:39 (1121 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My point: survival as used by Darwinists is not necessary to drive evolution. God does it.

dhw: Please forget your antipathy towards Darwin and Darwinists. If your God provides organisms with adaptability, and adaptability is what enables organisms to survive, how can you say that survival is an “empty concept” and is not a motive (= a driving force) for whatever adaptive changes your God preprogrammes or dabbles?

God advances evolution according to his plan; He is the driving force, not survival. He has made sure the 'process of living' survives as shown by extremophiles.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

dhw: That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

DAVID: Another distorted twist. Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

dhw: And I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but you keep telling me that Adler does not deal with your theory that your God directly designed every life form, and 99% had no connection with humans, although humans were your God’s only goal. We should not be arguing about what Adler says and doesn’t say. It’s another red herring. Please deal with the issues.

Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.


Neanderthal research

dhw: Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

DAVID: We fully agree. My quotes (first book) from "The Ape That Spoke", John MacCrone, 1991 supports our position.

I’m only reproducing this in order to celebrate our full agreement! It does sometimes happen! And as there are a few people out there who actually follow our discussions, let me once more reassure them that despite the fierce battles we wage on this website, David and I are actually the best of friends! :-)

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: After almost 70 years of research no one is any closer to figuring out the first steps, and my sneaking suspicion is we will never know.

dhw: More agreement, and a very apt comment for the AgnosticWeb.

Horrors!!! More agreement.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 04, 2021, 11:50 (1120 days ago) @ David Turell

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

dhw: And I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but you keep telling me that Adler does not deal with your theory that your God directly designed every life form, and 99% had no connection with humans, although humans were your God’s only goal. We should not be arguing about what Adler says and doesn’t say. It’s another red herring. Please deal with the issues.

DAVID: Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.

The red herring is that we are talking about the illogicalities in your theory of evolution, and all you want to talk about is Adler’s agreement with you that humans are exceptional, which I have also accepted over and over again.


Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.
"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 04, 2021, 17:35 (1120 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.

dhw: The red herring is that we are talking about the illogicalities in your theory of evolution, and all you want to talk about is Adler’s agreement with you that humans are exceptional, which I have also accepted over and over again.

Your illogicalities represent your confusion about my beliefs as to how God ran evolution as a part of His creations.>


Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.
"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

They just follow a series of God given instructions.


Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 05, 2021, 12:10 (1119 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.

dhw: The red herring is that we are talking about the illogicalities in your theory of evolution, and all you want to talk about is Adler’s agreement with you that humans are exceptional, which I have also accepted over and over again.

DAVID: Your illogicalities represent your confusion about my beliefs as to how God ran evolution as a part of His creations.

Your stated belief is that your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he designed millions of life forms, econiches, strategies, lifestyles and natural wonders, 99% of which had no connection with humans. That is the illogicality I challenge. What is my “confusion” and what are my "illogicalities"?

Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.

"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

DAVID: They just follow a series of God given instructions.

So every single interchange between the billions of bacteria inside the almost infinite number of individual humans (not to mention other life forms) was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or possibly dabbled at various intervals in history. Curiouser and curiouser.

Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 05, 2021, 15:48 (1119 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your illogicalities represent your confusion about my beliefs as to how God ran evolution as a part of His creations.

dhw: Your stated belief is that your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he designed millions of life forms, econiches, strategies, lifestyles and natural wonders, 99% of which had no connection with humans. That is the illogicality I challenge. What is my “confusion” and what are my "illogicalities"?

To repeat: God fully intended to design all forms on the way to a final production of the unique human form, through a process we call evolution. The bold is total distortion as I've always said God chose to evolve us from bacteria.


Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.

"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

DAVID: They just follow a series of God given instructions.

dhw: So every single interchange between the billions of bacteria inside the almost infinite number of individual humans (not to mention other life forms) was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or possibly dabbled at various intervals in history. Curiouser and curiouser.

Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.


Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 13:31 (1118 days ago) @ David Turell

The first entry on this thread concerned the illogicality of David’s theory of evolution, which we have already covered ad nauseam on other threads.

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

DAVID: They just follow a series of God given instructions.

dhw: So every single interchange between the billions of bacteria inside the almost infinite number of individual humans (not to mention other life forms) was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or possibly dabbled at various intervals in history. Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 15:46 (1118 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

dhw: What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

Cells do communicate in just that way following God's instructions.


Multiverses

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

dhw: And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

Agreed

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 07, 2021, 17:16 (1117 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

dhw: What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: Cells do communicate in just that way following God's instructions.

Nothing to do with the biome, then, So we are back to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions for all future forms of behaviour, or alternatively your God popping in to give bacteria the relevant lessons when something new crops up. Hard to swallow.

Multiverses

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

dhw: And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

DAVID: Agreed

Thank you. It’s good to have a balanced view, isn’t it?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 08, 2021, 01:19 (1116 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

dhw: What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: Cells do communicate in just that way following God's instructions.

dhw: Nothing to do with the biome, then, So we are back to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions for all future forms of behaviour, or alternatively your God popping in to give bacteria the relevant lessons when something new crops up. Hard to swallow.

It is so logic all if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing


Multiverses

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

dhw: And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

DAVID: Agreed

dhw: Thank you. It’s good to have a balanced view, isn’t it?

Yes, their view is certainly not mine.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 08, 2021, 14:12 (1116 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain

dhw: I found the second half of the article far from instructive, and indeed very confusing, not to say misleading (and in the context, I thought dualism and materialism were in fact irrelevant). Since currently you and I are the only contributors to the forum, and disagree on so many of our topics, it is doubly important for me to know your views – especially since in this case the author was dealing with medical matters on which you are our resident expert. :-)

DAVID: The main ns only point of the article for me is most brain studies are limited to areas and miss the point that the whole brain is always at work, so in a way thestudies are distorted in the impressions they present.

She also misses out the fact that it is not just the brain that contributes to our behaviour but the whole body, as illustrated in the “gut” article, though our discussion of that has changed direction..

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: It is so logic all if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing.

It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

ID explained: are cells intelligent

QUOTE: To be clear, most researchers do not think that white blood cells or bacteria are conscious, like dogs or cats. They are, however, often thought to be sentient (capable of feeling).
"At the very least, like complex machines, they are full of critical, interacting information. And sometimes, also like complex machines, they spookily manage to behave as if they were conscious.

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter.

Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 08, 2021, 15:51 (1116 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: The main ns only point of the article for me is most brain studies are limited to areas and miss the point that the whole brain is always at work, so in a way the studies are distorted in the impressions they present.

dhw: She also misses out the fact that it is not just the brain that contributes to our behaviour but the whole body, as illustrated in the “gut” article, though our discussion of that has changed direction..

She was making one point.


Your gut has a big brain

dhw: We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: It is so logical if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing.

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

They communicate because of His programming.


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter.

Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

They believe God is in charge as designer, no more.


C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

dhw: This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

dhw: The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

I appreciate this comment.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 11:59 (1115 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: It is so logical if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing.

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

DAVID: They communicate because of His programming.

I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: They believe God is in charge as designer, no more.

Just to make it clear: are you saying they do NOT propose that all cellular activities are governed by instructions that God issued 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of individual courses he delivers when necessary?

C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

dhw: This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

DAVID: I appreciate this comment.

I particularly value your appreciation of this, because if by chance anyone else happens to read it, it might help to remove some of the prejudices against Darwin arising out of both theistic and atheistic interpretations of his work. Thank you.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 20:15 (1115 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

DAVID: They communicate because of His programming.

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design orhelp


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.


C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

dhw: This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

dhw: The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

DAVID: I appreciate this comment.

dhw: I particularly value your appreciation of this, because if by chance anyone else happens to read it, it might help to remove some of the prejudices against Darwin arising out of both theistic and atheistic interpretations of his work. Thank you.

True agnostics recognize design implicates a need for a designer. They stop at naming one.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 11:48 (1114 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

DAVID: They communicate because of His programming.

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design or help.

The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

Bioluminescence

QUOTE: The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis.

DAVID: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It appears designed to me.

Of course it’s designed. The whole of life depends on symbiotic relationships, as cells learn to cooperate in different ways. However, I find it difficult to imagine that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for the bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria to help one another, or that he popped in to give them a special course, or indeed that this example of symbiosis was “a part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that these organisms design their own form of symbiosis, using their perhaps God-given intelligence?

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: [...] I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

Defining life

QUOTE: “We don’t want to know what the word life means to us,” Cleland said. “We want to know what life is.” And if we want to satisfy our desire, Cleland argues, we need to give up our search for a definition."

Hilarious! I wonder how much people get paid for concluding that their research is pointless.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 15:23 (1114 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design or help.

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.


Bioluminescence

QUOTE: The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis.

DAVID: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It appears designed to me.

dhw: Of course it’s designed. The whole of life depends on symbiotic relationships, as cells learn to cooperate in different ways. However, I find it difficult to imagine that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for the bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria to help one another, or that he popped in to give them a special course, or indeed that this example of symbiosis was “a part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that these organisms design their own form of symbiosis, using their perhaps God-given intelligence?

I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: [...] I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

I've always told yoou they don't.


Defining life

QUOTE: “We don’t want to know what the word life means to us,” Cleland said. “We want to know what life is.” And if we want to satisfy our desire, Cleland argues, we need to give up our search for a definition."

dhw: Hilarious! I wonder how much people get paid for concluding that their research is pointless.

Cleland is right. Exact definitions of life are of no matter. Understanding living biochemistry is.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 11, 2021, 09:38 (1113 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design or help.

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

DAVID: We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.

That is not an agreement. Nothing can be autonomous if it is following instructions! If cells act without new design or help, they are using the old design, which (theistic version) is the mechanism they were given by your God to enable them to communicate and act without new design or help.

Bioluminescence

QUOTE: The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis.

DAVID: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It appears designed to me.

dhw: Of course it’s designed. The whole of life depends on symbiotic relationships, as cells learn to cooperate in different ways. However, I find it difficult to imagine that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for the bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria to help one another, or that he popped in to give them a special course, or indeed that this example of symbiosis was “a part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that these organisms design their own form of symbiosis, using their perhaps God-given intelligence?

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations [“intelligent instructions” from 3.8 billion years ago or divine dabbling] of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

DAVID: I've always told you they don't.

Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

Photosynthesis

QUOTE: These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.
'What's interesting about this result is that we are seeing the protein turn the vibronic coupling on and off in response to environmental changes in the cell," said Jake Higgins, a graduate student in the Department of Chemistry and the lead author of the paper. "The protein uses the quantum effect to protect the organism from oxidative damage." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the billion before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 11, 2021, 15:45 (1113 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

DAVID: We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.

dhw: That is not an agreement. Nothing can be autonomous if it is following instructions! If cells act without new design or help, they are using the old design, which (theistic version) is the mechanism they were given by your God to enable them to communicate and act without new design or help.

Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.


Bioluminescence

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

dhw: You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

DAVID: I've always told you they don't.

dhw: Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

They find Shapiro as producing evidence of design.


Photosynthesis

QUOTE: These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.
'What's interesting about this result is that we are seeing the protein turn the vibronic coupling on and off in response to environmental changes in the cell," said Jake Higgins, a graduate student in the Department of Chemistry and the lead author of the paper. "The protein uses the quantum effect to protect the organism from oxidative damage." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

dhw: You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the billion before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

God sees to it they minimize damage because God designs the various complex parts of photosynthesis. Concentration of oxygen requires protective mechanism present at the same time. Simultaneous development required. Only design works.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 12, 2021, 08:03 (1112 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

DAVID: We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.

dhw: That is not an agreement. Nothing can be autonomous if it is following instructions! If cells act without new design or help, they are using the old design, which (theistic version) is the mechanism they were given by your God to enable them to communicate and act without new design or help.

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

An autonomous being is free to control itself. It does not follow instructions, just as – in your own words - it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

Bioluminescence

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

dhw: You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

DAVID: How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?

Not one encounter! Millions of encounters, whether by chance or by intention. Where do you get ONE encounter from?

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

DAVID: I've always told you they don't.

dhw: Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

DAVID: They find Shapiro as producing evidence of design.

Fair enough. But if they don’t mention God, and they don’t mention your anthropocentric theory of evolution, and they don't oppose Shapiro's theory of cellular intelligence, it seems that although you say “All ID folk side with the latter” (i.e. cells follow your God’s intelligent instructions), in fact the only common point between you and them is that they and you believe in intelligent design.

Photosynthesis

QUOTE: These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.[…]

DAVID: […] There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

dhw: You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the million before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

DAVID: God sees to it they minimize damage because God designs the various complex parts of photosynthesis. Concentration of oxygen requires protective mechanism present at the same time. Simultaneous development required. Only design works.

Yes, the protection only works when the protective mechanism is in place. That doesn’t mean millions of bacteria didn’t die before the protective mechanism came into place. The article says “they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.” This suggests that the protective mechanism only developed in response to the fatal encounter with oxygen. Same problem for bacteria as when they have to respond to new antibacterial medications.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 12, 2021, 18:43 (1112 days ago) @ dhw

Bioluminescence

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

dhw: You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

DAVID: How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?

dhw: Not one encounter! Millions of encounters, whether by chance or by intention. Where do you get ONE encounter from?

Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.


ID explained: are cells intelligent

dhw: Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

DAVID: They find Shapiro as producing evidence of design.

dhw: Fair enough. But if they don’t mention God, and they don’t mention your anthropocentric theory of evolution, and they don't oppose Shapiro's theory of cellular intelligence, it seems that although you say “All ID folk side with the latter” (i.e. cells follow your God’s intelligent instructions), in fact the only common point between you and them is that they and you believe in intelligent design.

True


Photosynthesis

DAVID: […] There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

dhw: You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the million before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

DAVID: God sees to it they minimize damage because God designs the various complex parts of photosynthesis. Concentration of oxygen requires protective mechanism present at the same time. Simultaneous development required. Only design works.

dhw: Yes, the protection only works when the protective mechanism is in place. That doesn’t mean millions of bacteria didn’t die before the protective mechanism came into place. The article says “they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.” This suggests that the protective mechanism only developed in response to the fatal encounter with oxygen. Same problem for bacteria as when they have to respond to new antibacterial medications.

If they all died from oxygen poisoning, nothing would develop as protection. God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 13:22 (1111 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

dhw: An autonomous being is free to control itself. It dos not follow instructions, just as – in your own words – it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

I hope your silence indicates that you now agree that if cells communicate without new design or help, they are autonomous and do not follow instructions.

Bioluminescence

DAVID: How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?

dhw: Not one encounter! Millions of encounters, whether by chance or by intention. Where do you get ONE encounter from?

DAVID: Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.

Successful strategies are passed on to other members of the species and to their descendants, and of course there is communication. Even bacteria communicate. What “arrangements” are you talking about? Does your God go round explaining the process to every organism involved in every form of symbiosis?

Photosynthesis

dhw: Yes, the protection only works when the protective mechanism is in place. That doesn’t mean millions of bacteria didn’t die before the protective mechanism came into place. The article says “they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.” This suggests that the protective mechanism only developed in response to the fatal encounter with oxygen. Same problem for bacteria as when they have to respond to new antibacterial medications.

DAVID: If they all died from oxygen poisoning, nothing would develop as protection.

But obviously they didn’t all die, just as they don’t all die when we discover a new means of killing them! The survivors develop the protection.

DAVID: God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

Please stop putting the word “natural” into my mouth. I am not hoping but am putting forward a theory, which (theistic version) is that your God endowed bacteria with the intelligence to design their own protective processes. The difference between this and your own theory is that you have your God designing, planning, overseeing absolutely everything that every organism ever does in order to protect itself. I propose that he has given them the means to do it themselves.

Lemurs

DAVID: We all know what hibernation looks like. Maybe they'll find out how it works. If it is their DNA as a special code, how did that happen? How did they learn to hibernate? Or did God adjust their code?

Since the only two methods for “code-adjusting” that you have offered us are a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or direct dabbling (all part of the goal of designing humans), may I suggest that perhaps (theistic version) your God gave to all cells/cell communities the intelligence to adapt themselves to the conditions in which they live. Just a suggestion. :-)

New proteins

QUOTE: The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.

DAVID: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer.

As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial? Are you sure the researchers are lying? Incompetent? Just supposing they are right, what might be the theistic explanation? God experimenting, perhaps? Or God creating a system whereby an infinite number of combinations produces an infinite variety of cell communities? As far as I know, your only objection to either of these “guesses” is that they do not fit in with your own guess that God knows everything in advance and always wants to maintain total control over evolution. This is why you continually enmesh yourself in a theory of evolution that defies all logic: method not matching purpose, agreeing that survival is the purpose of adaptation but insisting that survival plays no part in evolution, and getting your God to directly design “bad” bacteria and viruses for some unknown “good” reason.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 18:33 (1111 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 18:42

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

dhw: An autonomous being is free to control itself. It does not follow instructions, just as – in your own words – it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

dhw: I hope your silence indicates that you now agree that if cells communicate without new design or help, they are autonomous and do not follow instructions.

I don't change. Not worth a response.


Bioluminescence

DAVID: Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.

dhw: Successful strategies are passed on to other members of the species and to their descendants, and of course there is communication. Even bacteria communicate.

Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.


Photosynthesis

DAVID: God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

dhw: Please stop putting the word “natural” into my mouth. I am not hoping but am putting forward a theory, which (theistic version) is that your God endowed bacteria with the intelligence to design their own protective processes. The difference between this and your own theory is that you have your God designing, planning, overseeing absolutely everything that every organism ever does in order to protect itself. I propose that he has given them the means to do it themselves.

Same difference between us.

New proteins

QUOTE: The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.

DAVID: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer.

dhw:As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial?

I don't think multiple useless proteins are produced. I didn't quote the following, which you might have read:

"They then used evolutionary methods to reconstruct the likely structure of Goddard ~50 million years ago when the protein first arose. What they found was quite a surprise: "The ancestral Goddard protein looked already very much like the ones which exist in fly species today," Erich Bornberg-Bauer explains. "Right from the beginning, Goddard contained some structural elements, so called alpha-helices, which are believed to be essential for most proteins." (my bold)

The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 14, 2021, 12:07 (1110 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

dhw: An autonomous being is free to control itself. It does not follow instructions, just as – in your own words – it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

dhw: I hope your silence indicates that you now agree that if cells communicate without new design or help, they are autonomous and do not follow instructions.

DAVID: I don't change. Not worth a response.

I don’t understand how an organism can communicate without new design and help, can act autonomously, and yet has to follow instructions. But I can understand why you don’t wish to explain it.

Bioluminescence

DAVID: Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.

dhw: Successful strategies are passed on to other members of the species and to their descendants, and of course there is communication. Even bacteria communicate.

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

Photosynthesis

DAVID: God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

Dealt with on the theodicy thread.

New proteins

QUOTE: The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.

DAVID: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer.

dhw: As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial?

DAVID: I don't think multiple useless proteins are produced. I didn't quote the following, which you might have read:
"They then used evolutionary methods to reconstruct the likely structure of Goddard ~50 million years ago when the protein first arose. What they found was quite a surprise: "The ancestral Goddard protein looked already very much like the ones which exist in fly species today," Erich Bornberg-Bauer explains. "Right from the beginning, Goddard contained some structural elements, so called alpha-helices, which are believed to be essential for most proteins."
(DAVID’s bold)

You have quoted a successful example. May I please ask why you reject the researchers’ claim that there were multiple useless proteins.

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 14, 2021, 15:19 (1110 days ago) @ dhw

Bioluminescence

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

dhw: Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

He designs it into each new species He creates


New proteins

dhw: As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial?


DAVID: I don't think multiple useless proteins are produced. I didn't quote the following, which you might have read:
"They then used evolutionary methods to reconstruct the likely structure of Goddard ~50 million years ago when the protein first arose. What they found was quite a surprise: "The ancestral Goddard protein looked already very much like the ones which exist in fly species today," Erich Bornberg-Bauer explains. "Right from the beginning, Goddard contained some structural elements, so called alpha-helices, which are believed to be essential for most proteins."
(DAVID’s bold)

dhw: You have quoted a successful example. May I please ask why you reject the researchers’ claim that there were multiple useless proteins.

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 15, 2021, 11:54 (1109 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and Bioluminescence

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

dhw: Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

DAVID: He designs it into each new species He creates.

So 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme for possums to evolve out of pre-possums, and a programme for possums to pretend to be dead. Alternatively, when he stepped in to operate on the pre-possum, he inserted a programme that would switch itself on and make all possums lie down and pretend to be dead when necessary. For you it is out of the question that at some point in history, possums, migrating birds and ants might have worked out strategies to improve their chances of survival, and these successful strategies eventually became standard behaviour, having been passed on through generations of possums, birds and ants.

New proteins

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

DAVID: God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

There is no problem with the proposal that useless proteins would be discarded by natural selection, but please tell us what reasons you have for rejecting the researchers’ claim that there were large numbers of useless proteins. If their claim is true, and if your God doesn’t produce useless proteins, then maybe your God didn’t produce them directly but they arose out of his invention of a free-rein system which also produced harmful bacteria and viruses and nasty diseases.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 15, 2021, 17:05 (1109 days ago) @ dhw

Possums and Bioluminescence

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

dhw: Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

DAVID: He designs it into each new species He creates.

dhw: So 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme for possums to evolve out of pre-possums, and a programme for possums to pretend to be dead. Alternatively, when he stepped in to operate on the pre-possum, he inserted a programme that would switch itself on and make all possums lie down and pretend to be dead when necessary. For you it is out of the question that at some point in history, possums, migrating birds and ants might have worked out strategies to improve their chances of survival, and these successful strategies eventually became standard behaviour, having been passed on through generations of possums, birds and ants.

How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?


New proteins

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

DAVID: God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

dhw: There is no problem with the proposal that useless proteins would be discarded by natural selection, but please tell us what reasons you have for rejecting the researchers’ claim that there were large numbers of useless proteins. If their claim is true, and if your God doesn’t produce useless proteins, then maybe your God didn’t produce them directly but they arose out of his invention of a free-rein system which also produced harmful bacteria and viruses and nasty diseases.

Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 16, 2021, 12:07 (1108 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: For you it is out of the question that at some point in history, possums, migrating birds and ants might have worked out strategies to improve their chances of survival, and these successful strategies eventually became standard behaviour, having been passed on through generations of possums, birds and ants.

DAVID: How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?

I don’t understand your question. Possums don’t cover the instincts of ants and migrating birds! Every new species develops its own strategies! And successful strategies are passed on to succeeding generations. Why is this so difficult to understand?

New proteins

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

DAVID: God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

dhw: There is no problem with the proposal that useless proteins would be discarded by natural selection, but please tell us what reasons you have for rejecting the researchers’ claim that there were large numbers of useless proteins. If their claim is true, and if your God doesn’t produce useless proteins, then maybe your God didn’t produce them directly but they arose out of his invention of a free-rein system which also produced harmful bacteria and viruses and nasty diseases.

DAVID: Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

I can’t take sides on this because I have no knowledge of the field, but how do you know that their experiments were invalid? You are prejudging their findings because you don’t believe your God could possibly have produced anything useless. And yet, amazingly, you do believe that your God could deliberately design bad bugs and viruses, and that he could inadvertently design a system containing fatal errors which he would try (sometimes in vain) to correct.

Talbott and Shapiro

dhw: I don’t think Shapiro sets out to explain origins. As I understand it, his theory explains how evolution works – not through random mutations and not through your God personally programming or dabbling every innovation, strategy, lifestyle etc., but through the intelligence of cells. If, as you tell us, Shapiro is a practising Jew, then presumably he would believe that God is the inventor of the intelligent cell – but I suspect that he is wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs.

DAVID: Not from me. Known fact: Shapiro was president of his Temple. He never has discussed God's role as a practicing scientist. For Shapiro bacteria modify DNA with purpose, source of purposeful activity is a black box to Shapiro, which is what I implied above.

I don’t know how he could become president of his Temple without being a practising Jew, but it doesn’t matter. That’s why I suggested that he was wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, please stop trying to restrict his evolutionary theory to bacteria modifying DNA when I keep reproducing from your own book the quotes in which he explicitly says that cells are cognitive entities that produce evolutionary novelties. This theory concerns Chapter 2 in life’s history, and like Darwin he obviously steers clear of discussing origins.

Fingerprints

QUOTE: "Scientists have suspected that our circular, winding fingerprints might have evolved to improve our ability to grip objects by creating better friction, says Jarocka. But she says others have suggested they might contribute to our “very refined sense of touch”.

DAVID: We do not know when fingerprints appeared on our evolution. We are now learning their usefulness. Is this another 'stasis problem' appearing long before we developed fine use like violin playing? I would think so. Another special attribute in advance designed by God.

We do not know when or why fingerprints appeared, but it not a “stasis” problem. I do not for one moment believe that your God would have designed them so that later on we would be able to play the violin etc. If he exists and did design them, or if they were the product of the relevant cell communities, I would suggest that the reason might have been “to improve our ability to grip objects”, or some other situation in which a “refined sense of touch” gave us an extra advantage in coping with whatever tasks we wished to accomplish at that time.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 16, 2021, 18:59 (1108 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?

dhw: I don’t understand your question. Possums don’t cover the instincts of ants and migrating birds! Every new species develops its own strategies! And successful strategies are passed on to succeeding generations. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You do understand the question. We humans can communicate and quickly educate ourselves for new activities. How do possums do it? Show and tell involves being killed. You have no answer. And that applies to birds migrating, ants activities or termites air conditioning mounds for that matter. God handles it by giving instructions.


New proteins

DAVID: Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

dhw: I can’t take sides on this because I have no knowledge of the field, but how do you know that their experiments were invalid?

I presented the article only to point out the difficulty for natural evolution to find new necessary proteins. They had valid results with Darwinian interpretations.


Talbott and Shapiro

DAVID: Known fact: Shapiro was president of his Temple. He never has discussed God's role as a practicing scientist. For Shapiro bacteria modify DNA with purpose, source of purposeful activity is a black box to Shapiro, which is what I implied above.

dhw: I don’t know how he could become president of his Temple without being a practising Jew, but it doesn’t matter. That’s why I suggested that he was wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, please stop trying to restrict his evolutionary theory to bacteria modifying DNA when I keep reproducing from your own book the quotes in which he explicitly says that cells are cognitive entities that produce evolutionary novelties. This theory concerns Chapter 2 in life’s history, and like Darwin he obviously steers clear of discussing origins.

All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.


Fingerprints

QUOTE: "Scientists have suspected that our circular, winding fingerprints might have evolved to improve our ability to grip objects by creating better friction, says Jarocka. But she says others have suggested they might contribute to our “very refined sense of touch”.

DAVID: We do not know when fingerprints appeared on our evolution. We are now learning their usefulness. Is this another 'stasis problem' appearing long before we developed fine use like violin playing? I would think so. Another special attribute in advance designed by God.

dhw: We do not know when or why fingerprints appeared, but it not a “stasis” problem. I do not for one moment believe that your God would have designed them so that later on we would be able to play the violin etc. If he exists and did design them, or if they were the product of the relevant cell communities, I would suggest that the reason might have been “to improve our ability to grip objects”, or some other situation in which a “refined sense of touch” gave us an extra advantage in coping with whatever tasks we wished to accomplish at that time.

You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 13:26 (1107 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS

DAVID: How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?

dhw: I don’t understand your question. Possums don’t cover the instincts of ants and migrating birds! Every new species develops its own strategies! And successful strategies are passed on to succeeding generations. Why is this so difficult to understand?

DAVID: You do understand the question. We humans can communicate and quickly educate ourselves for new activities. How do possums do it? Show and tell involves being killed. You have no answer. And that applies to birds migrating, ants activities or termites air conditioning mounds for that matter. God handles it by giving instructions.

What do you mean by “show and kill”? The strategy worked, and so it was passed on. Migrating birds and mound-building termites found routes to warmer territories and building methods which worked, and so they passed them on. Every strategy must have started somewhere and at some time, and all organisms – not just humans – have the ability to communicate and learn. Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

New proteins

DAVID: Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

dhw: I can’t take sides on this because I have no knowledge of the field, but how do you know that their experiments were invalid?

DAVID: I presented the article only to point out the difficulty for natural evolution to find new necessary proteins. They had valid results with Darwinian interpretations.

If you are now saying that they did indeed find useless proteins, perhaps it might raise the question why your God would have created useless proteins. The question is not answered by your complaint that useless proteins would support Darwin’s theory of random mutations!

Talbott and Shapiro

DAVID: Known fact: Shapiro was president of his Temple. He never has discussed God's role as a practicing scientist. For Shapiro bacteria modify DNA with purpose, source of purposeful activity is a black box to Shapiro, which is what I implied above.

dhw: I don’t know how he could become president of his Temple without being a practising Jew, but it doesn’t matter. That’s why I suggested that he was wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, please stop trying to restrict his evolutionary theory to bacteria modifying DNA when I keep reproducing from your own book the quotes in which he explicitly says that cells are cognitive entities that produce evolutionary novelties. This theory concerns Chapter 2 in life’s history, and like Darwin he obviously steers clear of discussing origins.

DAVID: All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.

I have not blown it up into fact! Yes, it is a theory, but you keep pretending that Shapiro does not say what he says, although I keep repeating the quotes: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation.” “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions”.

Fingerprints

QUOTE: "Scientists have suspected that our circular, winding fingerprints might have evolved to improve our ability to grip objects by creating better friction, says Jarocka. But she says others have suggested they might contribute to our “very refined sense of touch”.

DAVID: We do not know when fingerprints appeared on our evolution. We are now learning their usefulness. Is this another 'stasis problem' appearing long before we developed fine use like violin playing? I would think so. Another special attribute in advance designed by God.

dhw: We do not know when or why fingerprints appeared, but it not a “stasis” problem. I do not for one moment believe that your God would have designed them so that later on we would be able to play the violin etc. If he exists and did design them, or if they were the product of the relevant cell communities, I would suggest that the reason might have been “to improve our ability to grip objects”, or some other situation in which a “refined sense of touch” gave us an extra advantage in coping with whatever tasks we wished to accomplish at that time.

DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

I am proposing that evolutionary developments must have come into existence for a reason (namely to improve chances of survival), and that – theistic version – your God would have designed the mechanisms that enabled organisms to do their own designing instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single development. You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 16:41 (1107 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

DAVID: You do understand the question. We humans can communicate and quickly educate ourselves for new activities. How do possums do it? Show and tell involves being killed. You have no answer. And that applies to birds migrating, ants activities or termites air conditioning mounds for that matter. God handles it by giving instructions.

dhw: What do you mean by “show and kill”?

Show and tell involves another possum watching the prey possum timing his stillness. It may work or not (gets killed). Now two possums know the trick. To have this spread throughout the possum population, it takes lots of time and lots of killed possums to work that way if it ever does.

dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

Remember the weaverbirds!!!


New proteins

DAVID: I presented the article only to point out the difficulty for natural evolution to find new necessary proteins. They had valid results with Darwinian interpretations.

dhw: If you are now saying that they did indeed find useless proteins, perhaps it might raise the question why your God would have created useless proteins. The question is not answered by your complaint that useless proteins would support Darwin’s theory of random mutations!

You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.


Talbott and Shapiro

DAVID: All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.

dhw: I have not blown it up into fact! Yes, it is a theory, but you keep pretending that Shapiro does not say what he says, although I keep repeating the quotes: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation.” “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions”.

And I have shown you when he faced the Royal society his conclusions were softened from his book quotes.


Fingerprints

DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

dhw: I am proposing that evolutionary developments must have come into existence for a reason (namely to improve chances of survival), and that – theistic version – your God would have designed the mechanisms that enabled organisms to do their own designing instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single development. You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

The God you entertain does not relate the God I accept. We've been over all of this.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 11:23 (1106 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS
DAVID: Show and tell involves another possum watching the prey possum timing his stillness. It may work or not (gets killed). Now two possums know the trick. To have this spread throughout the possum population, it takes lots of time and lots of killed possums to work that way if it ever does.

We don’t know precisely how any form of behaviour gets relayed to the whole species until it becomes the norm, but your explanation seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Maybe Pete Possum was the great inventor of the strategy. When it worked, Pete went home and told his family and all his mates, and they told their families and all their mates, and all the families and all the mates passed it on, and over the course of a few generations, lots and lots of possums knew about it and passed it on.

dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

DAVID: Remember the weaverbirds!!!

I can hardly forget them. Same idea: Willie Weaverbird invented a new nest-building technique, and passed on his knotty knowledge to family and friends etc., as above. (They might even have added their own knots to his prototype.) And your theory: divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (as part of the goal of designing humans), or personal tutorials, though even then, your God would have relied on his students to pass on the information – or do you think he’s still giving lessons?

New proteins
DAVID: You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.

What IS your point? If their findings are correct, then there were useless proteins. There is certainly no point in complaining that their research supports Darwin. If it does, then, it’s up to you to find an explanation that doesn’t support Darwin!

Talbott and Shapiro
DAVID: All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.

dhw: I have not blown it up into fact! Yes, it is a theory, but you keep pretending that Shapiro does not say what he says, although I keep repeating the quotes: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation.” “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions”.

DAVID: And I have shown you when he faced the Royal society his conclusions were softened from his book quotes.

I asked you before to point out any indication that he has rescinded his theory. You could not do so. In any case, I did not blow up his theory into fact.

Fingerprints
DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

dhw: […] You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

DAVID: The God you entertain does not relate the God I accept. We've been over all of this.

That is no reason to imply that my theory excludes God as designer.

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

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

Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

Chimps \'r\' not us: 3-D DNA shows vast differences

I don’t actually know of anybody who thinks that chimps ARE us. However, this opens up an almost infinite field for research, and in my constant quest for knowledge, I am now applying for a grant to prove that ants \’r’\ not us. I plan to follow this with the duck-billed platypus \is\not us (I don’t want to be accused of repetition) and so forth. I hope you will support my application.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 17:46 (1106 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

dhw: We don’t know precisely how any form of behaviour gets relayed to the whole species until it becomes the norm, but your explanation seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Maybe Pete Possum was the great inventor of the strategy. When it worked, Pete went home and told his family and all his mates, and they told their families and all their mates, and all the families and all the mates passed it on, and over the course of a few generations, lots and lots of possums knew about it and passed it on.

Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.


dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

DAVID: Remember the weaverbirds!!!

dhw: I can hardly forget them. Same idea: Willie Weaverbird invented a new nest-building technique, and passed on his knotty knowledge to family and friends etc., as above.

Same non-answer. The first weaver who invented the knots has to show them to the next bird. The nests provide survival. With your view of very slow spread how did that happen?


New proteins

DAVID: You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.

dhw: What IS your point? If their findings are correct, then there were useless proteins. There is certainly no point in complaining that their research supports Darwin. If it does, then, it’s up to you to find an explanation that doesn’t support Darwin!

I fully doubt their invented ancient useless proteins ever existed! Their whole position is based on belief those invented proteins really existed.


Fingerprints
DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

dhw: […] You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

DAVID: The God you entertain does not relate the God I accept. We've been over all of this.

dhw: That is no reason to imply that my theory excludes God as designer.

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

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

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

It does.


Chimps \'r\' not us: 3-D DNA shows vast differences

dhw: I don’t actually know of anybody who thinks that chimps ARE us. However, this opens up an almost infinite field for research, and in my constant quest for knowledge, I am now applying for a grant to prove that ants \’r’\ not us. I plan to follow this with the duck-billed platypus \is\not us (I don’t want to be accused of repetition) and so forth. I hope you will support my application.

I do. We are not 98% chimps as the identification of bases alone implies.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 19, 2021, 12:37 (1105 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS
dhw: We don’t know precisely how any form of behaviour gets relayed to the whole species until it becomes the norm, but your explanation seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Maybe Pete Possum was the great inventor of the strategy. When it worked, Pete went home and told his family and all his mates, and they told their families and all their mates, and all the families and all the mates passed it on, and over the course of a few generations, lots and lots of possums knew about it and passed it on.

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

DAVID: Remember the weaverbirds!!!

dhw: I can hardly forget them. Same idea: Willie Weaverbird invented a new nest-building technique, and passed on his knotty knowledge to family and friends etc., as above.

DAVID Same non-answer. The first weaver who invented the knots has to show them to the next bird. The nests provide survival. With your view of very slow spread how did that happen?

It’s not a non-answer. Every invention and strategy has to start somewhere. That doesn’t mean the rest of the species died before Willie came up with his invention! We have no idea how fast improvements can spread, but once you realize that organisms actually communicate with one another, you may join the whale researchers in discovering that “there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated”. Your blinkered view of communications reminds me of Shapiro’s complaint about “large organisms chauvinism”. Our fellow animals do not have to speak English or any other human language in order to pass on information.

New proteins
DAVID: You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.

dhw: What IS your point? If their findings are correct, then there were useless proteins. There is certainly no point in complaining that their research supports Darwin. If it does, then, it’s up to you to find an explanation that doesn’t support Darwin!

DAVID: I fully doubt their invented ancient useless proteins ever existed! Their whole position is based on belief those invented proteins really existed.

So now you are questioning their research, which a moment ago “found probably useless proteins”. Either they did or they didn’t. I’m in no position to judge. If they did find them, you have a problem which for some reason you blame on Darwin. If they didn’t find them, there is nothing to discuss except the integrity or competence of the researchers. Please ensure that your comments do not lead to a prosecution for libel!


Giraffes
QUOTE: These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. […] pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe." (David’s bold)

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

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 19, 2021, 15:42 (1105 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?


Giraffes

QUOTE: These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. […] pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe." (David’s bold)

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

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."


Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

dhw: And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

Ah, full agreement.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 20, 2021, 09:21 (1104 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

DAVID: Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?

The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

Giraffes
DAVID: […] How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

dhw: And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

DAVID: Ah, full agreement.

We agnostics tend to maintain a balanced view. We do not have fixed views that force us to minimize the importance of arguments that might cast a doubt on those views. However, to keep the balance, we agnostics must also acknowledge that one set of fixed views must be closer to the truth than the other, and we should respect the different faiths (in some sort of God, or in the creative powers of chance) even if we cannot share them.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 20, 2021, 14:17 (1104 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

DAVID: Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?

The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.


Giraffes
DAVID: […] How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

dhw: I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

Your theories do seem logical in some circumstances, especially as your humanized God acts.


Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

dhw: And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

DAVID: Ah, full agreement.

dhw: We agnostics tend to maintain a balanced view. We do not have fixed views that force us to minimize the importance of arguments that might cast a doubt on those views. However, to keep the balance, we agnostics must also acknowledge that one set of fixed views must be closer to the truth than the other, and we should respect the different faiths (in some sort of God, or in the creative powers of chance) even if we cannot share them.

Yes, a finely tuned balance om the picket fence. I'm sure when you fall off you immediately bounce back on.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 12:25 (1103 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS
DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

DAVID: Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?

dhw: The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

Giraffes
DAVID: […] How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

dhw: I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

DAVID: Your theories do seem logical in some circumstances, especially as your humanized God acts.

You have never yet come up with a single flaw in the logic of my theories, which is why you go on desperately trying to avoid the implications of your own acknowledgement that your God possibly (and earlier it was probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. You even repeated this just over a month ago: “His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires”. I would certainly agree that he is unlikely to have human desires for sex, money, chocolate etc, but you later wrote: “He seems to me to be full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creation themselves”. I can well imagine him desiring to create, and have no idea why even though you are certain that he has that desire, he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he had the desire to create.

Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 15:25 (1103 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

dhw: The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer.


Giraffes

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

dhw: I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

DAVID: Your theories do seem logical in some circumstances, especially as your humanized God acts.

dhw: You have never yet come up with a single flaw in the logic of my theories, which is why you go on desperately trying to avoid the implications of your own acknowledgement that your God possibly (and earlier it was probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. You even repeated this just over a month ago: “His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires”. I would certainly agree that he is unlikely to have human desires for sex, money, chocolate etc, but you later wrote: “He seems to me to be full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creation themselves”. I can well imagine him desiring to create, and have no idea why even though you are certain that he has that desire, he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he had the desire to create.

I'm glad you alone have the ability to find my old quotes so easily. Your logic has no flaw once you have established primarily how human God seems to be to you. I start with a totally different image of my God and I'm also fully logical following that established image. I can't allow you to change my image of God or challenge my logic. Please try to remember we have no common ground when it comes to thinking abut God's personality.


Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations?

Still obsessed with human specialness. How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 22, 2021, 12:20 (1102 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
dhw: Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

DAVID: A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer.

I don’t see how the ability of animals to communicate constitutes a non-answer, but I’m quite happy to include demonstration as a means of communication. We use it ourselves. What’s the problem? We know that modern possums perform the trick, though we have no idea how long or how many dead possums it took for the modern possum to make it a set piece in the great struggle for survival. Why does this have to mean that your God preprogrammed the first cells with possums and with their play-dead strategy, or that he popped in to give possums play-dead instructions which presumably they would have passed on just as my possums did?

Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations? [David's bold]

DAVID: Still obsessed with human specialness.

That is your obsession. My comment merely highlights your insistence that every life form, lifestyle, strategy etc. is/was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

How? Please answer my bolded questions. And yes, you may be surprised to hear that migrating birds do indeed find their way back, year after year. And they give birth to new generations, and no doubt teach them the route and the stopping places and how to find food on the way. As to the details of how our fellow organisms communicate, you are asking me to write a book! You know as well as I do that they communicate at all levels, using their voices (didn’t you know that birds had voices and their different calls are known to have different meanings?), bodies, gestures, chemicals, smells etc.

Spider hearing and net slinging

DAVID: The same old problem, how did this behaviour evolve? It is a neat trick. The prey sneaks up in back not realizing the spider hears them. I believe God gave them the trick and dhw will claim one of them figured it out and 'told' the others, when like the possum it requires demonstrations to the species of the nets construction and the special backward thrust at the right moment to create the right technique. At the human level we coach to teach others. Do spiders?

It seems that this particular trick is performed in Florida. Nobody knows how this behaviour originated, though why your God should have popped into Florida and given courses in net slinging to whole groups of spiders when all he ever wanted to do was design H. sapiens and his food supply, is beyond my understanding. However, I really don’t have a problem with your proposal that the inventor demonstrated it and it got passed on by others who also demonstrated it. Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 22, 2021, 16:37 (1102 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

DAVID: A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer.

dhw: I don’t see how the ability of animals to communicate constitutes a non-answer, but I’m quite happy to include demonstration as a means of communication... Why does this have to mean that your God preprogrammed the first cells with possums and with their play-dead strategy, or that he popped in to give possums play-dead instructions which presumably they would have passed on just as my possums did?

You have answered the point that the way the possum-playing is taught must by demonstration.


Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations? [David's bold]

DAVID: Still obsessed with human specialness.

dhw: That is your obsession. My comment merely highlights your insistence that every life form, lifestyle, strategy etc. is/was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

And we are improbably here, not explained at all by Darwin theory of survival.


DAVID: How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

dhw: How? Please answer my bolded questions.

Usual answer. God designs. Bird migration has to be demonstrated by first bird to others if he survives. God has all birds of a species do it.

Spider hearing and net slinging

DAVID: The same old problem, how did this behaviour evolve? It is a neat trick. The prey sneaks up in back not realizing the spider hears them. I believe God gave them the trick and dhw will claim one of them figured it out and 'told' the others, when like the possum it requires demonstrations to the species of the nets construction and the special backward thrust at the right moment to create the right technique. At the human level we coach to teach others. Do spiders?

dhw: It seems that this particular trick is performed in Florida. Nobody knows how this behaviour originated, though why your God should have popped into Florida and given courses in net slinging to whole groups of spiders when all he ever wanted to do was design H. sapiens and his food supply, is beyond my understanding. However, I really don’t have a problem with your proposal that the inventor demonstrated it and it got passed on by others who also demonstrated it. Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

Finally, yes demonstration is required if speech doesn't exist. Apply to possums.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 11:53 (1101 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

DAVID: A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer. […]

I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: […] how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: […]. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? bbbIf they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations? [David's bold] […]

DAVID: […] How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

dhw: How? Please answer my bolded questions.

DAVID: Usual answer. God designs. Bird migration has to be demonstrated by first bird to others if he survives. God has all birds of a species do it.

You asked how birds learned to migrate, and concluded “I would offer God’s instructions”. My proposal for all these wonders is that once they had been initiated (whether by luck or skill), the respective organisms were able to communicate the strategy to others of their species. Now all of a sudden you have fixed on one mode of communication – demonstration - as if somehow that negated birds’ ability to teach their young! You apply the same weird comment to spider nets:

dhw: Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

DAVID: Finally, yes demonstration is required if speech doesn't exist. Apply to possums.

Of course they use demonstration. Our fellow animals also use other forms of communication, including sounds. The point here is you now agree that once the first wonder has been performed – whether through intelligence, luck, new discovery, experimentation etc. – the information will be passed on. So why does your God have to preprogramme the wonders, or give instructions?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 18:06 (1101 days ago) @ dhw

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher wo has to time it just right..


Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: […] how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: You asked how birds learned to migrate, and concluded “I would offer God’s instructions”. My proposal for all these wonders is that once they had been initiated (whether by luck or skill), the respective organisms were able to communicate the strategy to others of their species. Now all of a sudden you have fixed on one mode of communication – demonstration - as if somehow that negated birds’ ability to teach their young! You apply the same weird comment to spider nets:

dhw: Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

DAVID: Finally, yes demonstration is required if speech doesn't exist. Apply to possums.

dhw: Of course they use demonstration. Our fellow animals also use other forms of communication, including sounds. The point here is you now agree that once the first wonder has been performed – whether through intelligence, luck, new discovery, experimentation etc. – the information will be passed on. So why does your God have to preprogramme the wonders, or give instructions?

A very poor answer. Just what info do animal sounds really convey? We have sounds of alarm, attention, bird mating calls, pheromones' scents, but instructional sounds? Language helps us. God provides instincts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 09:05 (1100 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

DAVID: Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher wo has to time it just right..

This is getting really silly. When Pete the possum played dead and survived, do you honestly think he then asked the family to come and watch (perhaps even leaving themselves exposed), while the next eagle circled the sky above? We don’t know exactly how our fellow creatures pass on information – we only know that they do, through methods that include demonstration, sounds, gestures, chemicals etc. We don’t speak their “languages”. But I really wonder how many of your fellow ID-ers believe that animals are incapable of devising and disseminating their strategies of survival, and that God must have preprogrammed possums and the play-dead trick 3.8 billion years ago, or that he gave possums courses in how to play dead and has gone on doing so because they are incapable of passing the information on to others. But do please tell us how else you think your God might get the message to all possums. (The rest of this section deals with the same subject, so I’ll move on.)

Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 17:36 (1100 days ago) @ dhw

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

DAVID: Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher wo has to time it just right..

dhw: This is getting really silly. When Pete the possum played dead and survived, do you honestly think he then asked the family to come and watch (perhaps even leaving themselves exposed), while the next eagle circled the sky above? We don’t know exactly how our fellow creatures pass on information – we only know that they do, through methods that include demonstration, sounds, gestures, chemicals etc. We don’t speak their “languages”. But I really wonder how many of your fellow ID-ers believe that animals are incapable of devising and disseminating their strategies of survival, and that God must have preprogrammed possums and the play-dead trick 3.8 billion years ago, or that he gave possums courses in how to play dead and has gone on doing so because they are incapable of passing the information on to others. But do please tell us how else you think your God might get the message to all possums. (The rest of this section deals with the same subject, so I’ll move on.)

I'm seriously putting myself in the possum's position and my questions are entirely valid. Did the possums do it naturally to create the instinct? Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.


Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

dhw: My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

My God designed the penguin changes including the new biochemistry of hemoglobin.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 25, 2021, 12:38 (1099 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

DAVID: Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher who has to time it just right..

dhw: This is getting really silly. When Pete the possum played dead and survived, do you honestly think he then asked the family to come and watch (perhaps even leaving themselves exposed), while the next eagle circled the sky above? We don’t know exactly how our fellow creatures pass on information – we only know that they do, through methods that include demonstration, sounds, gestures, chemicals etc. We don’t speak their “languages”. […] But do please tell us how else you think your God might get the message to all possums.

DAVID: I'm seriously putting myself in the possum's position and my questions are entirely valid. Did the possums do it naturally to create the instinct? Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.

Of course I assume communication. How else can information be passed on? And I assume the strategy came about "naturally", i.e. through the luck or skill of possums themselves. “God arranged the instinct” is no answer to my question! You have given us two possibilities in the past: a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme to be passed on for possums and for the strategy of playing dead, or direct intervention (we have called it dabbling), which must somehow entail direct communication with all possums. What sort of communication would that be? Please answer.

Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

dhw: My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

DAVID: My God designed the penguin changes including the new biochemistry of hemoglobin.

And do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water, or could they have developed their web feet after they had taken to the water?

Introducing the brain
Quote: “He pricked volunteers’ fingers and measured the nerve impulses from the finger to the brain and timed everything. Libet found that it took about a half second for any electrical activity to register in the brain after the finger prick. But the volunteer reported feeling the finger prick the moment it happened. In other words, the volunteers felt the prick a half second before the brain showed any activity corresponding to it.

Frankly, I don’t know how any normal person would feel the difference between “immediately” and after half a second. And if it takes half a second for the pain to travel from finger to brain, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with the “soul”, whether that exists or not.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis.

I’m sorry to say this, but what you have just said would provide the death knell to most of your own theories. And so I will leap to your defence: I do not for one moment accept any claim that science can or one day will be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But that needn’t stop scientists or theologians from “pursuing fantasies”, so long as they don’t claim their imaginings are based on science. And who knows - one of the many fantasies may be the truth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 25, 2021, 18:52 (1099 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: I'm seriously putting myself in the possum's position and my questions are entirely valid. Did the possums do it naturally to create the instinct? Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.

Of course I assume communication. How else can information be passed on? And I assume the strategy came about "naturally", i.e. through the luck or skill of possums themselves. “God arranged the instinct” is no answer to my question! You have given us two possibilities in the past: a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme to be passed on for possums and for the strategy of playing dead, or direct intervention (we have called it dabbling), which must somehow entail direct communication with all possums. What sort of communication would that be? Please answer.

I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.


Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

dhw: My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

DAVID: My God designed the penguin changes including the new biochemistry of hemoglobin.

dhw: And do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water, or could they have developed their web feet after they had taken to the water?

I haven't changed. God designs adaptations for major environmental requirements in an new form of living style such as birds getting into ocean water and mammals into far ranging ocean travels


Introducing the brain
Quote: “He pricked volunteers’ fingers and measured the nerve impulses from the finger to the brain and timed everything. Libet found that it took about a half second for any electrical activity to register in the brain after the finger prick. But the volunteer reported feeling the finger prick the moment it happened. In other words, the volunteers felt the prick a half second before the brain showed any activity corresponding to it.

dhw: Frankly, I don’t know how any normal person would feel the difference between “immediately” and after half a second. And if it takes half a second for the pain to travel from finger to brain, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with the “soul”, whether that exists or not.

You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected. Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain. When I prick a finger the pain seems instantaneous to me with no noticeable brief delay. Libet's finding surprised me, but thinking of the axon transmission times I know the time required is not instantaneous, like it would seem over electric wires. I accept that Egnor has a definite point, and no surprise your mind is closed.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis.

dhw: I’m sorry to say this, but what you have just said would provide the death knell to most of your own theories. And so I will leap to your defence: I do not for one moment accept any claim that science can or one day will be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But that needn’t stop scientists or theologians from “pursuing fantasies”, so long as they don’t claim their imaginings are based on science. And who knows - one of the many fantasies may be the truth.

Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 26, 2021, 12:53 (1098 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.

dhw: Of course I assume communication. How else can information be passed on? “God arranged the instinct” is no answer to my question! You have given us two possibilities in the past: a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme to be passed on for possums and for the strategy of playing dead, or direct intervention (we have called it dabbling), which must somehow entail direct communication with all possums. What sort of communication would that be? Please answer.

DAVID: I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.

So when I suggest that organisms communicate by demonstration, gestures, sounds, chemicals, it doesn’t count as an answer, whereas your God “somehow” preprogramming or dabbling or instructing is an answer you can accept and stick with.

Penguins
dhw: And do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water, or could they have developed their web feet after they had taken to the water?

DAVID: I haven't changed. God designs adaptations for major environmental requirements in an new form of living style such as birds getting into ocean water and mammals into far ranging ocean travels.

So do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water? And how do you think he “designed” migration and passed the information to every migrating bird for the rest of their time on Earth?

Introducing the brain
QUOTE: “He pricked volunteers’ fingers and measured the nerve impulses from the finger to the brain and timed everything. Libet found that it took about a half second for any electrical activity to register in the brain after the finger prick. But the volunteer reported feeling the finger prick the moment it happened. In other words, the volunteers felt the prick a half second before the brain showed any activity corresponding to it.

dhw: Frankly, I don’t know how any normal person would feel the difference between “immediately” and after half a second. And if it takes half a second for the pain to travel from finger to brain, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with the “soul”, whether that exists or not.

DAVID: You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected.

No I’m not. I’m simply asking what the half-second “gap” has to do with the soul.

DAVID: Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain.

Not in the least. I can completely understand why the sensation of pain might take half a second to travel from the finger to the brain and why people should actually think half a second = immediately.

DAVID: […] I accept that Egnor has a definite point, and no surprise your mind is closed.

My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis.

dhw: I’m sorry to say this, but what you have just said would provide the death knell to most of your own theories. And so I will leap to your defence: I do not for one moment accept any claim that science can or one day will be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But that needn’t stop scientists or theologians from “pursuing fantasies”, so long as they don’t claim their imaginings are based on science. And who knows - one of the many fantasies may be the truth.

DAVID: Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

You refuse to be saved!!! God is an unprovable conjecture. We need to leave this Earth to prove any of it, and even then it can only be proved if we do not die when we die. So should we stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof? If so, farewell to the AgnosticWeb….:-(

Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

DAVID: As the complexity is explored at sub-microscopic levels the evidence for a required designer grows.

As always, I accept your logic as a powerful response to atheism. I wish we had a committed resident atheist contributing to the forum, as happily you are here to defend the case for God against my scepticism, but in the context of complexity and design, I cannot in turn provide a defence for atheism.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 26, 2021, 15:11 (1098 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.

dhw: So when I suggest that organisms communicate by demonstration, gestures, sounds, chemicals, it doesn’t count as an answer, whereas your God “somehow” preprogramming or dabbling or instructing is an answer you can accept and stick with.

Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.


Penguins

dhw: So do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water? And how do you think he “designed” migration and passed the information to every migrating bird for the rest of their time on Earth?

God speciates to anticipate use for new needs


Introducing the brain

DAVID: You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected.

No I’m not. I’m simply asking what the half-second “gap” has to do with the soul.

DAVID: Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain.

dhw: Not in the least. I can completely understand why the sensation of pain might take half a second to travel from the finger to the brain and why people should actually think half a second = immediately.

For me the pinprick is instantaneous. Libet's subjects thought so also which created the gap in time.

dhw: My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

Egnor did. The soul recognizes the immediate pain.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like

DAVID: Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

dhw: You refuse to be saved!!! God is an unprovable conjecture. We need to leave this Earth to prove any of it, and even then it can only be proved if we do not die when we die. So should we stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof? If so, farewell to the AgnosticWeb….:-(

I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)


Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

dhw: This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

And who built in the flexibility? Natural chance?


DAVID: As the complexity is explored at sub-microscopic levels the evidence for a required designer grows.

dhw: As always, I accept your logic as a powerful response to atheism. I wish we had a committed resident atheist contributing to the forum, as happily you are here to defend the case for God against my scepticism, but in the context of complexity and design, I cannot in turn provide a defence for atheism.

Fair enough.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 27, 2021, 11:59 (1097 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.

dhw: So when I suggest that organisms communicate by demonstration, gestures, sounds, chemicals, it doesn’t count as an answer, whereas your God “somehow” preprogramming or dabbling or instructing is an answer you can accept and stick with.

DAVID: Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.

May I humbly suggest that the possum himself does not know how long it will take, and if he has one grain of sense, he will very cautiously open one eye and very cautiously look around and very cautiously adjust his position until he is sure that the coast is clear, and then run like mad for safety. Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

Penguins
dhw: So do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water? And how do you think he “designed” migration and passed the information to every migrating bird for the rest of their time on Earth?

DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected.

dhw: No I’m not. I’m simply asking what the half-second “gap” has to do with the soul.

DAVID: Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain.

dhw: Not in the least. I can completely understand why the sensation of pain might take half a second to travel from the finger to the brain and why people should actually think half a second = immediately.

DAVID: For me the pinprick is instantaneous. Libet's subjects thought so also which created the gap in time.

So what has that got to do with the soul?

dhw: My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

DAVID: Egnor did. The soul recognizes the immediate pain.

How does a half-second gap (which unsurprisingly feels like “immediate”) between finger prick and brain awareness prove the existence of a soul? I simply cannot understand the relevance of Libet’s experiment to the existence or non-existence of the soul. In fact Egnor’s article is on the subject of transplants, which raise all kinds of interesting questions, but as far as I can see, the only conclusion he draws from the gap is that the soul doesn’t live in the brain. But perhaps you could just tell us why you consider Libet’s experiment relevant to the existence of a soul.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism

DAVID: Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

dhw: You refuse to be saved!!! God is an unprovable conjecture. We need to leave this Earth to prove any of it, and even then it can only be proved if we do not die when we die. So should we stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof? If so, farewell to the AgnosticWeb…. :-(

DAVID: I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)

Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.

Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

dhw: This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

DAVID: And who built in the flexibility? Natural chance?

How often do you want me to repeat that your God may have designed the intelligent cell? But I’m delighted that you have no objection to the theory that the cells themselves can produce innovations (“new functions”) when required.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 27, 2021, 18:00 (1097 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that the possum himself does not know how long it will take, and if he has one grain of sense, he will very cautiously open one eye and very cautiously look around and very cautiously adjust his position until he is sure that the coast is clear, and then run like mad for safety. Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

Then the eye-opening gambit must be communicated. How?


Penguins

DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

dhw: So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

Change in genome coding.


Introducing the brain

dhw: My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

DAVID: Egnor did. The soul recognizes the immediate pain.

dhw: How does a half-second gap (which unsurprisingly feels like “immediate”) between finger prick and brain awareness prove the existence of a soul? I simply cannot understand the relevance of Libet’s experiment to the existence or non-existence of the soul...as far as I can see, the only conclusion he draws from the gap is that the soul doesn’t live in the brain. But perhaps you could just tell us why you consider Libet’s experiment relevant to the existence of a soul.

The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism

DAVID: I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)

dhw: Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.

Agreed, but in this world from NDE evidence


Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

dhw: This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

DAVID: And who built in the flexibility? Natural chance?

dhw: How often do you want me to repeat that your God may have designed the intelligent cell? But I’m delighted that you have no objection to the theory that the cells themselves can produce innovations (“new functions”) when required.

We both strictly agree organisms can make minor adaptations by epigenetics of DNA in those cells required to make the change. God provided the system of methylation.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 28, 2021, 09:02 (1096 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that the possum himself does not know how long it will take, and if he has one grain of sense, he will very cautiously open one eye and very cautiously look around and very cautiously adjust his position until he is sure that the coast is clear, and then run like mad for safety. Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

DAVID: Then the eye-opening gambit must be communicated. How?

I strongly suspect that all our fellow animals learn very early on to use their eyes to see if there is anything dangerous around. It’s not a “gambit”. I note that you have not responded to my now bolded request.

Penguins
DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

dhw: So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

DAVID: Change in genome coding.

Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

Introducing the brain
dhw: How does a half-second gap (which unsurprisingly feels like “immediate”) between finger prick and brain awareness prove the existence of a soul? I simply cannot understand the relevance of Libet’s experiment to the existence or non-existence of the soul...

DAVID: The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.

Egnor wrote: But then we must drop the implicit belief that the soul “lives” in the brain (somewhere near the pineal gland, according to another philosopher, René Descartes). The soul lives where we live, where we act.
I suspect that you have no more idea than I have why Egnor tried to link Libet’s experiment with the soul.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)

dhw: Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.:-(

DAVID: Agreed, but in this world from NDE evidence.

I thought NDE evidence suggested that the soul entered a different world. Anyway, we’re still stuck with the fact that the God theory is no more provable than the multiverse theory, so I cordially invite you to go on discussing our conjectures even though all of them are unprovable. ;-)

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Undoubtedly more of this type of transfer will be found, and virus is the best guess as the agent. Horizontal gene transfer is shown again to be a driver of evolutionary change. This may be another answer/reason to why viruses are present at all?

It may indeed. And if so, I think it will become harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy if you argue that your God deliberately designed viruses to be the drivers of both good and bad evolutionary change (unless you think diseases like Covid-19 will turn out to be good for us – especially for those who have died.) If he exists and designed viruses, the different consequences of their behaviour would fit in far more easily with a free-for-all than with the tight control you always insist is exercised by a God who cares enough to try and correct the errors caused by his system.

ID explained
DAVID: ID simply accepts that obvious design in life forms indicates a designer at work. Many will admit in public writings it reinforces their belief in God, but they will never use God in their scientific papers on design. When dhw wonders if ID'ers support my theories, the answer is obviously no. I use their theories and plug God in. I am not limited by their self-imposed restraints about references to God as the designer. They refer to the need for a designing mind. I just give it a name.

I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 28, 2021, 16:20 (1096 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

dhw: [Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.[/i]

DAVID: Then the eye-opening gambit must be communicated. How?

dhw: I strongly suspect that all our fellow animals learn very early on to use their eyes to see if there is anything dangerous around. It’s not a “gambit”. I note that you have not responded to my now bolded request.

God coded the instinct into possum DNA


Penguins
DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

dhw: So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

DAVID: Change in genome coding.

dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

Either or, is all I can state.


Introducing the brain

DAVID: The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.

Egnor wrote: But then we must drop the implicit belief that the soul “lives” in the brain (somewhere near the pineal gland, according to another philosopher, René Descartes). The soul lives where we live, where we act.

dhw: I suspect that you have no more idea than I have why Egnor tried to link Libet’s experiment with the soul.

I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism

dhw: Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.:-(

DAVID: Agreed, but in this world from NDE evidence.

dhw: I thought NDE evidence suggested that the soul entered a different world. Anyway, we’re still stuck with the fact that the God theory is no more provable than the multiverse theory, so I cordially invite you to go on discussing our conjectures even though all of them are unprovable. ;-)

Fine.


Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Undoubtedly more of this type of transfer will be found, and virus is the best guess as the agent. Horizontal gene transfer is shown again to be a driver of evolutionary change. This may be another answer/reason to why viruses are present at all?

dhw: It may indeed. And if so, I think it will become harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy if you argue that your God deliberately designed viruses to be the drivers of both good and bad evolutionary change. If he exists and designed viruses, the different consequences of their behaviour would fit in far more easily with a free-for-all than with the tight control you always insist is exercised by a God who cares enough to try and correct the errors caused by his system.

Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.


ID explained
DAVID: ID simply accepts that obvious design in life forms indicates a designer at work. Many will admit in public writings it reinforces their belief in God, but they will never use God in their scientific papers on design. When dhw wonders if ID'ers support my theories, the answer is obviously no. I use their theories and plug God in. I am not limited by their self-imposed restraints about references to God as the designer. They refer to the need for a designing mind. I just give it a name.

dhw: I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

You know, full well, all ID-ers do is claim a designer creates life and evolving species. Repeat your irrational complaint all you wish.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 29, 2021, 14:16 (1095 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and penguins

dhw: Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

DAVID: God coded the instinct into possum DNA

dhw: And how about his methods of passing information to […] every migrating bird?

DAVID: Change in genome coding.

dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

DAVID: Either or, is all I can state.

That does not tell us “how”.

Introducing the brain
DAVID: The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.

dhw: Egnor wrote: But then we must drop the implicit belief that the soul “lives” in the brain (somewhere near the pineal gland, according to another philosopher, René Descartes). The soul lives where we live, where we act.
dhw: I suspect that you have no more idea than I have why Egnor tried to link Libet’s experiment with the soul.

DAVID: I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.

So you and Egnor believe in the existence of a soul, and the soul feels the physical pain immediately, while the brain feels it half a second later. Someone who doesn’t believe in a soul will suggest that the brain feels the pain half a second after the finger has been pricked. Please tell me what Egnor is trying to prove with this. Or just drop the subject.

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Undoubtedly more of this type of transfer will be found, and virus is the best guess as the agent. Horizontal gene transfer is shown again to be a driver of evolutionary change. This may be another answer/reason to why viruses are present at all?

dhw: It may indeed. And if so, I think it will become harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy if you argue that your God deliberately designed viruses to be the drivers of both good and bad evolutionary change. If he exists and designed viruses, the different consequences of their behaviour would fit in far more easily with a free-for-all than with the tight control you always insist is exercised by a God who cares enough to try and correct the errors caused by his system.

DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

ID explained

dhw: I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

DAVID: You know, full well, all ID-ers do is claim a designer creates life and evolving species. Repeat your irrational complaint all you wish.

I do know that full well, and I simply wonder if there is ANYONE apart from you who believes in the bolded theory. So far you have agreed that neither ID-ers nor even Adler support it.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 29, 2021, 18:52 (1095 days ago) @ dhw

Possums and penguins

dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

DAVID: Either or, is all I can state.

dhw: That does not tell us “how”.

Coded in DNA/whole genome as before


Introducing the brain

DAVID: I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.

dhw: So you and Egnor believe in the existence of a soul, and the soul feels the physical pain immediately, while the brain feels it half a second later. Someone who doesn’t believe in a soul will suggest that the brain feels the pain half a second after the finger has been pricked. Please tell me what Egnor is trying to prove with this. Or just drop the subject.

The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.


Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest

DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

dhw: Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.


ID explained

dhw: I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

DAVID: You know, full well, all ID-ers do is claim a designer creates life and evolving species. Repeat your irrational complaint all you wish.

dhw: I do know that full well, and I simply wonder if there is ANYONE apart from you who believes in the bolded theory. So far you have agreed that neither ID-ers nor even Adler support it.

My thoughts are my thoughts expressed in two books. I don't run a religion and have n o known followers. Do you have some to support agnosticism?

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 14:24 (1094 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and penguins
dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

DAVID: Either or, is all I can state.

dhw: That does not tell us “how”.

DAVID: Coded in DNA/whole genome as before.

You keep asking me how the possum communicates his trick to other possums, so I’m asking how your God codes the genome. Do you think he inserted a possum-play-dead programme into the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to perform an operation on the genome of a group of possums?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.

dhw: So you and Egnor believe in the existence of a soul, and the soul feels the physical pain immediately, while the brain feels it half a second later. Someone who doesn’t believe in a soul will suggest that the brain feels the pain half a second after the finger has been pricked. Please tell me what Egnor is trying to prove with this. Or just drop the subject.

DAVID: The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.

So we must simply take it for granted that we have a soul, and he is merely proving that the soul feels pain immediately, and the brain feels it half a second later. Oh well, let’s leave it at that then.

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

dhw: Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.

Fair enough. Nobody has a “complete explanation” for any of our main subjects of discussion. All we can do is discuss the possibilities. But I must confess, I prefer possibilities that hang together logically to those that either contradict themselves or rely solely on hopes that future research will confirm their inherent preconceptions.


Seeing patterns
DAVID: reproduced in toto. The real point for me is not eye movement but brain interpretation. Our brain is built to help us see patterns and somewhat ancient sapiens did just that. I would assume with complex language development our forebears began naming star groupings.

I’d have thought that by now it was common knowledge that our perceptions and interpretations of just about everything entail a process of joining up the dots into “Gestalten”, i.e. patterns. Nothing added here.

Tectonics and environment
QUOTE: "The first eukaryote cells – which today make up every plant, animal and fungi today – evolved at the very beginning of the Boring Billion. Then, around 1.6 billion years ago, plants diverged from animals and fungi and 1.5 billion years ago animals and fungi split.”

It’s an amazing thought that all animal and plant life evolved from cooperation between cells, and that we ourselves are built of the same materials.

DAVID: (under “Plant responses to drought”: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

Please note that yet again we have evolutionary development for the purpose of survival (“to use for their own preservation”). Perhaps this is an example of how, over millions of years, every cell community has intelligently selected and used information gathered by other cell communities in the process that has resulted in the vast diversity of living forms past and present, including humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 19:45 (1094 days ago) @ dhw

Possums and penguins

dhw: You keep asking me how the possum communicates his trick to other possums, so I’m asking how your God codes the genome. Do you think he inserted a possum-play-dead programme into the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to perform an operation on the genome of a group of possums?

Either way is logical for God to code behavior.


Introducing the brain

DAVID: The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.

dhw: So we must simply take it for granted that we have a soul, and he is merely proving that the soul feels pain immediately, and the brain feels it half a second later. Oh well, let’s leave it at that then.

How else to explain the time delay in the brain?


Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

dhw: Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.

dhw: Fair enough. Nobody has a “complete explanation” for any of our main subjects of discussion. All we can do is discuss the possibilities. But I must confess, I prefer possibilities that hang together logically to those that either contradict themselves or rely solely on hopes that future research will confirm their inherent preconceptions.

As in the past future research clears up problem issues.


Tectonics and environment
QUOTE: "The first eukaryote cells – which today make up every plant, animal and fungi today – evolved at the very beginning of the Boring Billion. Then, around 1.6 billion years ago, plants diverged from animals and fungi and 1.5 billion years ago animals and fungi split.”

dhw: It’s an amazing thought that all animal and plant life evolved from cooperation between cells, and that we ourselves are built of the same materials.

All developed by design from the designer.


DAVID: (under “Plant responses to drought”: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

dhw: Please note that yet again we have evolutionary development for the purpose of survival (“to use for their own preservation”). Perhaps this is an example of how, over millions of years, every cell community has intelligently selected and used information gathered by other cell communities in the process that has resulted in the vast diversity of living forms past and present, including humans.

Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 11:52 (1093 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and penguins
dhw: You keep asking me how the possum communicates his trick to other possums, so I’m asking how your God codes the genome. Do you think he inserted a possum-play-dead programme into the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to perform an operation on the genome of a group of possums?

DAVID: Either way is logical for God to code behavior.

Thank you. I can’t help feeling that a far simpler procedure would have been for your God to give an autonomous mechanism to the cell communities of which possums and all other life forms are made, enabling them to work out their own strategies for survival. But of course we can agree to differ on this.

Introducing the brain
DAVID: The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.

dhw: So we must simply take it for granted that we have a soul, and he is merely proving that the soul feels pain immediately, and the brain feels it half a second later. Oh well, let’s leave it at that then.

DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.

dhw: Fair enough. Nobody has a “complete explanation” for any of our main subjects of discussion. All we can do is discuss the possibilities. But I must confess, I prefer possibilities that hang together logically to those that either contradict themselves or rely solely on hopes that future research will confirm their inherent preconceptions.

DAVID: As in the past future research clears up problem issues.

So do you think we should now stop discussing all these issues?

Tectonics and environment
QUOTE: "The first eukaryote cells – which today make up every plant, animal and fungi today – evolved at the very beginning of the Boring Billion. Then, around 1.6 billion years ago, plants diverged from animals and fungi and 1.5 billion years ago animals and fungi split.”

dhw: It’s an amazing thought that all animal and plant life evolved from cooperation between cells, and that we ourselves are built of the same materials.

DAVID: All developed by design from the designer.

Or all designed by cell communities whose talents for design may have been created by your God.

DAVID: (under “Plant responses to drought”: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

dhw: Please note that yet again we have evolutionary development for the purpose of survival (“to use for their own preservation”). Perhaps this is an example of how, over millions of years, every cell community has intelligently selected and used information gathered by other cell communities in the process that has resulted in the vast diversity of living forms past and present, including humans.

DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

Controls for splitting DNA
DAVID: Obviously there is much more to be learned, and my bold above again points to the problems that can happen as molecules are free to make mistakes. It is obvious there are various forms of control, but never 100% perfect. Certainly a complexly designed system.

If the system was “complexly designed” with the freedom to make mistakes, then maybe it was also designed with the freedom to make beneficial changes to itself.

Engulfing adds function
DAVID: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism.

I’m delighted by your acknowledgement of Lynn Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis. You will of course remember that she was also a champion of cellular intelligence.

Power laws
DAVID: It seems patterns guide evolutionary developments. I said before God likes to use and follow patterns.

It makes perfect sense that if life forms build on the “patterns” of their predecessors, the basic patterns will be preserved. That in fact was the basis of Darwin’s theory of common descent, since organisms displayed common patterns.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 18:48 (1093 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?


Engulfing adds function
DAVID: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism.

dhw: I’m delighted by your acknowledgement of Lynn Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis. You will of course remember that she was also a champion of cellular intelligence.

I'm quite convinced about Margolis' theory.


Power laws
DAVID: It seems patterns guide evolutionary developments. I said before God likes to use and follow patterns.

dhw: It makes perfect sense that if life forms build on the “patterns” of their predecessors, the basic patterns will be preserved. That in fact was the basis of Darwin’s theory of common descent, since organisms displayed common patterns.

That is Darwin theory I readily accept.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, April 01, 2021, 12:03 (1092 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

DAVID: Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

DAVID: Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?

You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions. According to you, 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed every change in the DNA, or he popped in whenever necessary to perform operations on all the creatures affected. I propose that if he exists, he gave cells the powers to change their DNA themselves.

Engulfing adds function
DAVID: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism.

dhw: I’m delighted by your acknowledgement of Lynn Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis. You will of course remember that she was also a champion of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I'm quite convinced about Margolis' theory.

I presume you mean the theory of endosymbiosis. But I hope you will also respect Margulis's theory about cellular intelligence.

Nasty butterflies
QUOTES: Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.
"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.”

DAVID: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in.

But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 01, 2021, 17:59 (1092 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain
DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

DAVID: Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

dhw: Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

Egnor fudges his knowledge of neurology? You are only sniping. :-(


Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

DAVID: Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?

dhw: You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions.

You always struggle with the concept of information. The DNA code offers information at all times to control organisms actions. With new environment the genome receives sensory new information and the must develop new instructional information for the organism to respond with the proper adaptation. Please recognize the different forms of information required.

Nasty butterflies
QUOTES: Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.
"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.”

DAVID: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in.

dhw: But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, April 02, 2021, 14:25 (1091 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

DAVID: Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

dhw: Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

DAVID: Egnor fudges his knowledge of neurology? You are only sniping. :-(

There is no fudging of His knowledge of neurology. He simply takes the existence of a soul for granted, and tries to use the half-second gap to show us how the soul works. You asked how else one could explain the time delay of half a second, and I told you. Please tell me why you reject my explanation.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

DAVID: Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?

dhw: You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions.

DAVID: You always struggle with the concept of information. The DNA code offers information at all times to control organisms actions. With new environment the genome receives sensory new information and the must develop new instructional information for the organism to respond with the proper adaptation. Please recognize the different forms of information required.

I find its double use confusing and totally unnecessary. Information itself is passive. It achieves nothing. It has to be used. The cells process information from the new environment and work out what changes they need to make in order to adapt. What could be clearer? You believe your God planted instructions which cells automatically switched on. Why do you have to call them “instructional information”?

Nasty butterflies
QUOTES: Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.
"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.”

DAVID: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in.

dhw: But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

DAVID: God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

Yes, indeed. All the organisms find their own ways of obtaining food, and all their strategies for eating and for avoiding being eaten, are part of a purposeful free-for-all in the quest for survival. Sounds like a convincing theory to me. Thank you for your support.

Chixculub
DAVID: Gerald Schroeder in his books about science and God wondered if God sent Chixculub. So do I.

And I wonder if either of you asks why he would have created the dinosaurs and their habitat in the first place, and then destroyed them all, if his one and only goal was to design sapiens and he was always in total control.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, April 02, 2021, 17:24 (1091 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain
dhw: Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

DAVID: Egnor fudges his knowledge of neurology? You are only sniping. :-(

dhw: There is no fudging of His knowledge of neurology. He simply takes the existence of a soul for granted, and tries to use the half-second gap to show us how the soul works. You asked how else one could explain the time delay of half a second, and I told you. Please tell me why you reject my explanation.

I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.


Tectonics and environment

dhw: You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions.

DAVID: You always struggle with the concept of information. The DNA code offers information at all times to control organisms actions. With new environment the genome receives sensory new information and the must develop new instructional information for the organism to respond with the proper adaptation. Please recognize the different forms of information required.

dhw: I find its double use confusing and totally unnecessary. Information itself is passive. It achieves nothing. It has to be used. The cells process information from the new environment and work out what changes they need to make in order to adapt. What could be clearer? You believe your God planted instructions which cells automatically switched on. Why do you have to call them “instructional information”?

Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken .


Nasty butterflies

dhw: But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

DAVID: God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

dhw: Yes, indeed. All the organisms find their own ways of obtaining food, and all their strategies for eating and for avoiding being eaten, are part of a purposeful free-for-all in the quest for survival. Sounds like a convincing theory to me. Thank you for your support.

I'm only describing the war for eating.


Chixculub
DAVID: Gerald Schroeder in his books about science and God wondered if God sent Chixculub. So do I.

dhw: And I wonder if either of you asks why he would have created the dinosaurs and their habitat in the first place, and then destroyed them all, if his one and only goal was to design sapiens and he was always in total control.

Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, April 03, 2021, 09:33 (1090 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain

dhw: [Egnor] simply takes the existence of a soul for granted, and tries to use the half-second gap to show us how the soul works. You asked how else one could explain the time delay of half a second, and I told you. Please tell me why you reject my explanation.

DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: You always struggle with the concept of information.[…].

dhw: I find its double use confusing and totally unnecessary. Information itself is passive. It achieves nothing. It has to be used. The cells process information from the new environment and work out what changes they need to make in order to adapt. What could be clearer? You believe your God planted instructions which cells automatically switched on. Why do you have to call them “instructional information”?

DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life. Instructions describe actions to be taken. Why do you need to call them instructional information? I am not confused. I am objecting to the unnecessary use of a term which creates the confusion vividly illustrated by the above heading.

Nasty butterflies

dhw: What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

DAVID: God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

dhw: Yes, indeed. All the organisms find their own ways of obtaining food, and all their strategies for eating and for avoiding being eaten, are part of a purposeful free-for-all in the quest for survival. Sounds like a convincing theory to me. Thank you for your support.

DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

Chixculub

DAVID: Gerald Schroeder in his books about science and God wondered if God sent Chixculub. So do I.

dhw: And I wonder if either of you asks why he would have created the dinosaurs and their habitat in the first place, and then destroyed them all, if his one and only goal was to design sapiens and he was always in total control.

DAVID: Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he always knows exactly what he is doing. That is why I keep asking why he would have directly designed and then killed off all these life forms that had no connection with humans, if his sole purpose was to design humans. You have no idea why. Whereas I propose a number of theories, all of which have your God knowing exactly what he is doing and why, and all of which fit in logically with Chixculub and the rest of life’s history. Your only objection to all of them is that they entail your God having some of the “thought patterns and emotions similar to ours”, which you think he possibly/probably has.

Genome complexity

DAVID: I do not expect the reader to be able to fully understand this presentation. It requires deep training in the subject. Viewing the illustrations would help. My real point is these molecules have jobs to do and perform them as if each molecule had a mind and had memorized its function in the production line. Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

Introducing the eye

DAVID: Its complexity is equal only to our brain:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-hum...

DAVID: No need to comment on the need for a designer. Not by chance development from ancient eye sports

The human eye is indeed a wonderful instrument, but no more wonderful than the eyes of many of our fellow animals (and birds), whose vision in fact is even better than ours under some conditions. All these different eyes may well be the consequence of the different cell communities adapting the original light-sensitive cells to their own living conditions. Definitely not by chance. Interesting that Darwin also picks on the eye as an organ “of extreme perfection and complication”. And he wisely adds: “How a nerve came to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 03, 2021, 18:41 (1090 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

The soul in action.


Tectonics and environment

DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.


Nasty butterflies

DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.


Chixculub

DAVID: Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he always knows exactly what he is doing. That is why I keep asking why he would have directly designed and then killed off all these life forms that had no connection with humans, if his sole purpose was to design humans. You have no idea why. Whereas I propose a number of theories, all of which have your God knowing exactly what he is doing and why, and all of which fit in logically with Chixculub and the rest of life’s history. Your only objection to all of them is that they entail your God having some of the “thought patterns and emotions similar to ours”, which you think he possibly/probably has.

You have again totally twisted what I present. You don't understand how you make God human with you theories of free-for-all with an unknown ending for evolution.


Genome complexity

DAVID: I do not expect the reader to be able to fully understand this presentation. It requires deep training in the subject. Viewing the illustrations would help. My real point is these molecules have jobs to do and perform them as if each molecule had a mind and had memorized its function in the production line. Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

So you are back to accepting design.


Introducing the eye

DAVID: Its complexity is equal only to our brain:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-hum...

DAVID: No need to comment on the need for a designer. Not by chance development from ancient eye spots

dhw: The human eye is indeed a wonderful instrument, but no more wonderful than the eyes of many of our fellow animals (and birds), whose vision in fact is even better than ours under some conditions. All these different eyes may well be the consequence of the different cell communities adapting the original light-sensitive cells to their own living conditions. Definitely not by chance. Interesting that Darwin also picks on the eye as an organ “of extreme perfection and complication”. And he wisely adds: “How a nerve came to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”

Sure, 'don't be concerned' because we will never be able to explain it without God's designs.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 11:10 (1089 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

DAVID: The soul in action.

Which presupposes the existence of a soul. Please explain why, without the existence of the soul, it is impossible for a person to believe that he feels the prick immediately even though in fact it has taken half a second for the sensation to travel from fingertip to brain.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

DAVID: Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

Nasty butterflies
DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

DAVID: We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.

It’s never been clear to me where you draw the line between your God’s total control and lack of control. He can’t control the errors that occur in his system of life, he deliberately gives up control in allowing free will, he doesn’t control brain complexification but absolutely has to control brain expansion, and now he has given up control to allow caterpillars to eat one another, but he absolutely has to control the possum’s strategy of playing dead. And to add to the confusion, deliberately giving up control makes him “human”, but maintaining total control (although sometimes not maintaining control) does not make him “human”. Same problem repeated under “Chixculub”. You simply want to pick and choose which human attributes he may or may not have, and you can’t even find any consistency in your own concept of total control.


Genome complexity
DAVID: Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

DAVID: So you are back to accepting design.

I have always accepted the possibility that there is a God who designed cellular intelligence. I am an agnostic.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 20:03 (1089 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

DAVID: The soul in action.

dhw: Which presupposes the existence of a soul. Please explain why, without the existence of the soul, it is impossible for a person to believe that he feels the prick immediately even though in fact it has taken half a second for the sensation to travel from fingertip to brain to reach a sensory appreciation area.

Because the sensory impulse from the finger tip must travel almost three feet to have the brain receive it and the soulless person feel it.


Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

DAVID: Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

dhw: That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

You are so confused about instructions with your analogy. God's instructions create the dance of the molecules that bring the emergence of life into fruition.


Nasty butterflies
DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

DAVID: We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.

dhw: It’s never been clear to me where you draw the line between your God’s total control and lack of control. He can’t control the errors that occur in his system of life, he deliberately gives up control in allowing free will, he doesn’t control brain complexification but absolutely has to control brain expansion, and now he has given up control to allow caterpillars to eat one another, but he absolutely has to control the possum’s strategy of playing dead. And to add to the confusion, deliberately giving up control makes him “human”, but maintaining total control (although sometimes not maintaining control) does not make him “human”. Same problem repeated under “Chixculub”. You simply want to pick and choose which human attributes he may or may not have, and you can’t even find any consistency in your own concept of total control.

You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.


Genome complexity
DAVID: Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

DAVID: So you are back to accepting design.

dhw: I have always accepted the possibility that there is a God who designed cellular intelligence. I am an agnostic.

I know.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, April 05, 2021, 11:47 (1088 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: Please explain why, without the existence of the soul, it is impossible for a person to believe that he feels the prick immediately even though in fact it has taken half a second for the sensation to travel from fingertip to brain to reach a sensory appreciation area.

DAVID: Because the sensory impulse from the finger tip must travel almost three feet to have the brain receive it and the soulless person feel it.

So why do you think it is impossible for the soulless person to think that half a second = immediately? Is half a second really such a long time? However, if you claim that you yourself really are aware of this gap, (i.e. that the pain is not immediate), all it means is that the brain is the source of awareness! This discussion is pointless.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw: I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

DAVID: Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

dhw: That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

DAVID: You are so confused about instructions with your analogy. God's instructions create the dance of the molecules that bring the emergence of life into fruition.

Thank you for using the simple term “instructions” instead of “instructional information”. But you are still “so confused”. Instructions do not create anything. Something has to write the instructions, and something has to obey the instructions before there is a “dance”. According to you, your God wrote the instructions and also designed the molecules. And so it is patently absurd to refer to “information as the source of life”, when by information you mean instructions.

Nasty butterflies
dhw: It’s never been clear to me where you draw the line between your God’s total control and lack of control. He can’t control the errors that occur in his system of life, he deliberately gives up control in allowing free will, he doesn’t control brain complexification but absolutely has to control brain expansion, and now he has given up control to allow caterpillars to eat one another, but he absolutely has to control the possum’s strategy of playing dead. And to add to the confusion, deliberately giving up control makes him “human”, but maintaining total control (although sometimes not maintaining control) does not make him “human”. […] You simply want to pick and choose which human attributes he may or may not have, and you can’t even find any consistency in your own concept of total control.

DAVID: You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.

We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there. In any case, what are your criteria for criticizing God as being “derelict” if he doesn’t do what you think he ought to do? And we shouldn’t forget your agreement that he doesn’t control complexification. I agree that I’m in “total confusion” when I read in one post that your God is in total control, but in another he is not in total control. Perhaps you can sort it all out for me, beginning with caterpillars that work out their own cannibalistic means of survival (by eating) and possums that rely on your God to help them survive (by not being eaten).

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, April 05, 2021, 18:58 (1088 days ago) @ dhw

Tectonics and environment

dhw: That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

DAVID: You are so confused about instructions with your analogy. God's instructions create the dance of the molecules that bring the emergence of life into fruition.

dhw: Thank you for using the simple term “instructions” instead of “instructional information”. But you are still “so confused”. Instructions do not create anything. Something has to write the instructions, and something has to obey the instructions before there is a “dance”. According to you, your God wrote the instructions and also designed the molecules. And so it is patently absurd to refer to “information as the source of life”, when by information you mean instructions.

You have described the way cells must use the information to make life emerge. Without those instructions nothing happens, does it? So what is your objection in the final analysis? The appearance of life depends upon those exact instructions to be followed, and those instructions are information. Stop playing word games please.

Nasty butterflies

DAVID: You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.

dhw: We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there.

The sentence that confuses you simply means God theoretically could give up His enlarging of the homo brain but then sapiens would not appear, so He logically doesn't stop that activity.

dhw: And we shouldn’t forget your agreement that he doesn’t control complexification. I agree that I’m in “total confusion” when I read in one post that your God is in total control, but in another he is not in total control.

In regard to control exercised by God it is to guarantee survival. In the war of eat or be eaten, it must continue as all that survive must eat to survive..

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, April 06, 2021, 13:05 (1087 days ago) @ David Turell

Tectonics and environment
dhw: […] it is patently absurd to refer to “information as the source of life”, when by information you mean instructions.

DAVID: You have described the way cells must use the information to make life emerge. Without those instructions nothing happens, does it? So what is your objection in the final analysis? The appearance of life depends upon those exact instructions to be followed, and those instructions are information. Stop playing word games please.

The word games are yours. According to you, it is God who writes the instructions and it is God who designs the cells which follow the instructions. Without your God writing the instructions and designing the cells which follow the instructions, nothing happens, does it? So how does that make instructions “the source of life”? And thank you for using the word “instructions” as opposed to “instructional information”. There is simply no need for the latter term, which only causes confusion, as in the heading “information as the source of life”, when in fact you believe that your God is the source of life.

Nasty butterflies
DAVID: You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.

dhw: We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there.

DAVID: The sentence that confuses you simply means God theoretically could give up His enlarging of the homo brain but then sapiens would not appear, so He logically doesn't stop that activity.

Ah! Well of course the converse to that would be that he created a mechanism which allowed autonomous complexification (you agree) and also autonomous expansion (you disagree), and either he knew it would end up with sapiens, or he watched with interest as it morphed into sapiens. Meanwhile, we are still left with the anomaly of an always-in-control God who gives free rein to caterpillar cannibalism and rape, but has to provide possums with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or special courses on how to play dead in order to avoid being eaten.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 06, 2021, 22:20 (1087 days ago) @ dhw

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: You have described the way cells must use the information to make life emerge. Without those instructions nothing happens, does it? So what is your objection in the final analysis? The appearance of life depends upon those exact instructions to be followed, and those instructions are information. Stop playing word games please.

dhw: The word games are yours. According to you, it is God who writes the instructions and it is God who designs the cells which follow the instructions. Without your God writing the instructions and designing the cells which follow the instructions, nothing happens, does it? So how does that make instructions “the source of life”? And thank you for using the word “instructions” as opposed to “instructional information”. There is simply no need for the latter term, which only causes confusion, as in the heading “information as the source of life”, when in fact you believe that your God is the source of life.

No, the word information is used with great emphasis in ID literature as it relates to the codded instructions in DNA.


Nasty butterflies

dhw: We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there.

DAVID: The sentence that confuses you simply means God theoretically could give up His enlarging of the homo brain but then sapiens would not appear, so He logically doesn't stop that activity.

dhw: Ah! Well of course the converse to that would be that he created a mechanism which allowed autonomous complexification (you agree) and also autonomous expansion (you disagree), and either he knew it would end up with sapiens, or he watched with interest as it morphed into sapiens.

Morphed by itself into the most complex living being all by itself???

dhw: Meanwhile, we are still left with the anomaly of an always-in-control God who gives free rein to caterpillar cannibalism and rape, but has to provide possums with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or special courses on how to play dead in order to avoid being eaten.

As usual confusing and conflating issues. Eat and be eaten is necessary, while a kindly God might wish to help possums in their self-protection. Perhaps God did not care if He if He made the predators hunt more difficult.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 11:25 (1086 days ago) @ David Turell

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: You have described the way cells must use the information to make life emerge. Without those instructions nothing happens, does it? So what is your objection in the final analysis? The appearance of life depends upon those exact instructions to be followed, and those instructions are information. Stop playing word games please.

dhw: The word games are yours. According to you, it is God who writes the instructions and it is God who designs the cells which follow the instructions. Without your God writing the instructions and designing the cells which follow the instructions, nothing happens, does it? So how does that make instructions “the source of life”? And thank you for using the word “instructions” as opposed to “instructional information”. There is simply no need for the latter term, which only causes confusion, as in the heading “information as the source of life”, when in fact you believe that your God is the source of life.

DAVID: No, the word information is used with great emphasis in ID literature as it relates to the coded instructions in DNA.

The word is used with great emphasis by many people, and it has even been used to tell us that information is the source of life. And such statements show precisely why it is the source of much unnecessary confusion.

Nasty butterflies
dhw: We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there.

DAVID: The sentence that confuses you simply means God theoretically could give up His enlarging of the homo brain but then sapiens would not appear, so He logically doesn't stop that activity.

dhw: Ah! Well of course the converse to that would be that he created a mechanism which allowed autonomous complexification (you agree) and also autonomous expansion (you disagree), and either he knew it would end up with sapiens, or he watched with interest as it morphed into sapiens.

DAVID: Morphed by itself into the most complex living being all by itself???

You insist that ALL species, plus their lifestyles and natural wonders, from the simplest to the most complex, had to be directly designed by your God. I propose (theistic version) that he designed the mechanism which enabled ALL species, plus their lifestyles and natural wonders, to morph from simple cells to complex cell communities, from bacteria to dinosaurs, dogs, duckbilled platypuses and humans. The human anatomy is far from being the most complex, but you are clearly referring to one organ, the brain, and we have covered its evolution on the “pre-planning” thread.

dhw: Meanwhile, we are still left with the anomaly of an always-in-control God who gives free rein to caterpillar cannibalism and rape, but has to provide possums with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or special courses on how to play dead in order to avoid being eaten.

DAVID: As usual confusing and conflating issues. Eat and be eaten is necessary, while a kindly God might wish to help possums in their self-protection. Perhaps God did not care if He if He made the predators hunt more difficult.

Lovely to see you suggesting that your God might have the wonderfully human attribute of kindliness. But the problem I have is understanding why he should create a mechanism enabling organisms to devise their own ways of killing and eating one another, and yet he can’t create a mechanism enabling them to avoid being killed and eaten. Yes, I do find it confusing. A much clearer theory would be that he created a mechanism whereby organisms could devise their own methods of killing and eating and of avoiding being killed and eaten.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 07, 2021, 19:58 (1086 days ago) @ dhw

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: No, the word information is used with great emphasis in ID literature as it relates to the coded instructions in DNA.

dhw: The word is used with great emphasis by many people, and it has even been used to tell us that information is the source of life. And such statements show precisely why it is the source of much unnecessary confusion.

Sorry for your confusion. Humans and many others receive sensory information and act by responding by using coded information following informational instructions in their DNA. Accept it.


Nasty butterflies

dhw: Ah! Well of course the converse to that would be that he created a mechanism which allowed autonomous complexification (you agree) and also autonomous expansion (you disagree), and either he knew it would end up with sapiens, or he watched with interest as it morphed into sapiens.

DAVID: Morphed by itself into the most complex living being all by itself???

dhw: You insist that ALL species, plus their lifestyles and natural wonders, from the simplest to the most complex, had to be directly designed by your God. I propose (theistic version) that he designed the mechanism which enabled ALL species, plus their lifestyles and natural wonders, to morph from simple cells to complex cell communities, from bacteria to dinosaurs, dogs, duckbilled platypuses and humans. The human anatomy is far from being the most complex, but you are clearly referring to one organ, the brain, and we have covered its evolution on the “pre-planning” thread.

A good, fair review of our positions.


dhw: Meanwhile, we are still left with the anomaly of an always-in-control God who gives free rein to caterpillar cannibalism and rape, but has to provide possums with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or special courses on how to play dead in order to avoid being eaten.

DAVID: As usual confusing and conflating issues. Eat and be eaten is necessary, while a kindly God might wish to help possums in their self-protection. Perhaps God did not care if He if He made the predators hunt more difficult.

dhw: Lovely to see you suggesting that your God might have the wonderfully human attribute of kindliness. But the problem I have is understanding why he should create a mechanism enabling organisms to devise their own ways of killing and eating one another, and yet he can’t create a mechanism enabling them to avoid being killed and eaten. Yes, I do find it confusing. A much clearer theory would be that he created a mechanism whereby organisms could devise their own methods of killing and eating and of avoiding being killed and eaten.

I think organisms do devise methods of their form of killing, but that depends upon the attributes God gave them. Think of a pack of lionesses on the prowl. Killing machines because of God's gifts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, April 08, 2021, 13:54 (1085 days ago) @ David Turell

INFORMATION

DAVID: No, the word information is used with great emphasis in ID literature as it relates to the coded instructions in DNA.

dhw: The word is used with great emphasis by many people, and it has even been used to tell us that information is the source of life. And such statements show precisely why it is the source of much unnecessary confusion.

DAVID: Sorry for your confusion. Humans and many others receive sensory information and act by responding by using coded information following informational instructions in their DNA. Accept it.

I do not have the slightest idea how any of these forms of information could have been the source of life. Please explain. And if you want to apply your terms to “activity”, please explain what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive when my senses tell me the sun is shining, and so I decide to go for a walk instead of discuss information with my friend David.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 08, 2021, 20:49 (1085 days ago) @ dhw

INFORMATION

DAVID: No, the word information is used with great emphasis in ID literature as it relates to the coded instructions in DNA.

dhw: The word is used with great emphasis by many people, and it has even been used to tell us that information is the source of life. And such statements show precisely why it is the source of much unnecessary confusion.

DAVID: Sorry for your confusion. Humans and many others receive sensory information and act by responding by using coded information following informational instructions in their DNA. Accept it.

dhw: I do not have the slightest idea how any of these forms of information could have been the source of life. Please explain. And if you want to apply your terms to “activity”, please explain what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive when my senses tell me the sun is shining, and so I decide to go for a walk instead of discuss information with my friend David.

The source of life is God, but He did it by creating an amazing informational code of instructions for organism's cells to follow and cooperate in having life emerge from their actions as shown by the biochemical molecule's furious dance of reactions. So saying information is the source of life is a shorthand way of putting it. When the sun is shining I want you to walk and stay healthy.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, April 09, 2021, 08:51 (1084 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: ... the word information is used with great emphasis in ID literature as it relates to the coded instructions in DNA.

dhw: The word is used with great emphasis by many people, and it has even been used to tell us that information is the source of life. And such statements show precisely why it is the source of much unnecessary confusion.

DAVID: Sorry for your confusion. Humans and many others receive sensory information and act by responding by using coded information following informational instructions in their DNA. Accept it.

dhw: I do not have the slightest idea how any of these forms of information could have been the source of life. Please explain. And if you want to apply your terms to “activity”, please explain what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive when my senses tell me the sun is shining, and so I decide to go for a walk instead of discuss information with my friend David.

DAVID: The source of life is God, but He did it by creating an amazing informational code of instructions for organism's cells to follow and cooperate in having life emerge from their actions as shown by the biochemical molecule's furious dance of reactions. So saying information is the source of life is a shorthand way of putting it.

Now we have an informational code of instructions instead of coded information following informational instructions, and whatever all of these may be, and no matter what they did, your God had to create the cells before he planted the instructions in them. It’s not shorthand, it’s sheer muddle. And totally unnecessary. If God is the source of life, he created cells and DNA and all the mechanisms necessary for them to live, reproduce and eventually evolve. And you want us to say that information did all that.

DAVID: When the sun is shining I want you to walk and stay healthy.

Thank you. Now please tell me what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive from my DNA when I decide to go for my walk.


EVOLUTION OF THE EYE

QUOTES: The network of nerves connecting our eyes to our brains is sophisticated and researchers have now shown that it evolved much earlier than previously thought, thanks to an unexpected source: the gar fish.
Michigan State University's Ingo Braasch has helped an international research team show that this connection scheme was already present in ancient fish at least 450 million years ago. That makes it about 100 million years older than previously believed.

"I learn something about myself when looking at these weird fish and understanding how old parts of our own bodies are. I'm excited to tell the story of eye evolution with a new twist this semester in our Comparative Anatomy class.'" [David's bold]

DAVID: ...the bold is certainly in support of pre-planning.

Neither the bold nor the article itself supports pre-planning. They simply explain how evolution progresses, as later organisms build on the innovations of their earlier predecessors.

Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve
DAVID: A type has been found, and are their own fossils:
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-fossils-microbe-evolutionary-stasis-millions.html

QUOTES: "It's like something out of science fiction. Research led by Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences has revealed that a group of microbes, which feed off chemical reactions triggered by radioactivity, have been at an evolutionary standstill for millions of years.

"Stepanauskas and his colleagues hypothesize the standstill evolution they discovered is due to the microbe's powerful protections against mutation, which have essentially locked their genetic code. " [David’s bold]

DAVID: ...not every twig of the bush of life is driven to adapt. Perhaps mutation is not blocked, just not necessary. Perhaps not required by God. [dhw’s bold]

You have finally understood the nature of stasis. Nothing changes until change becomes necessary.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, April 09, 2021, 20:02 (1084 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The source of life is God, but He did it by creating an amazing informational code of instructions for organism's cells to follow and cooperate in having life emerge from their actions as shown by the biochemical molecule's furious dance of reactions. So saying information is the source of life is a shorthand way of putting it.


dhw: Now we have an informational code of instructions instead of coded information following informational instructions, and whatever all of these may be, and no matter what they did, your God had to create the cells before he planted the instructions in them. It’s not shorthand, it’s sheer muddle. And totally unnecessary. If God is the source of life, he created cells and DNA and all the mechanisms necessary for them to live, reproduce and eventually evolve. And you want us to say that information did all that.

You go bananas every time the issue of information comes up. DNA is coded information, isn't it? God created the code mechanism and in the coded information God arranged that cells/whole organism's cells could read the code and act on it with the result life emerges. Simple concept. Your editorial self doe3sn't like the shorthand. OK, fine.


DAVID: When the sun is shining I want you to walk and stay healthy.

dhw: Thank you. Now please tell me what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive from my DNA when I decide to go for my walk.

Coded information made nerve cells and in your brain you received information about the weather and used your neurons to decide to drive your muscles into walking. And did you ever note most commentators on evolution are amazed at the miraculous appearance of nerve cells. Not by natural cause.


EVOLUTION OF THE EYE

QUOTES: The network of nerves connecting our eyes to our brains is sophisticated and researchers have now shown that it evolved much earlier than previously thought, thanks to an unexpected source: the gar fish.

Michigan State University's Ingo Braasch has helped an international research team show that this connection scheme was already present in ancient fish at least 450 million years ago. That makes it about 100 million years older than previously believed.

"I learn something about myself when looking at these weird fish and understanding how old parts of our own bodies are. I'm excited to tell the story of eye evolution with a new twist this semester in our Comparative Anatomy class.'" [David's bold]

DAVID: ...the bold is certainly in support of pre-planning.

dhw: Neither the bold nor the article itself supports pre-planning. They simply explain how evolution progresses, as later organisms build on the innovations of their earlier predecessors.

It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?


Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve
DAVID: A type has been found, and are their own fossils:
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-fossils-microbe-evolutionary-stasis-millions.html

QUOTES: "It's like something out of science fiction. Research led by Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences has revealed that a group of microbes, which feed off chemical reactions triggered by radioactivity, have been at an evolutionary standstill for millions of years.

"Stepanauskas and his colleagues hypothesize the standstill evolution they discovered is due to the microbe's powerful protections against mutation, which have essentially locked their genetic code. " [David’s bold]

DAVID: ...not every twig of the bush of life is driven to adapt. Perhaps mutation is not blocked, just not necessary. Perhaps not required by God. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: You have finally understood the nature of stasis. Nothing changes until change becomes necessary.

But stasis means the ability appears far in advance of discovering how to use it. Do you understand that? And you can't explain it by any natural cause..

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, April 10, 2021, 17:24 (1083 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

dhw: Survival is not the driving force – the QUEST for survival is the driving force. […] There is no conflict with Darwin’s theory. The conflict only arises when it comes to HOW the quest is fulfilled. You say through direct design by God, and bbDarwin says it’s through random mutations and natural selection – but leaves his options open as to the source of this mechanism. [David’s bold]

DAVID: The bold makes no sense, as the 'source' is natural random mutation and natural selection.

Random mutation and natural selection, Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, your God’s 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme, or personal dabbles are all possible mechanisms for producing the innovations. But the source of the mechanism is God or chance. The purpose of the changes that result in evolution is the quest for survival. Even with your nebulous concept of God “guaranteeing” survival, he is still designing the innovations for that same purpose: survival, as per Darwin.

Information
dhw: […] If God is the source of life, he created cells and DNA and all the mechanisms necessary for them to live, reproduce and eventually evolve. And you want us to say that information did all that.

DAVID: You go bananas every time the issue of information comes up. DNA is coded information, isn't it? God created the code mechanism and in the coded information God arranged that cells/whole organism's cells could read the code and act on it with the result life emerges. Simple concept. Your editorial self doesn't like the shorthand. OK, fine.

No, I don’t like the shorthand when a complicated, nebulous explanation of terminology - what is the difference between instructional information and instructions? – becomes necessary in order to express an idea that is perfectly comprehensible without it.

dhw: […] Now please tell me what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive from my DNA when I decide to go for my walk.

DAVID: Coded information made nerve cells and in your brain you received information about the weather and used your neurons to decide to drive your muscles into walking. And did you ever note most commentators on evolution are amazed at the miraculous appearance of nerve cells. Not by natural cause.

We can all marvel at life's complexities. I agree that my brain receives information about the weather – that is what I mean by “information”: passive details about a situation, event, etc. And yes, I use my neurons to drive my muscles. Thank you for not treating me to something like “neuronal information”. And I find it confusing to be told that I use information which was created by information in order to make active use of passive information. And I thought you believed your God made nerve cells.

EVOLUTION OF THE EYE
QUOTES: The network of nerves connecting our eyes to our brains is sophisticated and researchers have now shown that it evolved much earlier than previously thought, thanks to an unexpected source: the gar fish.
"I learn something about myself when looking at these weird fish and understanding how old parts of our own bodies are. [David's bold]

DAVID: ...the bold is certainly in support of pre-planning.

dhw: Neither the bold nor the article itself supports pre-planning. They simply explain how evolution progresses, as later organisms build on the innovations of their earlier predecessors.

DAVID: It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?

You seem to think the only creature that found vision to be an advantage was H. sapiens! Do you honestly believe the gar fish didn’t use its eyes to see with?

Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve
QUOTES: "[…] […] a group of microbes, which feed off chemical reactions triggered by radioactivity, have been at an evolutionary standstill for millions of years.

DAVID: ...not every twig of the bush of life is driven to adapt. Perhaps mutation is not blocked, just not necessary. Perhaps not required by God. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: You have finally understood the nature of stasis. Nothing changes until change becomes necessary.

DAVID: But stasis means the ability appears far in advance of discovering how to use it. Do you understand that? And you can't explain it by any natural causes.

Stasis means no change or development. Sapiens had no new requirements for 245,000 years. But then came new ideas, and this is what you always leave out: the brain was then NOT adequate to implement the new ideas. For some reason (anatomical impracticality?) it could not expand any more, and so it met the new requirements by changing through complexification. The ability to expand/complexify has always been there, but new tools, structures etc. could not be created without new cells or new complexifications. You seem to think the brain’s ability to implement all the new ideas was ready and waiting for 245,000 years. But modern research has shown us that implementation CHANGES the brain. In taxi drivers it even expands part of the brain. The hippocampus had not already expanded 315,000 years ago in anticipation of the work it had to do. “Natural causes”? Your God may have invented the intelligent cells which have the ability to complexify or add to their number when necessary.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 10, 2021, 20:17 (1083 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: Random mutation and natural selection, Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, your God’s 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme, or personal dabbles are all possible mechanisms for producing the innovations. But the source of the mechanism is God or chance. The purpose of the changes that result in evolution is the quest for survival. Even with your nebulous concept of God “guaranteeing” survival, he is still designing the innovations for that same purpose: survival, as per Darwin.

No!!! Survival does not drive evolution. chance doesn't. God does with new designs.


Information

dhw: […] Now please tell me what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive from my DNA when I decide to go for my walk.

DAVID: Coded information made nerve cells and in your brain you received information about the weather and used your neurons to decide to drive your muscles into walking. And did you ever note most commentators on evolution are amazed at the miraculous appearance of nerve cells. Not by natural cause.

dhw: We can all marvel at life's complexities. I agree that my brain receives information about the weather – that is what I mean by “information”: passive details about a situation, event, etc. And yes, I use my neurons to drive my muscles. Thank you for not treating me to something like “neuronal information”. And I find it confusing to be told that I use information which was created by information in order to make active use of passive information. And I thought you believed your God made nerve cells.


Your usual persistent confusion. Life runs by using information which is interpreted by God's nerve cells.


EVOLUTION OF THE EYE

dhw: Neither the bold nor the article itself supports pre-planning. They simply explain how evolution progresses, as later organisms build on the innovations of their earlier predecessors.

DAVID: It evolved thousands of generation earlier than needed, and that is not pre-planning?

dhw: You seem to think the only creature that found vision to be an advantage was H. sapiens! Do you honestly believe the gar fish didn’t use its eyes to see with?

Of course they saw with a forerunner of the special mechanism we use.


Evolution: bacteria that don't evolve

dhw: You have finally understood the nature of stasis. Nothing changes until change becomes necessary.

DAVID: But stasis means the ability appears far in advance of discovering how to use it. Do you understand that? And you can't explain it by any natural causes.

dhw: Stasis means no change or development. Sapiens had no new requirements for 245,000 years. But then came new ideas, and this is what you always leave out: the brain was then NOT adequate to implement the new ideas.

The new ideas appeared because the extra neurons allowed their appearance by human use.

dhw: new tools, structures etc. could not be created without new cells or new complexifications. You seem to think the brain’s ability to implement all the new ideas was ready and waiting for 245,000 years.

But exactly for 245,000 years the cells were there to be used and weren't: so stasis!

dhw: But modern research has shown us that implementation CHANGES the brain. In taxi drivers it even expands part of the brain. The hippocampus had not already expanded 315,000 years ago in anticipation of the work it had to do.

So God designed the hippocampus to have the ability to add extra cells solely for the purpose of adding additional memory capacity, not complex immaterial concepts which the existing extra cells elsewhere in the newly expanded frontal and prefrontal cortices provided for.

dhw: “Natural causes”? Your God may have invented the intelligent cells which have the ability to complexify or add to their number when necessary.

Only in the hippocampus

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, April 11, 2021, 14:08 (1082 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: Random mutation and natural selection, Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, your God’s 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme, or personal dabbles are all possible mechanisms for producing the innovations. But the source of the mechanism is God or chance. The purpose of the changes that result in evolution is the quest for survival. Even with your nebulous concept of God “guaranteeing” survival, he is still designing the innovations for that same purpose: survival, as per Darwin.

DAVID: No!!! Survival does not drive evolution. chance doesn't. God does with new designs.

Not survival but the quest for survival. And even if your God designed all the innovations, his purpose in doing so was to enable organisms to survive. So would you agree that if he exists, your God’s design of innovations was driven by his desire to ensure that some organisms would fulfil the quest for survival?

Information
dhw: […] Now please tell me what information is “coded” and what informational instructions I receive from my DNA when I decide to go for my walk.

DAVID: Coded information made nerve cells and in your brain you received information about the weather and used your neurons to decide to drive your muscles into walking. And did you ever note most commentators on evolution are amazed at the miraculous appearance of nerve cells. Not by natural cause.

dhw: We can all marvel at life's complexities. I agree that my brain receives information about the weather – that is what I mean by “information”: passive details about a situation, event, etc. And yes, I use my neurons to drive my muscles. Thank you for not treating me to something like “neuronal information”. And I find it confusing to be told that I use information which was created by information in order to make active use of passive information. And I thought you believed your God made nerve cells.

DAVID: Your usual persistent confusion. Life runs by using information which is interpreted by God's nerve cells.

We are coming closer together, now that you have stopped referring to coded information, instructional information, coded information in the DNA etc., and defending the absurd headline “Information as the source of life”. And they are not God’s nerve cells but our nerve cells which God may have created (though you told us above that coded information made nerve cells!), and we don’t need the word “information” to explain what we mean by interpretation or by nerve cells. In fact it's all a whole lot clearer when you stop shoving the word "information" into every sentence that explains how life works.

comb jellies
DAVID: Not convergent, totally different:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/comb-jelly-neurons-spark-evolution-debate-20150325

QUOTE: "But new support for Moroz’s idea comes from recent genetic work suggesting that comb jellies are ancient — the first group to branch off the animal family tree. If true, that would bolster the chance that they evolved neurons on their own."

DAVID: […] This is an odd branch, not really compatible with common descent.

And I can’t help wondering why you might believe your God specially designed them “as part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Cambrian
QUOTE: What they found is truly mind-blowing. The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

DAVID: whatever the Ediacarans were, they were extremely simple. The Cambrians were full-blown animals with organ systems. This short Cambrian gap destroys Darwin's theoretical gradual approach in viewing how evolution worked. Designer required.

410,000 years based on a very precise dating method with an error margin of only 50%. This is a remarkable definition of precise! Folk keep saying what a short time this is. I would suggest that half a million years (let’s compromise) is ample time for intelligent beings (cell communities) to adapt to and exploit new conditions by developing new organs. I agree that design is required, but (theistic version) I see no reason why your God should be incapable of designing a mechanism capable of achieving this within the thousands of generations of organisms born in half a million years. Do you?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 11, 2021, 16:17 (1082 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: No!!! Survival does not drive evolution. chance doesn't. God does with new designs.

dhw: Not survival but the quest for survival. And even if your God designed all the innovations, his purpose in doing so was to enable organisms to survive. So would you agree that if he exists, your God’s design of innovations was driven by his desire to ensure that some organisms would fulfil the quest for survival?

Twisted. Survival must be guaranteed in each step for evolution to continue.


Information

DAVID: Your usual persistent confusion. Life runs by using information which is interpreted by God's nerve cells.

dhw: We are coming closer together, now that you have stopped referring to coded information, instructional information, coded information in the DNA etc., and defending the absurd headline “Information as the source of life”. And they are not God’s nerve cells but our nerve cells which God may have created (though you told us above that coded information made nerve cells!), and we don’t need the word “information” to explain what we mean by interpretation or by nerve cells. In fact it's all a whole lot clearer when you stop shoving the word "information" into every sentence that explains how life works.

But information is used to operate life.


comb jellies

DAVID: […] This is an odd branch, not really compatible with common descent.

dhw: And I can’t help wondering why you might believe your God specially designed them “as part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Just a needed part of an ecosystem.


Cambrian
QUOTE: What they found is truly mind-blowing. The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

DAVID: whatever the Ediacarans were, they were extremely simple. The Cambrians were full-blown animals with organ systems. This short Cambrian gap destroys Darwin's theoretical gradual approach in viewing how evolution worked. Designer required.

dhw: 410,000 years based on a very precise dating method with an error margin of only 50%. This is a remarkable definition of precise! Folk keep saying what a short time this is. I would suggest that half a million years (let’s compromise) is ample time for intelligent beings (cell communities) to adapt to and exploit new conditions by developing new organs. I agree that design is required, but (theistic version) I see no reason why your God should be incapable of designing a mechanism capable of achieving this within the thousands of generations of organisms born in half a million years. Do you?

You've skipped over the gap in complexity, and it is a short time when the whole history of evolution is reviewed. Of course God did it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, April 12, 2021, 11:43 (1081 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: No!!! Survival does not drive evolution. chance doesn't. God does with new designs.

dhw: Not survival but the quest for survival. And even if your God designed all the innovations, his purpose in doing so was to enable organisms to survive. So would you agree that if he exists, your God’s design of innovations was driven by his desire to ensure that some organisms would fulfil the quest for survival?

DAVID: Twisted. Survival must be guaranteed in each step for evolution to continue.

Survival of what must be guaranteed? Obviously evolution can’t continue if every single life form is dead. Is that what you mean? Even if it is, how can you say that the purpose of each and every new design is to guarantee survival but the purpose of each and every life form is not to fulfil the quest for survival?

Information
DAVID: Your usual persistent confusion. Life runs by using information which is interpreted by God's nerve cells.

dhw: We are coming closer together, now that you have stopped referring to coded information, instructional information, coded information in the DNA etc., and defending the absurd headline “Information as the source of life”. And they are not God’s nerve cells but our nerve cells which God may have created (though you told us above that coded information made nerve cells!), and we don’t need the word “information” to explain what we mean by interpretation or by nerve cells. In fact it's all a whole lot clearer when you stop shoving the word "information" into every sentence that explains how life works.

DAVID: But information is used to operate life.

Nice and vague, but that’s fine, so long as you don’t go on to tell us that one sort of information is made by another sort of information and used by another sort of information to operate life.

comb jellies
DAVID: […] This is an odd branch, not really compatible with common descent.

dhw: And I can’t help wondering why you might believe your God specially designed them “as part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Just a needed part of an ecosystem.

All organisms are part of ecosystems. That does not mean that all organisms and all ecosystems are “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Cambrian
QUOTE: What they found is truly mind-blowing. The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

DAVID: whatever the Ediacarans were, they were extremely simple. The Cambrians were full-blown animals with organ systems. This short Cambrian gap destroys Darwin's theoretical gradual approach in viewing how evolution worked. Designer required.

dhw: 410,000 years based on a very precise dating method with an error margin of only 50%. This is a remarkable definition of precise! Folk keep saying what a short time this is. I would suggest that half a million years (let’s compromise) is ample time for intelligent beings (cell communities) to adapt to and exploit new conditions by developing new organs. I agree that design is required, but (theistic version) I see no reason why your God should be incapable of designing a mechanism capable of achieving this within the thousands of generations of organisms born in half a million years. Do you?

DAVID: You've skipped over the gap in complexity, and it is a short time when the whole history of evolution is reviewed. Of course God did it.

I haven’t skipped over it. I’m saying I don’t see why thousands of generations of intelligent organisms (with God as the possible source of their intelligence) should not be able to develop the new organs required or made possible by new conditions. Do you think your God is incapable of inventing cellular intelligence?

Monkey ‘talk’

DAVID: Newly discovered monkey call meanings with a predator nearby:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274135-female-monkeys-call-to-males-when-they-see...

DAVID: Not at all surprising. Even very early erectus 'language' was much more nuanced than that.

Of course it’s not surprising. What is surprising is that anyone should even think that any life form could exist without having some form of communication, and that anyone should even think that our ancestors did not use sounds to convey meanings which would eventually develop into our own modern languages.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, April 12, 2021, 16:44 (1081 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: Survival of what must be guaranteed? Obviously evolution can’t continue if every single life form is dead. Is that what you mean? Even if it is, how can you say that the purpose of each and every new design is to guarantee survival but the purpose of each and every life form is not to fulfil the quest for survival?

Just opposite: species survive because of God's designs. Survival struggles do not drive evolution.


Cambrian
QUOTE: What they found is truly mind-blowing. The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

DAVID: whatever the Ediacarans were, they were extremely simple. The Cambrians were full-blown animals with organ systems. This short Cambrian gap destroys Darwin's theoretical gradual approach in viewing how evolution worked. Designer required.

dhw: 410,000 years based on a very precise dating method with an error margin of only 50%. This is a remarkable definition of precise! Folk keep saying what a short time this is. I would suggest that half a million years (let’s compromise) is ample time for intelligent beings (cell communities) to adapt to and exploit new conditions by developing new organs. I agree that design is required, but (theistic version) I see no reason why your God should be incapable of designing a mechanism capable of achieving this within the thousands of generations of organisms born in half a million years. Do you?

DAVID: You've skipped over the gap in complexity, and it is a short time when the whole history of evolution is reviewed. Of course God did it.

dhw: I haven’t skipped over it. I’m saying I don’t see why thousands of generations of intelligent organisms (with God as the possible source of their intelligence) should not be able to develop the new organs required or made possible by new conditions. Do you think your God is incapable of inventing cellular intelligence?

Cellular intelligence is represented by the instructions God gave to cells so they will function in a way that creates life.


Monkey ‘talk’

DAVID: Newly discovered monkey call meanings with a predator nearby:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274135-female-monkeys-call-to-males-when-they-see...

DAVID: Not at all surprising. Even very early erectus 'language' was much more nuanced than that.

dhw: Of course it’s not surprising. What is surprising is that anyone should even think that any life form could exist without having some form of communication, and that anyone should even think that our ancestors did not use sounds to convey meanings which would eventually develop into our own modern languages.

Agreed, but only we have have true complex language.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 11:54 (1080 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: Survival of what must be guaranteed? Obviously evolution can’t continue if every single life form is dead. Is that what you mean? Even if it is, how can you say that the purpose of each and every new design is to guarantee survival but the purpose of each and every life form is not to fulfil the quest for survival?

DAVID: Just opposite: species survive because of God's designs. Survival struggles do not drive evolution.

It is not the opposite! It is purpose and result: according to your theory, your God wanted organisms to survive, and so he designed ways in which they could survive, and so they survived because of his designs. The purpose of the evolutionary innovations was to enable organisms to survive – totally in keeping with Darwin’s theory.

Cambrian
DAVID: You've skipped over the gap in complexity, and it is a short time when the whole history of evolution is reviewed. Of course God did it.

dhw: I haven’t skipped over it. I’m saying I don’t see why thousands of generations of intelligent organisms (with God as the possible source of their intelligence) should not be able to develop the new organs required or made possible by new conditions. Do you think your God is incapable of inventing cellular intelligence?

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is represented by the instructions God gave to cells so they will function in a way that creates life.

I’m not sure what “represented by the instructions” means. Intelligence is intelligence. It manifests itself by performing actions that indicate sentience and cognition. And so the theistic version of my theory would be that your God designed cells’ ability to live, to reproduce, and autonomously to vary their own structures when adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

Monkey ‘talk’
DAVID: Not at all surprising. Even very early erectus 'language' was much more nuanced than that.

dhw: Of course it’s not surprising. What is surprising is that anyone should even think that any life form could exist without having some form of communication, and that anyone should even think that our ancestors did not use sounds to convey meanings which would eventually develop into our own modern languages.

DAVID: Agreed, but only we have true complex language.

No need for “true”. You’d then have to define how complex a language has to be in order to be called “complex”. We can assume that our human language is immeasurably more complex than the languages of our ancestors and of our fellow creatures.

Xenobots
QUOTES: "Normally, hairlike structures called cilia on frog skin repel pathogens and spread mucus around. But on the xenobots, cilia allowed them to motor around. That surprising development “is a great example of life reusing what’s at hand,” says study coauthor Michael Levin, a biologist at Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

Xenobots have no nerve cells and no brains. Yet xenobots — each about half a millimeter wide — can swim through very thin tubes and traverse curvy mazes. When put into an arena littered with small particles of iron oxide, the xenobots can sweep the debris into piles. Xenobots can even heal themselves; after being cut, the bots zipper themselves back into their spherical shapes.

DAVID: This is not puzzling to me. The clumps of skin cells are simply following the instructions they have in their DNA.

I’m surprised their DNA tells them to accomplish tasks in a way that surprises the researchers. It all sounds to me very much like the form of intelligence exhibited by bacteria and viruses, which also have no brains and yet all too frequently manage to outsmart us by intelligently “re-using what’s at hand”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 15:45 (1080 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: Just opposite: species survive because of God's designs. Survival struggles do not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not the opposite! It is purpose and result: according to your theory, your God wanted organisms to survive, and so he designed ways in which they could survive, and so they survived because of his designs. The purpose of the evolutionary innovations was to enable organisms to survive – totally in keeping with Darwin’s theory.

Absolutely no!!! "Evolutionary innovations" advanced evolution from bacteria. God's new designs drive evolution forward.

Cambrian

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is represented by the instructions God gave to cells so they will function in a way that creates life.

dhw: I’m not sure what “represented by the instructions” means. Intelligence is intelligence. It manifests itself by performing actions that indicate sentience and cognition. And so the theistic version of my theory would be that your God designed cells’ ability to live, to reproduce, and autonomously to vary their own structures when adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

Cells seem intelligent by following the instructions God gave them.


Xenobots
QUOTES: "Normally, hairlike structures called cilia on frog skin repel pathogens and spread mucus around. But on the xenobots, cilia allowed them to motor around. That surprising development “is a great example of life reusing what’s at hand,” says study coauthor Michael Levin, a biologist at Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

Xenobots have no nerve cells and no brains. Yet xenobots — each about half a millimeter wide — can swim through very thin tubes and traverse curvy mazes. When put into an arena littered with small particles of iron oxide, the xenobots can sweep the debris into piles. Xenobots can even heal themselves; after being cut, the bots zipper themselves back into their spherical shapes.

DAVID: This is not puzzling to me. The clumps of skin cells are simply following the instructions they have in their DNA.

dhw: I’m surprised their DNA tells them to accomplish tasks in a way that surprises the researchers. It all sounds to me very much like the form of intelligence exhibited by bacteria and viruses, which also have no brains and yet all too frequently manage to outsmart us by intelligently “re-using what’s at hand”.

The bacteria and viruses follow instructions they were given by God.

Miscellany: survival in bacteria

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 18:34 (1080 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

DAVID: Just opposite: species survive because of God's designs. Survival struggles do not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not the opposite! It is purpose and result: according to your theory, your God wanted organisms to survive, and so he designed ways in which they could survive, and so they survived because of his designs. The purpose of the evolutionary innovations was to enable organisms to survive – totally in keeping with Darwin’s theory.


DAVIDAbsolutely no!!! "Evolutionary innovations" advanced evolution from bacteria. God's new designs drive evolution forward.

Bacteria when likely to explode have an escape valve:

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-protein-channel-bacteria-alive.html

"Almost all bacteria rely on the same emergency valves—protein channels that pop open under pressure, releasing a deluge of cell contents. It is a last-ditch effort, a failsafe that prevents bacteria from exploding and dying when stretched to the limit.

***

"'We were actually able to see the entire cycle of the protein channel passing through a series of functional stages," Walz says.

"Walz has long focused upon MscS, a protein embedded in bacterial membranes that opens in response to mechanical force. MscS proteins exist in a closed state while resting in a thick membrane. Scientists once suspected that, when fluid build-up causes the cell to swell and puts tension on the membrane, it stretches so thin that its proteins protrude. Thrust into an unfamiliar environment, the protein channels snap open, releasing the contents of the cell and relieving pressure until the membrane returns to its original thickness and its channels slam shut.

"But when Yixiao Zhang, a postdoctoral associate in the Walz group, tested this theory over five years ago, reconstituting MscS proteins into small custom-designed membrane patches, he discovered that it was impossible to prise the channel open by thinning membranes within the natural range. "We realized that membrane thinning is not how these channels open," Walz says.

"These custom patches, called nanodiscs, allow researchers to study proteins in an essentially native membrane environment and to visualize them with cryo-electron microscopy. Walz and Zhang resolved to push the limits of nanodisc technology, removing membrane lipids with β-cyclodextrin, a chemical used to excise cholesterol from cell cultures. This induced tension in the membrane, and Walz and his team could observe with cryo-electron microscopy as the channel reacted accordingly—eventually snapping closed for good, a phenomenon known as desensitization.

"What they observed matched computer simulations, and a new model for the function of MscS emerged. When fluid builds up inside the cell, they found, lipids are called in from all corners to help ease tension throughout the membrane. If the situation becomes dire, even lipids associated with the MscS channels flee. Without lipids keeping them closed, the channels have the legroom to pop open.

"'We could see that, when you expose the membranes to β-cyclodextrin, the channels open and then close again," Walz says.

"Walz and Zhang's new method of manipulating nanodiscs with β-cyclodextrin will allow researchers studying dozens of similar mechanosensitive protein channels to, at long last, test their hypotheses in the lab. Many such proteins play key roles in humans, from hearing and sense of touch to the regulation of blood pressure."

Comment: In evolution what is invented in the past is used in the present, so the 99% gone directly relate to humans. Also this study shows how survival is guaranteed by design, which had to be present in the first bacterial designed organisms.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 14:37 (1079 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Just opposite: species survive because of God's designs. Survival struggles do not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not the opposite! It is purpose and result: according to your theory, your God wanted organisms to survive, and so he designed ways in which they could survive, and so they survived because of his designs. The purpose of the evolutionary innovations was to enable organisms to survive – totally in keeping with Darwin’s theory.

DAVID: Absolutely no!!! "Evolutionary innovations" advanced evolution from bacteria. God's new designs drive evolution forward.

What are you saying no to? Of course evolution advanced from bacteria through innovations. And if you believe God designed every innovation, then of course God’s innovations drove evolution forward. But a moment ago you were saying that God’s purpose in designing the innovations was to “guarantee survival”. How does that suddenly come to mean that the purpose of the innovations absolutely wasn’t to enable organisms to survive?

Cambrian
DAVID: Cellular intelligence is represented by the instructions God gave to cells so they will function in a way that creates life.

dhw: I’m not sure what “represented by the instructions” means. Intelligence is intelligence. It manifests itself by performing actions that indicate sentience and cognition. And so the theistic version of my theory would be that your God designed cells’ ability to live, to reproduce, and autonomously to vary their own structures when adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

DAVID: Cells seem intelligent by following the instructions God gave them.

You propose that all cells and cellular communities were either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to create every single life form, innovation, econiche, strategy, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, or your God dabbled those that had not been preprogrammed. I propose that their “seeming” intelligence is real intelligence, and they created all of these autonomously (though their intelligence may have been given to them by your God). Dead end.

Xenobots
DAVID: This is not puzzling to me. The clumps of skin cells are simply following the instructions they have in their DNA.

dhw: I’m surprised their DNA tells them to accomplish tasks in a way that surprises the researchers. It all sounds to me very much like the form of intelligence exhibited by bacteria and viruses, which also have no brains and yet all too frequently manage to outsmart us by intelligently “re-using what’s at hand”.

DAVID: The bacteria and viruses follow instructions they were given by God.

And of course you firmly believe that the future will reveal to us all God’s good intentions in instructing Covid-19 to kill millions of people.

Survival in bacteria
DAVID: In evolution what is invented in the past is used in the present, so the 99% gone directly relate to humans. Also this study shows how survival is guaranteed by design, which had to be present in the first bacterial designed organisms.

How on earth does the current survival of bacteria prove that the separately designed and extinct brontosaurus plus the rest of the separately designed and extinct 99% are directly related to humans, although you have already agreed that the brontosaurus and the separately designed and extinct 99% had no direction connection to humans? Survival is not “guaranteed” by design if 99% of life forms failed to survive! But yes, life goes on in ever changing forms. The only form that has survived since the beginning is bacteria, so at best you can only claim that your God seems to have guaranteed the survival of bacteria. So what is that meant to prove?

How reliable is science? Radioactive dating
I like the heading you have given to this thread! You never commented on the hilarious entry the other day under Cambrian:

The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

Very precise, with an error margin of only 50%!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 20:28 (1079 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Just opposite: species survive because of God's designs. Survival struggles do not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not the opposite! It is purpose and result: according to your theory, your God wanted organisms to survive, and so he designed ways in which they could survive, and so they survived because of his designs. The purpose of the evolutionary innovations was to enable organisms to survive – totally in keeping with Darwin’s theory.

DAVID: Absolutely no!!! "Evolutionary innovations" advanced evolution from bacteria. God's new designs drive evolution forward.

dhw: But a moment ago you were saying that God’s purpose in designing the innovations was to “guarantee survival”. How does that suddenly come to mean that the purpose of the innovations absolutely wasn’t to enable organisms to survive?

God's purpose is to advance evolutionary steps to reach us. Survival must be guaranteed so each step survives until the next step is designed from it.


Xenobots
DAVID: This is not puzzling to me. The clumps of skin cells are simply following the instructions they have in their DNA.

dhw: I’m surprised their DNA tells them to accomplish tasks in a way that surprises the researchers. It all sounds to me very much like the form of intelligence exhibited by bacteria and viruses, which also have no brains and yet all too frequently manage to outsmart us by intelligently “re-using what’s at hand”.

DAVID: The bacteria and viruses follow instructions they were given by God.

dhw: And of course you firmly believe that the future will reveal to us all God’s good intentions in instructing Covid-19 to kill millions of people.

Millions not killed yet, and I fully believe the virus is a free-will Chinese invention.


Survival in bacteria

DAVID: In evolution what is invented in the past is used in the present, so the 99% gone directly relate to humans. Also this study shows how survival is guaranteed by design, which had to be present in the first bacterial designed organisms.

dhw: How on earth does the current survival of bacteria prove that the separately designed and extinct brontosaurus plus the rest of the separately designed and extinct 99% are directly related to humans, although you have already agreed that the brontosaurus and the separately designed and extinct 99% had no direction connection to humans?

No direct time relationship, with a gap of 64 million years, but a stepwise design relationship through evolution, which you inexplicably constantly avoid recognizing.

dhw: Survival is not “guaranteed” by design if 99% of life forms failed to survive! But yes, life goes on in ever changing forms. The only form that has survived since the beginning is bacteria, so at best you can only claim that your God seems to have guaranteed the survival of bacteria. So what is that meant to prove?

Guaranteed only until the next step is present. The 99% were designed to fail, making room for next larger populations.

How reliable is science? Radioactive dating>

dhw: I like the heading you have given to this thread! You never commented on the hilarious entry the other day under Cambrian:

The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

dhw: Very precise, with an error margin of only 50%!

Precise enough to make the point, sticking a dagger into the heart of Darwin's gradualism, recognized by Gould who pointed out all the unexplained large gaps in Darwin's tree

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, April 15, 2021, 11:09 (1078 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: […] according to your theory, your God wanted organisms to survive, and so he designed ways in which they could survive, and so they survived because of his designs. The purpose of the evolutionary innovations was to enable organisms to survive – totally in keeping with Darwin’s theory.

DAVID: Absolutely no!!! "Evolutionary innovations" advanced evolution from bacteria. God's new designs drive evolution forward.

dhw: But a moment ago you were saying that God’s purpose in designing the innovations was to “guarantee survival”. How does that suddenly come to mean that the purpose of the innovations absolutely wasn’t to enable organisms to survive?

DAVID: God's purpose is to advance evolutionary steps to reach us. Survival must be guaranteed so each step survives until the next step is designed from it.

Now each of the 1% of life forms relevant to humans has to survive until it is no longer required, and so – just as with the other 99% - your God specially designs all the innovations to ensure their survival until they die. And somehow this means that he specially designs the innovations to enable them to survive (until they die), but he does NOT specially design their innovations to enable them to survive (until they die). Bewildering!

Survival in bacteria
DAVID: . Also this study shows how survival is guaranteed by design, which had to be present in the first bacterial designed organisms.

dhw: How on earth does the current survival of bacteria prove that the separately designed and extinct brontosaurus plus the rest of the separately designed and extinct 99% are directly related to humans, although you have already agreed that the brontosaurus and the separately designed and extinct 99% had no direction connection to humans?

DAVID: No direct time relationship, with a gap of 64 million years, but a stepwise design relationship through evolution, which you inexplicably constantly avoid recognizing.

Are you now telling us that your God organized a step-by-step direct line between the brontosaurus (plus food supply) and us (plus food supply)? Not to mention any one of the other 99% of specially designed and extinct life forms plus food supplies. This really will cause a sensation in the scientific world.

Xenobots
dhw: […] It all sounds to me very much like the form of intelligence exhibited by bacteria and viruses, which also have no brains and yet all too frequently manage to outsmart us by intelligently “re-using what’s at hand”.

DAVID: The bacteria and viruses follow instructions they were given by God.

dhw: And of course you firmly believe that the future will reveal to us all God’s good intentions in instructing Covid-19 to kill millions of people.

DAVID: Millions not killed yet, and I fully believe the virus is a free-will Chinese invention.

Oh well, how about all the viruses and bacteria that killed millions of people before we learned how to invent viruses?

How reliable is science? Radioactive dating
dhw: I like the heading you have given to this thread! You never commented on the hilarious entry the other day under Cambrian:
The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

dhw: Very precise, with an error margin of only 50%!

DAVID: Precise enough to make the point, sticking a dagger into the heart of Darwin's gradualism, recognized by Gould who pointed out all the unexplained large gaps in Darwin's tree.

I was simply giving an example of scientific "reliability". Gradualism is relative. The theory of cellular intelligence “drives a dagger” into the heart of those who claim that half a million years (thousands of generations) is not enough time for new organs to evolve, and therefore they must have been intelligently designed by God. Intelligence could have done it in the time allowed. And now we have the possibility that intelligence did indeed do the designing – namely that of intelligent cells which could have been designed by your God.

Our special gait
DAVID: No other biped walked/walks as we do:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-steps-book-bipedalism-human-evolution-anatomy...


DAVID: No question, we are unique in so many ways not explained by any natural theory of evolution. This is only one aspect of our bodies' unusual postures and and our unusual dexterity of how we can make our bodies move.

Yes, we are unique, and we are the product of many stages of evolution. I doubt if any evolutionist would disagree. Why do we have to keep repeating this? The controversy in our own discussions concerns your insistence that this means we were your God’s only purpose, and he specially designed every other life form and food bush “as part of the goal of evolving (= specially designing) humans” (plus food bush).

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 15, 2021, 19:22 (1078 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: God's purpose is to advance evolutionary steps to reach us. Survival must be guaranteed so each step survives until the next step is designed from it.

dhw:...And somehow this means that he specially designs the innovations to enable them to survive (until they die), but he does NOT specially design their innovations to enable them to survive (until they die). Bewildering!

Sorry about your confusion. Is evolution stepwise as more complexity appears? Each step sets up the appearance of the next step. Perfectly sensible


Survival in bacteria

DAVID: No direct time relationship, with a gap of 64 million years, but a stepwise design relationship through evolution, which you inexplicably constantly avoid recognizing.

dhw: Are you now telling us that your God organized a step-by-step direct line between the brontosaurus (plus food supply) and us (plus food supply)? Not to mention any one of the other 99% of specially designed and extinct life forms plus food supplies. This really will cause a sensation in the scientific world.

Each new step is an advance from the older steps. All steps required. Until you recognize this necessity you will remain confused.


How reliable is science? Radioactive dating
dhw: I like the heading you have given to this thread! You never commented on the hilarious entry the other day under Cambrian:
The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years.

dhw: Very precise, with an error margin of only 50%!

DAVID: Precise enough to make the point, sticking a dagger into the heart of Darwin's gradualism, recognized by Gould who pointed out all the unexplained large gaps in Darwin's tree.

dhw: I was simply giving an example of scientific "reliability". Gradualism is relative. The theory of cellular intelligence “drives a dagger” into the heart of those who claim that half a million years (thousands of generations) is not enough time for new organs to evolve, and therefore they must have been intelligently designed by God. Intelligence could have done it in the time allowed. And now we have the possibility that intelligence did indeed do the designing – namely that of intelligent cells which could have been designed by your God.

The study going back 540 million years about was +/- 200,000 years which means the gap was 200,000 years to 600,000 years, a tiny amount of time to bring all the complex Cambrians into existence , just as Darwin fussed about it, noting no precursors. All you have done is talk around it with no answers.


Our special gait
DAVID: No other biped walked/walks as we do:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-steps-book-bipedalism-human-evolution-anatomy...


DAVID: No question, we are unique in so many ways not explained by any natural theory of evolution. This is only one aspect of our bodies' unusual postures and and our unusual dexterity of how we can make our bodies move.

dhw: Yes, we are unique, and we are the product of many stages of evolution. I doubt if any evolutionist would disagree. Why do we have to keep repeating this? The controversy in our own discussions concerns your insistence that this means we were your God’s only purpose, and he specially designed every other life form and food bush “as part of the goal of evolving (= specially designing) humans” (plus food bush).

Yes, you find my view of God's works as controversial. I'm not surprised.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, April 16, 2021, 12:25 (1077 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: God's purpose is to advance evolutionary steps to reach us. Survival must be guaranteed so each step survives until the next step is designed from it.

dhw:...And somehow this means that he specially designs the innovations to enable them to survive (until they die), but he does NOT specially design their innovations to enable them to survive (until they die). Bewildering!

DAVID: Sorry about your confusion. Is evolution stepwise as more complexity appears? Each step sets up the appearance of the next step. Perfectly sensible.
And
DAVID: Each new step is an advance from the older steps. All steps required. Until you recognize this necessity you will remain confused.

Yes, it is sensible, except when you pretend that each step along each of the hundreds (thousands?) of diverse branches is a step towards humans! But do tell us how azhdarchid pterosaur was a required “step towards” humans and their food supply.

How reliable is science? Radioactive dating
DAVID: Precise enough to make the point, sticking a dagger into the heart of Darwin's gradualism, recognized by Gould who pointed out all the unexplained large gaps in Darwin's tree.

dhw: I was simply giving an example of scientific "reliability". Gradualism is relative. The theory of cellular intelligence “drives a dagger” into the heart of those who claim that half a million years (thousands of generations) is not enough time for new organs to evolve, and therefore they must have been intelligently designed by God. Intelligence could have done it in the time allowed. And now we have the possibility that intelligence did indeed do the designing – namely that of intelligent cells which could have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The study going back 540 million years about was +/- 200,000 years which means the gap was 200,000 years to 600,000 years, a tiny amount of time to bring all the complex Cambrians into existence , just as Darwin fussed about it, noting no precursors. All you have done is talk around it with no answers.

You believe that a possible answer is your intelligent God having enough time to design all the new complexities. Why then is it not an answer to propose (theistic version) that your God designed a form of intelligence which would give organisms enough time to design all the new complexities?

Our special gait
dhw: Yes, we are unique, and we are the product of many stages of evolution. I doubt if any evolutionist would disagree. Why do we have to keep repeating this? The controversy in our own discussions concerns your insistence that this means we were your God’s only purpose, and he specially designed every other life form and food bush “as part of the goal of evolving (= specially designing) humans” (plus food bush).

DAVID: Yes, you find my view of God's works as controversial. I'm not surprised.

That’s a relief. You would only have been surprised if you thought you had offered a logical explanation for your theory.

Gene expression like dimmer switch
QUOTE: Dimmer switch gene regulation may allow cells to fine-tune their responses to multi-input environments on both physiological and evolutionary time scales.

DAVID: Another very carefully designed system which creates gene expression activity depending on different sugar concentrations. We can see how iT is done step by step, but still have no way of understanding the underlying mechanisms of control. That is still a total black box.

Once more, we have support for the idea that cells RESPOND to new requirements. You are, of course, quite right that we don’t understand the mechanisms of control, but autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) should be recognized as one possibility.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, April 16, 2021, 22:52 (1077 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: Sorry about your confusion. Is evolution stepwise as more complexity appears? Each step sets up the appearance of the next step. Perfectly sensible.
And
DAVID: Each new step is an advance from the older steps. All steps required. Until you recognize this necessity you will remain confused.

Yes, it is sensible, except when you pretend that each step along each of the hundreds (thousands?) of diverse branches is a step towards humans! But do tell us how azhdarchid pterosaur was a required “step towards” humans and their food supply.

You always forget the importance of ecosystems at each period of evolution God purposely designed them as self-organizing with top predators. Azhdarchid pterosaur played his necessary role.


How reliable is science? Radioactive dating

dhw: I was simply giving an example of scientific "reliability". Gradualism is relative. The theory of cellular intelligence “drives a dagger” into the heart of those who claim that half a million years (thousands of generations) is not enough time for new organs to evolve, and therefore they must have been intelligently designed by God. Intelligence could have done it in the time allowed. And now we have the possibility that intelligence did indeed do the designing – namely that of intelligent cells which could have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The study going back 540 million years about was +/- 200,000 years which means the gap was 200,000 years to 600,000 years, a tiny amount of time to bring all the complex Cambrians into existence , just as Darwin fussed about it, noting no precursors. All you have done is talk around it with no answers.

dhw: You believe that a possible answer is your intelligent God having enough time to design all the new complexities. Why then is it not an answer to propose (theistic version) that your God designed a form of intelligence which would give organisms enough time to design all the new complexities?

Again you grant your humanized God second-hand control of the progress in evolution.


Our special gait
dhw: Yes, we are unique, and we are the product of many stages of evolution. I doubt if any evolutionist would disagree. Why do we have to keep repeating this? The controversy in our own discussions concerns your insistence that this means we were your God’s only purpose, and he specially designed every other life form and food bush “as part of the goal of evolving (= specially designing) humans” (plus food bush).

DAVID: Yes, you find my view of God's works as controversial. I'm not surprised.

dhw: That’s a relief. You would only have been surprised if you thought you had offered a logical explanation for your theory.

For me God is logical. I came from your position. I'm sorry you cannot follow my logic. I know a great deal about biochemistry. Living biochemistry is so highly complex it had to be designed by a designer. There can be no other logical explanation. Since humans have a God theory, why not employ it? That is all I have done


Gene expression like dimmer switch
QUOTE: Dimmer switch gene regulation may allow cells to fine-tune their responses to multi-input environments on both physiological and evolutionary time scales.

DAVID: Another very carefully designed system which creates gene expression activity depending on different sugar concentrations. We can see how iT is done step by step, but still have no way of understanding the underlying mechanisms of control. That is still a total black box.

dhw: Once more, we have support for the idea that cells RESPOND to new requirements. You are, of course, quite right that we don’t understand the mechanisms of control, but autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) should be recognized as one possibility.

Cells follow God's instructions so they look intelligent. How cells react is by molecular reactions controlled by the genome. How those controls work is a total black box. We are just at the lower levels of the control boxes piled on high

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, April 17, 2021, 11:54 (1076 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: Sorry about your confusion. Is evolution stepwise as more complexity appears? Each step sets up the appearance of the next step. Perfectly sensible.
And
DAVID: Each new step is an advance from the older steps. All steps required. Until you recognize this necessity you will remain confused.

Yes, it is sensible, except when you pretend that each step along each of the thousands of diverse branches is a step towards humans! But do tell us how azhdarchid pterosaur was a required “step towards” humans and their food supply.

DAVID: You always forget the importance of ecosystems at each period of evolution God purposely designed them as self-organizing with top predators. Azhdarchid pterosaur played his necessary role.

Delighted to hear that your God made them self-organizing. I would extend that principle a lot further than you. Meanwhile, “you always forget” that the great big hole in your theory is your belief that your God “had to” design all these millions of life forms, ecosystems, food supplies, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce one life form plus food supply, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans.

Cambrian
DAVID: The study going back 540 million years about was +/- 200,000 years which means the gap was 200,000 years to 600,000 years, a tiny amount of time to bring all the complex Cambrians into existence , just as Darwin fussed about it, noting no precursors. All you have done is talk around it with no answers.

dhw: You believe that a possible answer is your intelligent God having enough time to design all the new complexities. Why then is it not an answer to propose (theistic version) that your God designed a form of intelligence which would give organisms enough time to design all the new complexities?

DAVID: Again you grant your humanized God second-hand control of the progress in evolution.

I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

Our special gait
DAVID: Yes, you find my view of God's works as controversial. I'm not surprised.

dhw: That’s a relief. You would only have been surprised if you thought you had offered a logical explanation for your theory.

DAVID: For me God is logical. I came from your position. I'm sorry you cannot follow my logic. I know a great deal about biochemistry. Living biochemistry is so highly complex it had to be designed by a designer. There can be no other logical explanation. Since humans have a God theory, why not employ it? That is all I have done.

Nothing controversial there. I have no objections to the logic of your design argument, and you know perfectly well that this is NOT the aspect of your theory that I criticize. But it suits you to harp on about it rather than face the fact that you have no idea why your God “had to” use the totally illogical method you impose on him (designing all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans) in order to achieve the one and only purpose you impose on him (to design humans).

Gene expression like dimmer switch
dhw: Once more, we have support for the idea that cells RESPOND to new requirements. You are, of course, quite right that we don’t understand the mechanisms of control, but autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) should be recognized as one possibility.

DAVID: Cells follow God's instructions so they look intelligent. How cells react is by molecular reactions controlled by the genome. How those controls work is a total black box. We are just at the lower levels of the control boxes piled on high.

Your usual statement of opinion as if it were fact. If we don’t know how the controls work, it is patently absurd to dismiss the possibility that what LOOKS intelligent might actually BE intelligent.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 17, 2021, 19:58 (1076 days ago) @ dhw

Survival
DAVID: Sorry about your confusion. Is evolution stepwise as more complexity appears? Each step sets up the appearance of the next step. Perfectly sensible.
And
DAVID: Each new step is an advance from the older steps. All steps required. Until you recognize this necessity you will remain confused.

dhw: Yes, it is sensible, except when you pretend that each step along each of the thousands of diverse branches is a step towards humans! But do tell us how azhdarchid pterosaur was a required “step towards” humans and their food supply.

Part of its particular required ecosystem at its time


DAVID: You always forget the importance of ecosystems at each period of evolution God purposely designed them as self-organizing with top predators. Azhdarchid pterosaur played his necessary role.

dhw: Delighted to hear that your God made them self-organizing. I would extend that principle a lot further than you. Meanwhile, “you always forget” that the great big hole in your theory is your belief that your God “had to” design all these millions of life forms, ecosystems, food supplies, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce one life form plus food supply, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans.

Same illogical mantra. God chose to evolve us.


Cambrian
DAVID: The study going back 540 million years about was +/- 200,000 years which means the gap was 200,000 years to 600,000 years, a tiny amount of time to bring all the complex Cambrians into existence , just as Darwin fussed about it, noting no precursors. All you have done is talk around it with no answers.

dhw: You believe that a possible answer is your intelligent God having enough time to design all the new complexities. Why then is it not an answer to propose (theistic version) that your God designed a form of intelligence which would give organisms enough time to design all the new complexities?

DAVID: Again you grant your humanized God second-hand control of the progress in evolution.

dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

Your humanized God can do anything He wants in your imagination.


Our special gait
DAVID: Yes, you find my view of God's works as controversial. I'm not surprised.

dhw: That’s a relief. You would only have been surprised if you thought you had offered a logical explanation for your theory.

DAVID: For me God is logical. I came from your position. I'm sorry you cannot follow my logic. I know a great deal about biochemistry. Living biochemistry is so highly complex it had to be designed by a designer. There can be no other logical explanation. Since humans have a God theory, why not employ it? That is all I have done.

dhw: Nothing controversial there... But it suits you to harp on about it rather than face the fact that you have no idea why your God “had to” use the totally illogical method you impose on him (designing all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans) in order to achieve the one and only purpose you impose on him (to design humans).

Same old lack of logical thinking. God chose to evolve us as history shows.


Gene expression like dimmer switch
dhw: Once more, we have support for the idea that cells RESPOND to new requirements. You are, of course, quite right that we don’t understand the mechanisms of control, but autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) should be recognized as one possibility.

DAVID: Cells follow God's instructions so they look intelligent. How cells react is by molecular reactions controlled by the genome. How those controls work is a total black box. We are just at the lower levels of the control boxes piled on high.

dhw: Your usual statement of opinion as if it were fact. If we don’t know how the controls work, it is patently absurd to dismiss the possibility that what LOOKS intelligent might actually BE intelligent.

We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, April 18, 2021, 12:51 (1075 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: Sorry about your confusion. Is evolution stepwise as more complexity appears? Each step sets up the appearance of the next step. Perfectly sensible.
And
DAVID: Each new step is an advance from the older steps. All steps required. Until you recognize this necessity you will remain confused.

dhw: Yes, it is sensible, except when you pretend that each step along each of the thousands of diverse branches is a step towards humans! But do tell us how azhdarchid pterosaur was a required “step towards” humans and their food supply.

DAVID: Part of its particular required ecosystem at its time.

And how on earth does that come to mean that the particular ecosystem at its time was “a required step” towards the special design of humans and their ecosystems?

dhw: […] “you always forget” that the great big hole in your theory is your belief that your God “had to” design all these millions of life forms, ecosystems, food supplies, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to produce one life form plus food supply, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Same illogical mantra. God chose to evolve us.

Cracked record: According to you, your God chose to evolve [= specially design] every life form, econiche etc. that ever existed, and...for the thousandth time...99% had no connection with us or our food supply. You know that it doesn’t make sense, but since you are unwilling to consider any alternative reading of history, we should leave it at that – at least until the next time you produce your “illogical mantra”.

Cambrian
DAVID: The study going back 540 million years about was +/- 200,000 years which means the gap was 200,000 years to 600,000 years, a tiny amount of time to bring all the complex Cambrians into existence , just as Darwin fussed about it, noting no precursors. All you have done is talk around it with no answers.

dhw: You believe that a possible answer is your intelligent God having enough time to design all the new complexities. Why then is it not an answer to propose (theistic version) that your God designed a form of intelligence which would give organisms enough time to design all the new complexities?

DAVID: Again you grant your humanized God second-hand control of the progress in evolution.

dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

DAVID: Your humanized God can do anything He wants in your imagination.

Of course – and so can yours. That still doesn’t explain why you think your God, who apparently specially designed us and our autonomous intelligence, could not also have endowed other organisms with their own form of autonomous intelligence.

DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

I like your question, and thank you for at last acknowledging that cells are intelligent (though no doubt you will withdraw that in your next post). But I never said the cells got “so intelligent by themselves”. If you’re telling us that your God must have designed their intelligence, I’m not going to argue with the logic of your “design” argument. I’m an agnostic, remember? I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 18, 2021, 16:46 (1075 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian

dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

DAVID: Your humanized God can do anything He wants in your imagination.

dhw: Of course – and so can yours. That still doesn’t explain why you think your God, who apparently specially designed us and our autonomous intelligence, could not also have endowed other organisms with their own form of autonomous intelligence.

The research into living biochemical processes shows highly designed events. Tight controls are found in them. These are not natural developments from Darwin style random mutations. Our brains are not the same as genome controls. We have free will. Your comparison is not a real comparison. My God put in all the programmed cell controls over processes.


DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.[/b]

dhw: I like your question, and thank you for at last acknowledging that cells are intelligent (though no doubt you will withdraw that in your next post).

Please read carefully. The bold clearly tells us God coded intelligent actions into cells

dhw: But I never said the cells got “so intelligent by themselves”. If you’re telling us that your God must have designed their intelligence, I’m not going to argue with the logic of your “design” argument. I’m an agnostic, remember? I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion.

Because cells and resulting emergent life run/runs on God-given information to guide them.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, April 19, 2021, 10:33 (1074 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian
dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

DAVID: Your humanized God can do anything He wants in your imagination.

dhw: Of course – and so can yours. That still doesn’t explain why you think your God, who apparently specially designed us and our autonomous intelligence, could not also have endowed other organisms with their own form of autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: The research into living biochemical processes shows highly designed events. Tight controls are found in them.

I have never disputed the logic of your design argument or the need for tight controls to enable organisms to live and function.

DAVID: These are not natural developments from Darwin style random mutations.

We agreed years ago to reject that part of Darwin’s theory.

DAVID: Our brains are not the same as genome controls. We have free will. Your comparison is not a real comparison.

You are a firm believer in free will, and so I have used that as an example of your God’s willingness to give up control. If he was willing to give up control over one aspect of life (for whatever reasons), it is possible that he was willing to give up controls over other aspects (for whatever reasons).

DAVID: My God put in all the programmed cell controls over processes.

No need to repeat your theory. Just explain why in your view it is impossible for God to have invented a mechanism that would give organisms the intelligence to design their own innovations, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc.

DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

dhw: I like your question, and thank you for at last acknowledging that cells are intelligent (though no doubt you will withdraw that in your next post).

DAVID: Please read carefully. The bold clearly tells us God coded intelligent actions into cells.

Prophecy fulfilled. “How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves” and “God had to design them that way” clearly tells us that God designed their intelligence.

dhw: I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion.

DAVID: Because cells and resulting emergent life run/runs on God-given information to guide them.

What sort of information are you talking about? If it’s to guide them, is this your “instructional” information? Why don’t you just say God gave cells instructions on what to do in every single situation that might arise for the rest of life’s history, and they are all automatons? The exact opposite of “so intelligent”!

Photosynthesis
DAVID: Photosynthesis is so complex we are still picking apart steps we don't understand. As in origin of life it seems obvious design is required since there is no time for a Darwin style evolution caused by a series of random mutations.

I do wish you wouldn’t keep sniping at Darwin, whose random mutations theory was applied to speciation – i.e. Chapter Two of life. I have no problem with your design argument, but what has time got to do with it? We are talking about millions of millions of years! How can anyone know how long it ought to take for such a process to evolve?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, April 19, 2021, 18:08 (1074 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, April 19, 2021, 18:32

Cambrian
dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

To have an inventive mechanism, it must have the ability to abstractly plan for the future actions of the new form. As before, as a designer myself, I can tell you it is much easier to do it yourself. I did not tell the architects a verbal design, I did the design. Much faster and I ended p with exactly what was desired.


DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

dhw: I like your question, and thank you for at last acknowledging that cells are intelligent (though no doubt you will withdraw that in your next post).

DAVID: Please read carefully. The bold clearly tells us God coded intelligent actions into cells.

dhw: Prophecy fulfilled. “How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves” and “God had to design them that way” clearly tells us that God designed their intelligence.

God just gave them intelligent instructional information which they decoded/followed and therefore looked as if they were intelligent.


dhw: I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion.

DAVID: Because cells and resulting emergent life run/runs on God-given information to guide them.

dhw: What sort of information are you talking about? If it’s to guide them, is this your “instructional” information? Why don’t you just say God gave cells instructions on what to do in every single situation that might arise for the rest of life’s history, and they are all automatons? The exact opposite of “so intelligent”!

You are confused. I am presenting only God's intelligent information cells follow..


Photosynthesis

DAVID: Photosynthesis is so complex we are still picking apart steps we don't understand. As in origin of life it seems obvious design is required since there is no time for a Darwin style evolution caused by a series of random mutations.

dhw: I do wish you wouldn’t keep sniping at Darwin, whose random mutations theory was applied to speciation – i.e. Chapter Two of life. I have no problem with your design argument, but what has time got to do with it? We are talking about millions of millions of years! How can anyone know how long it ought to take for such a process to evolve?

You forget I snip at Darwinists who are confused about how little Darwin knew when he wrote his book bringing to the fore the concept of common descent, an idea that had been floating around for some time. As for photosynthesis, highly complex, appearing so early after the start of life, its new short appearance timing discovery startled the Darwinist researchers who recognize it is strong evidence against random mutation as a cause. So timing has a lot to do with it. The article shows their surprise.

You seem to forget I have to present information from Darwinist articles, my only possible source for it. I have to counter their theist conclusions to stay in my belief system. As you have described our differing positions even today, it is obvious we are in two different universes of thought in which part of your approach is to present a weakened form of God, as above, with you having God give up control of direct designing. It is your obvious approach of describing a less purposeful God one who is continuously described as quite human in thought pattern. It is more direct to accept what God did and assume it was entirely purposeful and recognize it was fully intended without wondering about God's self-enjoyment or self-satisfaction, or self-aggrandizement. The full theistic view is God does not need any of that. Does God enjoy creating? Allegorically, yes, or He might not create, but God does not require enjoyment, so it is an allegorical 'yes'. I am not sure you will understand the nuance of difference.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, April 20, 2021, 12:11 (1073 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian
dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

DAVID: To have an inventive mechanism, it must have the ability to abstractly plan for the future actions of the new form. As before, as a designer myself, I can tell you it is much easier to do it yourself. I did not tell the architects a verbal design, I did the design. Much faster and I ended up with exactly what was desired.

Yet again: adaptation occurs IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and my proposal is that innovations arise for the same reason: e.g. whale legs would have turned into flippers as a result of entering the water, not in anticipation of their doing so. And much as I admire your ability to design a house specially for your future needs, I doubt if you would be quite so eager if you were asked to specially design millions and millions of houses for the different needs of different people, especially if you were told that every single house was necessary if you were going to build the one house you wanted. The analogy is a silly one anyway. I asked you why you thought your God could not have designed a mechanism giving organisms the autonomous ability to do their own designing. After all, isn’t that precisely what you think he gave you?

DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

dhw: I like your question, and thank you for at last acknowledging that cells are intelligent (though no doubt you will withdraw that in your next post).

DAVID: God just gave them intelligent instructional information which they decoded/followed and therefore looked as if they were intelligent.

dhw: I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion. […] Why don’t you just say God gave cells instructions on what to do in every single situation that might arise for the rest of life’s history, and they are all automatons? The exact opposite of “so intelligent”!

DAVID: You are confused. I am presenting only God's intelligent information cells follow.

And now instead of intelligent cells we have intelligent information. Wonderful to imagine information as sentient, cognizant, capable of making decisions…Why don’t you just say….see bold above.

Photosynthesis
DAVID: Photosynthesis is so complex we are still picking apart steps we don't understand. As in origin of life it seems obvious design is required since there is no time for a Darwin style evolution caused by a series of random mutations.

dhw: I do wish you wouldn’t keep sniping at Darwin, whose random mutations theory was applied to speciation – i.e. Chapter Two of life. I have no problem with your design argument, but what has time got to do with it? We are talking about millions of millions of years! How can anyone know how long it ought to take for such a process to evolve?

DAVID: You forget I snip at Darwinists who are confused about how little Darwin knew when he wrote his book bringing to the fore the concept of common descent, an idea that had been floating around for some time. As for photosynthesis, highly complex, appearing so early after the start of life, its new short appearance timing discovery startled the Darwinist researchers who recognize it is strong evidence against random mutation as a cause. So timing has a lot to do with it. The article shows their surprise.

Darwin did not deal with photosynthesis, which has nothing to do with his theory of random mutations causing evolutionary innovation, and please tell us how you know that photosynthesis ought to have taken longer than it did. The rest of your post simply repeats your insistence that we should only consider your humanized version of God and dismiss any alternatives – all dealt with on the theodicy thread.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

QUOTE: "Just as Lucy was raised a human, Carter lived as a chimp. But, after the best part of a decade, she had to extract herself and return to her own kind. She says: “I couldn’t live in both worlds.'”

DAVID: It is a giant gap and real domestication doesn't work.

I really don’t know why anyone should be surprised that chimps are not us and we are not chimps. However, I’m about to apply for a grant that will enable me to spend a year living with a pussy cat. The purpose of this research will be to ascertain the extent to which my way of life as well as my thought processes, concepts of society, codes of morality etc., differ from that of a pussy cat. The provisional title of the book I intend to write on this subject will be Pussy Cats \'r\' Not Us. I hope you will support my application.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 20, 2021, 18:29 (1073 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian
dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

DAVID: To have an inventive mechanism, it must have the ability to abstractly plan for the future actions of the new form. As before, as a designer myself, I can tell you it is much easier to do it yourself. I did not tell the architects a verbal design, I did the design. Much faster and I ended up with exactly what was desired.

Yet again: adaptation occurs IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and my proposal is that innovations arise for the same reason: ... I doubt if you would be quite so eager if you were asked to specially design millions and millions of houses The analogy is a silly one anyway. I asked you why you thought your God could not have designed a mechanism giving organisms the autonomous ability to do their own designing. After all, isn’t that precisely what you think he gave you?

Terrible analogy. Nothing below humans can do what I told you I did.


DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

dhw: I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion. […] Why don’t you just say God gave cells instructions on what to do in every single situation that might arise for the rest of life’s history, and they are all automatons? The exact opposite of “so intelligent”!

DAVID: You are confused. I am presenting only God's intelligent information cells follow.

dhw: And now instead of intelligent cells we have intelligent information. Wonderful to imagine information as sentient, cognizant, capable of making decisions…Why don’t you just say….see bold above.

Take off the constant blinkers. God taught the cells how to read the instructions. I love teasing you about information, because DNA is filled with it and it constantly obviously bothers you. Why? All life runs on it, by interpreting and following what is present for it to read. Without it life would not have appeared.


Photosynthesis

DAVID: You forget I snip at Darwinists who are confused about how little Darwin knew when he wrote his book bringing to the fore the concept of common descent, an idea that had been floating around for some time. As for photosynthesis, highly complex, appearing so early after the start of life, its new short appearance timing discovery startled the Darwinist researchers who recognize it is strong evidence against random mutation as a cause. So timing has a lot to do with it. The article shows their surprise.

dhw: Darwin did not deal with photosynthesis, which has nothing to do with his theory of random mutations causing evolutionary innovation, and please tell us how you know that photosynthesis ought to have taken longer than it did.

Darwin favored random mutations and gradualism. Rapid appearances of innovations refutes his theory of progress in evolution


Chimps ‘r’ not us

QUOTE: "Just as Lucy was raised a human, Carter lived as a chimp. But, after the best part of a decade, she had to extract herself and return to her own kind. She says: “I couldn’t live in both worlds.'”

DAVID: It is a giant gap and real domestication doesn't work.

dhw: I really don’t know why anyone should be surprised that chimps are not us and we are not chimps. However, I’m about to apply for a grant that will enable me to spend a year living with a pussy cat. The purpose of this research will be to ascertain the extent to which my way of life as well as my thought processes, concepts of society, codes of morality etc., differ from that of a pussy cat. The provisional title of the book I intend to write on this subject will be Pussy Cats \'r\' Not Us. I hope you will support my application.

Your tongue-in-cheek shows the foolishness of Nim Chimpsky.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 13:46 (1072 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian
dhw: I asked you why you thought your God could not have designed a mechanism giving organisms the autonomous ability to do their own designing. After all, isn’t that precisely what you think he gave you?

DAVID: Terrible analogy. Nothing below humans can do what I told you I did.

If he was willing to give you the mechanism to think and design for yourself, why do you insist that he could not have given a similar mechanism to other life forms? Shapiro calls your attitude “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): […] How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

dhw: I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion. […]

DAVID: Take off the constant blinkers. God taught the cells how to read the instructions. I love teasing you about information, because DNA is filled with it and it constantly obviously bothers you. Why? All life runs on it, by interpreting and following what is present for it to read. Without it life would not have appeared.

It bothers me because you and others use the word so indiscriminately, as in the absurd statement that information is the source of life. I don’t know why you have to call instructions “instructional information”, or why you try to reduce cellular intelligence to “intelligent information”. Shapiro’s theory is that cells are sentient, cognizant beings. These are attributes of intelligence. Is information sentient and cognizant? Why don’t you just say you think cells are automatons that mindlessly obey your God’s instructions, as planted there 3.8 billion years ago, or planted ad hoc when the need arises? (I suspect that even you find this a bit hard to swallow, and so it sounds far more scientific to say it all runs on information.)

Photosynthesis.
dhw: Darwin did not deal with photosynthesis, which has nothing to do with his theory of random mutations causing evolutionary innovation, and please tell us how you know that photosynthesis ought to have taken longer than it did.

DAVID: Darwin favored random mutations and gradualism. Rapid appearances of innovations refutes his theory of progress in evolution.

He was not talking about photosynthesis but about speciation. Why do you think photosynthesis should have taken longer than it did?

Gradualism in evolution
QUOTE: Dinosaurs had originated much earlier, at the beginning of the Triassic Period, some 245 million years ago, but they remained very rare until the shock events in the Carnian 13 million years later.

This is confusing. If they originated earlier, the rarity simply suggests that they did not become dominant until millions of years later. Nothing to do with speciation, then, or with gradualism.

DAVID: This is one prime example Bechly mentioned. Evolution runs in spirts, never slow and steady.

"Spurts" relate to what Gould meant by “punctuated equilibrium”, which fits in perfectly with the theory that speciation takes place when new conditions either demand or allow it.

Immune system complexity
DAVID: Immune cells build up populations in all organs over a lifetime:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/health/sleep-dementia-risk.html?campaign_id=60&e...

QUOTE: Their research, which indicates organ tissues become increasingly immune throughout life, may begin to alter fundamental ideas regarding the rules of vaccination and the immune system's function within the body.

DAVID: A complete system, well designed, recognizing bad bugs (in our view) are all around. I wish we knew the reason God provided them.

Yes, all part of your wishful thinking that your God’s actions would correspond to your theoretical view of his good nature. I thought vaccination was simply a way of accelerating the immune process. I don’t know why it should be surprising that tissues become increasingly immune throughout life, since the system will inevitably respond each time it encounters a new threat. It all goes back to the cell’s/cell community’s struggle for survival, but I agree that its ability to defend itself is so complex that it’s hard to believe that it could have arisen by chance.

Little Foot
DAVID: The conclusion is obvious: first down from the trees, then later arm and hand dexterity development, and finally brain enlargement followed by brain complexity, driven by what natural force, if any? Noting chimps remained essentially unchanged, why did we bother to keep changing. I will always believe God did it.

The natural force would be the drive to improve chances of survival. Chimps didn’t need to change, as they were able to survive perfectly well with what they had. Once our ancestors had descended from the trees, for whatever reason, they learned/developed new skills to enable them to cope ever more efficiently with the new conditions. I don’t have a problem with the proposal that the mechanism which enabled all organisms to develop new methods of coping with new conditions may have been invented by your God. But I do have a problem with the idea that every branch of the vast bush of life was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens’ brain.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 19:04 (1072 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): […]
DAVID: Take off the constant blinkers. God taught the cells how to read the instructions. I love teasing you about information, because DNA is filled with it and it constantly obviously bothers you. Why? All life runs on it, by interpreting and following what is present for it to read. Without it life would not have appeared.

dhw: It bothers me because you and others use the word so indiscriminately, as in the absurd statement that information is the source of life.

Initial life used information to run itself. Where did it cone from? OOL research assumes when RNA world assembled itself, the information it carried simply appeared. Totally stupid. The information life uses to produce its reactions and processes exits. Why dos it frighten you so much? Because it implies a mind designing life?


Photosynthesis.
dhw: Darwin did not deal with photosynthesis, which has nothing to do with his theory of random mutations causing evolutionary innovation, and please tell us how you know that photosynthesis ought to have taken longer than it did.

DAVID: Darwin favored random mutations and gradualism. Rapid appearances of innovations refutes his theory of progress in evolution.

dhw: He was not talking about photosynthesis but about speciation. Why do you think photosynthesis should have taken longer than it did?

Only under Darwin chance mutation theory. Why must I repeat the point.


Gradualism in evolution

dhw: This is confusing. If they originated earlier, the rarity simply suggests that they did not become dominant until millions of years later. Nothing to do with speciation, then, or with gradualism.

DAVID: This is one prime example Bechly mentioned. Evolution runs in spirts, never slow and steady.

dhw: "Spurts" relate to what Gould meant by “punctuated equilibrium”, which fits in perfectly with the theory that speciation takes place when new conditions either demand or allow it.

The spurts also produced Gould's gaps which Darwin does not explain. Remember?


Immune system complexity

DAVID: A complete system, well designed, recognizing bad bugs (in our view) are all around. I wish we knew the reason God provided them.

dhw: Yes, all part of your wishful thinking that your God’s actions would correspond to your theoretical view of his good nature. I thought vaccination was simply a way of accelerating the immune process. I don’t know why it should be surprising that tissues become increasingly immune throughout life, since the system will inevitably respond each time it encounters a new threat. It all goes back to the cell’s/cell community’s struggle for survival, but I agree that its ability to defend itself is so complex that it’s hard to believe that it could have arisen by chance.

It didn't


Little Foot
DAVID: The conclusion is obvious: first down from the trees, then later arm and hand dexterity development, and finally brain enlargement followed by brain complexity, driven by what natural force, if any? Noting chimps remained essentially unchanged, why did we bother to keep changing. I will always believe God did it.

dhw: The natural force would be the drive to improve chances of survival. Chimps didn’t need to change, as they were able to survive perfectly well with what they had. Once our ancestors had descended from the trees, for whatever reason, they learned/developed new skills to enable them to cope ever more efficiently with the new conditions. I don’t have a problem with the proposal that the mechanism which enabled all organisms to develop new methods of coping with new conditions may have been invented by your God. But I do have a problem with the idea that every branch of the vast bush of life was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens’ brain.

I know your problem.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, April 22, 2021, 09:00 (1071 days ago) @ David Turell

INFORMATION
DAVID: Take off the constant blinkers. God taught the cells how to read the instructions. I love teasing you about information, because DNA is filled with it and it constantly obviously bothers you. Why? All life runs on it, by interpreting and following what is present for it to read. Without it life would not have appeared.

dhw: It bothers me because you and others use the word so indiscriminately, as in the absurd statement that information is the source of life.

DAVID: Initial life used information to run itself.

Initial life means living organisms. And I’m delighted to hear that living organisms used information to run themselves. Welcome to the Land of Shapiro.

DAVID: Where did it cone from? OOL research assumes when RNA world assembled itself, the information it carried simply appeared. Totally stupid. The information life uses to produce its reactions and processes exits. Why dos it frighten you so much? Because it implies a mind designing life?

I am not in the least frightened of the word information, and frequently use it myself. I simply object when people use it indiscriminately and confusingly. There is no question that living organisms use information to produce their reactions and processes. How else could they respond to the world they live in? But information is passive. It produces nothing. It can only be used by a living organism. And so when someone says that information is the source of life, or information is intelligent, or information tells organisms what to do when they are confronted by information that requires a decision, I object to what I see as an unnecessarily confusing use of language.

Photosynthesis.
dhw: [Darwin] was not talking about photosynthesis but about speciation. Why do you think photosynthesis should have taken longer than it did?

DAVID: Only under Darwin chance mutation theory. Why must I repeat the point.

I didn’t know that Darwin attributed photosynthesis to chance mutations. I thought he was concerned with speciation. But I’m happy with your response. We can drop the subject since there is no reason at all to suppose that photosynthesis should have taken longer than it did.

Gradualism in evolution
dhw: This is confusing. If they originated earlier, the rarity simply suggests that they did not become dominant until millions of years later. Nothing to do with speciation, then, or with gradualism.

DAVID: This is one prime example Bechly mentioned. Evolution runs in spirts, never slow and steady.

dhw: "Spurts" relate to what Gould meant by “punctuated equilibrium”, which fits in perfectly with the theory that speciation takes place when new conditions either demand or allow it.

DAVID: The spurts also produced Gould's gaps which Darwin does not explain. Remember?

Yes. I think it’s a very convincing explanation, and I reckon Darwin would have approved. I note that you have not responded to the point that if dinosaurs already existed millions of years before they became dominant, Bechly’s example has nothing to do with speciation or with gradualism.

Little Foot
DAVID: The conclusion is obvious: first down from the trees, then later arm and hand dexterity development, and finally brain enlargement followed by brain complexity, driven by what natural force, if any? Noting chimps remained essentially unchanged, why did we bother to keep changing. I will always believe God did it.

dhw: The natural force would be the drive to improve chances of survival. Chimps didn’t need to change, as they were able to survive perfectly well with what they had. Once our ancestors had descended from the trees, for whatever reason, they learned/developed new skills to enable them to cope ever more efficiently with the new conditions. I don’t have a problem with the proposal that the mechanism which enabled all organisms to develop new methods of coping with new conditions may have been invented by your God. But I do have a problem with the idea that every branch of the vast bush of life was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens’ brain.

DAVID: I know your problem.

And you have never solved it!:-(

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: our evolution is convoluted and obviously our ancestors wandered all over the place, even across oceans. But the main line is still erectus to sapiens.

And this compounds the problem I have with your fixed beliefs. Why all the different lines, not only of the millions of organisms and lifestyles and econiches and natural wonders that had nothing to do with humans, but even of hominins and homos? Could all of them really have been necessary for God to specially design before he specially designed H. sapiens?

Corpse flower gene loss

DAVID: If the host plant is doing most of the work, shucking unneeded genes is a logical result.

Yes, the principle can be applied to all forms of evolution: once the “work” can be done efficiently by a new combination of “workers”, some of the old workers can be made redundant. This applies to speciation in general and to the human brain in particular.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 22, 2021, 20:54 (1071 days ago) @ dhw

INFORMATION

DAVID: Initial life used information to run itself.

dhw: Initial life means living organisms. And I’m delighted to hear that living organisms used information to run themselves. Welcome to the Land of Shapiro.

Shapiro never told use who or what supplied the necessary information.


DAVID: Where did it cone from? OOL research assumes when RNA world assembled itself, the information it carried simply appeared. Totally stupid. The information life uses to produce its reactions and processes exits. Why dos it frighten you so much? Because it implies a mind designing life?

dhw: I am not in the least frightened of the word information, and frequently use it myself. I simply object when people use it indiscriminately and confusingly. There is no question that living organisms use information to produce their reactions and processes. How else could they respond to the world they live in? But information is passive. It produces nothing. It can only be used by a living organism. I object to what I see as an unnecessarily confusing use of language.

You are just editorially picky.


Little Foot
DAVID: The conclusion is obvious: first down from the trees, then later arm and hand dexterity development, and finally brain enlargement followed by brain complexity, driven by what natural force, if any? Noting chimps remained essentially unchanged, why did we bother to keep changing. I will always believe God did it.

dhw: The natural force would be the drive to improve chances of survival. Chimps didn’t need to change, as they were able to survive perfectly well with what they had. Once our ancestors had descended from the trees, for whatever reason, they learned/developed new skills to enable them to cope ever more efficiently with the new conditions. I don’t have a problem with the proposal that the mechanism which enabled all organisms to develop new methods of coping with new conditions may have been invented by your God. But I do have a problem with the idea that every branch of the vast bush of life was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens’ brain.

DAVID: I know your problem.

dhw: And you have never solved it!:-(

All we know is that they did descend and then surprisingly grew huge brains and transformed the Earth. ;-)


Homo luzonensis
DAVID: our evolution is convoluted and obviously our ancestors wandered all over the place, even across oceans. But the main line is still erectus to sapiens.

dhw: And this compounds the problem I have with your fixed beliefs. Why all the different lines, not only of the millions of organisms and lifestyles and econiches and natural wonders that had nothing to do with humans, but even of hominins and homos? Could all of them really have been necessary for God to specially design before he specially designed H. sapiens?

Look at the example of evolution, a huge bush, all branches and twigs in every direction. Why not hominins? We arrived as the sole survivor in the end. You love to an analyze God's methods and criticize. Remember, God never thinks exactly like you think He does your continuous mistake about Him.


Corpse flower gene loss

DAVID: If the host plant is doing most of the work, shucking unneeded genes is a logical result.

dhw: Yes, the principle can be applied to all forms of evolution: once the “work” can be done efficiently by a new combination of “workers”, some of the old workers can be made redundant. This applies to speciation in general and to the human brain in particular.

The brain, yes. Because we were given a huge excess to use and modify into very capable set s of segments which allowed us to be so prolific in our pursuits, as God planned for us, not knowing what free-willed humans might want to invent. Some branches quickly pursued new brain uses while others are still stuck back at very primitive stages. Human Free will on exhibit.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, April 23, 2021, 13:38 (1070 days ago) @ David Turell

INFORMATION
DAVID: Initial life used information to run itself.

dhw: Initial life means living organisms. And I’m delighted to hear that living organisms used information to run themselves. Welcome to the Land of Shapiro.

DAVID: Shapiro never told us who or what supplied the necessary information.

Good for him. Like Darwin, he offers a theory of evolution (Chapter 2 of life), not of origins. And I wish you would stick to the belief expressed above that living organisms use information to run themselves, instead of them mindlessly obeying your God’s instructions. But I know you will call that overinterpretation!

dhw: […] There is no question that living organisms use information to produce their reactions and processes. How else could they respond to the world they live in? But information is passive. It produces nothing. It can only be used by a living organism. I object to what I see as an unnecessarily confusing use of language.

DAVID: You are just editorially picky.

Yes, I am. I want people to express their ideas as clearly as possible, and not to obfuscate through woolly use of language, which all too frequently masks woolly thinking.

Little Foot
dhw: I do have a problem with the idea that every branch of the vast bush of life was divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens’ brain.

DAVID: All we know is that they did descend and then surprisingly grew huge brains and transformed the Earth.

100% agreed! Our existence and our wondrous if frequently disastrous use of our comparatively large brains are indeed one of the many astonishing things we know about life on Earth. Your fascinating list of Nature’s Wonders barely scratches the surface. But how it all happened remains a mystery which is not solved by the theory bolded above!

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: our evolution is convoluted and obviously our ancestors wandered all over the place, even across oceans. But the main line is still erectus to sapiens.

dhw: And this compounds the problem I have with your fixed beliefs. Why all the different lines, not only of the millions of organisms and lifestyles and econiches and natural wonders that had nothing to do with humans, but even of hominins and homos? Could all of them really have been necessary for God to specially design before he specially designed H. sapiens?

DAVID: Look at the example of evolution, a huge bush, all branches and twigs in every direction.

Well done for at last recognizing that evolution is not one straight line leading from bacteria to H. sapiens.

DAVID: Why not hominins? We arrived as the sole survivor in the end. You love to an analyze God's methods and criticize. Remember, God never thinks exactly like you think He does your continuous mistake about Him.

It is not God’s methods, purpose, nature etc. but your interpretation of them that I analyze and criticize, and since another human quality you attribute to your God is logic, I keep challenging you to explain the logic behind your image of him as all-powerful, always in control, knowing precisely what he wanted and how to get it, and designing every extinct life form plus food supply, including every extinct hominin and homo plus food supply, because the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens plus food supply.

Chixculub luck or aimed?
QUOTE: It stands to reason, then, that without the asteroid impact the dinosaurs that had reigned for more than 100 million years would likely still be here, and therefore the primates would not be, and so neither would we.

DAVID: We are here. Luck or God's aim? It depends upon whether you are a theist or a materialist/naturalist.

Thank you for asking and not telling. :-)

Some ant brains shrink and grow
QUOTE: "It tells us that brains are a lot more plastic and have a lot more abilities to change back and forth between their size than we knew,” Penick says. "And ants, their brains have some shared traits with humans, believe it or not.”

DAVID: Some branches in evolution have strange results, but this is a logical result as a tradeoff. Brains take lots daily energy requirements (20% in humans), and egg production is very energy demanding. It doesn't mean any other species brain can learn to do it.

The one example is enough to show that our brains are not unique in having the ability to RESPOND to different requirements. Do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed this special ability in a particular form of ant, or that he popped in to do a dabble? Any alternative explanation?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, April 23, 2021, 20:06 (1070 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: our evolution is convoluted and obviously our ancestors wandered all over the place, even across oceans. But the main line is still erectus to sapiens.

dhw: And this compounds the problem I have with your fixed beliefs. Why all the different lines, not only of the millions of organisms and lifestyles and econiches and natural wonders that had nothing to do with humans, but even of hominins and homos? Could all of them really have been necessary for God to specially design before he specially designed H. sapiens?

DAVID: Look at the example of evolution, a huge bush, all branches and twigs in every direction.

Well done for at last recognizing that evolution is not one straight line leading from bacteria to H. sapiens.

DAVID: Why not hominins? We arrived as the sole survivor in the end. You love to an analyze God's methods and criticize. Remember, God never thinks exactly like you think He does your continuous mistake about Him.

dhw: It is not God’s methods, purpose, nature etc. but your interpretation of them that I analyze and criticize, and since another human quality you attribute to your God is logic, I keep challenging you to explain the logic behind your image of him as all-powerful, always in control, knowing precisely what he wanted and how to get it, and designing every extinct life form plus food supply, including every extinct hominin and homo plus food supply, because the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens plus food supply.

Of course, your analysis of God's purposes and goals may not fit your human logic, because you are human and He isn't. Much easier to look at results, especially our brain that no evolutionary theory assuming the driving force is survivability can really explain. Based on past history there is no reason we should be here.

Some ant brains shrink and grow
QUOTE: "It tells us that brains are a lot more plastic and have a lot more abilities to change back and forth between their size than we knew,” Penick says. "And ants, their brains have some shared traits with humans, believe it or not.”

DAVID: Some branches in evolution have strange results, but this is a logical result as a tradeoff. Brains take lots daily energy requirements (20% in humans), and egg production is very energy demanding. It doesn't mean any other species brain can learn to do it.

dhw: The one example is enough to show that our brains are not unique in having the ability to RESPOND to different requirements. Do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed this special ability in a particular form of ant, or that he popped in to do a dabble? Any alternative explanation?

Not all ants do this. Using my thoughts about how God does it, dabble.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, April 24, 2021, 13:01 (1069 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis

This item has ended up repeating muxch of the material discussed under “Back to theodicy and David’s theories”. But perhaps it’s worth repeating my answer to your final point:

DAVID: Of course, your analysis of God's purposes and goals may not fit your human logic, because you are human and He isn't.

It is YOUR analysis of your God’s purposes and goals that do not fit my human logic. Even you have agreed that my alternatives are logical, and you yourself have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method (designing 99% of life forms unconnected to humans) in order to achieve your version of his sole purpose (to design humans). You are just as human as I am (I think!), and so I don’t know why you regard your illogical theory as more likely to be the truth than my alternatives.

DAVID: Much easier to look at results, especially our brain that no evolutionary theory assuming the driving force is survivability can really explain. Based on past history there is no reason we should be here.

Based on past history, there is no reason why any multicelleluar organism should be here, since bacteria have survived very nicely. As regards our brain, you yourself have pointed out that early sapiens’ lifestyle did not differ from that of erectus, and I have pointed out that ALL early hominins and homos would have had survival as their Number One priority. For millions and millions of people today, it still is. But I agree that the sapiens brain has advanced way, way beyond preoccupation with survival. I don’t think anyone would disagree. But if past history shows that there is “no reason we should be here”, it also shows that there is no reason why any organisms other than bacteria should be here or should have been here.

Some ant brains shrink and grow
dhw: The one example is enough to show that our brains are not unique in having the ability to RESPOND to different requirements. Do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed this special ability in a particular form of ant, or that he popped in to do a dabble? Any alternative explanation?

DAVID: Not all ants do this. Using my thoughts about how God does it, dabble.

Wow! I wonder why he specially chose this one species of ant to use its brain in this way. Based on past history, there is no reason why such ants should be here. So are we to conclude that God’s one and only purpose was to produce the Indian jumping ant? Or is the Indian jumping ant’s special brain a vital ingredient of our food supply?


Carbon cycle bacterial contribution

QUOTE: The carbon, prevented from being buried even deeper in Earth, will eventually escape back into the atmosphere—where it could help warm the planet.

DAVID: ninety-nine percent of evolved organisms might be gone, but bacteria are still here because they are important for Earth's continuing warm life-friendly climate. So logical it means a designing mind must be running things. The 99% were not needed and necessarily discarded. Life started with Archaea bacteria and remain to help out in whatever process needs them. dhw can't see the clever planning mind running the show.

This must be one of your wackiest ever conclusions. According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. And according to you, your God specially designed every one of the 99% that were not needed. If they were not needed, why did he bother to specially design them?

I find the above quote a little perplexing. I thought that one of the major problems world leaders were currently grappling with was something called “global warming”, and we are all desperate to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. If we fail to do so, our planet may eventually become hostile to life. Please tell us what clever plan you think your God is hatching.

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same

DAVID: A new careful study of frontal lobe reactions in a group of folks all watching the same movie:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/17/eabf7129?utm_campaign=toc_advances_2021-04...

"Abstract
“How we process ongoing experiences is shaped by our personal history, current needs, and future goals.

DAVID: What this tells me is our oversized brains end up with individual results in complexification as we progress from infanthood to adulthood. This is the real picture we need to recognize. Our brains may be smaller than in our origin form from ongoing complexification, but we still complexify ourselves in very individual free-will fashion. God gave us this arrangement, knowing He wished us to have free will.

My latest application is for a grant to study lots and lots of people in order to prove once and for all that everybody is different, and to write a book explaining why. This may have been done before, but I am as different from everybody else as everybody else, so my analysis will be different from everybody else’s, and that is why I hope you will support my application.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 24, 2021, 18:54 (1069 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, April 24, 2021, 19:15

Homo luzonensis

DAVID: Of course, your analysis of God's purposes and goals may not fit your human logic, because you are human and He isn't.

dhw: It is YOUR analysis of your God’s purposes and goals that do not fit my human logic. Even you have agreed that my alternatives are logical, and you yourself have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method (designing 99% of life forms unconnected to humans) in order to achieve your version of his sole purpose (to design humans).

Your humanized God fits your theories, and as I've previously pointed out, given the personality your God seems to have, are then logical within that context.


DAVID: Much easier to look at results, especially our brain that no evolutionary theory assuming the driving force is survivability can really explain. Based on past history there is no reason we should be here.

dhw: Based on past history, there is no reason why any multicellular organism should be here, since bacteria have survived very nicely.

Bacteria were required/allowed survival because they are still actively helpful to all others

dhw: I agree that the sapiens brain has advanced way, way beyond preoccupation with survival. I don’t think anyone would disagree. But if past history shows that there is “no reason we should be here”, it also shows that there is no reason why any organisms other than bacteria should be here or should have been here.

Exactly. Why bacteria? Origin of life is still a miracle and must be part of the debate.


Some ant brains shrink and grow
dhw: The one example is enough to show that our brains are not unique in having the ability to RESPOND to different requirements. Do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed this special ability in a particular form of ant, or that he popped in to do a dabble? Any alternative explanation?

DAVID: Not all ants do this. Using my thoughts about how God does it, dabble.

dhw: Wow! I wonder why he specially chose this one species of ant to use its brain in this way. Based on past history, there is no reason why such ants should be here. So are we to conclude that God’s one and only purpose was to produce the Indian jumping ant? Or is the Indian jumping ant’s special brain a vital ingredient of our food supply?

Ususal reply. They play a role in their own ecosystem.>


Carbon cycle bacterial contribution

DAVID: ninety-nine percent of evolved organisms might be gone, but bacteria are still here because they are important for Earth's continuing warm life-friendly climate. So logical it means a designing mind must be running things. The 99% were not needed and necessarily discarded. Life started with Archaea bacteria and remain to help out in whatever process needs them. dhw can't see the clever planning mind running the show.

dhw: This must be one of your wackiest ever conclusions. According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. And according to you, your God specially designed every one of the 99% that were not needed. If they were not needed, why did he bother to specially design them?

Same gaping hole in your logic: all steps in increasingly complex evolving forms.


dhw: I find the above quote a little perplexing. I thought that one of the major problems world leaders were currently grappling with was something called “global warming”, Please tell us what clever plan you think your God is hatching.

Changes in Earth temperature is part of a never ending cycle. In a freezing universe, warm is better. God planned well for a warm Earth.


Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same

DAVID: A new careful study of frontal lobe reactions in a group of folks all watching the same movie:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/17/eabf7129?utm_campaign=toc_advances_2021-04...

"Abstract
“How we process ongoing experiences is shaped by our personal history, current needs, and future goals.

DAVID: What this tells me is our oversized brains end up with individual results in complexification as we progress from infanthood to adulthood. This is the real picture we need to recognize. Our brains may be smaller than in our origin form from ongoing complexification, but we still complexify ourselves in very individual free-will fashion. God gave us this arrangement, knowing He wished us to have free will.

dhw: My latest application is for a grant to study lots and lots of people in order to prove once and for all that everybody is different, and to write a book explaining why. This may have been done before, but I am as different from everybody else as everybody else, so my analysis will be different from everybody else’s, and that is why I hope you will support my application.

I do. Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, April 25, 2021, 09:32 (1068 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: Of course, your analysis of God's purposes and goals may not fit your human logic, because you are human and He isn't.

dhw: It is YOUR analysis of your God’s purposes and goals that do not fit my human logic. Even you have agreed that my alternatives are logical, and you yourself have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method (designing 99% of life forms unconnected to humans) in order to achieve your version of his sole purpose (to design humans).

DAVID: Your humanized God fits your theories, and as I've previously pointed out, given the personality your God seems to have, are then logical within that context.

Thank you. That logic is in stark contrast to your own theory, in which you have no idea why your own humanized God….see the bold above.

DAVID: […] Based on past history there is no reason we should be here.

dhw: Based on past history, there is no reason why any multicellular organism should be here, since bacteria have survived very nicely.

DAVID: Bacteria were required/allowed survival because they are still actively helpful to all others.

Why were all the others “required”? Please don’t tell me that the 99% of “branches and twigs” unconnected with humans were required so that God could specially design the brain of H. sapiens!

DAVID: […] Origin of life is still a miracle and must be part of the debate.

I agree. Chapter One is the origin of life, and that boils down to a designing God or a huge stroke of luck, or some form of panpsychism in which all matter has some form of consciousness. We can’t go any further than that. However, we can and do go a lot further (a) when discussing Chapter Two of life, evolution, and (b) the nature, purposes and methods of a God if such a being exists.

Some ant brains shrink and grow
dhw: The one example is enough to show that our brains are not unique in having the ability to RESPOND to different requirements. Do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed this special ability in a particular form of ant, or that he popped in to do a dabble? Any alternative explanation?

DAVID: Not all ants do this. Using my thoughts about how God does it, dabble.

dhw: Wow! I wonder why he specially chose this one species of ant to use its brain in this way. Based on past history, there is no reason why such ants should be here. So are we to conclude that God’s one and only purpose was to produce the Indian jumping ant? Or is the Indian jumping ant’s special brain a vital ingredient of our food supply?

DAVID: Usual reply. They play a role in their own ecosystem.

Of course. So does every life form. But you seem to have forgotten that according to you, God deliberately designed this particular brain, and according to you, all his designs were “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” (and their food supply). Please tell us the connection.

Carbon cycle bacterial contribution
DAVID: ninety-nine percent of evolved organisms might be gone, but bacteria are still here because they are important for Earth's continuing warm life-friendly climate. So logical it means a designing mind must be running things. The 99% were not needed and necessarily discarded. Life started with Archaea bacteria and remain to help out in whatever process needs them. dhw can't see the clever planning mind running the show.

dhw: This must be one of your wackiest ever conclusions. According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. And according to you, your God specially designed every one of the 99% that were not needed. If they were not needed, why did he bother to specially design them?

DAVID: Same gaping hole in your logic: all steps in increasingly complex evolving forms.

Same gaping hole in your logic: why was the complex form of our new friend azhdarchid pterosaur “not needed and necessarily discarded” but needed “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing”] humans”?

dhw: I find the above quote [concerning the way bacteria emit carbon] a little perplexing. I thought that one of the major problems world leaders were currently grappling with was something called “global warming”, Please tell us what clever plan you think your God is hatching.

DAVID: Changes in Earth temperature is part of a never ending cycle. In a freezing universe, warm is better. God planned well for a warm Earth.

So a) why did he subject it to periods of freezing – or do you think he lost control? – and b) why is better for life to be destroyed by excess heat than by excess cold?

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: A new careful study of frontal lobe reactions in a group of folks all watching the same movie:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/17/eabf7129?utm_campaign=toc_advances_2021-04...

DAVID: Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

No doubt the same applies to many of our fellow creatures. Why single out humans?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 25, 2021, 18:12 (1068 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis

dhw: It is YOUR analysis of your God’s purposes and goals that do not fit my human logic. Even you have agreed that my alternatives are logical, and you yourself have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method (designing 99% of life forms unconnected to humans) in order to achieve your version of his sole purpose (to design humans).

DAVID: Your humanized God fits your theories, and as I've previously pointed out, given the personality your God seems to have, are then logical within that context.

dhw: Thank you. That logic is in stark contrast to your own theory, in which you have no idea why your own humanized God….see the bold above.

You are so blind to your humanizing of God, you fully misinterpret my view of a non-human God


DAVID: […] Origin of life is still a miracle and must be part of the debate.

dhw: I agree. Chapter One is the origin of life, and that boils down to a designing God or a huge stroke of luck, or some form of panpsychism in which all matter has some form of consciousness. We can’t go any further than that.

I don't think that much luck is possible


Some ant brains shrink and grow

DAVID: Not all ants do this. Using my thoughts about how God does it, dabble.

dhw: Wow! I wonder why he specially chose this one species of ant to use its brain in this way. Based on past history, there is no reason why such ants should be here. So are we to conclude that God’s one and only purpose was to produce the Indian jumping ant? Or is the Indian jumping ant’s special brain a vital ingredient of our food supply?

DAVID: Usual reply. They play a role in their own ecosystem.

dhw: Of course. So does every life form. But you seem to have forgotten that according to you, God deliberately designed this particular brain, and according to you, all his designs were “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” (and their food supply). Please tell us the connection.

Remember, I have? One new stage's complexity always builds on the past developments.


Carbon cycle bacterial contribution

dhw: This must be one of your wackiest ever conclusions. According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. And according to you, your God specially designed every one of the 99% that were not needed. If they were not needed, why did he bother to specially design them?

DAVID: Same gaping hole in your logic: all steps in increasingly complex evolving forms.

dhw: Same gaping hole in your logic: why was the complex form of our new friend azhdarchid pterosaur “not needed and necessarily discarded” but needed “as part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing”] humans”?

All in the developing stages of evolution as explained from simple to complex.


dhw: I find the above quote [concerning the way bacteria emit carbon] a little perplexing. I thought that one of the major problems world leaders were currently grappling with was something called “global warming”, Please tell us what clever plan you think your God is hatching.

DAVID: Changes in Earth temperature is part of a never ending cycle. In a freezing universe, warm is better. God planned well for a warm Earth.

dhw: So a) why did he subject it to periods of freezing – or do you think he lost control? – and b) why is better for life to be destroyed by excess heat than by excess cold?

I think all part of God's plan for the current Earth with full civilization. Note homo sapiens survived during the recent freezes.


Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: A new careful study of frontal lobe reactions in a group of folks all watching the same movie:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/17/eabf7129?utm_campaign=toc_advances_2021-04...

DAVID: Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

dhw: No doubt the same applies to many of our fellow creatures. Why single out humans?

Don't have to. Our horses are all different in personality

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, April 26, 2021, 08:50 (1067 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis
dhw: It is YOUR analysis of your God’s purposes and goals that do not fit my human logic. Even you have agreed that my alternatives are logical, and you yourself have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method (designing 99% of life forms unconnected to humans) in order to achieve your version of his sole purpose (to design humans).

DAVID: Your humanized God fits your theories, and as I've previously pointed out, given the personality your God seems to have, are then logical within that context.

dhw: Thank you. That logic is in stark contrast to your own theory, in which you have no idea why your own humanized God….see the bold above.

DAVID: You are so blind to your humanizing of God, you fully misinterpret my view of a non-human God.

As I have shown, your God is as humanized as my various alternatives, and in any case that does not provide a logical explanation of the theory bolded above. What have I misinterpreted?

Some ant brains shrink and grow
DAVID: Not all ants do this. Using my thoughts about how God does it, dabble.

dhw: So are we to conclude that God’s one and only purpose was to produce the Indian jumping ant? Or is the Indian jumping ant’s special brain a vital ingredient of our food supply?

DAVID: Usual reply. They play a role in their own ecosystem.

dhw: Of course. So does every life form. But you seem to have forgotten that according to you, your God deliberately designed this particular brain, and according to you, all his designs were “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” (and their food supply). Please tell us the connection.

DAVID: Remember, I have? One new stage's complexity always builds on the past developments.

But evolution branched out into vast numbers of twigs and branches, 99% of which had no connection with humans. Please tell us why he had to specially design this particular ant brain and also our new friend azhdarchid pterosaur in order to design H. sapiens and our food supply.


Carbon cycle bacterial contribution
dhw: I find the above quote [concerning the way bacteria emit carbon] a little perplexing. I thought that one of the major problems world leaders were currently grappling with was something called “global warming”, Please tell us what clever plan you think your God is hatching.

DAVID: Changes in Earth temperature is part of a never ending cycle. In a freezing universe, warm is better. God planned well for a warm Earth.

dhw: So a) why did he subject it to periods of freezing – or do you think he lost control? – and b) why is better for life to be destroyed by excess heat than by excess cold?

DAVID: I think all part of God's plan for the current Earth with full civilization. Note homo sapiens survived during the recent freezes.

Do you believe that your God foresaw the current and future disasters being caused by our “full civilization” and exacerbated by the bacteria he deliberately designed to increase the amount of carbon in the air? This a serious question in the light of your particular “humanized” view of your God.

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

dhw: No doubt the same applies to many of our fellow creatures. Why single out humans?

DAVID: Don't have to. Our horses are all different in personality.

So why single out humans?

How viruses might fit in.
DAVID: Since I think God designed life, I must accept God also designed viruses and used them in advancing evolution.

And so logically you should also believe (I dislike your use of "accept", as it always implies some sort of objective truth) that since according to you he designed them and is always in full control, he used them to cause immense suffering and death. Or perhaps you might consider the possibility that he designed them and bacteria, and then left them to create the great free-for-all that led to the vast diversity of life forms past and present, the latest of which is H. sapiens.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, April 26, 2021, 19:08 (1067 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis

DAVID: You are so blind to your humanizing of God, you fully misinterpret my view of a non-human God.

dhw: As I have shown, your God is as humanized as my various alternatives, and in any case that does not provide a logical explanation of the theory bolded above. What have I misinterpreted?

My God is allegorical, so any statement about His personal attributes means similar to at the human level. His personality, in my concept of it, is diametrically opposite yours


Some ant brains shrink and grow

DAVID: Remember, I have? One new stage's complexity always builds on the past developments.

dhw: But evolution branched out into vast numbers of twigs and branches, 99% of which had no connection with humans. Please tell us why he had to specially design this particular ant brain and also our new friend azhdarchid pterosaur in order to design H. sapiens and our food supply.

All part of the giant ecosystem of food chains, since all animals must eat.>


Carbon cycle bacterial contribution

dhw: So a) why did he subject it to periods of freezing – or do you think he lost control? – and b) why is better for life to be destroyed by excess heat than by excess cold?

DAVID: I think all part of God's plan for the current Earth with full civilization. Note homo sapiens survived during the recent freezes.

dhw: Do you believe that your God foresaw the current and future disasters being caused by our “full civilization” and exacerbated by the bacteria he deliberately designed to increase the amount of carbon in the air? This a serious question in the light of your particular “humanized” view of your God.

My God is not in any way human. But He knew He had to create a warm Earth compared to the rest of the universe, proven by the fact we are really warm. He knew we would develop a giant population, since we are/were so superior and that necessarily would increase CO2. Temperature on Earth has many interlocking systems to influence it, including sun spot activity, which currently is very low so current whole Earth Temps are not really rising.


Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

dhw: No doubt the same applies to many of our fellow creatures. Why single out humans?

DAVID: Don't have to. Our horses are all different in personality.

So why single out humans?

I haven't. The article was a human example. This is another example of how you try to reduce our human exceptionalism, as it certainly upsets Darwin's theory, making us unexpected by it.


How viruses might fit in.
DAVID: Since I think God designed life, I must accept God also designed viruses and used them in advancing evolution.

dhw: And so logically you should also believe (I dislike your use of "accept", as it always implies some sort of objective truth) that since according to you he designed them and is always in full control, he used them to cause immense suffering and death. Or perhaps you might consider the possibility that he designed them and bacteria, and then left them to create the great free-for-all that led to the vast diversity of life forms past and present, the latest of which is H. sapiens.

My usual objection to free-for-all as if God gave up control. There you go again: Humans are not just diversity but an unexpected Darwinist result purposely created by god.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, April 27, 2021, 11:50 (1066 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: You are so blind to your humanizing of God, you fully misinterpret my view of a non-human God.

dhw: As I have shown, your God is as humanized as my various alternatives, and in any case that does not provide a logical explanation of the theory bolded above. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: My God is allegorical, so any statement about His personal attributes means similar to at the human level. His personality, in my concept of it, is diametrically opposite yours.

1) What did I misinterpret in your theory that your God only wanted sapiens and therefore designed thousands of life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens? 2) If your God is allegorical, it means he is a symbol. What does he symbolize? 3) Do please tell us which of your concepts of his personality are opposite to mine, but please don't use negatives.

Some ant brains shrink and grow
dhw: Please tell us why he had to specially design this particular ant brain and also our new friend azhdarchid pterosaur in order to specially design H. sapiens and our food supply.

DAVID: All part of the giant ecosystem of food chains, since all animals must eat.

How does this come to mean that they plus 99% of extinct organisms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”? “All animals must eat” does not provide a connection between ourselves and all life forms that ever existed and ate.

Carbon cycle bacterial contribution
DAVID: I think all part of God's plan for the current Earth with full civilization. […]

dhw: Do you believe that your God foresaw the current and future disasters being caused by our “full civilization” and exacerbated by the bacteria he deliberately designed to increase the amount of carbon in the air?

DAVID: But He knew He had to create a warm Earth compared to the rest of the universe, proven by the fact we are really warm. He knew we would develop a giant population, since we are/were so superior and that necessarily would increase CO2.

Since you believe he is always in control, do you think he deliberately created these bacteria to exacerbate the damage he knew we would cause to our planet?

DAVID: Temperature on Earth has many interlocking systems to influence it, including sun spot activity, which currently is very low so current whole Earth Temps are not really rising.

Are you saying that “global warming” is not happening, the icebergs are not melting, and our governments and large numbers of our scientists are following a false trail?

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

dhw: No doubt the same applies to many of our fellow creatures. Why single out humans?

DAVID: Don't have to. Our horses are all different in personality.

So why single out humans?

DAVID: I haven't. The article was a human example. This is another example of how you try to reduce our human exceptionalism, as it certainly upsets Darwin's theory, making us unexpected by it.

Please make up your mind. You have just agreed that we are not exceptional in being individually different, and now you want to plug exceptionalism! But yes, intellectually we are indeed exceptional. This does not upset Darwin’s theory in the least, since you also believe in common descent. Unexpected by whom? Were you there at the beginning? If so, when you first saw bacteria, did you say to yourself: “Hey, I expect dinosaurs and elephants and ants and eagles and sharks”?

How viruses might fit in.
dhw: […] perhaps you might consider the possibility that he designed them and bacteria, and then left them to create the great free-for-all that led to the vast diversity of life forms past and present, the latest of which is H. sapiens.

DAVID: My usual objection to free-for-all as if God gave up control.

Your usual “humanizing” of God as a control freak.

DAVID: There you go again: Humans are not just diversity but an unexpected Darwinist result purposely created by god.

Answered above.

Genes driving towards sapiens
QUOTE: "It's an important conceptual step from just the sequence—no tissue, no cells—to biological information and will enable many future studies.'" (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: In my bold is that nasty word 'information'.

I have no problem with the word “information” until it is used to obfuscate, as in absurd statements like ”Information is the source of life”.

DAVID: […] The major finding fits what we already knew from archaeology, modern sapiens evolution was on a fast unnatural evolutionary drive. God may have inserted a fast-driving coded process or may have pushed it Himself.

The “fast-driving coded process” of complexification (with minor expansion) in modern sapiens – which you have agreed works autonomously – is what I call cellular intelligence. What else could it be if it works autonomously?

Yawning has a real meaning

QUOTE: “…animals with bigger brains tend to yawn longer."

DAVID: Interesting take. I still think I do it when sleepy.

I was thinking of applying…yawn…for yet another grant…yawn…to study the philosophical and…yawn…biological and social implications of…zzzzzzzz.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 27, 2021, 16:43 (1066 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis

DAVID: My God is allegorical, so any statement about His personal attributes means similar to at the human level. His personality, in my concept of it, is diametrically opposite yours.

dhw: 1) What did I misinterpret in your theory that your God only wanted sapiens and therefore designed thousands of life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens? 2) If your God is allegorical, it means he is a symbol. What does he symbolize? 3) Do please tell us which of your concepts of his personality are opposite to mine, but please don't use negatives.

My God is fully purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing and never deviates from his goals.

Carbon cycle bacterial contribution

dhw: Since you believe he is always in control, do you think he deliberately created these bacteria to exacerbate the damage he knew we would cause to our planet? > Are you saying that “global warming” is not happening, the icebergs are not melting, and our governments and large numbers of our scientists are following a false trail?

The bacteria simply help our Earth's carbon cycle, and the Earth is now warming since the ice ages. I'm with the folks not worried about the current warming.


Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Our plastic brain allows us to not be cutout copies of each other.

dhw: So why single out humans?

DAVID: I haven't. The article was a human example. This is another example of how you try to reduce our human exceptionalism, as it certainly upsets Darwin's theory, making us unexpected by it.

dhw: Please make up your mind. You have just agreed that we are not exceptional in being individually different, and now you want to plug exceptionalism! But yes, intellectually we are indeed exceptional. This does not upset Darwin’s theory in the least, since you also believe in common descent. Unexpected by whom?

Darwin's survival theory cannot explain us. Apes survived without our brains.


Genes driving towards sapiens

DAVID: […] The major finding fits what we already knew from archaeology, modern sapiens evolution was on a fast unnatural evolutionary drive. God may have inserted a fast-driving coded process or may have pushed it Himself.

dhw: The “fast-driving coded process” of complexification (with minor expansion) in modern sapiens – which you have agreed works autonomously – is what I call cellular intelligence. What else could it be if it works autonomously?

We do not know how speciation occurs. I say God does it.


Yawning has a real meaning

QUOTE: “…animals with bigger brains tend to yawn longer."

DAVID: Interesting take. I still think I do it when sleepy.

dhw: I was thinking of applying…yawn…for yet another grant…yawn…to study the philosophical and…yawn…biological and social implications of…zzzzzzzz.

Sometimes so-called science is just funny stuff.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 11:20 (1065 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: My God is allegorical, so any statement about His personal attributes means similar to at the human level. His personality, in my concept of it, is diametrically opposite yours.

dhw: 1) What did I misinterpret in your theory that your God only wanted sapiens and therefore designed thousands of life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens? 2) If your God is allegorical, it means he is a symbol. What does he symbolize? 3) Do please tell us which of your concepts of his personality are opposite to mine, but please don't use negatives.

DAVID: My God is fully purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing and never deviates from his goals.

Questions 1 and 2 not answered. Amazingly, your concept of his personality fits in perfectly with one of the versions I have offered: his goal/purpose was to create an ever changing bush of life, he knew exactly what he was doing when he created the mechanisms for the free-for-all, and he has never deviated from it (though he might occasionally dabble).

Carbon cycle bacterial contribution
dhw: Since you believe he is always in control, do you think he deliberately created these bacteria to exacerbate the damage he knew we would cause to our planet? > Are you saying that “global warming” is not happening, the icebergs are not melting, and our governments and large numbers of our scientists are following a false trail?

DAVID: The bacteria simply help our Earth's carbon cycle, and the Earth is now warming since the ice ages. I'm with the folks not worried about the current warming.

Well, good for you. I guess it helps both of us that we are old and highly unlikely to see the full effects of global warming! My fear is that if they are unchecked, our grandchildren will look back on Covid-19 as a mere blip by comparison.

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same

dhw: You have just agreed that we are not exceptional in being individually different, and now you want to plug exceptionalism! But yes, intellectually we are indeed exceptional. This does not upset Darwin’s theory in the least, since you also believe in common descent. Unexpected by whom?

DAVID: Darwin's survival theory cannot explain us. Apes survived without our brains.

Of course it can explain us. A vast proportion of our inventions, conventions, institutions and lifestyles have arisen out of improvements to our chances of survival. Apes and all the other extant life forms have survived without our brains because they don’t need our brains to survive. How does that invalidate Darwin’s theory?

Genes driving towards sapiens
DAVID: […] The major finding fits what we already knew from archaeology, modern sapiens evolution was on a fast unnatural evolutionary drive. God may have inserted a fast-driving coded process or may have pushed it Himself.

dhw: The “fast-driving coded process” of complexification (with minor expansion) in modern sapiens – which you have agreed works autonomously – is what I call cellular intelligence. What else could it be if it works autonomously?

DAVID: We do not know how speciation occurs. I say God does it.

You were talking about modern sapiens’ evolution, and you have agreed that our brains work autonomously – i.e. God does not think our thoughts for us, and does not pop in to complexify our networks or expand our hippocampus. So what mechanism can you think of that might enable our brain cells to work autonomously if it is not cellular intelligence?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 16:12 (1065 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: My God is allegorical, so any statement about His personal attributes means similar to at the human level. His personality, in my concept of it, is diametrically opposite yours.

dhw: 1) What did I misinterpret in your theory that your God only wanted sapiens and therefore designed thousands of life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens? 2) If your God is allegorical, it means he is a symbol. What does he symbolize? 3) Do please tell us which of your concepts of his personality are opposite to mine, but please don't use negatives.

DAVID: My God is fully purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing and never deviates from his goals.

dhw: Questions 1 and 2 not answered. Amazingly, your concept of his personality fits in perfectly with one of the versions I have offered: his goal/purpose was to create an ever changing bush of life, he knew exactly what he was doing when he created the mechanisms for the free-for-all, and he has never deviated from it (though he might occasionally dabble).

Question 1 is same old illogical complaint fully answered previously. Question 2 is word game playing. God is the symbol of the designing mind running our reality.


Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same

DAVID: Darwin's survival theory cannot explain us. Apes survived without our brains.

dhw: Of course it can explain us. A vast proportion of our inventions, conventions, institutions and lifestyles have arisen out of improvements to our chances of survival. Apes and all the other extant life forms have survived without our brains because they don’t need our brains to survive. How does that invalidate Darwin’s theory?

Amazing you don't understand that concept. The complexities of our very civilized world make live more complete and enjoyable, but our survival was guaranteed lo ng ago as long as we don't use our atom bombs.


Genes driving towards sapiens
DAVID: […] The major finding fits what we already knew from archaeology, modern sapiens evolution was on a fast unnatural evolutionary drive. God may have inserted a fast-driving coded process or may have pushed it Himself.

dhw: The “fast-driving coded process” of complexification (with minor expansion) in modern sapiens – which you have agreed works autonomously – is what I call cellular intelligence. What else could it be if it works autonomously?

DAVID: We do not know how speciation occurs. I say God does it.

dhw: You were talking about modern sapiens’ evolution, and you have agreed that our brains work autonomously – i.e. God does not think our thoughts for us, and does not pop in to complexify our networks or expand our hippocampus. So what mechanism can you think of that might enable our brain cells to work autonomously if it is not cellular intelligence?

It is a mechanism coded into our DNA under God's control. As a result our cells look and act intelligently following God's implanted information

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, April 29, 2021, 08:55 (1064 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis
DAVID: My God is allegorical, so any statement about His personal attributes means similar to at the human level. His personality, in my concept of it, is diametrically opposite yours.

dhw: 1) What did I misinterpret in your theory that your God only wanted sapiens and therefore designed thousands of life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens? 2) If your God is allegorical, it means he is a symbol. What does he symbolize? 3) Do please tell us which of your concepts of his personality are opposite to mine, but please don't use negatives.

DAVID: My God is fully purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing and never deviates from his goals.

dhw: Questions 1 and 2 not answered. Amazingly, your concept of his personality fits in perfectly with one of the versions I have offered: his goal/purpose was to create an ever changing bush of life, he knew exactly what he was doing when he created the mechanisms for the free-for-all, and he has never deviated from it (though he might occasionally dabble).

DAVID: Question 1 is same old illogical complaint fully answered previously.

Never answered. You have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and food supplies, he would first have “chosen” to design countless life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: Question 2 is word game playing. God is the symbol of the designing mind running our reality.

“God” is one of several names we give to the designing mind. If he exists, he is the designing mind, and he is not a symbol!

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Darwin's survival theory cannot explain us. Apes survived without our brains.

dhw: Of course it can explain us. A vast proportion of our inventions, conventions, institutions and lifestyles have arisen out of improvements to our chances of survival. Apes and all the other extant life forms have survived without our brains because they don’t need our brains to survive. How does that invalidate Darwin’s theory?

DAVID: Amazing you don't understand that concept. The complexities of our very civilized world make live more complete and enjoyable, but our survival was guaranteed lo ng ago as long as we don't use our atom bombs.

Amazing how you introduce non sequiturs. Our so-called “civilized” world grew out of our increasingly efficient ways of surviving. Nothing is “guaranteed”, and what has that got to do with the fact that apes didn’t need our brains to survive?

Genes driving towards sapiens

I've moved your comment to the thread on pre-planning.

Embryo timekeeper
QUOTE: These studies revealed many similarities between the segmentation clock of humans and those of other animals. Analogues of the same genes and proteins are involved in mice and humans, for instance.

DAVID: We are all based on the same basic body plans so size of parts plays a big role in what types of species develop. This is highly complex design plan when timing is part of the process. Not by chance.

Also solid evidence for common descent. I agree that it’s not by chance (yee-ha for the possible intelligence of cells!). But my main reason for quoting it is to thank you yet again for all this fascinating information. (You see, I do use the word!)

Immunity at a distance
QUOTE: "In other words, the immune system’s surveillance of the brain is a bit spotty — a downside of the balancing act that evolution has achieved. “Maybe this is a necessary compromise,” Rustenhoven said."

DAVID: The so-called blood brain barrier keeps most chemicals in the blood away from the brain. On the other hand immunity had to be present. teh result is another complex design.

Agreed. It could also be taken for an example of how the cells organize themselves into “balancing acts”. And again, my thanks to you for this continuous education concerning the way living organisms function.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 29, 2021, 17:19 (1064 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis
dhw: 1) What did I misinterpret in your theory that your God only wanted sapiens and therefore designed thousands of life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens? 2) If your God is allegorical, it means he is a symbol. What does he symbolize? 3) Do please tell us which of your concepts of his personality are opposite to mine, but please don't use negatives.

DAVID: Question 1 is same old illogical complaint fully answered previously.

dhw: Never answered. You have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and food supplies, he would first have “chosen” to design countless life forms and their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans and their food supplies.

I cannot know His reasons for His chose of evolving us from bacteria, answered many times.


DAVID: Question 2 is word game playing. God is the symbol of the designing mind running our reality.

dhw: “God” is one of several names we give to the designing mind. If he exists, he is the designing mind, and he is not a symbol!

I simply said the word 'God' is the symbolic way we identify the Mind.


Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Darwin's survival theory cannot explain us. Apes survived without our brains.

DAVID: Amazing you don't understand that concept. The complexities of our very civilized world make live more complete and enjoyable, but our survival was guaranteed lo ng ago as long as we don't use our atom bombs.


dhw: nAmazing how you introduce non sequiturs. Our so-called “civilized” world grew out of our increasingly efficient ways of surviving. Nothing is “guaranteed”, and what has that got to do with the fact that apes didn’t need our brains to survive?

It tells us evolution of our brains was not naturally necessary, as above.


Immunity at a distance
QUOTE: "In other words, the immune system’s surveillance of the brain is a bit spotty — a downside of the balancing act that evolution has achieved. “Maybe this is a necessary compromise,” Rustenhoven said."

DAVID: The so-called blood brain barrier keeps most chemicals in the blood away from the brain. On the other hand immunity had to be present. The result is another complex design.

dhw: Agreed. It could also be taken for an example of how the cells organize themselves into “balancing acts”. And again, my thanks to you for this continuous education concerning the way living organisms function.

You are welcome.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, April 30, 2021, 13:18 (1063 days ago) @ David Turell

Homo luzonensis
All dealt with on the “theodicy” thread.

Introducing the brain: all human brains don't react the same
DAVID: Darwin's survival theory cannot explain us. Apes survived without our brains.

dhw: Of course it can explain us. A vast proportion of our inventions, conventions, institutions and lifestyles have arisen out of improvements to our chances of survival. Apes and all the other extant life forms have survived without our brains because they don't need our brains to survive. How does that invalidate Darwin's theory?

DAVID: Amazing you don't understand that concept. The complexities of our very civilized world make live more complete and enjoyable, but our survival was guaranteed lo ng ago as long as we don't use our atom bombs.

dhw: Amazing how you introduce non sequiturs. Our so-called “civilized” world grew out of our increasingly efficient ways of surviving. Nothing is “guaranteed”, and what has that got to do with the fact that apes didn’t need our brains to survive?

DAVID: It tells us evolution of our brains was not naturally necessary, as above.

As you keep agreeing, no multicellular form of life was “necessary”, since bacteria have survived from the beginning. My proposal is that multicellular organisms evolved as unicellular organisms found new ways of surviving by joining forces. This “naturally” turned into a symbiotic process, whereby new communities of cells joined together to find new ways of coping with or exploiting new conditions. Hence the vast bush of diverse life forms past and present. If God exists, he would have created the mechanism that enabled them to do this. Can you see anything in the known history of life that contradicts this theory?

Self awareness
DAVID: the book doesn't tell us anything new. It makes the usual point. We are exceptional and like nothing else.

Agreed. You are a voracious reader, and if you wish to apply for a grant to write a book about books and articles that tell us nothing new, I will happily support you.

Brain and body sizes
This belongs to the thread on “pre-planning”, but it is too long to for me to put on that thread.

QUOTES: "The climate shift appeared to have triggered the evolution of the biggest brain-to-body ratios, such as those of dolphins, elephants and apes. (David’s bold)
“'Brain-to-body size is of course not independent of the evolution of intelligence. But it may actually be more indicative of more general adaptions to large scale environmental pressures that go beyond intelligence.'”

DAVID: This is just descriptive, and offers no clues as to why the brains are bigger in the ways they are. The comment I bolded above is pure guess work. We don't know what causes the triggering of any aspect of evolution from a natural viewpoint.

If brain changes are triggered by environmental pressures, we have a logical thesis: that they respond to new conditions, either by adapting or by innovating. The question of the relationship between size and intelligence remains open, but when I googled to find the size of the elephant brain, I got a very illuminating answer, with a big laugh at the end. But first the facts:

If Elephants Have Bigger Brains, Why Are They Not Smarter ...
neuroscienceschool.com/2017/07/04/elephants-bigger-brains-not-smarter/

QUOTE: “The African elephant brain had three times the number of neurons in a human brain, 257 billion to our 86 billion. But, 98% of their neurons were located in the cerebellum, in the back of the brain. That left 5.6 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex of the elephant compared to 16 billion neurons in the human cortex.

The cerebellum is responsible for such functions as movement, balance, coordination, posture etc. And so presumably the bigger the animal, the more cells the brain will need to meet these physical requirements. And since the cortex is linked to mental activity, the more mental work the brain has to do, the more cells it will require. Conclusion: See below.

QUOTE: "So what do we have that no other animal has? A remarkable number of neurons in the cerebral cortex, the largest around, attainable by no other species, I say. And what do we do that absolutely no other animal does, and which I believe allowed us to amass that remarkable number of neurons in the first place? We cook our food."

Um…I would humbly suggest that there are a few other things we do and did that absolutely no other animal does/did: e.g. bipedalism, sophisticated weapons and tools, clothes, fire (not just for cooking), increasingly complex social structures, different methods of acquiring food etc. And I’m thinking that cooking did not “allow” the cerebral cortex to add more and more cells, but the cortex needed more cells during the process of discovering and learning how to use fire (just as modern illiterate women needed additional complexification of cells while learning to read). In other words, the brain did not get bigger BECAUSE Mr Man roasted the deer he had killed with his spear, and (David’s theory) it did not get bigger because God gave it new cells so that afterwards it could think of inventing spears and using fire. It got bigger, just as it now complexifies, by RESPONDING TO NEW REQUIREMENTS. Can you find any logical flaws in this argument and its conclusion?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, April 30, 2021, 19:49 (1063 days ago) @ dhw

Homo luzonensis

dhw: Amazing how you introduce non sequiturs. Our so-called “civilized” world grew out of our increasingly efficient ways of surviving. Nothing is “guaranteed”, and what has that got to do with the fact that apes didn’t need our brains to survive?

DAVID: It tells us evolution of our brains was not naturally necessary, as above.

dhw: My proposal is that multicellular organisms evolved as unicellular organisms found new ways of surviving by joining forces. This “naturally” turned into a symbiotic process, whereby new communities of cells joined together to find new ways of coping with or exploiting new conditions. Hence the vast bush of diverse life forms past and present. If God exists, he would have created the mechanism that enabled them to do this. Can you see anything in the known history of life that contradicts this theory?

We disagree. God ran evolution directly. not secondhand, to produce the current bush.


Brain and body sizes
This belongs to the thread on “pre-planning”, but it is too long to for me to put on that thread.

QUOTES: "The climate shift appeared to have triggered the evolution of the biggest brain-to-body ratios, such as those of dolphins, elephants and apes. (David’s bold)
“'Brain-to-body size is of course not independent of the evolution of intelligence. But it may actually be more indicative of more general adaptions to large scale environmental pressures that go beyond intelligence.'”

DAVID: This is just descriptive, and offers no clues as to why the brains are bigger in the ways they are. The comment I bolded above is pure guess work. We don't know what causes the triggering of any aspect of evolution from a natural viewpoint.

dhw: If brain changes are triggered by environmental pressures, we have a logical thesis: that they respond to new conditions, either by adapting or by innovating. The question of the relationship between size and intelligence remains open, but when I googled to find the size of the elephant brain, I got a very illuminating answer, with a big laugh at the end. But first the facts:

If Elephants Have Bigger Brains, Why Are They Not Smarter ...
neuroscienceschool.com/2017/07/04/elephants-bigger-brains-not-smarter/

QUOTE: “The African elephant brain had three times the number of neurons in a human brain, 257 billion to our 86 billion. But, 98% of their neurons were located in the cerebellum, in the back of the brain. That left 5.6 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex of the elephant compared to 16 billion neurons in the human cortex.

dhw: The cerebellum is responsible for such functions as movement, balance, coordination, posture etc. And so presumably the bigger the animal, the more cells the brain will need to meet these physical requirements. And since the cortex is linked to mental activity, the more mental work the brain has to do, the more cells it will require. Conclusion: See below.

QUOTE: "So what do we have that no other animal has? A remarkable number of neurons in the cerebral cortex, the largest around, attainable by no other species, I say. And what do we do that absolutely no other animal does, and which I believe allowed us to amass that remarkable number of neurons in the first place? We cook our food."

dhw: Um…I would humbly suggest that there are a few other things we do and did that absolutely no other animal does/did: e.g. bipedalism, sophisticated weapons and tools, clothes, fire (not just for cooking), increasingly complex social structures, different methods of acquiring food etc. And I’m thinking that cooking did not “allow” the cerebral cortex to add more and more cells, but the cortex needed more cells during the process of discovering and learning how to use fire (just as modern illiterate women needed additional complexification of cells while learning to read). In other words, the brain did not get bigger BECAUSE Mr Man roasted the deer he had killed with his spear, and (David’s theory) it did not get bigger because God gave it new cells so that afterwards it could think of inventing spears and using fire. It got bigger, just as it now complexifies, by RESPONDING TO NEW REQUIREMENTS. Can you find any logical flaws in this argument and its conclusion?

You want a natural explanation. Our brain is to complex for natural causes. It had to be planned by an extremely brilliant mind, that is by intelligent design by God..

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, May 01, 2021, 11:55 (1062 days ago) @ David Turell

We change ecosystems
DAVID: The importance of ecosystems cannot be overemphasized. Living organisms naturally form cooperative systems and our overall dominance upsets them with plant systems, animal systems or combinations. We have severely affected the Earth's evolution.

We are in agreement. But this leaves me surprised at your sceptical attitude concerning climate change, much of which is due to human activity (let’s forget about the bacterial contribution). I wonder if your God is watching with interest to see how far our specialness will lead us along the path of destruction and self-destruction!:-(

Tadpoles and the hypothalamus
DAVID: Since present stages of evolution are all based on past designs, this study of the earliest forms leading to what is contained in our present brains is not surprising. God pre-plans His stages.

As always I appreciate these articles. And as always, you can’t resist a final, authoritative statement. OK, my turn. God experiments. God learns as he goes along. God enjoys creating different forms for their own sake. Cell communities hard at work inventing their own ways of improving their chances of survival. Let’s have some good old agnostic balance…:-)

All human brains don’t react the same
dhw: My proposal is that multicellular organisms evolved as unicellular organisms found new ways of surviving by joining forces. This “naturally” turned into a symbiotic process, whereby new communities of cells joined together to find new ways of coping with or exploiting new conditions. Hence the vast bush of diverse life forms past and present. If God exists, he would have created the mechanism that enabled them to do this. Can you see anything in the known history of life that contradicts this theory?

DAVID: We disagree. God ran evolution directly. not secondhand, to produce the current bush.

I asked you if there was anything in the known history of life that contradicts my theory. “I disagree” plus reiteration of your own fixed belief is not an answer.

Brain and body sizes
DAVID: We don't know what causes the triggering of any aspect of evolution from a natural viewpoint.

dhw: If brain changes are triggered by environmental pressures, we have a logical thesis: that they respond to new conditions, either by adapting or by innovating.

I’ll leave out the quote about elephants etc, since you have ignored it. The writer thought our unique brain had developed because we cooked our food. I’ll reproduce my response to this, as it sums up the whole argument about how and why our brain expanded.

dhw: I would humbly suggest that there are a few other things we do and did that absolutely no other animal does/did: e.g. bipedalism, sophisticated weapons and tools, clothes, fire (not just for cooking), increasingly complex social structures, different methods of acquiring food etc. And I’m thinking that cooking did not “allow” the cerebral cortex to add more and more cells, but the cortex needed more cells during the process of discovering and learning how to use fire (just as modern illiterate women needed additional complexification of cells while learning to read). In other words, the brain did not get bigger BECAUSE Mr Man roasted the deer he had killed with his spear, and (David’s theory) it did not get bigger because God gave it new cells so that afterwards it could think of inventing spears and using fire. It got bigger, just as it now complexifies, by RESPONDING TO NEW REQUIREMENTS. Can you find any logical flaws in this argument and its conclusion?

DAVID: You want a natural explanation. Our brain is to complex for natural causes. It had to be planned by an extremely brilliant mind, that is by intelligent design by God.

You hate it when I apply logic to your own theories and find them wanting, but on this thread I have twice asked you to apply logic to my theories, and all I get is a repetition of your own beliefs. I have always allowed for your God having a role (in this case, as designer of the mechanism that granted autonomy in the first place). Bearing this in mind, if you find my explanations logical, please just say so. You've done it before, and it won’t kill you. ;-)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 01, 2021, 19:50 (1062 days ago) @ dhw

We change ecosystems
DAVID: The importance of ecosystems cannot be overemphasized. Living organisms naturally form cooperative systems and our overall dominance upsets them with plant systems, animal systems or combinations. We have severely affected the Earth's evolution.

dhw: We are in agreement. But this leaves me surprised at your sceptical attitude concerning climate change, much of which is due to human activity (let’s forget about the bacterial contribution). I wonder if your God is watching with interest to see how far our specialness will lead us along the path of destruction and self-destruction!:-(

Your climate confusion leads you to think we humans are powerful enough to control it.;-)


Tadpoles and the hypothalamus
DAVID: Since present stages of evolution are all based on past designs, this study of the earliest forms leading to what is contained in our present brains is not surprising. God pre-plans His stages.

dhw: As always I appreciate these articles. And as always, you can’t resist a final, authoritative statement. OK, my turn. God experiments. God learns as he goes along. God enjoys creating different forms for their own sake. Cell communities hard at work inventing their own ways of improving their chances of survival. Let’s have some good old agnostic balance…:-)

God gave the cells some degree of adaptation, but intelligent cells don't speciate, God does.

dhw: Can you see anything in the known history of life that contradicts this theory?[/i]

DAVID: We disagree. God ran evolution directly. not secondhand, to produce the current bush.

dhw: I asked you if there was anything in the known history of life that contradicts my theory. “I disagree” plus reiteration of your own fixed belief is not an answer.

You simply dragged in your old tired cell intelligence theory, so I disagreed.


Brain and body sizes
DAVID: We don't know what causes the triggering of any aspect of evolution from a natural viewpoint.

dhw: If brain changes are triggered by environmental pressures, we have a logical thesis: that they respond to new conditions, either by adapting or by innovating.

I’ll leave out the quote about elephants etc, since you have ignored it. The writer thought our unique brain had developed because we cooked our food. I’ll reproduce my response to this, as it sums up the whole argument about how and why our brain expanded.

dhw: In other words, the brain did not get bigger BECAUSE Mr Man roasted the deer he had killed with his spear, and (David’s theory) it did not get bigger because God gave it new cells so that afterwards it could think of inventing spears and using fire. It got bigger, just as it now complexifies, by RESPONDING TO NEW REQUIREMENTS. Can you find any logical flaws in this argument and its conclusion?

DAVID: You want a natural explanation. Our brain is too complex for natural causes. It had to be planned by an extremely brilliant mind, that is by intelligent design by God.

dhw: You hate it when I apply logic to your own theories and find them wanting, but on this thread I have twice asked you to apply logic to my theories, and all I get is a repetition of your own beliefs. I have always allowed for your God having a role (in this case, as designer of the mechanism that granted autonomy in the first place). Bearing this in mind, if you find my explanations logical, please just say so. You've done it before, and it won’t kill you. ;-)

The only adaptations we know about are quite simple species alterations. You want our sapiens brain to appear because of new natural requirements creating a new species. So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind. :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, May 02, 2021, 12:29 (1061 days ago) @ David Turell

We change ecosystems
DAVID: The importance of ecosystems cannot be overemphasized. Living organisms naturally form cooperative systems and our overall dominance upsets them with plant systems, animal systems or combinations. We have severely affected the Earth's evolution.

dhw: We are in agreement. But this leaves me surprised at your sceptical attitude concerning climate change, much of which is due to human activity (let’s forget about the bacterial contribution). I wonder if your God is watching with interest to see how far our specialness will lead us along the path of destruction and self-destruction! :-(

DAVID: Your climate confusion leads you to think we humans are powerful enough to control it. ;-)

What “climate confusion”? Are you now telling us that the climate is not changing, or that any changes are not liable to cause huge damage to our ecosystems? If it’s true that the main cause is human activity, then of course we should be powerful enough to control it. The question then is whether certain powerful human institutions are willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Tadpoles and the hypothalamus
DAVID: Since present stages of evolution are all based on past designs, this study of the earliest forms leading to what is contained in our present brains is not surprising. God pre-plans His stages.

dhw: As always I appreciate these articles. And as always, you can’t resist a final, authoritative statement. OK, my turn. God experiments. God learns as he goes along. God enjoys creating different forms for their own sake. Cell communities hard at work inventing their own ways of improving their chances of survival. Let’s have some good old agnostic balance…

DAVID: God gave the cells some degree of adaptation, but intelligent cells don't speciate, God does.

Your usual statement of opinion as if it were fact. That is why I have listed various alternative possibilities.

dhw: Can you see anything in the known history of life that contradicts this theory?

DAVID: We disagree. God ran evolution directly. not secondhand, to produce the current bush.

dhw: I asked you if there was anything in the known history of life that contradicts my theory. “I disagree” plus reiteration of your own fixed belief is not an answer.

DAVID: You simply dragged in your old tired cell intelligence theory, so I disagreed.

And so instead you dragged in your old tired theory that God designed every species. I have painstakingly pointed out the illogicality of your old tired theory. Now please point out any illogicality in the various theories referred to above, bearing in mind that in the past you have acknowledged that they are all logical.

Brain and body sizes
dhw: In other words, the brain did not get bigger BECAUSE Mr Man roasted the deer he had killed with his spear, and (David’s theory) it did not get bigger because God gave it new cells so that afterwards it could think of inventing spears and using fire. It got bigger, just as it now complexifies, by RESPONDING TO NEW REQUIREMENTS. Can you find any logical flaws in this argument and its conclusion?

DAVID: The only adaptations we know about are quite simple species alterations.

True. But since nobody knows the cause of speciation, it is not illogical to propose that the same mechanism for adaptation could also have brought about innovation. There are many borderline cases, such as pre-whale legs turning into flippers, which even make it difficult to determine the extent to which speciation is the result of adaptation or innovation.

DAVID: You want our sapiens brain to appear because of new natural requirements creating a new species.

I don’t “want” anything. I am searching for logical explanations. I find it perfectly feasible that both speciation in general and the human brain in particular could be the result of organisms responding to new requirements.

DAVID: So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind.

Another of your gigantic non sequiturs! I have never queried the facts of complexity, or your argument that this requires design! And if by “material naturalism” you mean atheism, you should know by now that I am an agnostic. The theory I have offered here to explain the evolution of species and of the human brain allows for God as the designer of the mechanism that has made evolution possible. But instead of your control freak who individually designs not only every life form, but every lifestyle and every natural wonder, even stepping in to give courses to weaverbirds on how to build their nests, I propose a God who has given life forms the wherewith all to do their own designing.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 02, 2021, 22:39 (1061 days ago) @ dhw

We change ecosystems

DAVID: Your climate confusion leads you to think we humans are powerful enough to control it. ;-)

dhw: What “climate confusion”? Are you now telling us that the climate is not changing, or that any changes are not liable to cause huge damage to our ecosystems? If it’s true that the main cause is human activity, then of course we should be powerful enough to control it. The question then is whether certain powerful human institutions are willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Giving up fossil fuels will create economic chaos


Tadpoles and the hypothalamus

DAVID: God gave the cells some degree of adaptation, but intelligent cells don't speciate, God does.

dhw: Your usual statement of opinion as if it were fact. That is why I have listed various alternative possibilities.

My belief from design evidence is only God can speciate.


dhw: I asked you if there was anything in the known history of life that contradicts my theory. “I disagree” plus reiteration of your own fixed belief is not an answer.

We have no evidence how speciation occurs, only theories. The designs of living biochemistry tells me a designing mind must do it.


DAVID: You simply dragged in your old tired cell intelligence theory, so I disagreed.

dhw: And so instead you dragged in your old tired theory that God designed every species. I have painstakingly pointed out the illogicality of your old tired theory. Now please point out any illogicality in the various theories referred to above, bearing in mind that in the past you have acknowledged that they are all logical.

Your so-called logical theories all start with a highly humanized God who likes free-for-all evolution and needs to experiment. I have never found your intelligent cell theory logical.


Brain and body sizes

DAVID: You want our sapiens brain to appear because of new natural requirements creating a new species.


dhw: I don’t “want” anything. I am searching for logical explanations. I find it perfectly feasible that both speciation in general and the human brain in particular could be the result of organisms responding to new requirements.

Or be newly designed to fit the new needs


DAVID: So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind.

dhw: Another of your gigantic non sequiturs! I have never queried the facts of complexity, or your argument that this requires design! And if by “material naturalism” you mean atheism, you should know by now that I am an agnostic. The theory I have offered here to explain the evolution of species and of the human brain allows for God as the designer of the mechanism that has made evolution possible. But instead of your control freak who individually designs not only every life form, but every lifestyle and every natural wonder, even stepping in to give courses to weaverbirds on how to build their nests, I propose a God who has given life forms the wherewith all to do their own designing.

I know that. We both have theories. :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, May 03, 2021, 13:21 (1060 days ago) @ David Turell

We change ecosystems
DAVID: Your climate confusion leads you to think we humans are powerful enough to control it.

dhw: What “climate confusion”? Are you now telling us that the climate is not changing, or that any changes are not liable to cause huge damage to our ecosystems? If it’s true that the main cause is human activity, then of course we should be powerful enough to control it. The question then is whether certain powerful human institutions are willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

DAVID: Giving up fossil fuels will create economic chaos.

So will the collapse of our ecosystem, and you have not even mentioned the cost in human suffering that this will cause. A gradual but worldwide transition from fossil fuels to less damaging sources of energy will create a different form of economy. Such a process need not be chaotic if humans cooperate instead of thinking solely in terms of what they have in their bank accounts.

Tadpoles and the hypothalamus
dhw: I asked you if there was anything in the known history of life that contradicts my theory. “I disagree” plus reiteration of your own fixed belief is not an answer.

DAVID: We have no evidence how speciation occurs, only theories. The designs of living biochemistry tells me a designing mind must do it.

And you cannot/will not even contemplate the possibility that a designing mind might design a mechanism that enables life forms themselves to design their own adaptations and innovations.

DAVID: You simply dragged in your old tired cell intelligence theory, so I disagreed.

dhw: And so instead you dragged in your old tired theory that God designed every species. I have painstakingly pointed out the illogicality of your old tired theory. Now please point out any illogicality in the various theories referred to above, bearing in mind that in the past you have acknowledged that they are all logical.

DAVID: Your so-called logical theories all start with a highly humanized God who likes free-for-all evolution and needs to experiment. I have never found your intelligent cell theory logical.

The silly “humanized” argument has been deal with elsewhere. What is so illogical about a theory which suggests that what looks like intelligent behaviour may actually be the product of intelligence?

Brain and body sizes
DAVID: You want our sapiens brain to appear because of new natural requirements creating a new species.

dhw: I don’t “want” anything. I am searching for logical explanations. I find it perfectly feasible that both speciation in general and the human brain in particular could be the result of organisms responding to new requirements.

AVID: Or be newly designed to fit the new needs.

I thought you believed that speciation took place IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. Didn’t your God change legs into flippers before entry into the water, mess about with pelvises before descent from the trees, operate on brains before they came up with new ideas and requirements?

DAVID: So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind.

dhw: Another of your gigantic non sequiturs! I have never queried the facts of complexity, or your argument that this requires design! And if by “material naturalism” you mean atheism, you should know by now that I am an agnostic. The theory I have offered here to explain the evolution of species and of the human brain allows for God as the designer of the mechanism that has made evolution possible. But instead of your control freak who individually designs not only every life form, but every lifestyle and every natural wonder, even stepping in to give courses to weaverbirds on how to build their nests, I propose a God who has given life forms the wherewith all to do their own designing.

DAVID: I know that. We both have theories.

But why do you keep pretending that my theory makes me a “materialist” and does not allow for a designing mind?

A two-celled ancient fossil
QUOTE: Earlier discoveries have confirmed the existence of such ancient multicellular life in oceans, some dating back over two billion years; it now seems possible that more than one evolutionary pathway led to the first multicellular lifeforms." (DAVID’s Bold)

DAVID: it is certainly possible life went through this stage to reach full multicellularity. The bolded idea that more than one pathway was followed in evolution is just an example of convergence, a well-recognized event in evolution.

Yet again, thank you for a fascinating article. Doesn’t such “convergence” suggest to you that if your God exists, his starting point was to design cells that could do their own designing, to enable them to adjust to different conditions?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, May 03, 2021, 18:11 (1060 days ago) @ dhw

We change ecosystems

DAVID: Giving up fossil fuels will create economic chaos.

dhw: So will the collapse of our ecosystem, and you have not even mentioned the cost in human suffering that this will cause. A gradual but worldwide transition from fossil fuels to less damaging sources of energy will create a different form of economy. Such a process need not be chaotic if humans cooperate instead of thinking solely in terms of what they have in their bank accounts.

Nations are competitors. You exhibit wishful thinking.

Brain and body sizes

DAVID: So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind.

dhw: Another of your gigantic non sequiturs! I have never queried the facts of complexity, or your argument that this requires design! And if by “material naturalism” you mean atheism, you should know by now that I am an agnostic. The theory I have offered here to explain the evolution of species and of the human brain allows for God as the designer of the mechanism that has made evolution possible. But instead of your control freak who individually designs not only every life form, but every lifestyle and every natural wonder, even stepping in to give courses to weaverbirds on how to build their nests, I propose a God who has given life forms the wherewith all to do their own designing.

DAVID: I know that. We both have theories.

dhw: But why do you keep pretending that my theory makes me a “materialist” and does not allow for a designing mind?

That gives up control. Not my mind.


A two-celled ancient fossil
QUOTE: Earlier discoveries have confirmed the existence of such ancient multicellular life in oceans, some dating back over two billion years; it now seems possible that more than one evolutionary pathway led to the first multicellular lifeforms." (DAVID’s Bold)

DAVID: it is certainly possible life went through this stage to reach full multicellularity. The bolded idea that more than one pathway was followed in evolution is just an example of convergence, a well-recognized event in evolution.

dhw: Yet again, thank you for a fascinating article. Doesn’t such “convergence” suggest to you that if your God exists, his starting point was to design cells that could do their own designing, to enable them to adjust to different conditions?


Thank you. Happy to present them. God's pre-planning designs allows using the same design again and again

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, May 04, 2021, 10:51 (1059 days ago) @ David Turell

We change ecosystems
DAVID: Giving up fossil fuels will create economic chaos.

dhw: So will the collapse of our ecosystem, and you have not even mentioned the cost in human suffering that this will cause. A gradual but worldwide transition from fossil fuels to less damaging sources of energy will create a different form of economy. Such a process need not be chaotic if humans cooperate instead of thinking solely in terms of what they have in their bank accounts.

DAVID: Nations are competitors. You exhibit wishful thinking.

Then in order to avoid unimaginable catastrophe, nations will have to follow the pattern of evolution, which progresses not solely through competition but also through cooperation. Neither you nor I will be around to see the outcome, but I can only hope that you are wrong.

Brain and body sizes
DAVID: So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind.[…]

dhw: […] But why do you keep pretending that my theory makes me a “materialist” and does not allow for a designing mind?

DAVID: That gives up control. Not my mind.

My proposal that your God might have designed a free-for-all does not make me a materialist and does not mean that I do not allow for a designing mind. I wish you would stop pretending that all my arguments against your illogical theories and in favour of logical alternatives stem from the fact that I am an agnostic, which you even pretend actually makes me an atheist. Why can’t you just stick to the arguments themselves?

A two-celled ancient fossil
dhw: Yet again, thank you for a fascinating article. Doesn’t such “convergence” suggest to you that if your God exists, his starting point was to design cells that could do their own designing, to enable them to adjust to different conditions?

DAVID: Thank you. Happy to present them. God's pre-planning designs allows using the same design again and again.

And according to you, every one of them is specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. Doesn’t it make more sense to argue that different organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems? Only asking. ;-)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 05, 2021, 19:30 (1058 days ago) @ dhw

We change ecosystems
DAVID: Giving up fossil fuels will create economic chaos.

dhw: So will the collapse of our ecosystem, and you have not even mentioned the cost in human suffering that this will cause. A gradual but worldwide transition from fossil fuels to less damaging sources of energy will create a different form of economy. Such a process need not be chaotic if humans cooperate instead of thinking solely in terms of what they have in their bank accounts.

DAVID: Nations are competitors. You exhibit wishful thinking.

dhw: Then in order to avoid unimaginable catastrophe, nations will have to follow the pattern of evolution, which progresses not solely through competition but also through cooperation. Neither you nor I will be around to see the outcome, but I can only hope that

you are wrong.

The purposefully widely unpublished current pause in warming is 6 1/2 years old, according to the satellites. Won't you wonder why? But I know about it, and where to find the info.


Brain and body sizes
DAVID: So you accept material naturalism with no basis in fact, opposed to my approach as I use the facts of design complexity to propose a designing mind.[…]

dhw: […] But why do you keep pretending that my theory makes me a “materialist” and does not allow for a designing mind?

DAVID: That gives up control. Not my mind.

My proposal that your God might have designed a free-for-all does not make me a materialist and does not mean that I do not allow for a designing mind. I wish you would stop pretending that all my arguments against your illogical theories and in favour of logical alternatives stem from the fact that I am an agnostic, which you even pretend actually makes me an atheist. Why can’t you just stick to the arguments themselves?

What a complaint!! I see mostly atheism in your arguments. Perhaps you really can't see that.


A two-celled ancient fossil
dhw: Yet again, thank you for a fascinating article. Doesn’t such “convergence” suggest to you that if your God exists, his starting point was to design cells that could do their own designing, to enable them to adjust to different conditions?

DAVID: Thank you. Happy to present them. God's pre-planning designs allows using the same design again and again.

dhw: And according to you, every one of them is specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. Doesn’t it make more sense to argue that different organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems? Only asking. ;-)

One deign leads to another. Simple repeatable plans make it easier for the designer. :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, May 06, 2021, 13:01 (1057 days ago) @ David Turell

We change ecosystems
DAVID: Nations are competitors. You exhibit wishful thinking.

dhw: Then in order to avoid unimaginable catastrophe, nations will have to follow the pattern of evolution, which progresses not solely through competition but also through cooperation. [...] I can only hope that you are wrong.

DAVID: The purposefully widely unpublished current pause in warming is 6 1/2 years old, according to the satellites. Won't you wonder why? But I know about it, and where to find the info.

In this case, I hope you are right.

Brain and body sizes
dhw: […] I wish you would stop pretending that all my arguments against your illogical theories and in favour of logical alternatives stem from the fact that I am an agnostic, which you even pretend actually makes me an atheist. Why can’t you just stick to the arguments themselves?

DAVID: What a complaint!! I see mostly atheism in your arguments. Perhaps you really can't see that.

What an answer!! Rather than discuss the logic of arguments, you prefer to pretend that when I propose logical theistic theories different from your own, they can be dismissed because you regard my theistic theories as mostly atheistic!

A two-celled ancient fossil
DAVID: God's pre-planning designs allows using the same design again and again.

dhw: And according to you, every one of them is specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. Doesn’t it make more sense to argue that different organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems? Only asking. :-)

DAVID: One design leads to another. Simple repeatable plans make it easier for the designer.

dhw: ...if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, how do you think his only goal (to design humans) was made “easier” by designing lots of life forms following similar plans, 99% of which had no connection with humans?

BATS
DAVID: […] how did the initial bats catch insects in flight to have enough food to survive. […] Only God's design of the species fits the facts. This is in addition to the fact bats are the only flying mammals with no known predecessor.

Do you expect to find a complete fossil record of every life form that ever existed? The first bat fossils go back 50 million years. Maybe 50.9 million years ago there were insect-eating mammals just embarking on flight experiments, though still getting food from the ground. What trace of you do you reckon will be found in 50 million years’ time?

Biological complexity:
QUOTE: "When these systems work properly, they can prevent cancer and drug resistance. […] When the pathways themselves fail, though, it can be bad news for the organism.

DAVID: When DNA formed these protections had to be designed in place.

Did they? Which came first: disease or antidote? Evolution is the history of cells responding to new conditions by changing themselves, and changes survive if beneficial (natural selection) - in this case preventing disease. But you believe the antidote was designed by your God before the arrival of the disease. If so, why do “pathways” fail?

NEW FORMS REQUIRE NEW INFORMATION
QUOTE: […] Here, we validate that exon shuffling is a major evolutionary force generating genetic novelty, and we provide evidence that DNA transposons fuel the process not only by supplying protein domains to assemble new protein architectures, but also, in many cases, by introducing the splice sites that enable the fusion process. (David’s bold)

DAVID: … Where does the new necessary designing information come from? […]

The answer is in the bold. Transposons cause mutations by “shuffling” information around, and mutations create the novelties. But the word “mutation” is not synonymous with randomness! It just means change. So here’s a clue: the scientist who first proposed the existence of transposons was Barbara McClintock, a Nobel prizewinner who was a firm believer in cellular intelligence.

Bacteriophages weird genome
QUOTE: “The phage is trying to avoid being destroyed by the host,” he says. “This is really a protection mechanism for the phage.”

Another example of how even the simplest forms of life (if viruses count as life) can change themselves in order to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: This is all part of the ecosystem between bacteria and bacteriophages. In my view all ecosystems are important in the natural balances they create. That is why I point out their importance and How they fit into the giant evolved bush of life. […]

I don’t suppose there is anyone on Earth who would deny that all organisms live in an ecosystem, which needs to be balanced and was/is part of the giant evolved bush of life. You are on safe (though obvious) ground. The problem arises when you tell us that all past ecosystems and life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans",although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

There is also a slightly strange dichotomy of thought between your awareness of the need for balance and the fact that human interference has already wrecked many individual ecosystems, and your refusal to acknowledge human activity as a possible global threat to the entire planet’s ecosystems.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 06, 2021, 20:49 (1057 days ago) @ dhw

A two-celled ancient fossil
DAVID: God's pre-planning designs allows using the same design again and again.

dhw: And according to you, every one of them is specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. Doesn’t it make more sense to argue that different organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems? Only asking. :-)

DAVID: One design leads to another. Simple repeatable plans make it easier for the designer.

dhw: ...if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, how do you think his only goal (to design humans) was made “easier” by designing lots of life forms following similar plans, 99% of which had no connection with humans?

Fully explained. God designs each new form based on the past stage as evolution progresses. By the way some of the 99% discarded were in the earlier human line so they were directly related to the production of sapiens.


BATS
DAVID: […] how did the initial bats catch insects in flight to have enough food to survive. […] Only God's design of the species fits the facts. This is in addition to the fact bats are the only flying mammals with no known predecessor.

dhw: Do you expect to find a complete fossil record of every life form that ever existed? The first bat fossils go back 50 million years. Maybe 50.9 million years ago there were insect-eating mammals just embarking on flight experiments, though still getting food from the ground. What trace of you do you reckon will be found in 50 million years’ time?

I'll be cremated, so none. As for bats, you are stuck with 'maybe' suggestions.


Biological complexity:
QUOTE: "When these systems work properly, they can prevent cancer and drug resistance. […] When the pathways themselves fail, though, it can be bad news for the organism.

DAVID: When DNA formed these protections had to be designed in place.

dhw: Did they? Which came first: disease or antidote? Evolution is the history of cells responding to new conditions by changing themselves, and changes survive if beneficial (natural selection) - in this case preventing disease. But you believe the antidote was designed by your God before the arrival of the disease. If so, why do “pathways” fail?

Explained long ago. Protein molecules are free to fail and many backup protections are in place. If they weren't there from the beginning survival of new forms is very questionable.


NEW FORMS REQUIRE NEW INFORMATION
QUOTE: […] Here, we validate that exon shuffling is a major evolutionary force generating genetic novelty, and we provide evidence that DNA transposons fuel the process not only by supplying protein domains to assemble new protein architectures, but also, in many cases, by introducing the splice sites that enable the fusion process. (David’s bold)

DAVID: … Where does the new necessary designing information come from? […]

dhw: The answer is in the bold. Transposons cause mutations by “shuffling” information around, and mutations create the novelties. But the word “mutation” is not synonymous with randomness! It just means change. So here’s a clue: the scientist who first proposed the existence of transposons was Barbara McClintock, a Nobel prizewinner who was a firm believer in cellular intelligence.

What the article and you suggest, totally unproven, is shuffling existing information somehow produces new information. Pure Darwin hopefulness.


Bacteriophages weird genome
QUOTE: “The phage is trying to avoid being destroyed by the host,” he says. “This is really a protection mechanism for the phage.”

Another example of how even the simplest forms of life (if viruses count as life) can change themselves in order to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: This is all part of the ecosystem between bacteria and bacteriophages. In my view all ecosystems are important in the natural balances they create. That is why I point out their importance and How they fit into the giant evolved bush of life. […]

dhw: I don’t suppose there is anyone on Earth who would deny that all organisms live in an ecosystem, which needs to be balanced and was/is part of the giant evolved bush of life. You are on safe (though obvious) ground. The problem arises when you tell us that all past ecosystems and life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans",although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

Same confused analysis. All the current life forms in the huge bush are necessary food supply for this present time with a huge human population. How would we eat if God had not arranged for the giant bush for food?


dhw: There is also a slightly strange dichotomy of thought between your awareness of the need for balance and the fact that human interference has already wrecked many individual ecosystems, and your refusal to acknowledge human activity as a possible global threat to the entire planet’s ecosystems.

I know we are a threat. Note all the articles I have presented about how we screwed up beautifully operating ecosystems.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, May 07, 2021, 12:53 (1056 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
DAVID: […] how did the initial bats catch insects in flight to have enough food to survive. […] This is in addition to the fact bats are the only flying mammals with no known predecessor.

dhw: Do you expect to find a complete fossil record of every life form that ever existed? The first bat fossils go back 50 million years. Maybe 50.9 million years ago there were insect-eating mammals just embarking on flight experiments, though still getting food from the ground. What trace of you do you reckon will be found in 50 million years’ time?

DAVID: I'll be cremated, so none.

Great reply!:-D

DAVID: As for bats, you are stuck with 'maybe' suggestions.

NOBODY knows how speciation happens, and so we can only offer “maybes”. Please tell us why you think my “maybe” is impossible.

Biological complexity:
DAVID: When DNA formed these protections had to be designed in place.

dhw: Did they? Which came first: disease or antidote? Evolution is the history of cells responding to new conditions by changing themselves, and changes survive if beneficial (natural selection) [...]. But you believe the antidote was designed by your God before the arrival of the disease. If so, why do “pathways” fail?

DAVID: Explained long ago. Protein molecules are free to fail and many backup protections are in place. If they weren't there from the beginning survival of new forms is very questionable.

If cells had not been able from the beginning to meet new requirements by changing themselves, there would have been no evolution. If cells were free to fail, this suggests they were also free to succeed. (Support for my free-for-all theory.) Your theory denotes that your God did not have total control over the system he designed. Why else would he have tried to provide “backup protections”, many of which have also failed?

NEW FORMS REQUIRE NEW INFORMATION
QUOTE: […] “Here, we validate that exon shuffling is a major evolutionary force generating genetic novelty, and we provide evidence that DNA transposons fuel the process” etc.(David’s bold)

DAVID: … Where does the new necessary designing information come from? […]

dhw: The answer is in the bold. Transposons cause mutations by “shuffling” information around, and mutations create the novelties. But the word “mutation” is not synonymous with randomness! [...] So here’s a clue: the scientist who first proposed the existence of transposons was Barbara McClintock, a Nobel prizewinner who was a firm believer in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: What the article and you suggest, totally unproven, is shuffling existing information somehow produces new information. Pure Darwin hopefulness.

The usual muddle produced by the word “information”. I shouldn’t have taken the bait. Transposons are segments of DNA that can move around and cause mutations which may result in new structures (“genetic novelty”). Not pure Darwin, because mutation is not synonymous with randomness. Agreed?

Bacteriophages weird genome
Your illogical conclusions from the fact that everyone must eat are dealt with on the “theodicy” thread.

dhw: There is also a slightly strange dichotomy of thought between your awareness of the need for balance and the fact that human interference has already wrecked many individual ecosystems, and your refusal to acknowledge human activity as a possible global threat to the entire planet’s ecosystems.

DAVID: I know we are a threat. Note all the articles I have presented about how we screwed up beautifully operating ecosystems.

That is why I’m surprised at your refusal to take climate change seriously.

Cerebellum
QUOTE: The key to human evolution may have been at the back of our minds all along – literally. (David’s bold)

DAVID: […] My bold above is a thoughtless conjecture. The frontal lobes do the decision making for the cerebellar actions. The cerebellar improvements were vital accompaniments.

We are in agreement. The cerebellum changes as it responds to and implements ideas/thoughts/decisions created in the frontal lobes. I would suggest that the key to evolution is the ability of all sections of brain and body to reorganize themselves in response to new requirements.

Seals
QUOTES: "The findings help shine a light on how the animals evolved their body and behaviour to adapt to marine life – an incredible feat. (dhw’s bold)

This has happened multiple times, with groups like whales, sea turtles, sea cows and crocodiles, all evolving from land-dwelling ancestors that have adapted themselves for a life at sea.” (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Typical Darwin think. We have no idea how these adaptations happened from a natural series of chance, random mutations. Note how the authors use purpose to explain the changes. Why not consider they were designed.

There is no mention of random mutations. Your hatred of Darwin is warping your understanding of what you read. The authors say these life forms “adapted themselves”. They leave open how this is done. I suggest that they could only have adapted themselves through the autonomous ability of their cells to make the changes. THAT = purposefulness and design. I presume your theory is a 3.8- billion-year-old computer programme, or a dabble before the animals entered the water.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, May 07, 2021, 19:36 (1056 days ago) @ dhw

BATS

DAVID: As for bats, you are stuck with 'maybe' suggestions.

dhw: NOBODY knows how speciation happens, and so we can only offer “maybes”. Please tell us why you think my “maybe” is impossible.

Your problem is there are no predecessors. In most series we find them. it's like the Cambrian Explosion.


Biological complexity:
DAVID: When DNA formed these protections had to be designed in place.

dhw: Did they? Which came first: disease or antidote? Evolution is the history of cells responding to new conditions by changing themselves, and changes survive if beneficial (natural selection) [...]. But you believe the antidote was designed by your God before the arrival of the disease. If so, why do “pathways” fail?

DAVID: Explained long ago. Protein molecules are free to fail and many backup protections are in place. If they weren't there from the beginning survival of new forms is very questionable.

dhw: If cells had not been able from the beginning to meet new requirements by changing themselves, there would have been no evolution. If cells were free to fail, this suggests they were also free to succeed.

I'm discussing molecular failure, and you jump to cell failure. Why?

NEW FORMS REQUIRE NEW INFORMATION

dhw: The answer is in the bold. Transposons cause mutations by “shuffling” information around, and mutations create the novelties. But the word “mutation” is not synonymous with randomness! [...] So here’s a clue: the scientist who first proposed the existence of transposons was Barbara McClintock, a Nobel prizewinner who was a firm believer in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: What the article and you suggest, totally unproven, is shuffling existing information somehow produces new information. Pure Darwin hopefulness.

dhw: The usual muddle produced by the word “information”. I shouldn’t have taken the bait. Transposons are segments of DNA that can move around and cause mutations which may result in new structures (“genetic novelty”). Not pure Darwin, because mutation is not synonymous with randomness. Agreed?

It is still a shuffling of genetic information. transposons may be God's way of introducing new information.


Bacteriophages weird genome

DAVID: I know we are a threat. Note all the articles I have presented about how we screwed up beautifully operating ecosystems.

dhw: That is why I’m surprised at your refusal to take climate change seriously.

Will you read the current info foreign to you if I send you a major skeptic website populated by scientists?

Seals
QUOTES: "The findings help shine a light on how the animals evolved their body and behaviour to adapt to marine life – an incredible feat. (dhw’s bold)

This has happened multiple times, with groups like whales, sea turtles, sea cows and crocodiles, all evolving from land-dwelling ancestors that have adapted themselves for a life at sea.” (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Typical Darwin think. We have no idea how these adaptations happened from a natural series of chance, random mutations. Note how the authors use purpose to explain the changes. Why not consider they were designed.

dhw: There is no mention of random mutations. Your hatred of Darwin is warping your understanding of what you read. The authors say these life forms “adapted themselves”. They leave open how this is done. I suggest that they could only have adapted themselves through the autonomous ability of their cells to make the changes. THAT = purposefulness and design. I presume your theory is a 3.8- billion-year-old computer programme, or a dabble before the animals entered the water.

Correct. God designs all advances in evolution. The article infers random Darwinian mutations to make the new aquatic species.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, May 08, 2021, 13:50 (1055 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
DAVID: Your problem is there are no predecessors.

That is why I asked if you expected to find fossils of every single stage of every single life form over the last 3.8 billion years. Why do you think my bat theory is impossible?

Biological complexity:
dhw: [..] If cells were free to fail, this suggests they were also free to succeed.

DAVID: I'm discussing molecular failure, and you jump to cell failure. Why?

Because molecules are part of the cell, and if molecules fail, cells may fail, and this may cause the diseases you say your God tried to prevent with backups which also fail. Why have you ignored my bolded comment?

NEW FORMS REQUIRE NEW INFORMATION
dhw: The usual muddle produced by the word “information”. […] Transposons are segments of DNA that can move around and cause mutations which may result in new structures (“genetic novelty”). Not pure Darwin, because mutation is not synonymous with randomness. Agreed?

DAVID: It is still a shuffling of genetic information. transposons may be God's way of introducing new information.

Call it what you like. I say transposons cause mutations (not random) which may result in genetic novelty, which is the sine qua non of evolution.

Bacteriophages weird genome
DAVID: […] Note all the articles I have presented about how we screwed up beautifully operating ecosystems.

dhw: That is why I’m surprised at your refusal to take climate change seriously.

DAVID: Will you read the current info foreign to you if I send you a major skeptic website populated by scientists?

Scientists disagree amongst themselves about the scale of the threat, and I’m in no position to judge. But I do know we have “screwed up beautifully operating ecosystems”, the glaciers are melting, city dwellers especially are dying because of pollution, and it sounds like a good idea for us to reduce these dangers by reducing their causes.

Seals
DAVID: […] God designs all advances in evolution. The article infers random Darwinian mutations to make the new aquatic species.

Your usual statement of belief in the guise of fact. Please pinpoint any passage in the article that infers random mutations.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: […] the mother's pelvis bony outlet had to enlarge at the same time a bigger brained fetus appeared. And this also involves the Dad's DNA input […] Our evolution had to be guided by a designing mind, God, as our bigger brain kept evolving bigger and bigger. […]

Even now, birth is a painful process. As always, I find it hard to believe that your God dabbled simultaneously with brains, pelvises and sperms, and still messed it up to the extent that “Lucy may have needed a midwife to give birth, due to the shape of her pelvis.” I find it more likely that as the brain grew, the pelvic cells tried to adapt to accommodate the new size.

Big Bang theory survives
DAVID: The Big Bang still survives over all others

We are still left with the question of what preceded the Big Bang. If you believe there was nothing before it, you can say goodbye to your God theory, and you will have to believe that something can come out of nothing, which requires a mighty leap of faith.

Plants sense what’s happening
DAVID: But the scientists do not accept plant consciousness.

I doubt if anybody equates plant “consciousness” with human consciousness, and I suggest that “intelligence” is less misleading. (See below.) “The” scientists is wrong. Please substitute “some”. (See below.)

QUOTES: In the 1970s and 80s, a rift opened which still divides plant scientists to this day.

In recent years, however, there’s been a resurgence of investigation into the idea that plants are intelligent in ways we’ve historically overlooked.

Plants don’t have that part of intelligence that we call emotional intelligence,” Van Volkenburgh says. (She still keeps an open mind, though: “Who knows? We could be missing it.”)

If she keeps an open mind, why can’t you?

DAVID: Using terms that apply to humans confuses the issue as usual. Plants are sentient but not conscious in our sense of the word.

There is only confusion if you try to equate plant intelligence with human consciousness (i.e. self-awareness). If plants are sentient. can work out solutions and communicate with other plants, I’d say that = a form of intelligence.

Huge new function
DAVID: In the biochemistry of life God designed a system that is easily altered. Just change a proteins fold and results in a different function appear.

I like the “huge” in your heading. It fits in well with my proposal that cells are capable of autonomously making major changes to themselves using a perhaps God-given mechanism for self-modification.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 08, 2021, 16:53 (1055 days ago) @ dhw

BATS
DAVID: Your problem is there are no predecessors.
dhw: That is why I asked if you expected to find fossils of every single stage of every single life form over the last 3.8 billion years. Why do you think my bat theory is impossible?

You can hope to fill the gap IF there is one. With time the Cambrian gap only growsl


Biological complexity:
dhw: [..] If cells were free to fail, this suggests they were also free to succeed.

DAVID: I'm discussing molecular failure, and you jump to cell failure. Why?

d hw: Because molecules are part of the cell, and if molecules fail, cells may fail, and this may cause the diseases you say your God tried to prevent with backups which also fail. Why have you ignored my bolded comment?

Of course cells are free to succeed. Your point?


Seals
DAVID: […] God designs all advances in evolution. The article infers random Darwinian mutations to make the new aquatic species.

dhw: Your usual statement of belief in the guise of fact. Please pinpoint any passage in the article that infers random mutations.

Here: "“This is fundamental knowledge that helps us to understand how the huge diversity of life we see around us first evolved on our planet.” 'Helps understand' is not true. There had to be new information in new mutations. All the article presents is description of change. Pure Darwinist hope.


The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: […] the mother's pelvis bony outlet had to enlarge at the same time a bigger brained fetus appeared. And this also involves the Dad's DNA input […] Our evolution had to be guided by a designing mind, God, as our bigger brain kept evolving bigger and bigger. […]

dhw: Even now, birth is a painful process. As always, I find it hard to believe that your God dabbled simultaneously with brains, pelvises and sperms,...I find it more likely that as the brain grew, the pelvic cells tried to adapt to accommodate the new size.

The pelvic cells knew the independent baby skull size had grown. Really? Whew.


Big Bang theory survives
DAVID: The Big Bang still survives over all others

dhw: We are still left with the question of what preceded the Big Bang. If you believe there was nothing before it, you can say goodbye to your God theory, and you will have to believe that something can come out of nothing, which requires a mighty leap of faith.

Preceded it? God. Not nothing. Big Bang is an instant creation of our universe.


Plants sense what’s happening

DAVID: Using terms that apply to humans confuses the issue as usual. Plants are sentient but not conscious in our sense of the word.

dhw: There is only confusion if you try to equate plant intelligence with human consciousness (i.e. self-awareness). If plants are sentient. can work out solutions and communicate with other plants, I’d say that = a form of intelligence.

Or simply following God's intelligent instructions.


Huge new function
DAVID: In the biochemistry of life God designed a system that is easily altered. Just change a proteins fold and results in a different function appear.

dhw: I like the “huge” in your heading. It fits in well with my proposal that cells are capable of autonomously making major changes to themselves using a perhaps God-given mechanism for self-modification.

Why are your 'cells' so capable? I am pointing out a tiny protein alteration causes huge differences in function. Why is that possible? Magical? No, the biochemical system from God is so amazing it cannot be viewed as chance. That tiny change presented a huge amount of new informational instructions of how to change a body form that can acted upon by the bodies cells to create the morphological change. How that really happens is a total black box to us and its significance is lost on you for its design significance. There is no 'perhaps'. A designing mind is required. What it is called/labelled doesn't matter. That is my simple approach.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, May 09, 2021, 14:31 (1054 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
dhw: I asked if you expected to find fossils of every single stage of every single life form over the last 3.8 billion years. Why do you think my bat theory is impossible?

DAVID: You can hope to fill the gap IF there is one.

You say you believe in common descent, and I’m asking why you think it’s impossible for bats to have descended from an earlier life form.

Biological complexity:
dhw: [..] If cells were free to fail, this suggests they were also free to succeed.

DAVID: I'm discussing molecular failure, and you jump to cell failure. Why?

dhw: Because molecules are part of the cell, and if molecules fail, cells may fail, and this may cause the diseases you say your God tried to prevent with backups which also fail. […]

DAVID: Of course cells are free to succeed. Your point?

You asked why I moved from molecular to cell failure, and I answered. My point is that if cells are free, your God must have given up control. That freedom lies at the heart of the theory of autonomous cellular intelligence.

Seals
DAVID: […] The article infers random Darwinian mutations to make the new aquatic species.

dhw: Please pinpoint any passage in the article that infers random mutations.

DAVID: Here: "“This is fundamental knowledge that helps us to understand how the huge diversity of life we see around us first evolved on our planet.” 'Helps understand' is not true. There had to be new information in new mutations. All the article presents is description of change. Pure Darwinist hope.

Your quote follows on from:
This has happened multiple times, with groups like whales, sea turtles, sea cows and crocodiles, all evolving from land-dwelling ancestors that have adapted themselves for a life at sea.”

No inference or mention of random mutations. Adaptation is not random, and what is wrong with the suggestion that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity?

The obstetric dilemma
dhw: […] I find it more likely that as the brain grew, the pelvic cells tried to adapt to accommodate the new size.

DAVID: The pelvic cells knew the independent baby skull size had grown. Really? Whew.

How else do you think adaptation functions? Conditions change (bigger brain), and either the cells RESPOND (change pelvis) or the organism dies. You seem to think no Lucy-mother could ever have died in childbirth: your God had prepared everything, and from then on, childbirth was a doddle. Really? Whew!

Big Bang theory survives
dhw: We are still left with the question of what preceded the Big Bang.

DAVID: Preceded it? God. Not nothing. Big Bang is an instant creation of our universe.

If you say it was preceded by pure and eternal conscious energy (your God), why is that more likely than pure and eternal unconscious energy, or unconscious and eternal energy and matter constantly forming and reforming itself?

Huge new function
dhw: I like the “huge” in your heading. It fits in well with my proposal that cells are capable of autonomously making major changes to themselves using a perhaps God-given mechanism for self-modification.

DAVID: Why are your 'cells' so capable? I am pointing out a tiny protein alteration causes huge differences in function. Why is that possible? Magical? No, the biochemical system from God is so amazing it cannot be viewed as chance.

Where have I said it is chance? Where have I said it is magical? I have conceded that it may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: That tiny change presented a huge amount of new informational instructions of how to change a body form that can acted upon by the bodies cells to create the morphological change.

In plain English, the cells can make small changes to themselves which will result in major changes to the organism. Thank you for agreeing with me.

DAVID: How that really happens is a total black box to us and its significance is lost on you for its design significance. There is no 'perhaps'. A designing mind is required. What it is called/labelled doesn't matter. That is my simple approach.

Cellular intelligence is not a label but a theory to explain how evolution works. I have no objections if you accept the logic and believe your God designed the mechanism.

Erectus speech
QUOTE: "The available evidence then strongly suggests that erectus invented language more than a million years ago. In so doing, Homo erectus changed the world more than any creature since, including their grandchild, Homo sapiens."

At last some common sense. To my mind it is absurd to imagine that our predecessors did not have their own language in which to communicate. But I think the above quote is highly exaggerated. The world of erectus would still have been very much the same as that of his predecessors and of early sapiens. Our modern world of cities, technology, institutions, means of transport etc. would be totally unrecognizable to erectus. Language complexifies when new words and structures become necessary. Of course we use these once we have them, but I don't think language produces the new concepts it expresses.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 09, 2021, 16:01 (1054 days ago) @ dhw

BATS

dhw: You say you believe in common descent, and I’m asking why you think it’s impossible for bats to have descended from an earlier life form.

Sudden appearance implies God might have dropped in an addition, as in the Cambrian.


Seals

dhw: Your quote follows on from:
This has happened multiple times, with groups like whales, sea turtles, sea cows and crocodiles, all evolving from land-dwelling ancestors that have adapted themselves for a life at sea.”

No inference or mention of random mutations. Adaptation is not random, and what is wrong with the suggestion that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity?

Of course there is diversity, which Darwin tells us comes from random mutations


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: The pelvic cells knew the independent baby skull size had grown. Really? Whew.

dhw: How else do you think adaptation functions? Conditions change (bigger brain), and either the cells RESPOND (change pelvis) or the organism dies.

A total non-answer. How did the pelvic bony cells anticipate the bigger baby head? You just prefer non-thought in considering the obstetric dilemma. 'Respond' requires anticipation.

Erectus speech
QUOTE: "The available evidence then strongly suggests that erectus invented language more than a million years ago. In so doing, Homo erectus changed the world more than any creature since, including their grandchild, Homo sapiens."

dhw: At last some common sense. To my mind it is absurd to imagine that our predecessors did not have their own language in which to communicate. But I think the above quote is highly exaggerated. The world of erectus would still have been very much the same as that of his predecessors and of early sapiens. Our modern world of cities, technology, institutions, means of transport etc. would be totally unrecognizable to erectus. Language complexifies when new words and structures become necessary. Of course we use these once we have them, but I don't think language produces the new concepts it expresses.

The ability to express abstractions in speech and print is what did it. Erectus did think in simple abstractions making stone tools, rafts, etc.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, May 10, 2021, 13:10 (1053 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
dhw: You say you believe in common descent, and I’m asking why you think it’s impossible for bats to have descended from an earlier life form.

DAVID: Sudden appearance implies God might have dropped in an addition, as in the Cambrian.

I know what it suggests. I am asking why you, who believe in common descent, think it’s impossible for bats to have had an ancestor, and why you should take it for granted that every stage of speciation, going back hundreds or even thousands of millions of years, should have left us with a complete fossil record of itself.

Seals
dhw: Your quote follows on from:
“This has happened multiple times, with groups like whales, sea turtles, sea cows and crocodiles, all evolving from land-dwelling ancestors that have adapted themselves for a life at sea.”

No inference or mention of random mutations. Adaptation is not random, and what is wrong with the suggestion that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity?

DAVID: Of course there is diversity, which Darwin tells us comes from random mutations

The article contains no reference to random mutations, so I don’t know why you tried to dismiss it as “typical Darwin think”, or why you objected to the statement that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: The pelvic cells knew the independent baby skull size had grown. Really? Whew.

dhw: How else do you think adaptation functions? Conditions change (bigger brain), and either the cells RESPOND (change pelvis) or the organism dies.

DAVID: A total non-answer. How did the pelvic bony cells anticipate the bigger baby head? You just prefer non-thought in considering the obstetric dilemma. 'Respond' requires anticipation.

My proposal is that the cells did NOT anticipate the bigger head, and “respond” is exactly the opposite of “anticipate”! The process would be that the pelvis finds itself having to cope with a bigger head. Either it expands or it’s goodbye to mother and child. Initially, I have no doubt that the latter would have happened all too frequently. But in some cases the response would have enabled mother and child to live, and those are the cases which would have led eventually to the adapted form of pelvis surviving as the norm. Still not perfect by any means, but adequate for general survival. Do you really imagine that your God stepped in to provide a ready-made new pelvis, and therefore all Lucy-mothers survived?

Erectus speech
QUOTE: "The available evidence then strongly suggests that erectus invented language more than a million years ago. In so doing, Homo erectus changed the world more than any creature since, including their grandchild, Homo sapiens."

dhw: At last some common sense. To my mind it is absurd to imagine that our predecessors did not have their own language in which to communicate. But I think the above quote is highly exaggerated. The world of erectus would still have been very much the same as that of his predecessors and of early sapiens. Our modern world of cities, technology, institutions, means of transport etc. would be totally unrecognizable to erectus. Language complexifies when new words and structures become necessary. Of course we use these once we have them, but I don't think language produces the new concepts it expresses.

DAVID: The ability to express abstractions in speech and print is what did it. Erectus did think in simple abstractions making stone tools, rafts, etc.

A sort of chicken and egg situation, perhaps. I suggest that new words and constructions became necessary as humans came up with new ideas which required new forms of expression. But of course, once these forms of expression existed, they would have been used to generate new ideas as new knowledge was passed on to more and more “thinkers”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, May 10, 2021, 20:31 (1053 days ago) @ dhw

BATS
dhw: You say you believe in common descent, and I’m asking why you think it’s impossible for bats to have descended from an earlier life form.

DAVID: Sudden appearance implies God might have dropped in an addition, as in the Cambrian.

dhw: I know what it suggests. I am asking why you, who believe in common descent, think it’s impossible for bats to have had an ancestor, and why you should take it for granted that every stage of speciation, going back hundreds or even thousands of millions of years, should have left us with a complete fossil record of itself.

Incompleteness is a hopeful position after hundreds of years of searching for fossils.


Seals

DAVID: Of course there is diversity, which Darwin tells us comes from random mutations

dhw: The article contains no reference to random mutations, so I don’t know why you tried to dismiss it as “typical Darwin think”, or why you objected to the statement that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity.

I view it as an empty observation


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: A total non-answer. How did the pelvic bony cells anticipate the bigger baby head? You just prefer non-thought in considering the obstetric dilemma. 'Respond' requires anticipation.

dhw: My proposal is that the cells did NOT anticipate the bigger head, and “respond” is exactly the opposite of “anticipate”! The process would be that the pelvis finds itself having to cope with a bigger head. Either it expands or it’s goodbye to mother and child. Initially, I have no doubt that the latter would have happened all too frequently. But in some cases the response would have enabled mother and child to live, and those are the cases which would have led eventually to the adapted form of pelvis surviving as the norm. Still not perfect by any means, but adequate for general survival. Do you really imagine that your God stepped in to provide a ready-made new pelvis, and therefore all Lucy-mothers survived?

Yes. Your paragraph is wishful thinking. The pelvic required changes had to result from massive coordinated mutations.


Erectus speech
QUOTE: "The available evidence then strongly suggests that erectus invented language more than a million years ago. In so doing, Homo erectus changed the world more than any creature since, including their grandchild, Homo sapiens."

dhw: At last some common sense. To my mind it is absurd to imagine that our predecessors did not have their own language in which to communicate. But I think the above quote is highly exaggerated. The world of erectus would still have been very much the same as that of his predecessors and of early sapiens. Our modern world of cities, technology, institutions, means of transport etc. would be totally unrecognizable to erectus. Language complexifies when new words and structures become necessary. Of course we use these once we have them, but I don't think language produces the new concepts it expresses.

DAVID: The ability to express abstractions in speech and print is what did it. Erectus did think in simple abstractions making stone tools, rafts, etc.

dhw: A sort of chicken and egg situation, perhaps. I suggest that new words and constructions became necessary as humans came up with new ideas which required new forms of expression. But of course, once these forms of expression existed, they would have been used to generate new ideas as new knowledge was passed on to more and more “thinkers”.

Agreed. The process builds upon itself.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, May 11, 2021, 14:11 (1052 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
dhw: You say you believe in common descent, and I’m asking why you think it’s impossible for bats to have descended from an earlier life form.

DAVID: Sudden appearance implies God might have dropped in an addition, as in the Cambrian.

dhw: I know what it suggests. I am asking why you, who believe in common descent, think it’s impossible for bats to have had an ancestor, and why you should take it for granted that every stage of speciation, going back hundreds or even thousands of millions of years, should have left us with a complete fossil record of itself.

DAVID: Incompleteness is a hopeful position after hundreds of years of searching for fossils.

No more hopeful than the belief that there is a God who decided one day not to use existing species as the basis for new species, but to specially design the bat de novo, even though his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You see how difficult it is to accept your arguments in the light of your combined beliefs? And I would still ask if you honestly believe it is possible to have a complete fossil record of every life form for the last 3 thousand million years.

Seals
DAVID: Of course there is diversity, which Darwin tells us comes from random mutations

dhw: The article contains no reference to random mutations, so I don’t know why you tried to dismiss it as “typical Darwin think”, or why you objected to the statement that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity.

DAVID: I view it as an empty observation.

Certainly no emptier than your dismissal of it as “typical Darwin think” when it never even mentions the “Darwin think” you objected to (random mutations). And in fact I would say the interaction between adaptation, innovation and the environment is of prime importance to our understanding of evolution.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: A total non-answer. How did the pelvic bony cells anticipate the bigger baby head? You just prefer non-thought in considering the obstetric dilemma. 'Respond' requires anticipation.

dhw: My proposal is that the cells did NOT anticipate the bigger head, and “respond” is exactly the opposite of “anticipate”! The process would be that the pelvis finds itself having to cope with a bigger head. Either it expands or it’s goodbye to mother and child. Initially, I have no doubt that the latter would have happened all too frequently. But in some cases the response would have enabled mother and child to live, and those are the cases which would have led eventually to the adapted form of pelvis surviving as the norm. Still not perfect by any means, but adequate for general survival. Do you really imagine that your God stepped in to provide a ready-made new pelvis, and therefore all Lucy-mothers survived?

DAVID: Yes. Your paragraph is wishful thinking. The pelvic required changes had to result from massive coordinated mutations.

Do you really believe that all Lucy-mothers survived childbirth in those early days? That’s what I would call wishful thinking. Yes, the pelvis required major adaptations to accommodate the larger heads, just as the pre-whale required major adaptations to adapt to marine life. But in both cases, I suggest there would have been a clear sequence: new conditions led to appropriate responses. It happens all the time.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 11, 2021, 18:31 (1052 days ago) @ dhw

BATS

dhw: I know what it suggests. I am asking why you, who believe in common descent, think it’s impossible for bats to have had an ancestor, and why you should take it for granted that every stage of speciation, going back hundreds or even thousands of millions of years, should have left us with a complete fossil record of itself.

DAVID: Incompleteness is a hopeful position after hundreds of years of searching for fossils.

dhw: No more hopeful than the belief that there is a God who decided one day not to use existing species as the basis for new species, but to specially design the bat de novo, even though his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You see how difficult it is to accept your arguments in the light of your combined beliefs? And I would still ask if you honestly believe it is possible to have a complete fossil record of every life form for the last 3 thousand million years.

It certainly looks as if God designed Cambrians de novo. And I'm sure we will never find a fossil for every past life form, but enough, as now, to see reasonable series of changing forms with huge gaps in forms as in the whale series..


Seals

dhw: The article contains no reference to random mutations, so I don’t know why you tried to dismiss it as “typical Darwin think”, or why you objected to the statement that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity.

DAVID: I view it as an empty observation.

dhw: Certainly no emptier than your dismissal of it as “typical Darwin think” when it never even mentions the “Darwin think” you objected to (random mutations). And in fact I would say the interaction between adaptation, innovation and the environment is of prime importance to our understanding of evolution.

My understanding of evolutionary gaps is there must be a designer.


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: Yes. Your paragraph is wishful thinking. The pelvic required changes had to result from massive coordinated mutations.

dhw: Do you really believe that all Lucy-mothers survived childbirth in those early days? That’s what I would call wishful thinking. Yes, the pelvis required major adaptations to accommodate the larger heads, just as the pre-whale required major adaptations to adapt to marine life. But in both cases, I suggest there would have been a clear sequence: new conditions led to appropriate responses. It happens all the time.

Thanks to a designer anticipating the needed changes. More wishful theorizing. I would say every mother died unless her pelvis was changed to a bigger size. Or each fetus was dragged out with a crushed skull. Having delivere3d a bunch of kids in my training, I can tell you almost all newborns have slightly molded heads on arrival which revert to normal shape quickly. That is how tight the current setup is. Early homo kids had to have the room to get out. It is still a dilemma: Dad's DNA, Mom's DNA and kid's DNA all had to cooperate. You can't wish that problem away in finding a natural solution. It has to be designed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 10:58 (1051 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
dhw: I am asking why you, who believe in common descent, think it’s impossible for bats to have had an ancestor, and why you should take it for granted that every stage of speciation, going back hundreds or even thousands of millions of years, should have left us with a complete fossil record of itself.

DAVID: Incompleteness is a hopeful position after hundreds of years of searching for fossils.

dhw: No more hopeful than the belief that there is a God who decided one day not to use existing species as the basis for new species, but to specially design the bat de novo, even though his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You see how difficult it is to accept your arguments in the light of your combined beliefs? And I would still ask if you honestly believe it is possible to have a complete fossil record of every life form for the last 3 thousand million years.

DAVID: It certainly looks as if God designed Cambrians de novo. And I'm sure we will never find a fossil for every past life form, but enough, as now, to see reasonable series of changing forms with huge gaps in forms as in the whale series.

So once your God had operated on the pre-whales to change their flippers to legs before they entered the water, do you think that over the centuries he kept popping in to do a fiddle here and a twiddle there, until he finally got the whale he wanted? Ditto with all the hominins and homos? Ah, but let us remember: you have no idea why he evolved sapiens in this way. Or presumably whales.

Seals
dhw: The article contains no reference to random mutations, so I don’t know why you tried to dismiss it as “typical Darwin think”, or why you objected to the statement that adaptation to new environments helps us to understand diversity.

DAVID: I view it as an empty observation.

dhw: Certainly no emptier than your dismissal of it as “typical Darwin think” when it never even mentions the “Darwin think” you objected to (random mutations). And in fact I would say the interaction between adaptation, innovation and the environment is of prime importance to our understanding of evolution.

DAVID: My understanding of evolutionary gaps is there must be a designer.

I thought we were discussing the non-mention of random mutations and the importance of interaction between organism and environment. But even this comment of yours raises the problem of common descent, which you claim to believe in. No wonder you have no idea why your God chose to evolve H. sapiens, since you now appear to be a full-blooded Creationist.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: Yes. Your paragraph is wishful thinking. The pelvic required changes had to result from massive coordinated mutations.

dhw: Do you really believe that all Lucy-mothers survived childbirth in those early days? That’s what I would call wishful thinking. Yes, the pelvis required major adaptations to accommodate the larger heads, just as the pre-whale required major adaptations to adapt to marine life. But in both cases, I suggest there would have been a clear sequence: new conditions led to appropriate responses. It happens all the time.

DAVID: Thanks to a designer anticipating the needed changes. More wishful theorizing.

The idea of a designer operating on pelvises before the big-brain baby is conceived, or of transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before the animal enters the water, does indeed smack of wishful thinking!

DAVID: I would say every mother died unless her pelvis was changed to a bigger size. Or each fetus was dragged out with a crushed skull. Having delivered a bunch of kids in my training, I can tell you almost all newborns have slightly molded heads on arrival which revert to normal shape quickly. That is how tight the current setup is. Early homo kids had to have the room to get out. It is still a dilemma: Dad's DNA, Mom's DNA and kid's DNA all had to cooperate. You can't wish that problem away in finding a natural solution. It has to be designed.

I would say every mother would have died if some pelvises hadn’t allowed some bigger-brained babies to get out. The species survived. If your God had operated on every individual pregnant Lucy-mum before she became pregnant, you’d have thought there would have been no deaths and no problems at all, but even in our own times, it’s a struggle. Why do you think your God made it so difficult and so painful each time he popped in to perform his pelvis-expansion operation? And why do you think cooperation has to be simultaneous? I propose that problems arise before solutions are found. In this case, the enlarged brain was the problem which the pelvis had to solve.

Ancient ape fossils need more study
QUOTE: "In other words, fossil apes are essential to reconstruct the 'starting point' from which humans and chimpanzees evolved.'"

You can say this about the whole of evolution. Fossil everything is essential to reconstruct how speciation of all kinds took place. I don’t think there’s much chance of that, but some folk like to talk of gaps as if they really expect each set of dead bodies to hang around forever.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 19:34 (1051 days ago) @ dhw

BATS

DAVID: It certainly looks as if God designed Cambrians de novo. And I'm sure we will never find a fossil for every past life form, but enough, as now, to see reasonable series of changing forms with huge gaps in forms as in the whale series.

dhw: So once your God had operated on the pre-whales to change their flippers to legs before they entered the water, do you think that over the centuries he kept popping in to do a fiddle here and a twiddle there, until he finally got the whale he wanted? Ditto with all the hominins and homos? Ah, but let us remember: you have no idea why he evolved sapiens in this way. Or presumably whales.

Switched subjects because you have no Cambrian answer. You are asking me to validate God's method of evolution by knowing His reasons for His choice. Since I can't, and you know it, you request is a useless diversion. I am content with observing God's created reality.


Seals

DAVID: My understanding of evolutionary gaps is there must be a designer.

dhw: I thought we were discussing the non-mention of random mutations and the importance of interaction between organism and environment. But even this comment of yours raises the problem of common descent, which you claim to believe in. No wonder you have no idea why your God chose to evolve H. sapiens, since you now appear to be a full-blooded Creationist. God is the Creator.

The obstetric dilemma

dhw: Do you really believe that all Lucy-mothers survived childbirth in those early days? That’s what I would call wishful thinking. Yes, the pelvis required major adaptations to accommodate the larger heads, just as the pre-whale required major adaptations to adapt to marine life. But in both cases, I suggest there would have been a clear sequence: new conditions led to appropriate responses. It happens all the time.

DAVID: Thanks to a designer anticipating the needed changes. More wishful theorizing.

dhw: The idea of a designer operating on pelvises before the big-brain baby is conceived, or of transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before the animal enters the water, does indeed smack of wishful thinking!

More like an acknowledgement of the real requirements for survival of a new species with bigger heads..


DAVID: I would say every mother died unless her pelvis was changed to a bigger size. Or each fetus was dragged out with a crushed skull. Having delivered a bunch of kids in my training, I can tell you almost all newborns have slightly molded heads on arrival which revert to normal shape quickly. That is how tight the current setup is. Early homo kids had to have the room to get out. It is still a dilemma: Dad's DNA, Mom's DNA and kid's DNA all had to cooperate. You can't wish that problem away in finding a natural solution. It has to be designed.

dhw: I would say every mother would have died if some pelvises hadn’t allowed some bigger-brained babies to get out. The species survived.

With God's helpful new design.

dhw: If your God had operated on every individual pregnant Lucy-mum before she became pregnant, you’d have thought there would have been no deaths and no problems at all, but even in our own times, it’s a struggle. Why do you think your God made it so difficult and so painful each time he popped in to perform his pelvis-expansion operation? And why do you think cooperation has to be simultaneous? I propose that problems arise before solutions are found. In this case, the enlarged brain was the problem which the pelvis had to solve.

And I'm sure solved only by God's new designs


Ancient ape fossils need more study
QUOTE: "In other words, fossil apes are essential to reconstruct the 'starting point' from which humans and chimpanzees evolved.'"

dhw: You can say this about the whole of evolution. Fossil everything is essential to reconstruct how speciation of all kinds took place. I don’t think there’s much chance of that, but some folk like to talk of gaps as if they really expect each set of dead bodies to hang around forever.

Fortunately some dead bones do stick around.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, May 13, 2021, 10:26 (1050 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
dhw: So once your God had operated on the pre-whales to change their flippers to legs before they entered the water, do you think that over the centuries he kept popping in to do a fiddle here and a twiddle there, until he finally got the whale he wanted? Ditto with all the hominins and homos? Ah, but let us remember: you have no idea why he evolved sapiens in this way. Or presumably whales.

DAVID: Switched subjects because you have no Cambrian answer. You are asking me to validate God's method of evolution by knowing His reasons for His choice. Since I can't, and you know it, you request is a useless diversion. I am content with observing God's created reality.

You raised the subject of whales, and my answer is the same for the Cambrian. It began approx. 550 million years ago and lasted approx. 56 million years. Every fossil is a miracle in itself, and if you substitute cellular intelligence for random mutations, who can possibly say that this vast period of time was not enough for new organisms to evolve in response to new conditions? Secondly, I am not asking you to validate God’s method but to validate your illogical theory. I know you can’t, precisely because you admit have no idea why he would have chosen your method to achieve your purpose.

New forms require new genes
Quotes:"Recent studies show that many genes typically associated with metazoan functions actually pre-date animals themselves, supporting functional co-option of ‘unicellular genes’ during the genesis of metazoans."
“Contradicting the current view, our study reveals that genes with bilaterian origin are robustly associated with key features in extant bilaterians, suggesting a causal relationship."

DAVID: this is opposite to Behe and everything new requires genes removed, but remember we discovered Behe found this is was true only for species adaptation.

I pointed out that instead of REQUIRING loss of genes, innovation (requiring new cells) and adaptation could make cells redundant, which explains loss of genes. This article provides a logical explanation of the Cambrian transitions which, over 56 million years, could have led to all the new species that appeared in response to the new conditions that would have arisen during that long period of time.

The obstetric dilemma
dhw: The idea of a designer operating on pelvises before the big-brain baby is conceived, or of transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before the animal enters the water, does indeed smack of wishful thinking!

DAVID: More like an acknowledgement of the real requirements for survival of a new species with bigger heads.

And so you decide that the solution must precede the problem, the response must precede the requirement. And yet every experience we have ever had teaches us that the process works the other way. At least the theory of cellular intelligence fits in with everything we know about the way life works.

dhw: I propose that problems arise before solutions are found. In this case, the enlarged brain was the problem which the pelvis had to solve.

DAVID: And I'm sure solved only by God's new designs

Or possibly by God’s old design, giving all organisms the wherewithal to adapt to new conditions and to solve new problems.

Ancient ape fossils need more study
dhw: …some folk like to talk of gaps as if they really expect each set of dead bodies to hang around forever.

DAVID: Fortunately some dead bones do stick around.

Yes, we’re amazingly lucky that some bones survive for millions and millions of years. Fossils are the astonishingly rare exception to the rule, and we simply cannot expect, as you seem to do, a complete record of every stage of every species that ever lived.

Transposons
QUOTES: “These are not junk — they’re living little creatures in your genome that are under very active selection over long periods of time, and what that means is that they evolve new functions to stay in your genome,” he said.

"[…] the vast majority of new genetic material is thought to form through genetic duplication, in which genes are accidentally copied and the extras diverge through mutation.

“'Evolution is the ultimate tinkerer and ultimate opportunist,” said David Schatz, a molecular geneticist at Yale University who was not involved with the study. “If you give evolution a tool, it may not use it right away, but sooner or later it will take advantage of it.'” (David's bold)

DAVID: The last paragraph treats evolution as if if is a personage. Why not simply God in action?

It also treats transposons as “living little creatures”, not automatons. The second quote lays stress on accidental mutation, which we both disagree with. You say God does the tinkering. I say the cell communities that form living organisms may have a tool (intelligence) which they use “opportunistically” (= innovation) or out of necessity (adaptation) – though it’s frequently hard to distinguish between the two. We have no idea how this tool may have originated, but your God is one possibility. “You” certainly didn’t give it to “evolution” – the phrasing is an obvious dodge, for which I don’t really blame the speaker, who is only concerned with the mechanism itself and not the origin.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 13, 2021, 19:31 (1050 days ago) @ dhw

BATS
DAVID: Switched subjects because you have no Cambrian answer. You are asking me to validate God's method of evolution by knowing His reasons for His choice. Since I can't, and you know it, you request is a useless diversion. I am content with observing God's created reality.

dhw: You raised the subject of whales, and my answer is the same for the Cambrian. It began approx. 550 million years ago and lasted approx. 56 million years. Every fossil is a miracle in itself, and if you substitute cellular intelligence for random mutations, who can possibly say that this vast period of time was not enough for new organisms to evolve in response to new conditions?

Where did your "cellular intelligence" naturally come from?


New forms require new genes

dhw: This article provides a logical explanation of the Cambrian transitions which, over 56 million years, could have led to all the new species that appeared in response to the new conditions that would have arisen during that long period of time.

But in the beginning of the Cambrian many new forms appeared de novo and lasted 56 million years, not your supposition.


The obstetric dilemma

dhw: I propose that problems arise before solutions are found. In this case, the enlarged brain was the problem which the pelvis had to solve.

DAVID: And I'm sure solved only by God's new designs

dhw: Or possibly by God’s old design, giving all organisms the wherewithal to adapt to new conditions and to solve new problems.

Instant solutions don't happen. Each new species follows a gap in time with no intermediates. remember Gould's comments about all the gaps.


Transposons
QUOTES: “These are not junk — they’re living little creatures in your genome that are under very active selection over long periods of time, and what that means is that they evolve new functions to stay in your genome,” he said.

"[…] the vast majority of new genetic material is thought to form through genetic duplication, in which genes are accidentally copied and the extras diverge through mutation.

“'Evolution is the ultimate tinkerer and ultimate opportunist,” said David Schatz, a molecular geneticist at Yale University who was not involved with the study. “If you give evolution a tool, it may not use it right away, but sooner or later it will take advantage of it.'” (David's bold)

DAVID: The last paragraph treats evolution as if if is a personage. Why not simply God in action?

dhw: It also treats transposons as “living little creatures”, not automatons. The second quote lays stress on accidental mutation, which we both disagree with. You say God does the tinkering. I say the cell communities that form living organisms may have a tool (intelligence) which they use “opportunistically” (= innovation) or out of necessity (adaptation) – though it’s frequently hard to distinguish between the two. We have no idea how this tool may have originated, but your God is one possibility. “You” certainly didn’t give it to “evolution” – the phrasing is an obvious dodge, for which I don’t really blame the speaker, who is only concerned with the mechanism itself and not the origin.

I see God as the only possible source for the apparent presence of cell intelligence.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, May 14, 2021, 09:28 (1049 days ago) @ David Turell

Multiverses
QUOTE: "I am not a multiverse denier, any more than I am a God denier. Science cannot resolve the existence of either God or the multiverse, making agnosticism the only sensible position. I see some value in multiverse theories. Particularly when presented by a writer as gifted as Sean Carroll, they goad our imaginations and give us intimations of infinity. They make us feel really, really small—in a good way.

DAVID: I'm with Horgan. Multiverse discussion is entertaining fluff, nothing more.

I'm also with Horgan, my fellow agnostic, and I’m delighted that you are too! I might add that I also see some value in God theories…..they goad our imaginations and give us intimations of infinity and even immortality. They make us feel really, really, small – sometimes in a good way. And one of them may even be true.

Elephant seals
DAVID: The complex physiological requirements for these female seals not breathing for 1.5 hours, little sleep when most mammals require much more, raises the issue as to how these animals might have naturally evolved? I suspect it is one of God's designs for a special ecosystem.

As always, thank you for yet another fascinating insight into the wonderful ways in which our fellow animals have learned to survive in all kinds of environments. And as always, I would suggest that these animals evolved through the possibly God-given invention of the flexible, intelligent cell, which responds to new needs and/or opportunities presented by changing conditions. What I cannot understand in your own arguments – you may have heard this before – is why you think your God would have specially designed vast numbers of special ecosystems in the past that had no connection with humans, although you insist that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”.

BATS
dhw: You raised the subject of whales, and my answer is the same for the Cambrian. It began approx. 550 million years ago and lasted approx. 56 million years. Every fossil is a miracle in itself, and if you substitute cellular intelligence for random mutations, who can possibly say that this vast period of time was not enough for new organisms to evolve in response to new conditions?

DAVID: Where did your "cellular intelligence" naturally come from?

You know perfectly well that I have always said that it may have come from your God. The theory does not deal with the origin (Chapter One of life) but with the mechanisms that drive evolution (Chapter Two).

New forms require new genes
dhw: This article provides a logical explanation of the Cambrian transitions which, over 56 million years, could have led to all the new species that appeared in response to the new conditions that would have arisen during that long period of time.

DAVID: But in the beginning of the Cambrian many new forms appeared de novo and lasted 56 million years, not your supposition.

Thank you for your correction. According to several websites, what you call the beginning (the Cambrian Explosion) lasted 13-25 million years. Please substitute that figure for the 56 above. The argument is still the same. Apparently a lot of the new species actually went extinct during the remaining millions of years. Makes you wonder why your God would have designed them in the first place, and in what way they could have been “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

The obstetric dilemma
dhw: I propose that problems arise before solutions are found. In this case, the enlarged brain was the problem which the pelvis had to solve.

DAVID: And I'm sure solved only by God's new designs

dhw: Or possibly by God’s old design, giving all organisms the wherewithal to adapt to new conditions and to solve new problems.

DAVID: Instant solutions don't happen. Each new species follows a gap in time with no intermediates. remember Gould's comments about all the gaps.

Our heading is the “obstetric dilemma”, and according to you, instant solutions do happen! I thought this was the nub of your theory – that your God specially designed the pelvis in anticipation of the problem, and it was an instant success. I am the one proposing solutions over time, with many Lucy-mothers dying in childbirth before the expanded pelvis became the norm. Please stick to the subject.

Transposons
dhw: You say God does the tinkering. I say the cell communities that form living organisms may have a tool (intelligence) which they use “opportunistically” (= innovation) or out of necessity (adaptation) – though it’s frequently hard to distinguish between the two. We have no idea how this tool may have originated, but your God is one possibility. “You” certainly didn’t give it to “evolution” – the phrasing is an obvious dodge, for which I don’t really blame the speaker, who is only concerned with the mechanism itself and not the origin.

DAVID: I see God as the only possible source for the apparent presence of cell intelligence.

No problem. I have always allowed for that possibility.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, May 14, 2021, 20:23 (1049 days ago) @ dhw

Elephant seals
DAVID: The complex physiological requirements for these female seals not breathing for 1.5 hours, little sleep when most mammals require much more, raises the issue as to how these animals might have naturally evolved? I suspect it is one of God's designs for a special ecosystem.

dhw: As always, thank you for yet another fascinating insight into the wonderful ways in which our fellow animals have learned to survive in all kinds of environments. And as always, I would suggest that these animals evolved through the possibly God-given invention of the flexible, intelligent cell, which responds to new needs and/or opportunities presented by changing conditions. What I cannot understand in your own arguments – you may have heard this before – is why you think your God would have specially designed vast numbers of special ecosystems in the past that had no connection with humans, although you insist that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”.

Answered today in "balance of nature" and "biological complexity" entries.


BATS
dhw: You raised the subject of whales, and my answer is the same for the Cambrian. It began approx. 550 million years ago and lasted approx. 56 million years. Every fossil is a miracle in itself, and if you substitute cellular intelligence for random mutations, who can possibly say that this vast period of time was not enough for new organisms to evolve in response to new conditions?

DAVID: Where did your "cellular intelligence" naturally come from?

dhw: You know perfectly well that I have always said that it may have come from your God. The theory does not deal with the origin (Chapter One of life) but with the mechanisms that drive evolution (Chapter Two).

'
Like Darwin, your hero, you won't combine the two, because it creates impossible questions if you accept the continuity, which obviously exists. Two always follows one and is fully dependent upon it. Your favorite theory magically appears after the beginning. How convenient.


New forms require new genes

DAVID: But in the beginning of the Cambrian many new forms appeared de novo and lasted 56 million years, not your supposition.

dhw: Thank you for your correction. According to several websites, what you call the beginning (the Cambrian Explosion) lasted 13-25 million years. Please substitute that figure for the 56 above. The argument is still the same. Apparently a lot of the new species actually went extinct during the remaining millions of years. Makes you wonder why your God would have designed them in the first place, and in what way they could have been “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

The gap still calls for a designer.


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: Instant solutions don't happen. Each new species follows a gap in time with no intermediates. remember Gould's comments about all the gaps.

dhw: Our heading is the “obstetric dilemma”, and according to you, instant solutions do happen! I thought this was the nub of your theory – that your God specially designed the pelvis in anticipation of the problem, and it was an instant success. I am the one proposing solutions over time, with many Lucy-mothers dying in childbirth before the expanded pelvis became the norm. Please stick to the subject.

That is my subject. 'Over time' is your waffle.


Transposons
dhw: You say God does the tinkering. I say the cell communities that form living organisms may have a tool (intelligence) which they use “opportunistically” (= innovation) or out of necessity (adaptation) – though it’s frequently hard to distinguish between the two. We have no idea how this tool may have originated, but your God is one possibility. “You” certainly didn’t give it to “evolution” – the phrasing is an obvious dodge, for which I don’t really blame the speaker, who is only concerned with the mechanism itself and not the origin.

DAVID: I see God as the only possible source for the apparent presence of cell intelligence.

dhw: No problem. I have always allowed for that possibility.

I know you do.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, May 15, 2021, 12:54 (1048 days ago) @ David Turell

Elephant seals
DAVID: The complex physiological requirements for these female seals not breathing for 1.5 hours, little sleep when most mammals require much more, raises the issue as to how these animals might have naturally evolved? I suspect it is one of God's designs for a special ecosystem.

dhw: As always, […] I would suggest that these animals evolved through the possibly God-given invention of the flexible, intelligent cell, which responds to new needs and/or opportunities presented by changing conditions. What I cannot understand in your own arguments – you may have heard this before – is why you think your God would have specially designed vast numbers of special ecosystems in the past that had no connection with humans, although you insist that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”.

DAVID: Answered today in "balance of nature" and "biological complexity" entries.

You had already demolished your answer by telling us that past ecosystems were for the past, and that extinct life has no role in current time.

BATS
DAVID: Where did your "cellular intelligence" naturally come from?

dhw: You know perfectly well that I have always said that it may have come from your God. The theory does not deal with the origin (Chapter One of life) but with the mechanisms that drive evolution (Chapter Two).

DAVID: Like Darwin, your hero, you won't combine the two, because it creates impossible questions if you accept the continuity, which obviously exists. Two always follows one and is fully dependent upon it. Your favorite theory magically appears after the beginning. How convenient.

Of course the continuity exists, but both chapters deal with the unknown and so we can only theorize about both! Not knowing the cause is no reason to doubt the effect. The effect (Chapter Two) here is evolution – an ever changing bush of life. You theorize, illogically, that your God caused it by specially designing every branch as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, though 99% of the branches had no connection with humans. I offer a THEISTIC alternative theory: your God (if he exists) may have caused evolution by specially designing the mechanism whereby every branch was the result of intelligent organisms restructuring themselves in accordance with changing conditions. The "continuity" is covered, so why did you ask where my “cellular intelligence” came from? I guess it's another of your attempts to dodge the illogicality of your Chapter Two theory.

New forms require new genes
DAVID: But in the beginning of the Cambrian many new forms appeared de novo and lasted 56 million years, not your supposition.

dhw: Thank you for your correction. According to several websites, what you call the beginning (the Cambrian Explosion) lasted 13-25 million years. Please substitute that figure for the 56 above. The argument is still the same. Apparently a lot of the new species actually went extinct during the remaining millions of years. Makes you wonder why your God would have designed them in the first place, and in what way they could have been “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

DAVID: The gap still calls for a designer.

The gap still calls for a complete record of every stage of every life form that ever lived. The designer (if he exists) could have designed the intelligence that enabled all life forms to design themselves, and you haven’t explained why he would have specially designed all the Cambrian forms that went extinct after the “Explosion” as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, although they had no connection with humans.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: Instant solutions don't happen. Each new species follows a gap in time with no intermediates. remember Gould's comments about all the gaps.

dhw: Our heading is the “obstetric dilemma”, and according to you, instant solutions do happen! I thought this was the nub of your theory – that your God specially designed the pelvis in anticipation of the problem, and it was an instant success. I am the one proposing solutions over time, with many Lucy-mothers dying in childbirth before the expanded pelvis became the norm. Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: That is my subject. 'Over time' is your waffle.

You said instant solutions don’t happen, but you believe your God provided an instant solution by redesigning the pelvis before the big brained foetuses even existed. “Over time” is used in contrast to “instant”. Please explain what appears to be a complete contradiction in your argument.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 15, 2021, 18:58 (1048 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Answered today in "balance of nature" and "biological complexity" entries.

dhw: You had already demolished your answer by telling us that past ecosystems were for the past, and that extinct life has no role in current time.

All truisms if you accept the continuity of advancing evolution from simple to complex forms over time. You want to slice and dice into separate periods.


BATS
DAVID: Like Darwin, your hero, you won't combine the two, because it creates impossible questions if you accept the continuity, which obviously exists. Two always follows one and is fully dependent upon it. Your favorite theory magically appears after the beginning. How convenient.

dhw: Of course the continuity exists, but both chapters deal with the unknown and so we can only theorize about both! Not knowing the cause is no reason to doubt the effect. The effect (Chapter Two) here is evolution – an ever changing bush of life.

I use continuity: God created life and controlled evolution. Theorizing separately can avoid God, your preferred approach.

dhw: I offer a THEISTIC alternative theory: your God (if he exists) may have caused evolution by specially designing the mechanism whereby every branch was the result of intelligent organisms restructuring themselves in accordance with changing conditions. The "continuity" is covered, so why did you ask where my “cellular intelligence” came from? I guess it's another of your attempts to dodge the illogicality of your Chapter Two theory.

My God would control events by careful design, which from the demonstrated complexity of biochemistry is required. Inventing an inventive mechanism to do the designing is second-hand, cumbersome and very unlikely as a solution, used by a logical form of God.


New forms require new genes

DAVID: The gap still calls for a designer.

The gap still calls for a complete record of every stage of every life form that ever lived. The designer (if he exists) could have designed the intelligence that enabled all life forms to design themselves, and you haven’t explained why he would have specially designed all the Cambrian forms that went extinct after the “Explosion” as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, although they had no connection with humans.

The Cambrian forms, as the first complex animals are our ancestors. 99% extinction is a reasonable part of the process, but you continue an illogical, unreasonable complaint


The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: Instant solutions don't happen. Each new species follows a gap in time with no intermediates. remember Gould's comments about all the gaps.

dhw: Our heading is the “obstetric dilemma”, and according to you, instant solutions do happen! I thought this was the nub of your theory – that your God specially designed the pelvis in anticipation of the problem, and it was an instant success. I am the one proposing solutions over time, with many Lucy-mothers dying in childbirth before the expanded pelvis became the norm. Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: That is my subject. 'Over time' is your waffle.

dhw: You said instant solutions don’t happen, but you believe your God provided an instant solution by redesigning the pelvis before the big brained foetuses even existed. “Over time” is used in contrast to “instant”. Please explain what appears to be a complete contradiction in your argument.

God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, May 16, 2021, 09:07 (1047 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
DAVID: I use continuity: God created life and controlled evolution. Theorizing separately can avoid God, your preferred approach.

I also use continuity: past evolution was a continuous process of life branching out into different life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And I have offered you a variety of theories that include your God (e.g. experimenting, having new ideas etc.). “Controlled evolution” is one of your fixed beliefs, whereas I offer one theory which has him creating a free-for-all. Please stop pretending that my theistic alternatives avoid God.

DAVID: My God would control events by careful design, which from the demonstrated complexity of biochemistry is required.

Your God could just as well have carefully designed the complexities of the cell so that it would be able to make its own designs. “Freedom” is not alien to your God: you actually have him designing our brain with its free will, and cells that are free to go wrong.

DAVID: Inventing an inventive mechanism to do the designing is second-hand, cumbersome and very unlikely as a solution, used by a logical form of God.

Do you regard your free will as second-hand (whatever that means) and cumbersome? What "solution" to what problem are you talking about? You were once sure that he watches life on Earth with interest. If his problem was to find something interesting to watch, a free-for-all would be a great solution.

New forms require new genes
dhw: […] you haven’t explained why he would have specially designed all the Cambrian forms that went extinct after the “Explosion” […]

DAVID: The Cambrian forms, as the first complex animals are our ancestors. 99% extinction is a reasonable part of the process, but you continue an illogical, unreasonable complaint.

Have you really traced a line from ALL the Cambrian life forms to us? Amazing! What “process”? How can it be logical and reasonable for your God to specially design the 99% of life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply, as part of the “process” of designing the only life form he wanted to design, which was humans (plus food supply)?

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: Instant solutions don't happen. […]

dhw: Our heading is the “obstetric dilemma”, and according to you, instant solutions do happen! I thought this was the nub of your theory – that your God specially designed the pelvis in anticipation of the problem, and it was an instant success. I am the one proposing solutions over time, with many Lucy-mothers dying in childbirth before the expanded pelvis became the norm. Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: That is my subject. 'Over time' is your waffle.

dhw: You said instant solutions don’t happen, but you believe your God provided an instant solution by redesigning the pelvis before the big brained foetuses even existed. “Over time” is used in contrast to “instant”. Please explain what appears to be a complete contradiction in your argument.

DAVID: God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

I had no idea that I was all alone in the world with my belief that effect follows cause, solutions are responses to problems, and this automatically entails a time sequence. Even you agreed that “instant solutions” don’t happen, and now you’re telling us that problems and solutions are instant!

Using gestures
DAVID: All humans can communicate this way:

QUOTE: "When people don’t share a language, they quickly resort to using their hands, rather than their voices. […] “If gesture is good enough for language,” says Aleksandra Ćwiek, a linguistics Ph.D. student at the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics, “why the hell do we talk?”

Like all our fellow organisms, we use every means at our disposal to communicate. I suggest that we humans talk because we have a helluva lot to communicate, and so although other animals also use their voices, we have developed an almost infinitely greater variety of sounds because we have an almost infinitely greater number of things to communicate. And that is why gestures are not enough, and grunts and roars and howls and chatter have evolved into human language.
I am now applying for a grant to further my research into why all life forms communicate by using their means of communication. I know you will support me.

Subterranean extremophiles
QUOTES: "humans need 21 per cent oxygen in our atmosphere to be able to breathe. Nematodes can make do indefinitely with only 0.5 per cent oxygen, and many species can survive extended periods with less or no oxygen at all. (DAVID’S bold)

"[…] over a long period of time some organisms might have adapted to even more extreme conditions deeper in the subsurface..."

DAVID: Note my bold. Oxygen is only needed by complex life forms. Living forms can be anywhere.

I don’t know why you bolded this. “Living forms can be anywhere” suggests to me one mighty free-for-all, as cells and cell communities of all kinds adapt themselves to all kinds of conditions in their efforts to survive. How all of them could be “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” is quite beyond me.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 16, 2021, 15:57 (1047 days ago) @ dhw

BATS
DAVID: I use continuity: God created life and controlled evolution. Theorizing separately can avoid God, your preferred approach.

dhw: I also use continuity: past evolution was a continuous process of life branching out into different life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And I have offered you a variety of theories that include your God (e.g. experimenting, having new ideas etc.). “Controlled evolution” is one of your fixed beliefs, whereas I offer one theory which has him creating a free-for-all. Please stop pretending that my theistic alternatives avoid God.

Your invented form of God does not describe the God I believe in. Belief vs. theoery

DAVID: Inventing an inventive mechanism to do the designing is second-hand, cumbersome and very unlikely as a solution, used by a logical form of God.

dhw: Do you regard your free will as second-hand (whatever that means) and cumbersome?

What a weird comparison!! My free will has nothing to do with God's evolutionary designs.


New forms require new genes
dhw: […] you haven’t explained why he would have specially designed all the Cambrian forms that went extinct after the “Explosion” […]

DAVID: The Cambrian forms, as the first complex animals are our ancestors. 99% extinction is a reasonable part of the process, but you continue an illogical, unreasonable complaint.

dhw: Have you really traced a line from ALL the Cambrian life forms to us? Amazing! What “process”? How can it be logical and reasonable for your God to specially design the 99% of life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply, as part of the “process” of designing the only life form he wanted to design, which was humans (plus food supply)?

Remember you have said God, as creator, produced evolution.


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

dhw: I had no idea that I was all alone in the world with my belief that effect follows cause, solutions are responses to problems, and this automatically entails a time sequence. Even you agreed that “instant solutions” don’t happen, and now you’re telling us that problems and solutions are instant!

There are when God speciates.


Using gestures
DAVID: All humans can communicate this way:

QUOTE: "When people don’t share a language, they quickly resort to using their hands, rather than their voices. […] “If gesture is good enough for language,” says Aleksandra Ćwiek, a linguistics Ph.D. student at the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics, “why the hell do we talk?”

dhw: Like all our fellow organisms, we use every means at our disposal to communicate. I suggest that we humans talk because we have a helluva lot to communicate, and so although other animals also use their voices, we have developed an almost infinitely greater variety of sounds because we have an almost infinitely greater number of things to communicate. And that is why gestures are not enough, and grunts and roars and howls and chatter have evolved into human language.
I am now applying for a grant to further my research into why all life forms communicate by using their means of communication. I know you will support me.

All due to our God-given brain, which must be studied in your grant


Subterranean extremophiles
QUOTES: "humans need 21 per cent oxygen in our atmosphere to be able to breathe. Nematodes can make do indefinitely with only 0.5 per cent oxygen, and many species can survive extended periods with less or no oxygen at all. (DAVID’S bold)

"[…] over a long period of time some organisms might have adapted to even more extreme conditions deeper in the subsurface..."

DAVID: Note my bold. Oxygen is only needed by complex life forms. Living forms can be anywhere.

dhw: I don’t know why you bolded this. “Living forms can be anywhere” suggests to me one mighty free-for-all, as cells and cell communities of all kinds adapt themselves to all kinds of conditions in their efforts to survive. How all of them could be “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” is quite beyond me.

The whole concept of evolution as a necessary continuum is way beyond you.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, May 17, 2021, 13:22 (1046 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
DAVID: I use continuity: God created life and controlled evolution. Theorizing separately can avoid God, your preferred approach.

dhw: I also use continuity: past evolution was a continuous process of life branching out into different life forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And I have offered you a variety of theories that include your God (e.g. experimenting, having new ideas etc.). “Controlled evolution” is one of your fixed beliefs, whereas I offer one theory which has him creating a free-for-all. Please stop pretending that my theistic alternatives avoid God.

DAVID: Your invented form of God does not describe the God I believe in. Belief vs. theory

Since nobody knows God, your own view is just as invented and theoretical as my various alternatives.

DAVID: Inventing an inventive mechanism to do the designing is second-hand, cumbersome and very unlikely as a solution, used by a logical form of God.

dhw: Do you regard your free will as second-hand (whatever that means) and cumbersome?

DAVID: What a weird comparison!! My free will has nothing to do with God's evolutionary designs.

If your God designed us with the freedom to make our own decisions, why could he not have designed cells to do the same? (And don’t forget those naughty molecules, which are free to go wrong).

New forms require new genes
DAVID: The Cambrian forms, as the first complex animals are our ancestors. 99% extinction is a reasonable part of the process, but you continue an illogical, unreasonable complaint.

dhw: Have you really traced a line from ALL the Cambrian life forms to us? Amazing! What “process”? How can it be logical and reasonable for your God to specially design the 99% of life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply, as part of the “process” of designing the only life form he wanted to design, which was humans (plus food supply)?

DAVID: Remember you have said God, as creator, produced evolution.[/i]

If he exists, then of course he produced evolution. I have offered various theories as to how and why. Now please answer the questions above.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

Our subject is the “obstetric dilemma”, which I could extend to all “dilemmas” – i.e. how all life forms adapt to changing conditions: problem first, followed by solution. You wrote: “instant solutions don’t happen”. I agree, but now you tell us they do – and apparently I'm the only person in the world who believes there is a time sequence involved in problems arising and solutions being found (= adaptation)! This is what happens when you impose your fixed beliefs on reality – contradiction after contradiction.

Subterranean extremophiles
DAVID: … Oxygen is only needed by complex life forms. Living forms can be anywhere.

dhw: “Living forms can be anywhere” suggests to me one mighty free-for-all, as cells and cell communities of all kinds adapt themselves to all kinds of conditions in their efforts to survive. How all of them could be “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” is quite beyond me.

DAVID: The whole concept of evolution as a necessary continuum is way beyond you.

I hereby do solemnly declare that I believe in the whole concept of evolution as a continuum from single cells to every branch of life, including subterranean extremophiles, dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus. And I hereby do solemnly declare that I do not believe that if there is a God, he would have specially designed every single life form and food supply on every single branch of life, or that if he did so, it was because they were all “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose of specially designing humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

Different species cooperate
QUOTES: “…while octopuses seemed to take the lead, the collaborations seen by Bayley and Rose demand quite a bit of intelligence from the fish as well. (dhw’s bold)

"Another fascinating question, he said, is how knowledge spreads of hunting strategies and mutually-understood signals. Perhaps each participating octopus and fish works it out for themselves, through trial and error — or perhaps, following an initial breakthrough, knowledge spreads by observation or even active teaching. (dhw’s bolds)That would make it a cultural adaptation, a matter of accumulating knowledge passed between generations, (DAVID’s bold) an example of species surviving in a fast-changing world not because of some fortunate genetic mutation but because they are learning." (dhw's bold)

DAVID: […] they won't attack each other so why not react normally and hunt by instinct with some help. Each knows what to do within their own limits of instinct.

Heaven forbid that you should acknowledge as our researchers do, that other life forms might be intelligent, work things out for themselves, consciously communicate, learn from experience and pass their knowledge on. All you can think of is “instinct with some help”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, May 17, 2021, 16:26 (1046 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Inventing an inventive mechanism to do the designing is second-hand, cumbersome and very unlikely as a solution, used by a logical form of God.

dhw: Do you regard your free will as second-hand (whatever that means) and cumbersome?

DAVID: What a weird comparison!! My free will has nothing to do with God's evolutionary designs.

dhw: If your God designed us with the freedom to make our own decisions, why could he not have designed cells to do the same? (And don’t forget those naughty molecules, which are free to go wrong).

Anything is possible. Secondhand design is very impractical.


New forms require new genes

DAVID: Remember you have said God, as creator, produced evolution.[/i]

dhw: If he exists, then of course he produced evolution. I have offered various theories as to how and why. Now please answer the questions above.

Your constant questions simply deny my theories about God's control of evolution. I've answered over and over. We disagree.


The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

dhw: Our subject is the “obstetric dilemma”, which I could extend to all “dilemmas” – i.e. how all life forms adapt to changing conditions: problem first, followed by solution. You wrote: “instant solutions don’t happen[/b]”. I agree, but now you tell us they do – and apparently I'm the only person in the world who believes there is a time sequence involved in problems arising and solutions being found (= adaptation)! This is what happens when you impose your fixed beliefs on reality – contradiction after contradiction.

Instant solutions don't occur naturally. That is always my point. God speciates.


Subterranean extremophiles
DAVID: … Oxygen is only needed by complex life forms. Living forms can be anywhere.

dhw: “Living forms can be anywhere” suggests to me one mighty free-for-all, as cells and cell communities of all kinds adapt themselves to all kinds of conditions in their efforts to survive. How all of them could be “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” is quite beyond me.

DAVID: The whole concept of evolution as a necessary continuum is way beyond you.

dhw: I hereby do solemnly declare that I believe in the whole concept of evolution as a continuum from single cells to every branch of life, including subterranean extremophiles, dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus. And I hereby do solemnly declare that I do not believe that if there is a God, he would have specially designed every single life form and food supply on every single branch of life, or that if he did so, it was because they were all “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose of specially designing humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

The continuum you accept means the entire process is related. That 99% disappeared is a requirement of the process.


Different species cooperate
QUOTES: “…while octopuses seemed to take the lead, the collaborations seen by Bayley and Rose demand quite a bit of intelligence from the fish as well. (dhw’s bold)

"Another fascinating question, he said, is how knowledge spreads of hunting strategies and mutually-understood signals. Perhaps each participating octopus and fish works it out for themselves, through trial and error — or perhaps, following an initial breakthrough, knowledge spreads by observation or even active teaching. (dhw’s bolds)That would make it a cultural adaptation, a matter of accumulating knowledge passed between generations, (DAVID’s bold) an example of species surviving in a fast-changing world not because of some fortunate genetic mutation but because they are learning." (dhw's bold)

DAVID: […] they won't attack each other so why not react normally and hunt by instinct with some help. Each knows what to do within their own limits of instinct.

dhw: Heaven forbid that you should acknowledge as our researchers do, that other life forms might be intelligent, work things out for themselves, consciously communicate, learn from experience and pass their knowledge on. All you can think of is “instinct with some help”.

Note today's entries about bird brains and their intelligence which I fully accept. Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 13:36 (1045 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
dhw: If your God designed us with the freedom to make our own decisions, why could he not have designed cells to do the same? (And don’t forget those naughty molecules, which are free to go wrong).

DAVID: Anything is possible. Secondhand design is very impractical.

That depends on what the design is for. If your God wanted an ever-changing bush of life, what could be more practical than an almost infinite variety of intelligent organisms autonomously dealing with an almost infinite variety of situations and making their own decisions and designs, culminating in humans, to whom you actually believe your God did give autonomy or what you now call “impractical secondhand design”?

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: God speciates. The change to the pelvic outlet and the bigger brain could be simultaneous in appearance of a new species under His design. You are the only one assuming 'over time' for adaptations to correct problems.

dhw: Our subject is the “obstetric dilemma”, which I could extend to all “dilemmas” – i.e. how all life forms adapt to changing conditions: problem first, followed by solution. You wrote: “instant solutions don’t happen”. I agree, but now you tell us they do – and apparently I'm the only person in the world who believes there is a time sequence involved in problems arising and solutions being found (= adaptation)! [..]

DAVID: Instant solutions don't occur naturally. That is always my point. God speciates.

So you still insist that every adaptation and every cure and every symbiotic relationship and every strategy in life's history was either pre-programmed 3.8 billion years ago or has been directly dabbled beforehand, in anticipation, by your God. Just clarifying. And I am alone in my belief that problems precede solutions. (But see below for your belief in the intelligence of our fellow creatures.)

Subterranean extremophiles
DAVID: The whole concept of evolution as a necessary continuum is way beyond you.

dhw: I hereby do solemnly declare that I believe in the whole concept of evolution as a continuum from single cells to every branch of life [etc.]

DAVID: The continuum you accept means the entire process is related. That 99% disappeared is a requirement of the process.

The continuum I accept is common descent back to bacteria. I do not accept that every branch of every life form and food supply that ever existed was “required” as part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food supply. As you say yourself: “extinct life played no role in current life” (apart from the 1% which led from bacteria to humans).

Different species cooperate
DAVID: […] they won't attack each other so why not react normally and hunt by instinct with some help. Each knows what to do within their own limits of instinct.

dhw: Heaven forbid that you should acknowledge as our researchers do, that other life forms might be intelligent, work things out for themselves, consciously communicate, learn from experience and pass their knowledge on. All you can think of is “instinct with some help”.

DAVID: Note today's entries about bird brains and their intelligence which I fully accept. Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories.

So why do you restrict their actions to “instinct”?

Weird dinoflagellates
QUOTE: "It shows that nature can work in a completely different way than we thought,” says Salazar. “There are so many possibilities for what could have happened as life evolved.'"

DAVID: Perhaps common descent is not so 'common'.

Perhaps from the start cells were endowed with the means to design their own methods of survival, and that is why we have “so many possibilities”.

Bird brains small but intelligent
DAVID: Some birds are as intelligent as dolphins and primates:

QUOTES: "In fact, as we find out more about bird intelligence, the more we are beginning to realize that certain groups of birds are among the most intelligent of all animals.”
"...birds and mammals are very different types of animal. However, the basic “body plan” of both–i.e. having a backbone, four limbs, eyes, ears, a skull containing a brain, etc.–reveals their shared ancestry.

Clear confirmation of common descent, as well as clear evidence of conscious intelligence. And who knows how far back in time and in species this intelligence may go?

Bird brains’ similar neurons
QUOTE: "In both birds and mammals, these neurons are thought to support advanced cognitive functions, such as memory, individual recognition and associative learning, Spool says."

DAVID: This study shows the key factor in common descent in evolution: what is developed and works well in the past carries into the future evolving forms. The process of evolution is a continuum.

Yes indeed. Each branch of existence goes its own way to create the vast variety of intelligent insects, birds, fish, mammals etc. plus food supplies, 99% of which diversified away from the bacteria-to-human branch and had no connection with it, thereby rendering absurd the hypothesis that every living form was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus food supply.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 15:04 (1045 days ago) @ dhw

BATS

DAVID: Anything is possible. Secondhand design is very impractical.

dhw: That depends on what the design is for. If your God wanted an ever-changing bush of life, what could be more practical than an almost infinite variety of intelligent organisms autonomously dealing with an almost infinite variety of situations and making their own decisions and designs, culminating in humans,

That assume a different God from the one I believe in whose final goal was humans with consciousness.


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: Instant solutions don't occur naturally. That is always my point. God speciates.

dhw: So you still insist that every adaptation and every cure and every symbiotic relationship and every strategy in life's history was either pre-programmed 3.8 billion years ago or has been directly dabbled beforehand, in anticipation, by your God.

I've not changed.


Different species cooperate

DAVID: Note today's entries about bird brains and their intelligence which I fully accept. Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories.

dhw: So why do you restrict their actions to “instinct”?

The octopus helped the grouper. It was not clear in the description the grouper really helped the octopus.


Weird dinoflagellates
QUOTE: "It shows that nature can work in a completely different way than we thought,” says Salazar. “There are so many possibilities for what could have happened as life evolved.'"

DAVID: Perhaps common descent is not so 'common'.

dhw: Perhaps from the start cells were endowed with the means to design their own methods of survival, and that is why we have “so many possibilities”.

The only facts we have are epigenetic minor adaptations. I have a God speciates theory to cover the gap of the black box we have about speciation.


Bird brains small but intelligent
DAVID: Some birds are as intelligent as dolphins and primates:

QUOTES: "In fact, as we find out more about bird intelligence, the more we are beginning to realize that certain groups of birds are among the most intelligent of all animals.”
"...birds and mammals are very different types of animal. However, the basic “body plan” of both–i.e. having a backbone, four limbs, eyes, ears, a skull containing a brain, etc.–reveals their shared ancestry.

Clear confirmation of common descent, as well as clear evidence of conscious intelligence. And who knows how far back in time and in species this intelligence may go?

Bird brains’ similar neurons
QUOTE: "In both birds and mammals, these neurons are thought to support advanced cognitive functions, such as memory, individual recognition and associative learning, Spool says."

DAVID: This study shows the key factor in common descent in evolution: what is developed and works well in the past carries into the future evolving forms. The process of evolution is a continuum.

dhw: Yes indeed. Each branch of existence goes its own way to create the vast variety of intelligent insects, birds, fish, mammals etc. plus food supplies, 99% of which diversified away from the bacteria-to-human branch and had no connection with it, thereby rendering absurd the hypothesis that every living form was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus food supply.

Thank you for accepting the very necessary food supply from the huge diverse bush. All natural, with no God in evidence running the process. When I offer this challenge from my belief view, you will slip in a little God lip service. I am not absurd for believing in God..

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 09:35 (1044 days ago) @ David Turell

BATS
DAVID: Anything is possible. Secondhand design is very impractical.

dhw: That depends on what the design is for. If your God wanted an ever-changing bush of life, what could be more practical than an almost infinite variety of intelligent organisms autonomously dealing with an almost infinite variety of situations and making their own decisions and designs, culminating in humans...

DAVID: That assume a different God from the one I believe in whose final goal was humans with consciousness.

And with free will, which shows that your God does not want total control, and which also shows the logical split in your theory, which consists in your belief that he designed every single life form, food supply etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans, although his one and only goal was humans and their food supply.

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: Instant solutions don't occur naturally. That is always my point. God speciates.

dhw: So you still insist that every adaptation and every cure and every symbiotic relationship and every strategy in life's history was either pre-programmed 3.8 billion years ago or has been directly dabbled beforehand, in anticipation, by your God.

DAVID: I've not changed.

You’ve been telling me that I'm the only person in the world who believes that in the process of adaptation, solutions follow on in response to problems. I have a sneaking suspicion that in fact most people would agree with me and you would find yourself in comparative isolation, but I have to admire your doggedness.

Different species cooperate
DAVID: Note today's entries about bird brains and their intelligence which I fully accept. Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories.

dhw: So why do you restrict their actions to “instinct”?

DAVID: The octopus helped the grouper. It was not clear in the description the grouper really helped the octopus.

How does that come to mean that the octopus acts through instinct and not intelligence?

Weird dinoflagellates
QUOTE: "It shows that nature can work in a completely different way than we thought,” says Salazar. “There are so many possibilities for what could have happened as life evolved.'"

DAVID: Perhaps common descent is not so 'common'.

dhw: Perhaps from the start cells were endowed with the means to design their own methods of survival, and that is why we have “so many possibilities”.

DAVID: The only facts we have are epigenetic minor adaptations. I have a God speciates theory to cover the gap of the black box we have about speciation.

Nobody knows how speciation takes place, but at least we have the fact that organisms are capable of making changes to themselves. What facts do you have to support your own theory?

Bird brains’ similar neurons
DAVID: This study shows the key factor in common descent in evolution: what is developed and works well in the past carries into the future evolving forms. The process of evolution is a continuum.

dhw: Yes indeed. Each branch of existence goes its own way to create the vast variety of intelligent insects, birds, fish, mammals etc. plus food supplies, 99% of which diversified away from the bacteria-to-human branch and had no connection with it, thereby rendering absurd the hypothesis that every extinct form on every other branch was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus food supply.

DAVID: Thank you for accepting the very necessary food supply from the huge diverse bush.

You don’t need to thank me for accepting the obvious fact that all present and past life forms need/needed food! See below for the distinction between present and past.

DAVID: All natural, with no God in evidence running the process. When I offer this challenge from my belief view, you will slip in a little God lip service. I am not absurd for believing in God.

More silly straw men! The absurdity has nothing to do with your belief in God but lies in your belief that your God specially designed every food supply for every life form although the only part of the huge diverse bush he actually wanted to design was humans and their food supply. First you say that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal to evolve [= specially design] humans”, and then you agree that "extinct life has no role in current time", and past food bushes were for the PAST, not for the present.

Conserved gene order
DAVID: Genomes show common descent. In evolution everything present has a relationship to the past.

Though you also believe that your God created species de novo (e.g. in the Cambrian). Yet another contradiction. But I agree that all branches of the bush go back to the same roots (= common descent). That does not mean that all branches were specially designed as part of the goal of specially designing just one branch.

Different types of neurons
DAVID: What this means is that when we discuss as 150 cc enlargement from erectus to sapiens we cannot know if some different kind of functional neuron was added to sapiens. So we know quantity but not true quality of the addition.

I suggest that the addition of functionless neurons would have been pointless. Common sense alone suggests that new neurons would have been needed to fulfil a new requirement.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 16:00 (1044 days ago) @ dhw

Different species cooperate
DAVID: Note today's entries about bird brains and their intelligence which I fully accept. Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories.

dhw: So why do you restrict their actions to “instinct”?

DAVID: The octopus helped the grouper. It was not clear in the description the grouper really helped the octopus.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the octopus acts through instinct and not intelligence?

From above: " Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories." The octopus reactions may have been instinct with some simple reasoning. We can't read its mind. You always take a position to build up animal intelligence as part of a strategy to try to diminish human exceptionalism. You can't get rid of it.


Weird dinoflagellates
QUOTE: "It shows that nature can work in a completely different way than we thought,” says Salazar. “There are so many possibilities for what could have happened as life evolved.'"

DAVID: Perhaps common descent is not so 'common'.

dhw: Perhaps from the start cells were endowed with the means to design their own methods of survival, and that is why we have “so many possibilities”.

DAVID: The only facts we have are epigenetic minor adaptations. I have a God speciates theory to cover the gap of the black box we have about speciation.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation takes place, but at least we have the fact that organisms are capable of making changes to themselves. What facts do you have to support your own theory?

Enough to create a belief in a required designing God


Bird brains’ similar neurons

dhw: Yes indeed. Each branch of existence goes its own way to create the vast variety of intelligent insects, birds, fish, mammals etc. plus food supplies, 99% of which diversified away from the bacteria-to-human branch and had no connection with it, thereby rendering absurd the hypothesis that every extinct form on every other branch was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus food supply.

DAVID: Thank you for accepting the very necessary food supply from the huge diverse bush.

dhw: You don’t need to thank me for accepting the obvious fact that all present and past life forms need/needed food! See below for the distinction between present and past.

DAVID: All natural, with no God in evidence running the process. When I offer this challenge from my belief view, you will slip in a little God lip service. I am not absurd for believing in God.

dhw: More silly straw men! The absurdity has nothing to do with your belief in God but lies in your belief that your God specially designed every food supply for every life form although the only part of the huge diverse bush he actually wanted to design was humans and their food supply. First you say that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal to evolve [= specially design] humans”, and then you agree that "extinct life has no role in current time", and past food bushes were for the PAST, not for the present.

[/b]

The bold is your silliness that evolution is not a continuum of increasing complexity. What you quote is true fact when interpreted properly.


Conserved gene order
DAVID: Genomes show common descent. In evolution everything present has a relationship to the past.

dhw: Though you also believe that your God created species de novo (e.g. in the Cambrian). Yet another contradiction. But I agree that all branches of the bush go back to the same roots (= common descent). That does not mean that all branches were specially designed as part of the goal of specially designing just one branch.

Silliness in the bold. The common descent proof, even for the Cambrian is the initial and consistent use of DNA in all in initial forms from bacteria to us. My whole point is God creating species de novo.


Different types of neurons
DAVID: What this means is that when we discuss as 150 cc enlargement from erectus to sapiens we cannot know if some different kind of functional neuron was added to sapiens. So we know quantity but not true quality of the addition.

dhw: I suggest that the addition of functionless neurons would have been pointless. Common sense alone suggests that new neurons would have been needed to fulfil a new requirement.

I didn't say 'pointless'. What we don't know is if sapiens some different specialized neurons of greater reasoning capacity than erectus. 150 cc enlargement doesn't tell us.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, May 20, 2021, 12:34 (1043 days ago) @ David Turell

Different species cooperate
DAVID: Note today's entries about bird brains and their intelligence which I fully accept. Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories.

dhw: So why do you restrict their actions to “instinct”?[…]

DAVID: From above: " Octopi are very intelligent, considering their antics in study laboratories." The octopus reactions may have been instinct with some simple reasoning. We can't read its mind. You always take a position to build up animal intelligence as part of a strategy to try to diminish human exceptionalism. You can't get rid of it.

One moment you fully accept their intelligence, and the next you reduce it to instinct and simple reasoning. Yet another contradiction. And you know perfectly well that I do acknowledge how exceptional we are. What I do not accept is your constant attempt to downplay the intelligence of our fellow creatures, in order to support your belief that your always-in-control God preprogrammes or dabbles every evolutionary innovation, strategy, solution, natural wonder etc.

Bird brains’ similar neurons
DAVID: Thank you for accepting the very necessary food supply from the huge diverse bush.

dhw: You don’t need to thank me for accepting the obvious fact that all present and past life forms need/needed food! See below for the distinction between present and past.

DAVID: All natural, with no God in evidence running the process. When I offer this challenge from my belief view, you will slip in a little God lip service. I am not absurd for believing in God.

dhw: [edited for brevity] More silly straw men! The absurdity has nothing to do with your belief in God but lies in your belief […] that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal to evolve [= specially design] humans […] [although] you agree that "extinct life has no role in current time", and past food bushes were for the PAST, not for the present.

DAVID: The bold is your silliness that evolution is not a continuum of increasing complexity. What you quote is true fact when interpreted properly.

Of course the bold about extinct life and food bushes is true, and it contradicts your belief that your God designed every past life form and food supply history as “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food supply. I keep agreeing that evolution is a continuum, but the continuum is the branching out from the roots of the bush to countless branches of life forms, only one of which presents a single line from bacteria to humans. The increasing complexity is not confined to that one line. Please stop leaving out those parts of your theory that make it illogical.

Conserved gene order
DAVID: Genomes show common descent. In evolution everything present has a relationship to the past.

dhw: Though you also believe that your God created species de novo (e.g. in the Cambrian). Yet another contradiction. But I agree that all branches of the bush go back to the same roots (= common descent). That does not mean that all branches were specially designed as part of the goal of specially designing just one branch.

DAVID: Silliness in the bold. The common descent proof, even for the Cambrian is the initial and consistent use of DNA in all in initial forms from bacteria to us. My whole point is God creating species de novo.

In that case, you're putting even more emphasis on disconnection, and it becomes even more absurd to argue that your God created de novo all past extinct species plus food supplies, and all these individually, separately designed life forms were necessary for him to create humans, although 99% had no connection with humans!

Different types of neurons
DAVID: What this means is that when we discuss as 150 cc enlargement from erectus to sapiens we cannot know if some different kind of functional neuron was added to sapiens. So we know quantity but not true quality of the addition.

dhw: I suggest that the addition of functionless neurons would have been pointless. Common sense alone suggests that new neurons would have been needed to fulfil a new requirement.

DAVID: I didn't say 'pointless'.

No, I did. What would be the purpose of new neurons if they had no purpose???

DAVID: What we don't know is if sapiens some different specialized neurons of greater reasoning capacity than erectus. 150 cc enlargement doesn't tell us.

I agree that we don't know what new function the new neurons performed, but I can only repeat the question above. I find it hard to believe that new neurons were added to the brain for no reason.

Species differentiation
"If you ask ten biologists, you will get twelve different answers," Sukumaran said." (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: We don't understand how speciation happens, and this problem of minor differences cannot be decided by splitter or lumper dispositions of researchers. Darwin's finches come to mind, all based on beak size.

Darwin also discusses the “difficulty of distinction between Varieties and Species” and I agree with you: variations in beak sizes do not solve the problem of how “species” – as opposed to varieties – evolve. I think “organisms capable of interbreeding” may be the closest we can get to a satisfactory definition of "species".

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 20, 2021, 20:18 (1043 days ago) @ dhw

Bird brains’ similar neurons

dhw: [edited for brevity] More silly straw men! The absurdity has nothing to do with your belief in God but lies in your belief […] that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal to evolve [= specially design] humans […] [although] you agree that "extinct life has no role in current time", and past food bushes were for the PAST, not for the present.

DAVID: The bold is your silliness that evolution is not a continuum of increasing complexity. What you quote is true fact when interpreted properly.

dhw: Of course the bold about extinct life and food bushes is true, and it contradicts your belief that your God designed every past life form and food supply history as “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food supply. I keep agreeing that evolution is a continuum, but the continuum is the branching out from the roots of the bush to countless branches of life forms, only one of which presents a single line from bacteria to humans. The increasing complexity is not confined to that one line. Please stop leaving out those parts of your theory that make it illogical.

Of course one line becomes humans. The bush supplies our huge population the required food we need, all logically presented before.

Different types of neurons
DAVID: What this means is that when we discuss as 150 cc enlargement from erectus to sapiens we cannot know if some different kind of functional neuron was added to sapiens. So we know quantity but not true quality of the addition.

dhw: I suggest that the addition of functionless neurons would have been pointless. Common sense alone suggests that new neurons would have been needed to fulfil a new requirement.

DAVID: I didn't say 'pointless'.

No, I did. What would be the purpose of new neurons if they had no purpose???

DAVID: What we don't know is if sapiens some different specialized neurons of greater reasoning capacity than erectus. 150 cc enlargement doesn't tell us.

dhw: I agree that we don't know what new function the new neurons performed, but I can only repeat the question above. I find it hard to believe that new neurons were added to the brain for no reason.

The extra ones sapiens got caused the present civilization to appear.


Species differentiation
"If you ask ten biologists, you will get twelve different answers," Sukumaran said." (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: We don't understand how speciation happens, and this problem of minor differences cannot be decided by splitter or lumper dispositions of researchers. Darwin's finches come to mind, all based on beak size.

dhw: Darwin also discusses the “difficulty of distinction between Varieties and Species” and I agree with you: variations in beak sizes do not solve the problem of how “species” – as opposed to varieties – evolve. I think “organisms capable of interbreeding” may be the closest we can get to a satisfactory definition of "species".

Hybridization is certainly one way.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, May 21, 2021, 13:55 (1042 days ago) @ David Turell

Different types of neurons
DAVID: What this means is that when we discuss as 150 cc enlargement from erectus to sapiens we cannot know if some different kind of functional neuron was added to sapiens. So we know quantity but not true quality of the addition.[…]

dhw: […] What would be the purpose of new neurons if they had no purpose???

DAVID: What we don't know is if sapiens some different specialized neurons of greater reasoning capacity than erectus. 150 cc enlargement doesn't tell us.

dhw: I agree that we don't know what new function the new neurons performed, but I can only repeat the question above. I find it hard to believe that new neurons were added to the brain for no reason.

DAVID: The extra ones sapiens got caused the present civilization to appear.

Well, I must say this is a remarkable volte face from your previous insistence that the new neurons had no function and were jettisoned 2500 years later – but in fairness, you had already rejected that. Now, however, within a single exchange, after “we cannot know if the new neurons added a different function”, they have become so essential that our whole civilization depends on them. I will go back to my original proposal: the new neurons would not have been added if they had not performed a new function. We don’t know what that was, and we don’t know which neurons were discarded when enhanced complexification took over from expansion.

Species differentiation
"If you ask ten biologists, you will get twelve different answers," Sukumaran said." (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: We don't understand how speciation happens, and this problem of minor differences cannot be decided by splitter or lumper dispositions of researchers. Darwin's finches come to mind, all based on beak size.

dhw: Darwin also discusses the “difficulty of distinction between Varieties and Species” and I agree with you: variations in beak sizes do not solve the problem of how “species” – as opposed to varieties – evolve. I think “organisms capable of interbreeding” may be the closest we can get to a satisfactory definition of "species".

DAVID: Hybridization is certainly one way.

For the definition, I was thinking in terms of eagle versus elephant versus herring versus ant….What would your own definition be?

Giant black hole
DAVID: Our massive universe contains some massive fireworks. dhw has wondered in the past why God created all these events when all He wanted was humans. I don't know and I don't wonder. I assume God did this for His own reasons and they are a reasonable part of the process.

This is the process whereby someone has a theory and “assumes” that everything will be found to fit in with it, which of course is the process behind preconceptions and prejudices. In relation to God, it raises the question you asked so eloquently elsewhere: “Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?”

Fly vision and maneuvers
QUOTE: “Flies predict changes in their visual environment in order to execute evasive maneuvers, according to new research from the University of Chicago. This reliance on predictive information to guide behavior suggests that prediction may be a general feature of animal nervous systems in supporting quick behavioral changes.

I don’t understand what is so special here. If we or the fly don’t predict what is about to happen, we or it won’t be able to avoid the danger! That applies to all forms of life. “Feedback from sensory systems” will have to be processed at lightning speed if the danger is close at hand. How do the researchers know that it isn't?

Fungi helped plants
QUOTES: “450 million years ago, the first plants left aquatic life. Researchers have now succeeded in demonstrating that this colonization of land by plants was made possible by a partnership between plants and fungi.”
“Most plants live in symbiosis with fungi, whereby the two organisms exchange resources in a mutually beneficial way.”

DAVID: How did plants latch onto fungi? Luck or design? Looks designed to me.

Under “different species cooperate” I wrote: “One moment you fully accept their intelligence, and the next you reduce it to instinct and simple reasoning. […] What I do not accept is your constant attempt to downplay the intelligence of our fellow creatures, in order to support your belief that your always-in-control God preprogrammes or dabbles every evolutionary innovation, strategy, solution, natural wonder etc."

Whether God designed the original cells or not, it seems to me that the basis of plant and animal evolution has been cooperation between cells. In view of your occasional “full” acceptance that some of our fellow animals are actually “very intelligent”, I’m surprised that you cannot bring yourself to accept that maybe – it’s only a theory – the earliest forms of life (e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria) might also be intelligent, albeit on a far lower level.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, May 21, 2021, 15:51 (1042 days ago) @ dhw

Different types of neurons

DAVID: The extra ones sapiens got caused the present civilization to appear.

dhw: Well, I must say this is a remarkable volte face from your previous insistence that the new neurons had no function and were jettisoned 2500 years later – but in fairness, you had already rejected that. Now, however, within a single exchange, after “we cannot know if the new neurons added a different function”, they have become so essential that our whole civilization depends on them. I will go back to my original proposal: the new neurons would not have been added if they had not performed a new function. We don’t know what that was, and we don’t know which neurons were discarded when enhanced complexification took over from expansion.

And i state god added the extra neurons with some early use but primarily for the future use that happened. future use


Species differentiation

dhw: Darwin also discusses the “difficulty of distinction between Varieties and Species” and I agree with you: variations in beak sizes do not solve the problem of how “species” – as opposed to varieties – evolve. I think “organisms capable of interbreeding” may be the closest we can get to a satisfactory definition of "species".

DAVID: Hybridization is certainly one way.

dhw: For the definition, I was thinking in terms of eagle versus elephant versus herring versus ant….What would your own definition be?

Yours are obvious. Finch beak size silliness is the point.


Giant black hole
DAVID: Our massive universe contains some massive fireworks. dhw has wondered in the past why God created all these events when all He wanted was humans. I don't know and I don't wonder. I assume God did this for His own reasons and they are a reasonable part of the process.

dhw: This is the process whereby someone has a theory and “assumes” that everything will be found to fit in with it, which of course is the process behind preconceptions and prejudices. In relation to God, it raises the question you asked so eloquently elsewhere: “Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?”

I am prejudiced for God. I prefer to wait for research to explain the questions. We usually find God's reasons as with the stupid proposal of the vestigial appendix. Not!!!


Fly vision and maneuvers
QUOTE: “Flies predict changes in their visual environment in order to execute evasive maneuvers, according to new research from the University of Chicago. This reliance on predictive information to guide behavior suggests that prediction may be a general feature of animal nervous systems in supporting quick behavioral changes.

dhw: I don’t understand what is so special here. If we or the fly don’t predict what is about to happen, we or it won’t be able to avoid the danger! That applies to all forms of life. “Feedback from sensory systems” will have to be processed at lightning speed if the danger is close at hand. How do the researchers know that it isn't?

They are simply taking your point and looking for speedy solutions.


Fungi helped plants
QUOTES: “450 million years ago, the first plants left aquatic life. Researchers have now succeeded in demonstrating that this colonization of land by plants was made possible by a partnership between plants and fungi.”
“Most plants live in symbiosis with fungi, whereby the two organisms exchange resources in a mutually beneficial way.”

DAVID: How did plants latch onto fungi? Luck or design? Looks designed to me.

dhw: Under “different species cooperate” I wrote: “One moment you fully accept their intelligence, and the next you reduce it to instinct and simple reasoning. […] What I do not accept is your constant attempt to downplay the intelligence of our fellow creatures, in order to support your belief that your always-in-control God preprogrammes or dabbles every evolutionary innovation, strategy, solution, natural wonder etc."

Whether God designed the original cells or not, it seems to me that the basis of plant and animal evolution has been cooperation between cells. In view of your occasional “full” acceptance that some of our fellow animals are actually “very intelligent”, I’m surprised that you cannot bring yourself to accept that maybe – it’s only a theory – the earliest forms of life (e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria) might also be intelligent, albeit on a far lower level.

And I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, May 22, 2021, 11:34 (1041 days ago) @ David Turell

Different types of neurons
DAVID: The extra ones sapiens got caused the present civilization to appear.

dhw: Well, I must say this is a remarkable volte face from your previous insistence that the new neurons had no function and were jettisoned 2500 years later – but in fairness, you had already rejected that. Now, however, within a single exchange, after “we cannot know if the new neurons added a different function”, they have become so essential that our whole civilization depends on them. I will go back to my original proposal: the new neurons would not have been added if they had not performed a new function. We don’t know what that was, and we don’t know which neurons were discarded when enhanced complexification took over from expansion.

DAVID: And i state god added the extra neurons with some early use but primarily for the future use that happened.

And you also stated “we cannot know if some different kind of functional neuron was added to sapiens”. I suggest that even if your God did come down and operate on the sleeping Moroccans, it would make more sense for him to have done so because the extra neurons were needed for a new function at that time. All this will lead to yet another discussion on stasis and shrinkage, which we covered amply on the “brain expansion” thread. Do we really need to go over it all again?

Species differentiation
dhw: [..] I agree with you: variations in beak sizes do not solve the problem of how “species” – as opposed to varieties – evolve. I think “organisms capable of interbreeding” may be the closest we can get to a satisfactory definition of "species".

DAVID: Hybridization is certainly one way.

dhw: For the definition, I was thinking in terms of eagle versus elephant versus herring versus ant….What would your own definition be?

DAVID: Yours are obvious. Finch beak size silliness is the point.

I have agreed. That is why I illustrated my preferred definition with obvious examples.There is no dispute here. I've asked you for your own definition of species in the hope that you might have a better idea than organisms with the ability to interbreed.

Giant black hole
DAVID: […] dhw has wondered in the past why God created all these events when all He wanted was humans. I don't know and I don't wonder. I assume God did this for His own reasons and they are a reasonable part of the process.

dhw: This is the process whereby someone has a theory and “assumes” that everything will be found to fit in with it, which of course is the process behind preconceptions and prejudices. In relation to God, it raises the question you asked so eloquently elsewhere: “Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?”

DAVID: I am prejudiced for God. I prefer to wait for research to explain the questions.

Your belief in God is not the subject of our current disagreements, because all my objections to your theory of evolution, and all my alternatives, allow for his existence. I object to your theory of evolution because you are adamant that your God must have had a logical reason for designing “de novo” the 99% of life forms that had no connection with the only form he wanted to design, and he must have had a “good” reason for designing the “bad” bacteria and viruses. These are your “guesses”, nothing will shake you from your belief that they are correct, and yet you ask: “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?”

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: How did plants latch onto fungi? Luck or design? Looks designed to me.

dhw: […] Whether God designed the original cells or not, it seems to me that the basis of plant and animal evolution has been cooperation between cells. In view of your occasional “full” acceptance that some of our fellow animals are actually “very intelligent”, I’m surprised that you cannot bring yourself to accept that maybe – it’s only a theory – the earliest forms of life (e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria) might also be intelligent, albeit on a far lower level.

DAVID: And I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

Gamma rays
DAVID: as with yesterday's entry, it shows the universe is filled with dangerous activity. And luckily where we live the Earth is tucked into a safe spot in our galaxy. I still presume God knows what He is doing and don't question it.

If God exists, I would also presume he knows what is doing. What I question is your fixed belief that in the context of evolution, you know precisely what he wanted to do and did, and you refuse to question your illogical presumptions about his purpose and his method of achieving it.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 22, 2021, 15:36 (1041 days ago) @ dhw

Species differentiation

dhw: For the definition, I was thinking in terms of eagle versus elephant versus herring versus ant….What would your own definition be?

DAVID: Yours are obvious. Finch beak size silliness is the point.

dhw: I have agreed. That is why I illustrated my preferred definition with obvious examples.There is no dispute here. I've asked you for your own definition of species in the hope that you might have a better idea than organisms with the ability to interbreed.

I was inferring the concept of splitters vs, lumpers. Genome study may be the best way. Appearance can fool.


Giant black hole
DAVID: […] dhw has wondered in the past why God created all these events when all He wanted was humans. I don't know and I don't wonder. I assume God did this for His own reasons and they are a reasonable part of the process.

dhw: This is the process whereby someone has a theory and “assumes” that everything will be found to fit in with it, which of course is the process behind preconceptions and prejudices. In relation to God, it raises the question you asked so eloquently elsewhere: “Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?”

DAVID: I am prejudiced for God. I prefer to wait for research to explain the questions.

dhw: Your belief in God is not the subject of our current disagreements, because all my objections to your theory of evolution, and all my alternatives, allow for his existence. I object to your theory of evolution because you are adamant that your God must have had a logical reason for designing “de novo” the 99% of life forms that had no connection with the only form he wanted to design, and he must have had a “good” reason for designing the “bad” bacteria and viruses. These are your “guesses”, nothing will shake you from your belief that they are correct, and yet you ask: “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?”

Not my purpose. I point to example guesses that the appendix was vestigial; its not, and the retina wrongly designed, until research showed it was superb design. This shows guesses against God's design should wait for research to explain, if it can. My expectation is that God knows how to design and declaring something is wrong before fully studied is the wrong approach.


Fungi helped plants

DAVID: How did plants latch onto fungi? Luck or design? Looks designed to me.

dhw: […] Whether God designed the original cells or not, it seems to me that the basis of plant and animal evolution has been cooperation between cells. In view of your occasional “full” acceptance that some of our fellow animals are actually “very intelligent”, I’m surprised that you cannot bring yourself to accept that maybe – it’s only a theory – the earliest forms of life (e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria) might also be intelligent, albeit on a far lower level.

DAVID: And I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

dhw: I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

I throw in 'intelligent' to indicate it is God's information that makes organisms look and act as if intelligent.


Gamma rays
DAVID: as with yesterday's entry, it shows the universe is filled with dangerous activity. And luckily where we live the Earth is tucked into a safe spot in our galaxy. I still presume God knows what He is doing and don't question it.

dhw: If God exists, I would also presume he knows what is doing. What I question is your fixed belief that in the context of evolution, you know precisely what he wanted to do and did, and you refuse to question your illogical presumptions about his purpose and his method of achieving it.

I don't have to question my conclusions based on logical thought. I am convinced as noted above we are/were His goal.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, May 23, 2021, 13:32 (1040 days ago) @ David Turell

Species differentiation
dhw: For the definition, I was thinking in terms of eagle versus elephant versus herring versus ant….What would your own definition be?

DAVID: Yours are obvious. Finch beak size silliness is the point.

dhw: I have agreed. That is why I illustrated my preferred definition with obvious examples.There is no dispute here. I've asked you for your own definition of species in the hope that you might have a better idea than organisms with the ability to interbreed.

DAVID: I was inferring the concept of splitters vs, lumpers. Genome study may be the best way. Appearance can fool.

I know the concepts and the problem. I just wondered if you had a better definition.

Giant black hole
DAVID: […] dhw has wondered in the past why God created all these events when all He wanted was humans. I don't know and I don't wonder. I assume God did this for His own reasons and they are a reasonable part of the process.

dhw: This is the process whereby someone has a theory and “assumes” that everything will be found to fit in with it, which of course is the process behind preconceptions and prejudices. In relation to God, it raises the question you asked so eloquently elsewhere: “Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?”

DAVID: I am prejudiced for God. I prefer to wait for research to explain the questions.

dhw: Your belief in God is not the subject of our current disagreements, because all my objections to your theory of evolution, and all my alternatives, allow for his existence. I object to your theory of evolution because you are adamant that your God must have had a logical reason for designing “de novo” the 99% of life forms that had no connection with the only form he wanted to design, and he must have had a “good” reason for designing the “bad” bacteria and viruses. These are your “guesses”, nothing will shake you from your belief that they are correct, and yet you ask: “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?

DAVID: Not my purpose. I point to example guesses that the appendix was vestigial; its not, and the retina wrongly designed, until research showed it was superb design. This shows guesses against God's design should wait for research to explain, if it can. My expectation is that God knows how to design and declaring something is wrong before fully studied is the wrong approach.

Agreed. I was simply applying your now bolded question to the much wider field of your theory concerning your God’s purposes and methods, in which you “guess at God’s designs” before you have the full story, and yet you are adamant that you are right and no alternative is worth considering.

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: […] I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

dhw: I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

DAVID: I throw in 'intelligent' to indicate it is God's information that makes organisms look and act as if intelligent.

So what information are you talking about? Do you mean “information” that gives them the AUTONOMOUS ABILITY to observe and process their observations of changing conditions, to communicate and cooperate with one another, and then to take decisions? Or do you mean detailed formulas and solutions provided by your God, as bolded above?

Gamma rays
DAVID: ...as with yesterday's entry, it shows the universe is filled with dangerous activity. And luckily where we live the Earth is tucked into a safe spot in our galaxy. I still presume God knows what He is doing and don't question it.

dhw: If God exists, I would also presume he knows what is doing. What I question is your fixed belief that in the context of evolution, you know precisely what he wanted to do and did, and you refuse to question your illogical presumptions about his purpose and his method of achieving it.

DAVID: I don't have to question my conclusions based on logical thought. I am convinced as noted above we are/were His goal.

That is ONE of your conclusions, but as always you prefer to edit out the rest of your theory because, as you admit, you have no idea why, if we were his goal, he would have deliberately designed “de novo” all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with us, and yet you are also “convinced” that he did so.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 23, 2021, 16:22 (1040 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: […] I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

dhw: I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

DAVID: I throw in 'intelligent' to indicate it is God's information that makes organisms look and act as if intelligent.

dhw: So what information are you talking about? Do you mean “information” that gives them the AUTONOMOUS ABILITY to observe and process their observations of changing conditions, to communicate and cooperate with one another, and then to take decisions? Or do you mean detailed formulas and solutions provided by your God, as bolded above?

The issue you seem to struggle with is DNA is coded information which creates living organisms and instructs the underlying biochemical process of life. It allows for experiential actions and reactions.


Gamma rays
DAVID: ...as with yesterday's entry, it shows the universe is filled with dangerous activity. And luckily where we live the Earth is tucked into a safe spot in our galaxy. I still presume God knows what He is doing and don't question it.

dhw: If God exists, I would also presume he knows what is doing. What I question is your fixed belief that in the context of evolution, you know precisely what he wanted to do and did, and you refuse to question your illogical presumptions about his purpose and his method of achieving it.

DAVID: I don't have to question my conclusions based on logical thought. I am convinced as noted above we are/were His goal.

dhw: That is ONE of your conclusions, but as always you prefer to edit out the rest of your theory because, as you admit, you have no idea why, if we were his goal, he would have deliberately designed “de novo” all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with us, and yet you are also “convinced” that he did so.

God is obviously in the role of creator. We are here. Therefore God created us. We evolved, so that was the method He used. Your approach is why any God at all? You question, I've stopped. We even interpret the process of evolution very differently.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, May 24, 2021, 11:15 (1039 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: […] I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

dhw: I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

DAVID: I throw in 'intelligent' to indicate it is God's information that makes organisms look and act as if intelligent.

dhw: So what information are you talking about? Do you mean “information” that gives them the AUTONOMOUS ABILITY to observe and process their observations of changing conditions, to communicate and cooperate with one another, and then to take decisions? Or do you mean detailed formulas and solutions provided by your God, as bolded above?

DAVID: The issue you seem to struggle with is DNA is coded information which creates living organisms and instructs the underlying biochemical process of life. It allows for experiential actions and reactions.

I have no struggle at all with the fact that our DNA does all that you say it does. But vague references to “information” do not answer the question of how organisms cooperate in order to improve their chances of survival. That is why I am asking you whether you believe your God supplied detailed formulas for all cooperation and detailed solutions for all problems throughout life’s history. If he did not do so, what alternative means of cooperation, problem-solving and decision-making do you think he might possibly have provided?

Deep sea extremophiles
These are in very deep trenches, newly discovered and large multicellular organisms:
http://oceans.nautil.us/feature/695/in-the-deep-sea-incredible-animals-abound?mc_cid=6f...

QUOTE: "The deep sea is a part of our planet unlike any other. Accounting for over 95 percent of Earth’s living space, it is cold, dark, and under extreme pressure, yet an astounding variety of creatures abound.

DAVID: See the photos. Amazing.

We agree! And once again I can only thank you for posting such articles.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, May 24, 2021, 15:54 (1039 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: […] I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

dhw: I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

DAVID: I throw in 'intelligent' to indicate it is God's information that makes organisms look and act as if intelligent.

dhw: So what information are you talking about? Do you mean “information” that gives them the AUTONOMOUS ABILITY to observe and process their observations of changing conditions, to communicate and cooperate with one another, and then to take decisions? Or do you mean detailed formulas and solutions provided by your God, as bolded above?

DAVID: The issue you seem to struggle with is DNA is coded information which creates living organisms and instructs the underlying biochemical process of life. It allows for experiential actions and reactions.

dhw: I have no struggle at all with the fact that our DNA does all that you say it does. But vague references to “information” do not answer the question of how organisms cooperate in order to improve their chances of survival. That is why I am asking you whether you believe your God supplied detailed formulas for all cooperation and detailed solutions for all problems throughout life’s history. If he did not do so, what alternative means of cooperation, problem-solving and decision-making do you think he might possibly have provided?

God's epigenetic mechanisms allow for simple adaptations that allow for cooperative solutions


Deep sea extremophiles
These are in very deep trenches, newly discovered and large multicellular organisms:
http://oceans.nautil.us/feature/695/in-the-deep-sea-incredible-animals-abound?mc_cid=6f...

QUOTE: "The deep sea is a part of our planet unlike any other. Accounting for over 95 percent of Earth’s living space, it is cold, dark, and under extreme pressure, yet an astounding variety of creatures abound.

DAVID: See the photos. Amazing.

dhw: We agree! And once again I can only thank you for posting such articles.

Thank you. Part of my role.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, May 25, 2021, 08:07 (1038 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: The issue you seem to struggle with is DNA is coded information which creates living organisms and instructs the underlying biochemical process of life. It allows for experiential actions and reactions.

dhw: I have no struggle at all with the fact that our DNA does all that you say it does. But vague references to “information” do not answer the question of how organisms cooperate in order to improve their chances of survival. That is why I am asking you whether you believe your God supplied detailed formulas for all cooperation and detailed solutions for all problems throughout life’s history. If he did not do so, what alternative means of cooperation, problem-solving and decision-making do you think he might possibly have provided?

DAVID: God's epigenetic mechanisms allow for simple adaptations that allow for cooperative solutions.

You will have to forgive me for my denseness, but I find the switch from “intelligent information” to “epigenetic mechanisms”, and from “instructs” to “allows for”, slightly bewildering when my first question could easily be answered by “yes” or “no”. Let me try again, but this time I’ll be more direct. Disregarding the autonomy of human free will, do you believe that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled all instances of cooperation and all solutions to all problems throughout life’s history? If not, do you believe that he gave organisms the autonomous ability to cooperate and solve problems? If it’s the latter, but you want to limit this ability to “simple adaptations”, do you then agree that this ability denotes a “simple” form of autonomous intelligence?

Deep sea extremophiles
QUOTE: "The deep sea is a part of our planet unlike any other. Accounting for over 95 percent of Earth’s living space, it is cold, dark, and under extreme pressure, yet an astounding variety of creatures abound.

DAVID: See the photos. Amazing.

dhw: We agree! And once again I can only thank you for posting such articles.

DAVID: Thank you. Part of my role.

It is this that keeps our website going!

Some extremophiles use radioactivity
DAVID: Back to the same concept. Life must have a continuous energy supply to survive. Further this system may be the way life started.

I don’t think anyone would deny that life needs energy. And we are certainly back to the same concept: that these micro-organisms appear to have the wherewithal to survive by changing those parts of themselves that need to be changed in order to meet different requirements. This, I suggest, may have set the pattern for the whole of evolution, and I agree that it may be the way life started.

Milky Way has a twin
DAVID: This tells us a galaxy like ours exists and there must be others, and they could contain Earths. It doesn't disturb me if God is sponsoring life/humans in many places.

If God exists, I’d find it a bit strange that he would confine his interests to a single planet, let alone a single species plus food supply. One can’t help asking why else he would create the billions of galaxies. On the other hand, the more galaxies there are, the more Earths there will be, and the more Earths there are, the greater the chances of life eventually emerging in its simplest forms (see "extremophiles"). And the more Earths there are, the greater the chances of simple forms starting the process of cooperation which eventually leads to evolution as we know it. But don’t get me wrong: I am still stuck on my fence!:-)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 25, 2021, 13:53 (1038 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God's epigenetic mechanisms allow for simple adaptations that allow for cooperative solutions.

dhw: You will have to forgive me for my denseness, but I find the switch from “intelligent information” to “epigenetic mechanisms”, and from “instructs” to “allows for”, slightly bewildering when my first question could easily be answered by “yes” or “no”. Let me try again, but this time I’ll be more direct. Disregarding the autonomy of human free will, do you believe that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled all instances of cooperation and all solutions to all problems throughout life’s history? If not, do you believe that he gave organisms the autonomous ability to cooperate and solve problems? If it’s the latter, but you want to limit this ability to “simple adaptations”, do you then agree that this ability denotes a “simple” form of autonomous intelligence?

My state4ment is quite clear. The way organisms make simple adaptations is through epigenetic mechanisms. Part of God's design. Those adaptations are therefore independent of God.

Some extremophiles use radioactivity
DAVID: Back to the same concept. Life must have a continuous energy supply to survive. Further this system may be the way life started.

dhw: I don’t think anyone would deny that life needs energy. And we are certainly back to the same concept: that these micro-organisms appear to have the wherewithal to survive by changing those parts of themselves that need to be changed in order to meet different requirements. This, I suggest, may have set the pattern for the whole of evolution, and I agree that it may be the way life started.

They do it through God's designed mechanisms.


Milky Way has a twin
DAVID: This tells us a galaxy like ours exists and there must be others, and they could contain Earths. It doesn't disturb me if God is sponsoring life/humans in many places.

dhw: If God exists, I’d find it a bit strange that he would confine his interests to a single planet, let alone a single species plus food supply. One can’t help asking why else he would create the billions of galaxies. On the other hand, the more galaxies there are, the more Earths there will be, and the more Earths there are, the greater the chances of life eventually emerging in its simplest forms (see "extremophiles"). And the more Earths there are, the greater the chances of simple forms starting the process of cooperation which eventually leads to evolution as we know it. But don’t get me wrong: I am still stuck on my fence!:-)

That's OK. We agree multiple Earths are possible, even probable.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, May 26, 2021, 12:38 (1037 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: God's epigenetic mechanisms allow for simple adaptations that allow for cooperative solutions.

dhw: You will have to forgive me for my denseness, but I find the switch from “intelligent information” to “epigenetic mechanisms”, and from “instructs” to “allows for”, slightly bewildering when my first question could easily be answered by “yes” or “no”. Let me try again, but this time I’ll be more direct. Disregarding the autonomy of human free will, do you believe that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled all instances of cooperation and all solutions to all problems throughout life’s history? If not, do you believe that he gave organisms the autonomous ability to cooperate and solve problems? If it’s the latter, but you want to limit this ability to “simple adaptations”, do you then agree that this ability denotes a “simple” form of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: My statement is quite clear. The way organisms make simple adaptations is through epigenetic mechanisms. Part of God's design. Those adaptations are therefore independent of God.

But that is not what I asked. You’ve opted for autonomous “simple adaptations”. As I understand it, “epigenetic mechanisms” relate to the manner in which cells respond to the organism’s behaviour or its environment. To do so, they will have to process information from inside and outside their own communities (of which the organism is made), communicate with one another, and decide what changes need to be made in their own behaviour. If these actions are performed independently of your God, do they or do they not denote a degree of autonomous intelligence? I am quite happy for you to say this is “part of God’s design”. We are not discussing God’s existence, but the way evolution works.

Some extremophiles use radioactivity
DAVID: Back to the same concept. Life must have a continuous energy supply to survive. Further this system may be the way life started.

dhw: I don’t think anyone would deny that life needs energy. And we are certainly back to the same concept: that these micro-organisms appear to have the wherewithal to survive by changing those parts of themselves that need to be changed in order to meet different requirements. This, I suggest, may have set the pattern for the whole of evolution, and I agree that it may be the way life started.

DAVID: They do it through God's designed mechanisms.

Again, I don’t have a problem with your belief that God designed the mechanisms. Our discussion concerns the nature of the mechanisms. As above, if these micro-organisms can autonomously change themselves in order to meet different environmental requirements, does that not mean that (theistic version) your God gave them a form of autonomous intelligence? The only alternative I can see is your God preprogramming or dabbling every single change.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 26, 2021, 18:33 (1037 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: My statement is quite clear. The way organisms make simple adaptations is through epigenetic mechanisms. Part of God's design. Those adaptations are therefore independent of God.

dhw: But that is not what I asked. You’ve opted for autonomous “simple adaptations”. As I understand it, “epigenetic mechanisms” relate to the manner in which cells respond to the organism’s behaviour or its environment. To do so, they will have to process information from inside and outside their own communities (of which the organism is made), communicate with one another, and decide what changes need to be made in their own behaviour. If these actions are performed independently of your God, do they or do they not denote a degree of autonomous intelligence? I am quite happy for you to say this is “part of God’s design”. We are not discussing God’s existence, but the way evolution works.

My simple point is God gave organisms the ability to make simple modifications. The mechanism they use is from God and contained in their genomes. Of course cells must communicate, sense external factors and then react following the instructions in God's given mechanism.


Some extremophiles use radioactivity
DAVID: Back to the same concept. Life must have a continuous energy supply to survive. Further this system may be the way life started.

dhw: I don’t think anyone would deny that life needs energy. And we are certainly back to the same concept: that these micro-organisms appear to have the wherewithal to survive by changing those parts of themselves that need to be changed in order to meet different requirements. This, I suggest, may have set the pattern for the whole of evolution, and I agree that it may be the way life started.

DAVID: They do it through God's designed mechanisms.

dhw: Again, I don’t have a problem with your belief that God designed the mechanisms. Our discussion concerns the nature of the mechanisms. As above, if these micro-organisms can autonomously change themselves in order to meet different environmental requirements, does that not mean that (theistic version) your God gave them a form of autonomous intelligence? The only alternative I can see is your God preprogramming or dabbling every single change.

The other alternative you remain blind to is the cells are simply following God's instructions as to how to create simple adaptations.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, May 27, 2021, 13:40 (1036 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: The way organisms make simple adaptations is through epigenetic mechanisms. Part of God's design. Those adaptations are therefore independent of God.

dhw:[…] they will have to process information from inside and outside their own communities (of which the organism is made), communicate with one another, and decide what changes need to be made in their own behaviour. If these actions are performed independently of your God, do they or do they not denote a degree of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: My simple point is God gave organisms the ability to make simple modifications. The mechanism they use is from God and contained in their genomes. Of course cells must communicate, sense external factors and then react following the instructions in God's given mechanism.

For the sake of argument, I am accepting that the mechanism came from God. The point at issue is the nature of the mechanism. If organisms follow instructions, how can they be independent of God? Sensing and processing information, communicating and taking decisions are all hallmarks of intelligence. The “reaction” is the decision, and you have now removed that and turned it into God’s instructions. Same trick under “extremophiles”:

dhw: […] if these micro-organisms can autonomously change themselves in order to meet different environmental requirements, does that not mean that (theistic version) your God gave them a form of autonomous intelligence? The only alternative I can see is your God preprogramming or dabbling every single change.

DAVID: The other alternative you remain blind to is the cells are simply following God's instructions as to how to create simple adaptations.

So what do these “instructions” consist of? Owing to a change of environment, Billy Bacterium and his mates find it necessary to change their diet from metal to rock. Does your God tell them how to do it (= they are not “independent of God”), or do they work it out for themselves (= they have autonomous intelligence)? And when were these instructions issued? They can only have been preprogrammed from the beginning, or dabbled as new conditions arose.

Ant raids
QUOTE: There's probably some very interesting division of labor going on, and there's also clearly complex communication—the ants use several different pheromones to talk to each other and to organize the raid. And there are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid.

Complex communication, organization, ongoing decision-making. The same processes that we observe in all organisms, from single cells upwards. Where do you draw the line between autonomous intelligence and automatons merely obeying your God’s preprogrammed or dabbled “instructions”? Which is it for the ants?

Neutron stars

DAVID: What is most amazing is measuring a neutron star's diameter at such distances. We still do not understand why the universe must have such weird objects, one of dhw's worries.

Not a worry, but one of the many unanswered mysteries that cast a doubt both on the existence of your God, and on your own attempts to read your God’s mind. Why such a vast universe with such “weird objects” if his only purpose was to create humans plus food supply?

Back to Shapiro
QUOTE: He distinguishes between gene-centric and genome-based views of heredity andargues that the physical organization of the genome incorporates a higher systems level of information beyond its genes or coding sequences. (David’s bold)

I may have misunderstood this, but since you have headed the article “Back to Shapiro”, is he suggesting that the higher level is a form of intelligence that governs the physical organization of the genome?

Quote: The transition from microevolutionary to macroevolutionary change […] occurs when there is great stress on either somatic cells, as in cancer chemotherapy, or independent organisms, as in episodes of drastic ecological change and mass extinctions.

Sounds to me very much in keeping with the idea that any major changes in conditions will result in the cells responding by making changes to themselves. It stands to reason that in the macrocosm of the body, the microcosms (cells) must all work together if the body is to cope with the new conditions.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 27, 2021, 16:04 (1036 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: My simple point is God gave organisms the ability to make simple modifications. The mechanism they use is from God and contained in their genomes. Of course cells must communicate, sense external factors and then react following the instructions in God's given mechanism.

dhw: For the sake of argument, I am accepting that the mechanism came from God. The point at issue is the nature of the mechanism. If organisms follow instructions, how can they be independent of God? Sensing and processing information, communicating and taking decisions are all hallmarks of intelligence. The “reaction” is the decision, and you have now removed that and turned it into God’s instructions. Same trick under “extremophiles”:

dhw: […] if these micro-organisms can autonomously change themselves in order to meet different environmental requirements, does that not mean that (theistic version) your God gave them a form of autonomous intelligence? The only alternative I can see is your God preprogramming or dabbling every single change.

DAVID: The other alternative you remain blind to is the cells are simply following God's instructions as to how to create simple adaptations.

dhw: So what do these “instructions” consist of? Owing to a change of environment, Billy Bacterium and his mates find it necessary to change their diet from metal to rock. Does your God tell them how to do it (= they are not “independent of God”), or do they work it out for themselves (= they have autonomous intelligence)? And when were these instructions issued? They can only have been preprogrammed from the beginning, or dabbled as new conditions arose.

Adaptation instructions are in the genome, since the genome is the master code running the processes of life. God made life. Why struggle with your questions?


Ant raids
QUOTE: There's probably some very interesting division of labor going on, and there's also clearly complex communication—the ants use several different pheromones to talk to each other and to organize the raid. And there are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid.

dhw: Complex communication, organization, ongoing decision-making. The same processes that we observe in all organisms, from single cells upwards. Where do you draw the line between autonomous intelligence and automatons merely obeying your God’s preprogrammed or dabbled “instructions”? Which is it for the ants?

It works because individual ants are programmed to do the same thing over and over


Neutron stars

DAVID: What is most amazing is measuring a neutron star's diameter at such distances. We still do not understand why the universe must have such weird objects, one of dhw's worries.

dhw: Not a worry, but one of the many unanswered mysteries that cast a doubt both on the existence of your God, and on your own attempts to read your God’s mind. Why such a vast universe with such “weird objects” if his only purpose was to create humans plus food supply?

It is your sole mystery. For an answer please refer to yesterday's entry:

Back to theodicy: guessing about God's 'bad' designs (The nature of a \'Creator\')
by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 26, 2021, 23:17


Back to Shapiro
QUOTE: He distinguishes between gene-centric and genome-based views of heredity andargues that the physical organization of the genome incorporates a higher systems level of information beyond its genes or coding sequences. (David’s bold)

dhw: I may have misunderstood this, but since you have headed the article “Back to Shapiro”, is he suggesting that the higher level is a form of intelligence that governs the physical organization of the genome?

Quote: The transition from microevolutionary to macroevolutionary change […] occurs when there is great stress on either somatic cells, as in cancer chemotherapy, or independent organisms, as in episodes of drastic ecological change and mass extinctions.

dhw: Sounds to me very much in keeping with the idea that any major changes in conditions will result in the cells responding by making changes to themselves. It stands to reason that in the macrocosm of the body, the microcosms (cells) must all work together if the body is to cope with the new conditions.

Shapiro reviewed a book with great ideas about 3-D relationships in genome controls. How you conjured up your strange cell intelligence out of this review is beyond me. You might read the whole review to appreciate Shapiro's handling of it. I did.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, May 28, 2021, 13:15 (1035 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: [Tuesday 25th May] Those adaptations are therefore independent of God.

DAVID: [Wednesday 26th May] […] Of course cells must communicate, sense external factors and then react following the instructions in God's given mechanism.

dhw: If organisms follow instructions, how can they be independent of God? Sensing and processing information, communicating and taking decisions are all hallmarks of intelligence. The “reaction” is the decision, and you have now removed that and turned it into God’s instructions. [..] So what do these “instructions” consist of? Owing to a change of environment, Billy Bacterium and his mates find it necessary to change their diet from metal to rock. Does your God tell them how to do it (= they are not “independent of God”), or do they work it out for themselves (= they have autonomous intelligence)? And when were these instructions issued? They can only have been preprogrammed from the beginning, or dabbled as new conditions arose.

DAVID: Adaptation instructions are in the genome, since the genome is the master code running the processes of life. God made life. Why struggle with your questions?

I’m not asking where the instructions are situated. First you agree that the adaptations are made independently of God, then you have God giving instructions. So I’m asking what these consist of and when you think your God inserted them. Please don’t dodge!

Ant raids
QUOTE: There's probably some very interesting division of labor going on, and there's also clearly complex communication—the ants use several different pheromones to talk to each other and to organize the raid. And there are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid.

dhw: Complex communication, organization, ongoing decision-making. The same processes that we observe in all organisms, from single cells upwards. Where do you draw the line between autonomous intelligence and automatons merely obeying your God’s preprogrammed or dabbled “instructions”? Which is it for the ants?

DAVID: It works because individual ants are programmed to do the same thing over and over.

Except that they don’t: “There are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid.” Simple alternatives: did your God plant each decision in his 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and their decisions? Or does he watch each raid and tell each ant what to do? Or did he give ants the intelligence with which to make their own decisions?

Neutron stars
dhw: Why such a vast universe with such “weird objects” if his only purpose was to create humans plus food supply?

DAVID: It is your sole mystery. For an answer please refer to yesterday's entry:
Back to theodicy: guessing about God's 'bad' designs (The nature of a \'Creator\')

That was your attempt to dodge the origin of evil by switching to bad design. But if you are confident that one day science will find a good reason for your God’s creation of all these weird objects, let’s leave it at that. Some of us prefer to wait for an explanation before we commit ourselves to judgement. “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?” (D. Turell)

Back to Shapiro
QUOTE: [He]argues that the physical organization of the genome incorporates a higher systems level of information beyond its genes or coding sequences. (David’s bold)

dhw: I may have misunderstood this, but since you have headed the article “Back to Shapiro”, is he suggesting that the higher level is a form of intelligence that governs the physical organization of the genome?

DAVID: Shapiro reviewed a book with great ideas about 3-D relationships in genome controls. How you conjured up your strange cell intelligence out of this review is beyond me. You might read the whole review to appreciate Shapiro's handling of it. I did.

I was only asking whether the “higher level” referred to intelligence, because otherwise I couldn’t see any link with Shapiro. I don’t know why you regard his theory of cellular intelligence as “strange”, but from what you have said, the article has nothing to do with that. Thank you for your explanation.

Clear evidence of common descent
"This mechanism likely has been conserved since the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes." (David’s bold)

DAVID: That evolution is a continuum from start to now is clearly shown by studies of the evolution of the genome controls. God, as designer, makes it easy for Himself in creating common descent.

I agree that evolution is a continuum in the form of a bush that has constantly expanded into thousands and thousands of branches (different life forms), though these are not connected to one another. (We have agreed not to discuss the “connection” aspect of your theory of evolution.) However, your idea of “common descent” is “the initial and consistent use of DNA in all initial forms from DNA to us. My whole point is God creating species de novo” (under “conserved gene order”, quoted by me on 20 May). The Cambrian is your prime example. This is the direct opposite of what we normally understand by “common descent”, which is that all life forms (except the first) are directly descended from previous life forms. Just clarifying!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, May 28, 2021, 16:07 (1035 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: Adaptation instructions are in the genome, since the genome is the master code running the processes of life. God made life. Why struggle with your questions?

dhw: I’m not asking where the instructions are situated. First you agree that the adaptations are made independently of God, then you have God giving instructions. So I’m asking what these consist of and when you think your God inserted them. Please don’t dodge!

I haven't changed. God designed evolution and simple adaptive changes (epigenetics) allow organisms to independently make small changes by following God's instructions


Ant raids
QUOTE: There's probably some very interesting division of labor going on, and there's

DAVID: It works because individual ants are programmed to do the same thing over and over.

dhw: Except that they don’t: “There are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid.” Simple alternatives: did your God plant each decision in his 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and their decisions? Or does he watch each raid and tell each ant what to do? Or did he give ants the intelligence with which to make their own decisions?

Colony decisions cause individual ants to do their simple response, as many studies have shown. You are equating whole colonies reactions it what the single ant does. God is not in action here.


Neutron stars
dhw: Why such a vast universe with such “weird objects” if his only purpose was to create humans plus food supply?

DAVID: It is your sole mystery. For an answer please refer to yesterday's entry:
Back to theodicy: guessing about God's 'bad' designs (The nature of a \'Creator\')

dhw: That was your attempt to dodge the origin of evil by switching to bad design. But if you are confident that one day science will find a good reason for your God’s creation of all these weird objects, let’s leave it at that. Some of us prefer to wait for an explanation before we commit ourselves to judgement. “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?” (D. Turell)

Thank you.


Clear evidence of common descent
"This mechanism likely has been conserved since the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes." (David’s bold)

DAVID: That evolution is a continuum from start to now is clearly shown by studies of the evolution of the genome controls. God, as designer, makes it easy for Himself in creating common descent.

dhw: I agree that evolution is a continuum in the form of a bush that has constantly expanded into thousands and thousands of branches (different life forms), though these are not connected to one another.

The past does show the connections. You are slicing up evolution into segments again.

dhw: (We have agreed not to discuss the “connection” aspect of your theory of evolution.) However, your idea of “common descent” is “the initial and consistent use of DNA in all initial forms from DNA to us. My whole point is God creating species de novo” (under “conserved gene order”, quoted by me on 20 May). The Cambrian is your prime example. This is the direct opposite of what we normally understand by “common descent”, which is that all life forms (except the first) are directly descended from previous life forms. Just clarifying!

Come on. God's designs are not discontinuous. Slicing again. New is built upon old. You are correct about the Cambrian but consider also start of life. Both seem pure invention. But the Cambrian must have used the same DNA genome codes while origin of life invented the codes.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, May 29, 2021, 12:16 (1034 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
dhw: First you agree that the adaptations are made independently of God, then you have God giving instructions. So I’m asking what these consist of and when you think your God inserted them. Please don’t dodge!

DAVID: I haven't changed. God designed evolution and simple adaptive changes (epigenetics) allow organisms to independently make small changes by following God's instructions.

I am not asking you to change. I am asking you what these instructions might consist of, bearing in mind that the organisms act independently of your God, and when he would have issued them.

Ant raids
DAVID: It works because individual ants are programmed to do the same thing over and over.

dhw: Except that they don’t: “There are several decisions the colony must make in the course of the raid.” Simple alternatives: did your God plant each decision in his 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and their decisions? Or does he watch each raid and tell each ant what to do? Or did he give ants the intelligence with which to make their own decisions?

DAVID: Colony decisions cause individual ants to do their simple response, as many studies have shown. You are equating whole colonies reactions it what the single ant does. God is not in action here.

The colony consists of communicating ants! If God is not in action, then the decisions are taken by the ants themselves. As with human collectives, there will be some ants directing others. The point is that the decision-making ants must have autonomous intelligence.

Neutron stars
dhw: Why such a vast universe with such “weird objects” if his only purpose was to create humans plus food supply?

DAVID: It is your sole mystery. For an answer please refer to yesterday's entry.

dhw: That was your attempt to dodge the origin of evil by switching to bad design. But if you are confident that one day science will find a good reason for your God’s creation of all these weird objects, let’s leave it at that. Some of us prefer to wait for an explanation before we commit ourselves to judgement. “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?” (D. Turell)

DAVID: Thank you.

Nothing to thank me for. You guess that all the weird objects, just like all the bad bacteria and viruses, have some kind of beneficial purpose. Why guess before you have the full story?

Clear evidence of common descent
"This mechanism likely has been conserved since the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes." (David’s bold)

DAVID: That evolution is a continuum from start to now is clearly shown by studies of the evolution of the genome controls. God, as designer, makes it easy for Himself in creating common descent.

dhw: I agree that evolution is a continuum in the form of a bush that has constantly expanded into thousands and thousands of branches (different life forms), though these are not connected to one another.

DAVID: The past does show the connections. You are slicing up evolution into segments again.

Then you force me to go back to your theory of evolution, which argues that all life forms have been specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. There is no connection between 99% of the branches of life’s bush and humans. The connection is between all life forms and the bacteria from which they sprouted in their different directions. The branches are not connected with one another!

dhw: (We have agreed not to discuss the “connection” aspect of your theory of evolution.) However, your idea of “common descent” is “the initial and consistent use of DNA in all initial forms from DNA to us. My whole point is God creating species de novo” (under “conserved gene order”, quoted by me on 20 May). The Cambrian is your prime example. This is the direct opposite of what we normally understand by “common descent”, which is that all life forms (except the first) are directly descended from previous life forms. Just clarifying!

DAVID: Come on. God's designs are not discontinuous. Slicing again. New is built upon old. You are correct about the Cambrian but consider also start of life. Both seem pure invention. But the Cambrian must have used the same DNA genome codes while origin of life invented the codes.

The slicing is done by you, because over and over again you emphasize the GAPS, and according to you, your God designs every species DE NOVO! Yes, he uses the same DNA codes, but there is no continuity. A carpenter may use the same wood to create a stool, a garden shed and a toothpick, but that does not mean all of them were designed as part of his goal to design a chalet in the Swiss Alps. “De novo” automatically means discontinuity! “Common descent” means that every form of life has directly descended from a preceding form of life. THAT is continuity. But of course you have every right to your Creationism. It only becomes a problem when you insist that all life forms were designed de novo for the sake of one life form, with which 99% of them had no connection.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 29, 2021, 18:21 (1034 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: I haven't changed. God designed evolution and simple adaptive changes (epigenetics) allow organisms to independently make small changes by following God's instructions.

dhw: I am not asking you to change. I am asking you what these instructions might consist of, bearing in mind that the organisms act independently of your God, and when he would have issued them.

I don't understand your confusion. God designed epigenetic mechanism into organisms. The organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes.


Ant raids

DAVID: Colony decisions cause individual ants to do their simple response, as many studies have shown. You are equating whole colonies reactions to what the single ant does. God is not in action here.

dhw: The colony consists of communicating ants! If God is not in action, then the decisions are taken by the ants themselves. As with human collectives, there will be some ants directing others. The point is that the decision-making ants must have autonomous intelligence.

You are quibbling. My statement above agrees.


Neutron stars
dhw: Why such a vast universe with such “weird objects” if his only purpose was to create humans plus food supply?

DAVID: It is your sole mystery. For an answer please refer to yesterday's entry.

dhw: That was your attempt to dodge the origin of evil by switching to bad design. But if you are confident that one day science will find a good reason for your God’s creation of all these weird objects, let’s leave it at that. Some of us prefer to wait for an explanation before we commit ourselves to judgement. “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?” (D. Turell)

DAVID: Thank you.

dhw: Nothing to thank me for. You guess that all the weird objects, just like all the bad bacteria and viruses, have some kind of beneficial purpose. Why guess before you have the full story?

I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re' God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.


Clear evidence of common descent

DAVID: The past does show the connections. You are slicing up evolution into segments again.

dhw: Then you force me to go back to your theory of evolution, which argues that all life forms have been specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. There is no connection between 99% of the branches of life’s bush and humans. The connection is between all life forms and the bacteria from which they sprouted in their different directions. The branches are not connected with one another!

Only in current time. Their ancestors connect them in the past.


dhw: (We have agreed not to discuss the “connection” aspect of your theory of evolution.) However, your idea of “common descent” is “the initial and consistent use of DNA in all initial forms from DNA to us. My whole point is God creating species de novo” (under “conserved gene order”, quoted by me on 20 May). The Cambrian is your prime example. This is the direct opposite of what we normally understand by “common descent”, which is that all life forms (except the first) are directly descended from previous life forms. Just clarifying!

DAVID: Come on. God's designs are not discontinuous. Slicing again. New is built upon old. You are correct about the Cambrian but consider also start of life. Both seem pure invention. But the Cambrian must have used the same DNA genome codes while origin of life invented the codes.

dhw: The slicing is done by you, because over and over again you emphasize the GAPS, and according to you, your God designs every species DE NOVO!

God uses DNA and parts from the past except with the very new Cambrians. And they must have had DNA

dhw: Yes, he uses the same DNA codes, but there is no continuity. A carpenter may use the same wood to create a stool, a garden shed and a toothpick, but that does not mean all of them were designed as part of his goal to design a chalet in the Swiss Alps.

No analogy at all. Codes vs. materials?

dhw: “De novo” automatically means discontinuity!

The Cambrian discontinuity requires a continuing designer. You can't have it both ways!

dhw “Common descent” means that every form of life has directly descended from a preceding form of life. THAT is continuity. But of course you have every right to your Creationism. It only becomes a problem when you insist that all life forms were designed de novo for the sake of one life form, with which 99% of them had no connection.

Same slicing and dicing complaint.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, May 30, 2021, 12:31 (1033 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: I haven't changed. God designed evolution and simple adaptive changes (epigenetics) allow organisms to independently make small changes by following God's instructions.

dhw: I am not asking you to change. I am asking you what these instructions might consist of, bearing in mind that the organisms act independently of your God, and when he would have issued them.

DAVID: I don't understand your confusion. God designed epigenetic mechanism into organisms. The organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes.

For argument’s sake, I’m accepting that your God provided the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt to new conditions. But you keep telling us the organisms obey your God’s instructions. If the God-given mechanism for change is used autonomously, what “instructions” are you talking about? Straight question: Do the cells work out how and when to use the mechanism (= autonomous intelligence) or not?

Ant raids
DAVID: Colony decisions cause individual ants to do their simple response, as many studies have shown. You are equating whole colonies reactions to what the single ant does. God is not in action here.

dhw: […] The point is that the decision-making ants must have autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: You are quibbling. My statement above agrees.

It was not explicit enough for me. Thank you for agreeing explicitly that ants have autonomous intelligence, i.e. they do not have to follow your God’s “instructions”. I hope you will give a similarly direct answer under “Fungi direct plants”.

Neutron stars
DAVID: Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?

dhw: You guess that all the weird objects, just like all the bad bacteria and viruses, have some kind of beneficial purpose. Why guess before you have the full story?

DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! Non-bad designs (e.g. the retina) have nothing to do with theodicy, which concerns “bad” in the sense of evil or harmful – as in your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed viruses and bacteria that cause untold suffering. Why do you guess they're beneficial? Why don’t you wait till you have “the full story”?

Clear evidence of common descent
DAVID: The past does show the connections. You are slicing up evolution into segments again.

dhw: Then you force me to go back to your theory of evolution, which argues that all life forms have been specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. There is no connection between 99% of the branches of life’s bush and humans. The connection is between all life forms and the bacteria from which they sprouted in their different directions. The branches are not connected with one another!

DAVID: Only in current time. Their ancestors connect them in the past.

This is painful, as we had agreed not to delve into your theory of evolution again. You do not know why your God, whose sole purpose you believe to have been the design of humans plus food supply, should have individually designed millions of extinct life forms, 99% of which were NOT our ancestors and had no connection with us. We agreed to leave it at that.

dhw: The slicing is done by you, because over and over again you emphasize the GAPS, and according to you, your God designs every species DE NOVO!

DAVID: God uses DNA and parts from the past except with the very new Cambrians. And they must have had DNA

dhw: Yes, he uses the same DNA codes, but there is no continuity. A carpenter may use the same wood to create a stool, a garden shed and a toothpick, but that does not mean all of them were designed as part of his goal to design a chalet in the Swiss Alps.
DAVID: No analogy at all. Codes vs. materials?

The analogy concerns continuity! It is absurd to claim that just because all life forms use DNA, all life forms are “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. There is no such “continuity”.

dhw: “De novo” automatically means discontinuity!

DAVID: The Cambrian discontinuity requires a continuing designer. You can't have it both ways!

It is you who want it both ways! You claim that evolution is continuous, and then you tell us there are gaps and evolution is discontinuous, with your God inventing species de novo! I suggest that evolution IS continuous, as all species have branched out from earlier species. And I propose that the millions of years of the Cambrian would have sufficed for intelligent cell communities to produce all the new species that appeared in response to changing conditions. And I suggest it is unreasonable to expect a continuous fossil record of every organism’s evolutionary history over the last three thousand million years.

Milky Way
"A new image of this new cosmic masterpiece was made using a giant mosaic of data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and the MeerKAT radio telescope in South Africa."

DAVID: spectacular!!!

It certainly is. Well, there you are, maybe your God likes creating spectacular firework displays!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 30, 2021, 15:51 (1033 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: I don't understand your confusion. God designed epigenetic mechanism into organisms. The organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes.

dhw: ... If the God-given mechanism for change is used autonomously, what “instructions” are you talking about? Straight question: Do the cells work out how and when to use the mechanism (= autonomous intelligence) or not?

Placing methyl ions epigenetically in the DNA must follow instructions.


Ant raids

dhw: Thank you for agreeing explicitly that ants have autonomous intelligence, i.e. they do not have to follow your God’s “instructions”.

I would assume the ants have leader types who make choices of action and the others automatically follow.

Neutron stars

DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

dhw: Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! Non-bad designs (e.g. the retina) have nothing to do with theodicy, which concerns “bad” in the sense of evil or harmful – as in your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed viruses and bacteria that cause untold suffering. Why do you guess they're beneficial? Why don’t you wait till you have “the full story”?

Your view of God's 'bad actions' is a guess also. The history of such judgements is that with enough research they turn out wrong judgements of Gods action.


Clear evidence of common descent

dhw: It is absurd to claim that just because all life forms use DNA, all life forms are “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. There is no such “continuity”.

dhw: “De novo” automatically means discontinuity!

DAVID: The Cambrian discontinuity requires a continuing designer. You can't have it both ways!

dhw: It is you who want it both ways! You claim that evolution is continuous, and then you tell us there are gaps and evolution is discontinuous, with your God inventing species de novo! I suggest that evolution IS continuous, as all species have branched out from earlier species. And I propose that the millions of years of the Cambrian would have sufficed for intelligent cell communities to produce all the new species that appeared in response to changing conditions. And I suggest it is unreasonable to expect a continuous fossil record of every organism’s evolutionary history over the last three thousand million years.

So the enormous gap evidenced by the initial Cambrian organisms appearing over just 10 million years (previously presented here) doesn't bother you but plagued Darwin and also the current Darwinist's research to destroy the gap without any helpful results. Just your wishful thinking. Sacks of cells were so bright they invented the Trilobites with eyes, nerve cells and several different organ systems.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, May 31, 2021, 11:23 (1032 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: I don't understand your confusion. God designed epigenetic mechanism into organisms. The organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes.

dhw: ... If the God-given mechanism for change is used autonomously, what “instructions” are you talking about? Straight question: Do the cells work out how and when to use the mechanism (= autonomous intelligence) or not?

DAVID: Placing methyl ions epigenetically in the DNA must follow instructions.

So let’s try to get a straight answer by using a different approach. Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place INDEPENDENTLY of your God.

Ant raids
dhw: Thank you for agreeing explicitly that ants have autonomous intelligence, i.e. they do not have to follow your God’s “instructions”.

DAVID: I would assume the ants have leader types who make choices of action and the others automatically follow.

I assume the same. Just like us humans, in fact. And so now we have ants with autonomous intelligence, performing all their natural wonders independently of your God. This could be the beginning of a quiet revolution...

Neutron stars
DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

dhw: Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! Non-bad designs (e.g. the retina) have nothing to do with theodicy, which concerns “bad” in the sense of evil or harmful – as in your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed viruses and bacteria that cause untold suffering. Why do you guess they're beneficial? Why don’t you wait till you have “the full story”?

DAVID: Your view of God's 'bad actions' is a guess also. The history of such judgements is that with enough research they turn out wrong judgements of Gods action.

I do not regard it as a “guess” that there are viruses and bacteria which cause untold suffering, and the fact that the retina has proved to be a good design will not help me to understand how the untold suffering of millions might one day turn out to be “good”. But while you cling rigidly to the hope that somehow research will prove that your God not only designed all these bacteria and viruses, but also that they are beneficial to all those who have suffered and/or died, I am prepared to consider other “guesses”. In this case, that your God did NOT design the “bad” bacteria and viruses, but designed a mechanism whereby all organisms (just like ants) had the freedom to devise their own means of survival. Why must I wait for research before offering this possibility as a counter to your own guess?

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: […] I suggest that evolution IS continuous, as all species have branched out from earlier species. And I propose that the millions of years of the Cambrian would have sufficed for intelligent cell communities to produce all the new species that appeared in response to changing conditions. And I suggest it is unreasonable to expect a continuous fossil record of every organism’s evolutionary history over the last three thousand million years.

DAVID: So the enormous gap evidenced by the initial Cambrian organisms appearing over just 10 million years (previously presented here) doesn't bother you but plagued Darwin and also the current Darwinist's research to destroy the gap without any helpful results. Just your wishful thinking. Sacks of cells were so bright they invented the Trilobites with eyes, nerve cells and several different organ systems.

Firstly, you continue to contradict yourself by claiming that evolution is a continuous process but has gaps and your God invented all species de novo. Secondly, you claim that 10 million years is a short time. Sapiens has been around for approx 315,000 years – and in the last 70,000 years (and especially the last few thousand of these) has transformed the world. What has enabled these astonishing changes? Our intelligence. And where does this intelligence come from? All organisms are made up of cells. Ants are intelligent: they too can build cities. Some scientists are convinced that bacteria (single cells) are also intelligent. So yes indeed, sacks of cells over the vast period of ten million years could quite conceivably have invented new forms – not “de novo”, but based on earlier inventions, just as we humans build on the inventions of our predecessors. For example, the eye would not have been designed “de novo". Darwin: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated….” But he suspected that “nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound”. If you think they were all designed “de novo” within ten million years by an outside inventive intelligence (your God), why do you reject outright the possibility that the same God might have given his invention (cells) the intelligence to do its own designing and development of its own designs within the same vast period?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, May 31, 2021, 16:07 (1032 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

dhw: ... If the God-given mechanism for change is used autonomously, what “instructions” are you talking about? Straight question: Do the cells work out how and when to use the mechanism (= autonomous intelligence) or not?

DAVID: Placing methyl ions epigenetically in the DNA must follow instructions.

dhw: So let’s try to get a straight answer by using a different approach. Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place INDEPENDENTLY of your God.

Use of the existing epigenetic mechanism by the organism is independent of God.


Neutron stars
DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

dhw: Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! Non-bad designs (e.g. the retina) have nothing to do with theodicy, which concerns “bad” in the sense of evil or harmful – as in your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed viruses and bacteria that cause untold suffering. Why do you guess they're beneficial? Why don’t you wait till you have “the full story”?

DAVID: Your view of God's 'bad actions' is a guess also. The history of such judgements is that with enough research they turn out wrong judgements of Gods action.

dhw: I do not regard it as a “guess” that there are viruses and bacteria which cause untold suffering,...I am prepared to consider other “guesses”. In this case, that your God did NOT design the “bad” bacteria and viruses, but designed a mechanism whereby all organisms (just like ants) had the freedom to devise their own means of survival. Why must I wait for research before offering this possibility as a counter to your own guess?

So, you go back to to my God to solve the problem of what we humans presume is ultimately bad


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: […] I suggest that evolution IS continuous, as all species have branched out from earlier species. And I propose that the millions of years of the Cambrian would have sufficed for intelligent cell communities to produce all the new species that appeared in response to changing conditions. And I suggest it is unreasonable to expect a continuous fossil record of every organism’s evolutionary history over the last three thousand million years.

DAVID: So the enormous gap evidenced by the initial Cambrian organisms appearing over just 10 million years (previously presented here) doesn't bother you but plagued Darwin and also the current Darwinist's research to destroy the gap without any helpful results. Just your wishful thinking. Sacks of cells were so bright they invented the Trilobites with eyes, nerve cells and several different organ systems.

dhw: Firstly, you continue to contradict yourself by claiming that evolution is a continuous process but has gaps and your God invented all species de novo.

Of course evolution is continuous over time as God runs it.

dhw: Secondly, you claim that 10 million years is a short time. Sapiens has been around for approx 315,000 years – and in the last 70,000 years (and especially the last few thousand of these) has transformed the world. What has enabled these astonishing changes? Our intelligence. And where does this intelligence come from?

That is your problem, de novo appearance of our brain and mental capacity.

dhw: For example, the eye would not have been designed “de novo". Darwin: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated….” But he suspected that “nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound”. If you think they were all designed “de novo” within ten million years by an outside inventive intelligence (your God), why do you reject outright the possibility that the same God might have given his invention (cells) the intelligence to do its own designing and development of its own designs within the same vast period?

Secondhand design, as you wish is much more difficult than hands on. Would you ever have dictated a summary of a play plot and had your assistant produce the script? Again once again, you are using my God. I suggest your case is stronger if presenting naturally developed brilliant cells by some reasonable natural mechanism. The truth is you can't.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, June 01, 2021, 13:20 (1031 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
dhw: Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place INDEPENDENTLY of your God.

DAVID: Use of the existing epigenetic mechanism by the organism is independent of God.

Thank you. “Use of the existing mechanism” (possibly designed by God) entails processing information from outside, communication between cell communities, and a final decision on when, where and how to use it. Organisms do not “follow instructions” from God, so how can they possibly do all this without some form of autonomous intelligence?

Neutron stars
DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

dhw: Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! […] I am prepared to consider other “guesses”. In this case, that your God did NOT design the “bad” bacteria and viruses, but designed a mechanism whereby all organisms (just like ants) had the freedom to devise their own means of survival. […]

DAVID: So, you go back to my God to solve the problem of what we humans presume is ultimately bad.

What do you mean by “go back to my God”. We are talking about theodicy: why did your God create “bad” (evil or harmful, not poor design) if his “intentions are always good”? Your insistence that he deliberately designed murderous bacteria and viruses, and that he knows everything in advance, makes the problem even more acute! I offer you a different explanation of evil (that he wanted a free-for-all) – but you won’t even consider it.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Firstly, you continue to contradict yourself by claiming that evolution is a continuous process but has gaps and your God invented all species de novo.

DAVID: Of course evolution is continuous over time as God runs it.

How can it be continuous if speciation is de novo? Continuity requires common descent, not “de novo” speciation.

dhw: Secondly, you claim that 10 million years is a short time. Sapiens has been around for approx 315,000 years – and in the last 70,000 years (and especially the last few thousand of these) has transformed the world. What has enabled these astonishing changes? Our intelligence. And where does this intelligence come from? [David's bold]

DAVID: That is your problem, de novo appearance of our brain and mental capacity.

You have interrupted my argument. My proposed answer is cells, and if cells are intelligent, then ten million years is ample time for them to restructure themselves into new forms. I then challenged your insistence that these were created “ne novo” – i.e. without antecedents – and quoted Darwin:
dhw: […] he suspected that “nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound”. If you think they were all designed “de novo” within ten million years by an outside inventive intelligence (your God), why do you reject outright the possibility that the same God might have given his invention (cells) the intelligence to do its own designing and development of its own designs within the same vast period?

DAVID: Secondhand design, as you wish is much more difficult than hands on. Would you ever have dictated a summary of a play plot and had your assistant produce the script?

A poor analogy. I propose a free-for-all. If I want my actors to improvise, I don’t give them a script and tell them to learn the lines off by heart! What is your objection to your God wanting the ever changing, unpredictable bush that makes up life’s history?

DAVID: ...once again, you are using my God. I suggest your case is stronger if presenting naturally developed brilliant cells by some reasonable natural mechanism. The truth is you can't.

I’m not “using” your God, and we’re not discussing his existence. I’m challenging your illogical claims that evolution is continuous and has gaps, with all life forms being designed “de novo” (the opposite of common descent, which you claim to believe in), and that ten million years would not suffice for the production of all the new species that arose during the Cambrian.

Chaperones required
QUOTE: To reconcile the expanding proteomes, core chaperones have rather increased in cellular abundance and evolved to function cooperatively as a network [...]

DAVID: The design of the origin of life required correcting chaperones and cochaperones from the very beginning. Without arguing about a designer, the design creation had to have had knowledge aforehand of the impending problem a life based on proteins must have. Therefore a mechanism of chaperoning and cochaperoning exists. Natural events do not have foresight. A designer is required.

I shan’t argue about design, but you have no more idea than I have about what was present at the beginning. Yet again I don’t understand why you think solutions must always be present before a problem arises. How do you know your designer didn’t design the chaperones when he found out that a life based on proteins WAS CAUSING problems? You will probably say he knows everything and is always in total control. Maybe he doesn’t and isn’t. Maybe he learns as he goes along. And maybe that even underlies his whole motive for and process of creating life.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 01, 2021, 18:04 (1031 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: Use of the existing epigenetic mechanism by the organism is independent of God.

dhw: Organisms do not “follow instructions” from God, so how can they possibly do all this without some form of autonomous intelligence?

how do you know organisms do not follow genome instructions (I assume from God)


Neutron stars
DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

dhw: Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! […] I am prepared to consider other “guesses”. In this case, that your God did NOT design the “bad” bacteria and viruses, but designed a mechanism whereby all organisms (just like ants) had the freedom to devise their own means of survival. […]

DAVID: So, you go back to my God to solve the problem of what we humans presume is ultimately bad.

dhw: What do you mean by “go back to my God”.

The bolded above is back to God from you..

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Firstly, you continue to contradict yourself by claiming that evolution is a continuous process but has gaps and your God invented all species de novo.

DAVID: Of course evolution is continuous over time as God runs it.

dhw: How can it be continuous if speciation is de novo? Continuity requires common descent, not “de novo” speciation.

You make my point: de novo means God designs a big step as He guides evolution by design.

dhw: Secondly, you claim that 10 million years is a short time. Sapiens has been around for approx 315,000 years – and in the last 70,000 years (and especially the last few thousand of these) has transformed the world. What has enabled these astonishing changes? Our intelligence. And where does this intelligence come from? [David's bold]

DAVID: That is your problem, de novo appearance of our brain and mental capacity.

dhw: You have interrupted my argument...and quoted Darwin:
dhw: […] he suspected that “nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound”. If you think they were all designed “de novo” within ten million years by an outside inventive intelligence (your God), why do you reject outright the possibility that the same God might have given his invention (cells) the intelligence to do its own designing and development of its own designs within the same vast period?

Again you return to suggesting God gave them inventive capacities. Your God-lite approach.


DAVID: Secondhand design, as you wish is much more difficult than hands on. Would you ever have dictated a summary of a play plot and had your assistant produce the script?

dhw: A poor analogy. I propose a free-for-all. If I want my actors to improvise, I don’t give them a script and tell them to learn the lines off by heart! What is your objection to your God wanting the ever changing, unpredictable bush that makes up life’s history?

Because my God is purposeful and direct, not your namby-pamby wishy-washy humanized form.


DAVID: ...once again, you are using my God. I suggest your case is stronger if presenting naturally developed brilliant cells by some reasonable natural mechanism. The truth is you can't.

dhw: I’m challenging your illogical claims that evolution is continuous and has gaps, with all life forms being designed “de novo” (the opposite of common descent, which you claim to believe in), and that ten million years would not suffice for the production of all the new species that arose during the Cambrian.

The gaps prove the need for a designer. Without precursors to start a basic design.


Chaperones required
QUOTE: To reconcile the expanding proteomes, core chaperones have rather increased in cellular abundance and evolved to function cooperatively as a network [...]

DAVID: The design of the origin of life required correcting chaperones and cochaperones from the very beginning. Without arguing about a designer, the design creation had to have had knowledge aforehand of the impending problem a life based on proteins must have. Therefore a mechanism of chaperoning and cochaperoning exists. Natural events do not have foresight. A designer is required.

dhw: I shan’t argue about design, but you have no more idea than I have about what was present at the beginning. How do you know your designer didn’t design the chaperones when he found out that a life based on proteins WAS CAUSING problems? You will probably say he knows everything and is always in total control. Maybe he doesn’t and isn’t. Maybe he learns as he goes along. And maybe that even underlies his whole motive for and process of creating life.

You are again imagining a weak God without knowledge of living biochemistry. In that case, how did He start life?

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, June 02, 2021, 12:55 (1030 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
DAVID: Use of the existing epigenetic mechanism by the organism is independent of God.

dhw: Organisms do not “follow instructions” from God, so how can they possibly do all this without some form of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: how do you know organisms do not follow genome instructions (I assume from God)

I asked you which part of the adaptation process took place INDEPENDENTLY of your God, and you answered “use of the existing epigenetic mechanism”. You have now totally ignored the beginning of my response: “Use….entails processing information from outside, communication between cell communities, and a final decision on when, where and how to use it.” Those activities require intelligence. Now you are trying to tell me that “use of the existing mechanism” could be dependent on God’s instructions! Please don't backtrack.

The same process of intelligent use would apply to two more examples you have posted today:

Slime mold decisions: remembering food location
QUOTE: “Future research into a slime mold's ability to carry out complex tasks,” he says, “will require an examination of “molecular signaling, material properties and flow patterns of the cellular fluid regulating its behavior.

The ability to carry out complex tasks is normally a sign of some kind of intelligence, and of course this will be manifested through material properties.

Soft-bodied animal: superhard teeth
DAVID: The purpose is to scrape algae off rocks. Why something so hard? I doubt natural chance evolution helped this organism find such a rare mineral.

The quest for means of survival may well entail chance discoveries, but the ability to take advantage of such discoveries through self-adaptation would certainly not be a matter of chance. Unless you think these teeth were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled as part of "the goal of evolving [designing] humans", I suggest they are the product of autonomously intelligent use of an existing epigenetic mechanism (possibly designed by your God).

Neutron stars
DAVID: I'm not guessing. I believe God's intentions are always good. And history re God's 'bad designs' as perceived by humans supports me.

dhw: Of course you’re guessing. It’s a belief, not knowledge! […] I am prepared to consider other “guesses”. In this case, that your God did NOT design the “bad” bacteria and viruses, but designed a mechanism whereby all organisms (just like ants) had the freedom to devise their own means of survival. […]

DAVID: So, you go back to my God to solve the problem of what we humans presume is ultimately bad.

The subject here is theodicy - i.e. why did your God create evil? How do you discuss your God’s possible nature without mentioning God? Now perhaps you’ll consider the arguments.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Firstly, you continue to contradict yourself by claiming that evolution is a continuous process but has gaps and your God invented all species de novo.

DAVID: Of course evolution is continuous over time as God runs it.

dhw: How can it be continuous if speciation is de novo? Continuity requires common descent, not “de novo” speciation.

DAVID: You make my point: de novo means God designs a big step as He guides evolution by design.

De novo speciation means creating species that have no antecedent. How does that come to mean “continuity” and “common descent”?

dhw: Secondly, you claim that 10 million years is a short time. […] If you think [the new Cambrian species] were all designed “de novo” within ten million years by an outside inventive intelligence (your God), why do you reject outright the possibility that the same God might have given his invention (cells) the intelligence to do its own designing and development of its own designs within the same vast period?

DAVID: Again you return to suggesting God gave them inventive capacities. Your God-lite approach.

I am pointing out that cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) would make it perfectly feasible for new species to evolve during the vast period of ten million years. I am transferring the rest of this post to “A possible God’s possible purpose and nature”, as that is the place to deal with your term “God-lite”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 02, 2021, 14:56 (1030 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: how do you know organisms do not follow genome instructions (I assume from God)

dhw: I asked you which part of the adaptation process took place INDEPENDENTLY of your God, and you answered “use of the existing epigenetic mechanism”. You have now totally ignored the beginning of my response: “Use….entails processing information from outside, communication between cell communities, and a final decision on when, where and how to use it.” Those activities require intelligence. Now you are trying to tell me that “use of the existing mechanism” could be dependent on God’s instructions! Please don't backtrack.

I don't backtrack. You know I believe the plants automatically followed instructions, and I know and do not accept your view


dhw: The same process of intelligent use would apply to two more examples you have posted today:

Slime mold decisions: remembering food location
QUOTE: “Future research into a slime mold's ability to carry out complex tasks,” he says, “will require an examination of “molecular signaling, material properties and flow patterns of the cellular fluid regulating its behavior.

dhw: The ability to carry out complex tasks is normally a sign of some kind of intelligence, and of course this will be manifested through material properties.

Soft-bodied animal: superhard teeth
DAVID: The purpose is to scrape algae off rocks. Why something so hard? I doubt natural chance evolution helped this organism find such a rare mineral.

dhw: The quest for means of survival may well entail chance discoveries, but the ability to take advantage of such discoveries through self-adaptation would certainly not be a matter of chance. Unless you think these teeth were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled as part of "the goal of evolving [designing] humans", I suggest they are the product of autonomously intelligent use of an existing epigenetic mechanism (possibly designed by your God).

Repeat: "You know I believe the plants automatically followed instructions, and I know and do not accept your view"


Neutron stars

dhw: In this case, that your God did NOT design the “bad” bacteria and viruses, but designed a mechanism whereby all organisms (just like ants) had the freedom to devise their own means of survival. […]

DAVID: So, you go back to my God to solve the problem of what we humans presume is ultimately bad.

dhw: The subject here is theodicy - i.e. why did your God create evil? How do you discuss your God’s possible nature without mentioning God? Now perhaps you’ll consider the arguments.

You've restated your opinion, so I restated mine. Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to make very complex adjustments instead of simply following instructions from God.


Clear evidence of common descent

dhw: How can it be continuous if speciation is de novo? Continuity requires common descent, not “de novo” speciation.

DAVID: You make my point: de novo means God designs a big step as He guides evolution by design.

dhw: De novo speciation means creating species that have no antecedent. How does that come to mean “continuity” and “common descent”?

God designs evolutionary advances. God's control is a part of my view of the continuity.


dhw: Secondly, you claim that 10 million years is a short time. […] If you think [the new Cambrian species] were all designed “de novo” within ten million years by an outside inventive intelligence (your God), why do you reject outright the possibility that the same God might have given his invention (cells) the intelligence to do its own designing and development of its own designs within the same vast period?

DAVID: Again you return to suggesting God gave them inventive capacities. Your God-lite approach.

dhw: I am pointing out that cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) would make it perfectly feasible for new species to evolve during the vast period of ten million years. I am transferring the rest of this post to “A possible God’s possible purpose and nature”, as that is the place to deal with your term “God-lite”.

Just the same disagreement

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, June 03, 2021, 12:07 (1029 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants

(dhw's bolds)

29th May
DAVID: God designed epigenetic mechanism into organisms. The organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes.

31st May
dhw: Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place INDEPENDENTLY of your God.

DAVID: Use of the existing epigenetic mechanism by the organism is independent of God

1st June
dhw: Thank you. “Use of the existing mechanism” entails processing the information from outside [etc.].The organisms do not “follow instructions” from God, so how can they possibly do all this without some form of autonomous intelligence?

DAVID: how do you know organisms do not follow genome instructions (I assume from God)

2nd June
dhw: Now you are trying to tell me that “use of the existing mechanism” could be dependent on God’s instructions. Please don’t backtrack!

DAVID: I don't backtrack. You know I believe the plants automatically followed instructions, and I know and do not accept your view.

So let’s start again: please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place independently of your God.

Neutron stars
DAVID: Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to make very complex adjustments instead of simply following instructions from God.

Because I am examining different theories concerning the history of life and evolution, and concerning the purpose, methods and nature of God, if he exists. I have examined your illogical theory of evolution (your God’s only purpose is humans plus food supply, and so he specially designs millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which have no connection with humans) and your non-theory of theodicy (God always has good intentions, and let’s hope future research will explain why he specially designed murderous viruses and bacteria), and find both of them unsatisfactory. I have come up with various theistic alternatives to your illogical theory and your non-theory, and one of them is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own methods of survival. Your only objection to this is that it creates a different “humanized” image of God from the “humanized” image you yourself have of him. As for “importance”, I opened this website and you joined it because both of us are fascinated by all the subjects we deal with.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: De novo speciation means creating species that have no antecedent. How does that come to mean “continuity” and “common descent”?

DAVID: God designs evolutionary advances. God's control is a part of my view of the continuity.

Evolutionary continuity would be one species developing directly from another. De novo creation of species is the opposite of continuity.

David’s theory of evolution
DAVID: There is no question foresight is involved in this design. We know cells have a specific life span and must die around other living cells. Living cells and disposal of dying cells must be simultaneously part of the original design. Note dhw denies foresight is in evidence in evolutionary processes. That might support God exists.

Our discussions on evolution do not concern the existence of God, since my proposals allow for his existence as the designer of the original cells. My objections to the “foresight” argument do not relate to the original cells – clearly they must already have had the ability to reproduce and to change their own structures in the future, and I am not so arrogant as to assume there were not other aspects of what you call ”foresight” incorporated into the original design. What I object to is your blanket assumption that every single innovation and every single solution to every single problem of survival throughout the history of evolution was planned or dabbled in advance (thanks to your God’s “foresight”), even to the extent that whales only entered the water after your God had turned their legs into flippers, and bacteria were given instructions on how to fight every new threat to their existence. (Also see above, under “Fungi…”)

Immune complexity
DAVID: Having liquid and more solid phases to pinpoint usable areas in DNA is an extremely clever clever design, as cells in general do this in multiple ways making wall-less organelles in the body of the cell by liquid or solid phase transitions isolating manufacturing processes to very specific regions. To twist an old saying 'cleverless is equal to Godliness'. :-)

The complexity of the cell is indeed mind-boggling, and the whole argument for design is a vital argument against atheism. I also have reasons for objecting to theism , which is why I remain agnostic,

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 03, 2021, 17:43 (1029 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: You know I believe the plants automatically followed instructions, and I know and do not accept your view.

dhw: So let’s start again: please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place independently of your God.

God supplies the simple adaptation mechanisms and the organism itself decides to use when stimulated by a change.


Neutron stars
DAVID: Why is it so important to you that God allows organisms to make very complex adjustments instead of simply following instructions from God.

dhw: Because I am examining different theories concerning the history of life and evolution, and concerning the purpose, methods and nature of God, if he exists. I have examined your illogical theory of evolution (your God’s only purpose is humans plus food supply, and so he specially designs millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which have no connection with humans) and your non-theory of theodicy (God always has good intentions, and let’s hope future research will explain why he specially designed murderous viruses and bacteria), and find both of them unsatisfactory. I have come up with various theistic alternatives to your illogical theory and your non-theory, and one of them is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own methods of survival. Your only objection to this is that it creates a different “humanized” image of God from the “humanized” image you yourself have of him. As for “importance”, I opened this website and you joined it because both of us are fascinated by all the subjects we deal with.

Your same explanation. Essentially you view your God as not being in full control as I see He is. Not logical positions, but each of us views God differently. Your calling my theories illogical, while I point out to you your theories are logical based on the personality of your God shows you ignore my personalization of God fits my theories. I don't ignore your approach, so why do you ignore mine?


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: De novo speciation means creating species that have no antecedent. How does that come to mean “continuity” and “common descent”?

DAVID: God designs evolutionary advances. God's control is a part of my view of the continuity.

dhw: Evolutionary continuity would be one species developing directly from another. De novo creation of species is the opposite of continuity.

Which makes a designer God necessary. You make my point.


David’s theory of evolution
DAVID: There is no question foresight is involved in this design. We know cells have a specific life span and must die around other living cells. Living cells and disposal of dying cells must be simultaneously part of the original design. Note dhw denies foresight is in evidence in evolutionary processes. That might support God exists.

dhw: Our discussions on evolution do not concern the existence of God, since my proposals allow for his existence as the designer of the original cells. My objections to the “foresight” argument do not relate to the original cells – clearly they must already have had the ability to reproduce and to change their own structures in the future, and I am not so arrogant as to assume there were not other aspects of what you call ”foresight” incorporated into the original design. What I object to is your blanket assumption that every single innovation and every single solution to every single problem of survival throughout the history of evolution was planned or dabbled in advance (thanks to your God’s “foresight”), even to the extent that whales only entered the water after your God had turned their legs into flippers, and bacteria were given instructions on how to fight every new threat to their existence. (Also see above, under “Fungi…”)

Our evolution discussion must include God as I consider Him the designer of evolution.


Immune complexity
DAVID: Having liquid and more solid phases to pinpoint usable areas in DNA is an extremely clever clever design, as cells in general do this in multiple ways making wall-less organelles in the body of the cell by liquid or solid phase transitions isolating manufacturing processes to very specific regions. To twist an old saying 'cleverless is equal to Godliness'. :-)

dhw: The complexity of the cell is indeed mind-boggling, and the whole argument for design is a vital argument against atheism. I also have reasons for objecting to theism , which is why I remain agnostic,

Fine.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, June 04, 2021, 10:43 (1028 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants

DAVID (29th May): God designed epigenetic mechanism into organisms. The organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes.

DAVID: (2nd June): You know I believe the plants automatically followed instructions, and I know and do not accept your view.

dhw: So let’s start again: please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place independently of your God.

DAVID: God supplies the simple adaptation mechanisms and the organism itself decides to use when stimulated by a change.

Thank you. We are back where we started: adaptation entails processing the information coming from outside, communication between the cell communities, and then taking the decision on how the existing mechanism is to be used. All of these phases require some form of intelligence, and since the use of the existing mechanism takes place independently of your God, it can therefore only be guided by the intelligence of the cells themselves.

Neutron stars
dhw: […] I have come up with various theistic alternatives to your illogical theory [of evolution] and your non-theory [of theodicy], and one of them is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own methods of survival. Your only objection to this is that it creates a different “humanized” image of God from the “humanized” image you yourself have of him. (…)

DAVID: Your same explanation. Essentially you view your God as not being in full control as I see He is. Not logical positions, but each of us views God differently.

“Not being in full control” sounds like a criticism of your God, whereas this particular theory has him CHOOSING not to be in control, precisely as you believe he CHOSE not to control human behaviour, by giving us free will.

DAVID: Your calling my theories illogical, while I point out to you your theories are logical based on the personality of your God shows you ignore my personalization of God fits my theories.

Your personalization of God offers no explanation at all for theodicy, and continues to gloss over the illogical aspects of your theory of evolution: if your purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food supply, why did he individually (de novo) design millions of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans? We had agreed to drop this subject, since you have no explanation, but back you come with your claim that it is logical!

DAVID: I don't ignore your approach, so why do you ignore mine?

I have spent months (possibly even years) trying to get you to explain the logic behind your approach. Your basic technique has always been to dodge the issue, except when you agree that you have no idea why he would use such a method to achieve such a purpose.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: De novo speciation means creating species that have no antecedent. How does that come to mean “continuity” and “common descent”?

DAVID: God designs evolutionary advances. God's control is a part of my view of the continuity.

dhw: Evolutionary continuity would be one species developing directly from another. De novo creation of species is the opposite of continuity.

DAVID: Which makes a designer God necessary. You make my point.

So according to you, evolution is a continuous process, and your point is that God is necessary because evolution is not a continuous process – species are created de novo. To recap: I propose that evolution is continuous in the sense that all species evolve from existing species. However, it is NOT one single continuous process from bacteria to humans, but thousands and thousands of continuous processes as the bush of life expands into branches that have no connection with one another. The line from bacteria to humans is just one of these countless branches.

David’s theory of evolution
dhw: What I object to is your blanket assumption that every single innovation and every single solution to every single problem of survival throughout the history of evolution was planned or dabbled in advance (thanks to your God’s “foresight”), even to the extent that whales only entered the water after your God had turned their legs into flippers [etc.]

DAVID: Our evolution discussion must include God as I consider Him the designer of evolution.

All our discussions include God. I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. But that does not mean all our discussions must end in agreement that God planned or dabbled every innovation and solution in advance, e.g. by turning legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water.

Error Correction
QUOTES: “The same process by which those proof-correcting proteins can cut and paste DNA is precisely what enables genes to be influenced by the organism and its environment.”

"Living systems are organised at many nesting levels, from molecules to cells to organs and the whole organism. Each level influences the processes occurring at molecular levels.”

This is what I mean when I refer to an organism as being a community of cell communities which communicate with one another and interact as they respond to the environment.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, June 04, 2021, 15:45 (1028 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: God supplies the simple adaptation mechanisms and the organism itself decides to use when stimulated by a change.


dhw: Thank you. We are back where we started: adaptation entails processing the information coming from outside, communication between the cell communities, and then taking the decision on how the existing mechanism is to be used. All of these phases require some form of intelligence, and since the use of the existing mechanism takes place independently of your God, it can therefore only be guided by the intelligence of the cells themselves.

My view is it more like an algorithm. With this stimulation use that solution.


Neutron stars

DAVID: Your calling my theories illogical, while I point out to you your theories are logical based on the personality of your God shows you ignore my personalization of God fits my theories.

dhw: Your personalization of God offers no explanation at all for theodicy, and continues to gloss over the illogical aspects of your theory of evolution: if your purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food supply, why did he individually (de novo) design millions of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans? We had agreed to drop this subject, since you have no explanation, but back you come with your claim that it is logical!

Why won't you even accept our views of God are so different, my theories fit my God as I see him? I find your God theories logical only if I accept your totally illogical view of God, which I don't.

Clear evidence of common descent

dhw: Evolutionary continuity would be one species developing directly from another. De novo creation of species is the opposite of continuity.

DAVID: Which makes a designer God necessary. You make my point.

dhw: So according to you, evolution is a continuous process, and your point is that God is necessary because evolution is not a continuous process – species are created de novo. To recap: I propose that evolution is continuous in the sense that all species evolve from existing species. However, it is NOT one single continuous process from bacteria to humans, but thousands and thousands of continuous processes as the bush of life expands into branches that have no connection with one another. The line from bacteria to humans is just one of these countless branches.

I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.


Error Correction
QUOTES: “The same process by which those proof-correcting proteins can cut and paste DNA is precisely what enables genes to be influenced by the organism and its environment.”

"Living systems are organised at many nesting levels, from molecules to cells to organs and the whole organism. Each level influences the processes occurring at molecular levels.”

dhw: This is what I mean when I refer to an organism as being a community of cell communities which communicate with one another and interact as they respond to the environment.

And my point in the presentation is ignored: "Comment: The error control system had to be present when DNA appeared or we would not be here. The first paragraphs show this." Why?

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, June 05, 2021, 14:19 (1027 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
dhw: Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place independently of your God.

DAVID: God supplies the simple adaptation mechanisms and the organism itself decides to use when stimulated by a change.

dhw: Thank you. We are back where we started: adaptation entails processing the information coming from outside, communication between the cell communities, and then taking the decision on how the existing mechanism is to be used. All of these phases require some form of intelligence, and since the use of the existing mechanism takes place independently of your God, it can therefore only be guided by the intelligence of the cells themselves.

DAVID: My view is it more like an algorithm. With this stimulation use that solution.

This means your God has provided all organisms with a list of every single problem they will encounter for the rest of time, plus every single solution to every problem. It’s not clear from your post whether he also tells them which solution to choose (= no independence whatsoever), or they have to go through the whole list and pick the one that fits, by which time they’ll probably be dead anyway. I prefer your first answer: your God provides the mechanism, and they decide how to use it – which entails all the intelligent processes I have listed.

Neutron stars
DAVID: Your calling my theories illogical, while I point out to you your theories are logical based on the personality of your God shows you ignore my personalization of God fits my theories.

dhw: Your personalization of God offers no explanation at all for theodicy, and continues to gloss over the illogical aspects of your theory of evolution: if your purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food supply, why did he individually (de novo) design millions of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans? We had agreed to drop this subject, since you have no explanation, but back you come with your claim that it is logical!
You continue to do so throughout this and the other posts. For brevity;s sake, I shall simply refer each time to SEE BOLDED THEORY.


DAVID: Why won't you even accept our views of God are so different, my theories fit my God as I see him? I find your God theories logical only if I accept your totally illogical view of God, which I don't.

SEE BOLDED THEORY for how your God does NOT fit your theory. I have offered different views of God to explain different possible purposes. Please tell me what is “illogical” in God as an experimental scientist, as a creator who enjoys creating, or as the inventor of a mechanism enabling his creations to make their own decisions. You have agreed that all these views fit in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Evolutionary continuity would be one species developing directly from another. De novo creation of species is the opposite of continuity.

DAVID: Which makes a designer God necessary. You make my point.

dhw: So according to you, evolution is a continuous process, and your point is that God is necessary because evolution is not a continuous process – species are created de novo. To recap: I propose that evolution is continuous in the sense that all species evolve from existing species. However, it is NOT one single continuous process from bacteria to humans, but thousands and thousands of continuous processes as the bush of life expands into branches that have no connection with one another. The line from bacteria to humans is just one of these countless branches.

DAVID: I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.

We both agree that the history is a bush of life with countless branches. I have no problem with the proposal that your God designed it that way. The difference between us is…SEE BOLDED THEORY. And while I believe in the continuity of common descent, i.e. all species (except the very first cells) descending from earlier species, you believe your God created each one de novo, and for you this constitutes continuity.

Error Correction
QUOTES: “The same process by which those proof-correcting proteins can cut and paste DNA is precisely what enables genes to be influenced by the organism and its environment.”
"Living systems are organised at many nesting levels, from molecules to cells to organs and the whole organism. Each level influences the processes occurring at molecular levels.

dhw: This is what I mean when I refer to an organism as being a community of cell communities which communicate with one another and interact as they respond to the environment.

DAVID: And my point in the presentation is ignored: "Comment: The error control system had to be present when DNA appeared or we would not be here. The first paragraphs show this." Why?

Sorry. I have no objections to this. As I wrote the previous day: “My objections to the “foresight” argument do not relate to the original cells – clearly they must already have had the ability to reproduce and to change their own structure in the future, and I am not so arrogant as to assume that there were not other aspects of what you call “foresight” incorporated into the original design.” I should have repeated this.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 05, 2021, 14:38 (1027 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants
dhw: Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place independently of your God.

DAVID: My view is it more like an algorithm. With this stimulation use that solution.

dhw: This means your God has provided all organisms with a list of every single problem they will encounter for the rest of time, plus every single solution to every problem. It’s not clear from your post whether he also tells them which solution to choose (= no independence whatsoever), or they have to go through the whole list and pick the one that fits, by which time they’ll probably be dead anyway. I prefer your first answer: your God provides the mechanism, and they decide how to use it – which entails all the intelligent processes I have listed.

The differing stimuli for plants is quite small: hot, cold, wet, dry , sun direction, bugs nibbling, fungi on roots helping. Your mountain is a molehill


Neutron stars

DAVID: Why won't you even accept our views of God are so different, my theories fit my God as I see him? I find your God theories logical only if I accept your totally illogical view of God, which I don't.

dhw: SEE BOLDED THEORY for how your God does NOT fit your theory. I have offered different views of God to explain different possible purposes. Please tell me what is “illogical” in God as an experimental scientist, as a creator who enjoys creating, or as the inventor of a mechanism enabling his creations to make their own decisions. You have agreed that all these views fit in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

You have again given your personal view of God's personality which I reject. My statement above stands. Stop.


Clear evidence of common descent

DAVID: I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.

dhw: We both agree that the history is a bush of life with countless branches. I have no problem with the proposal that your God designed it that way. The difference between us is…SEE BOLDED THEORY. And while I believe in the continuity of common descent, i.e. all species (except the very first cells) descending from earlier species, you believe your God created each one de novo, and for you this constitutes continuity.

God makes it continuous.


Error Correction
QUOTES: “The same process by which those proof-correcting proteins can cut and paste DNA is precisely what enables genes to be influenced by the organism and its environment.”
"Living systems are organised at many nesting levels, from molecules to cells to organs and the whole organism. Each level influences the processes occurring at molecular levels.

dhw: This is what I mean when I refer to an organism as being a community of cell communities which communicate with one another and interact as they respond to the environment.

DAVID: And my point in the presentation is ignored: "Comment: The error control system had to be present when DNA appeared or we would not be here. The first paragraphs show this." Why?

dhw: Sorry. I have no objections to this. As I wrote the previous day: “My objections to the “foresight” argument do not relate to the original cells – clearly they must already have had the ability to reproduce and to change their own structure in the future, and I am not so arrogant as to assume that there were not other aspects of what you call “foresight” incorporated into the original design.” I should have repeated this.

Thank you.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, June 06, 2021, 09:23 (1026 days ago) @ David Turell

Fungi helped plants
dhw: Please tell us which part of the adaptation process takes place independently of your God.

DAVID: My view is it more like an algorithm. With this stimulation use that solution.

dhw: This means your God has provided all organisms with a list of every single problem they will encounter for the rest of time, plus every single solution to every problem. It’s not clear from your post whether he also tells them which solution to choose (= no independence whatsoever), or they have to go through the whole list and pick the one that fits, by which time they’ll probably be dead anyway. I prefer your first answer: your God provides the mechanism, and they decide how to use it – which entails all the intelligent processes I have listed.

DAVID: The differing stimuli for plants is quite small: hot, cold, wet, dry , sun direction, bugs nibbling, fungi on roots helping. Your mountain is a molehill.

I am proposing that adaptation by plants and animals and even bacteria follows the same procedure: the cells make changes to cope with (or exploit) the new conditions. The different stimuli (including both dangers and opportunities) and the different problems have been changing through the 3.8 thousand million years of life’s history. According to you, the “molehills” become mountains if cells have to cope with or exploit them on their own – only your God can dabble or preprogramme the changes: even for minor changes he now has to provide an “algorithm” covering every eventuality! Why don’t you stick to your original, perfectly straightforward agreement that your God provided the mechanisms for change and “the organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes”? Independence does not mean obeying instructions or choosing the right answer from a list of possible answers provided by your God. Finally, do you agree that the processing of information, intercommunication and decision-making are signs of intelligence?

Clear evidence of common descent
DAVID: I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.

dhw: We both agree that the history is a bush of life with countless branches. I have no problem with the proposal that your God designed it that way. The difference between us is…SEE BOLDED THEORY. [Your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he individually designed millions of life forms, ecosystems, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans). And while I believe in the continuity of common descent, i.e. all species (except the very first cells) descending from earlier species, you believe your God created each one de novo, and for you this constitutes continuity.

DAVID: God makes it continuous.

How can it be continuous if he created every species de novo?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 06, 2021, 15:34 (1026 days ago) @ dhw

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: The differing stimuli for plants is quite small: hot, cold, wet, dry , sun direction, bugs nibbling, fungi on roots helping. Your mountain is a molehill.

dhw: I am proposing that adaptation by plants and animals and even bacteria follows the same procedure: the cells make changes to cope with (or exploit) the new conditions. The different stimuli (including both dangers and opportunities) and the different problems have been changing through the 3.8 thousand million years of life’s history. According to you, the “molehills” become mountains if cells have to cope with or exploit them on their own – only your God can dabble or preprogramme the changes: even for minor changes he now has to provide an “algorithm” covering every eventuality! Why don’t you stick to your original, perfectly straightforward agreement that your God provided the mechanisms for change and “the organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes”? Independence does not mean obeying instructions or choosing the right answer from a list of possible answers provided by your God. Finally, do you agree that the processing of information, intercommunication and decision-making are signs of intelligence?

I admit if one looks at all 3.8 billion years of God's evolution mountains as in the Cambrian Explosion, which, by the way, bothered Darwin more than you. And I'll stick by my theory that God: "provided the mechanisms for change and “the organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes." I'm discussion the molehill daily changes and minor epigenetic alterations. You are attempting to change the purview of the discussion too all of evolution. Didn't work. Plants act intelligently by following God's instructions, all previously discussed.


Clear evidence of common descent
DAVID: I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.

dhw: We both agree that the history is a bush of life with countless branches. I have no problem with the proposal that your God designed it that way. The difference between us is…SEE BOLDED THEORY. [Your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he individually designed millions of life forms, ecosystems, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans). And while I believe in the continuity of common descent, i.e. all species (except the very first cells) descending from earlier species, you believe your God created each one de novo, and for you this constitutes continuity.

DAVID: God makes it continuous.

dhw: How can it be continuous if he created every species de novo?

You make my point and strangely don't recognize that. Evolution is/was a continuous process because God designed the gap jumps.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, June 07, 2021, 08:44 (1025 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The differing stimuli for plants is quite small: hot, cold, wet, dry , sun direction, bugs nibbling, fungi on roots helping. Your mountain is a molehill.

dhw: I am proposing that adaptation by plants and animals and even bacteria follows the same procedure: the cells make changes to cope with (or exploit) the new conditions. The different stimuli (including both dangers and opportunities) and the different problems have been changing through the 3.8 thousand million years of life’s history. According to you, the “molehills” become mountains if cells have to cope with or exploit them on their own – only your God can dabble or preprogramme the changes: even for minor changes he now has to provide an “algorithm” covering every eventuality! Why don’t you stick to your original, perfectly straightforward agreement that your God provided the mechanisms for change and “the organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes”? Independence does not mean obeying instructions or choosing the right answer from a list of possible answers provided by your God. Finally, do you agree that the processing of information, intercommunication and decision-making are signs of intelligence?

DAVID: I admit if one looks at all 3.8 billion years of God's evolution mountains as in the Cambrian Explosion, which, by the way, bothered Darwin more than you.

What do you admit? Hopefully, that it is going a bit too far to propose “algorithms” that will cover every eventuality throughout the history of life, whether programmed 3.8 billion years ago or individually dabbled as your God inserted his multi-choice questionnaire as and when needed. Yes, the Cambrian bothered Darwin more than me because when he wrote in later editions that “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one”, it never occurred to him that one of the powers might be the autonomous intelligence of cells/cell communities to process information, communicate with one another, and take decisions as to how and when to use that intelligence.

DAVID: And I'll stick by my theory that God: "provided the mechanisms for change and “the organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes." I'm discussion the molehill daily changes and minor epigenetic alterations. You are attempting to change the purview of the discussion too all of evolution. Didn't work. Plants act intelligently by following God's instructions, all previously discussed.

I am pointing out that if organisms (not just plants but all forms of life) have the autonomous intelligence to create minor adaptations, it is possible that they can do the same with major changes. Nobody knows how speciation occurs, and the only alternative you can offer to this and to Darwin’s random mutations is your full programme of “algorithms” or instructions provided by your God to cover the whole of the past, present and future. But do please tell us what you “admit”, and for good measure, please tell us whether you do or don’t regard processing of information, communication and decision-making as signs of autonomous intelligence.

Clear evidence of common descent
DAVID: I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.

dhw: We both agree that the history is a bush of life with countless branches. I have no problem with the proposal that your God designed it that way. The difference between us is…SEE BOLDED THEORY. [Your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he individually designed millions of life forms, ecosystems, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans.] And while I believe in the continuity of common descent, i.e. all species (except the very first cells) descending from earlier species, you believe your God created each one de novo, and for you this constitutes continuity.

DAVID: God makes it continuous.

dhw: How can it be continuous if he created every species de novo?

DAVID: You make my point and strangely don't recognize that. Evolution is/was a continuous process because God designed the gap jumps.

Yes, let’s skip the bolded theory again. As for continuity, the only form of it that you are offering is that the same maker made every species. The actual history of evolution, according to you, is one jump after another. As you readily agreed some time ago, the brontosaurus has no direction connection to humans. Without connection there is no continuity. Compare that to common descent, in which every life form is descended from an antecedent. There you have the connection that provides continuity. We should not forget that the reason for your insistence on “continuity” is your desperate attempt to prove that all life forms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. (Otherwise why have you raised the subject?) I’m sorry, but even your definition of continuity does not explain why he designed the brontosaurus in order to design you and me.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, June 07, 2021, 15:17 (1025 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I admit if one looks at all 3.8 billion years of God's evolution mountains as in the Cambrian Explosion, which, by the way, bothered Darwin more than you.

dhw: What do you admit? Hopefully, that it is going a bit too far to propose “algorithms” that will cover every eventuality throughout the history of life, whether programmed 3.8 billion years ago or individually dabbled as your God inserted his multi-choice questionnaire as and when needed. Yes, the Cambrian bothered Darwin more than me because when he wrote in later editions that “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one”, it never occurred to him that one of the powers might be the autonomous intelligence of cells/cell communities to process information, communicate with one another, and take decisions as to how and when to use that intelligence.

I view cell intelligence as cells following God's DNA instructions which include how to decode the instructions.


DAVID: And I'll stick by my theory that God: "provided the mechanisms for change and “the organisms then use them independently as minor adaptations are required by changes." I'm discussion the molehill daily changes and minor epigenetic alterations. You are attempting to change the purview of the discussion too all of evolution. Didn't work. Plants act intelligently by following God's instructions, all previously discussed.

dhw: I am pointing out that if organisms (not just plants but all forms of life) have the autonomous intelligence to create minor adaptations, it is possible that they can do the same with major changes. Nobody knows how speciation occurs, and the only alternative you can offer to this and to Darwin’s random mutations is your full programme of “algorithms” or instructions provided by your God to cover the whole of the past, present and future. But do please tell us what you “admit”, and for good measure, please tell us whether you do or don’t regard processing of information, communication and decision-making as signs of autonomous intelligence.

The bold is your overarching cell intelligence theory based on the agreed-upon appearance of cell intelligence from all the cell activity we observe from the outside, but could come from God's instructions inside, based on a 50/50 probability I originally offered. I'm on the God side of the slash mark and you on the no-God side.


Clear evidence of common descent
DAVID: I explain evolution as the work of God. You describe its appearance as history.

dhw: We both agree that the history is a bush of life with countless branches. I have no problem with the proposal that your God designed it that way. The difference between us is…SEE BOLDED THEORY. [Your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he individually designed millions of life forms, ecosystems, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans.] And while I believe in the continuity of common descent, i.e. all species (except the very first cells) descending from earlier species, you believe your God created each one de novo, and for you this constitutes continuity.

DAVID: God makes it continuous.

dhw: How can it be continuous if he created every species de novo?

DAVID: You make my point and strangely don't recognize that. Evolution is/was a continuous process because God designed the gap jumps.

dhw: Yes, let’s skip the bolded theory again. As for continuity, the only form of it that you are offering is that the same maker made every species. The actual history of evolution, according to you, is one jump after another.

The bold is Darwinist Gould's original observation, not mine.

dhw: As you readily agreed some time ago, the brontosaurus has no direction connection to humans. Without connection there is no continuity. Compare that to common descent, in which every life form is descended from an antecedent. There you have the connection that provides continuity. We should not forget that the reason for your insistence on “continuity” is your desperate attempt to prove that all life forms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. (Otherwise why have you raised the subject?) I’m sorry, but even your definition of continuity does not explain why he designed the brontosaurus in order to design you and me.

Unfortunately you've lost the fact that the complexity in evolution builds in stages from the past. Bronto is now the lizards and lizard-like organisms that fill a portion of the ecosystems that feed the other existing organisms. God ("the same maker")supplies the continuity. I do not accept Darwin's common descent, I accept Gould's.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, June 08, 2021, 13:15 (1024 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I admit if one looks at all 3.8 billion years of God's evolution mountains as in the Cambrian Explosion, which, by the way, bothered Darwin more than you.

dhw: What do you admit?

DAVID: I view cell intelligence as cells following God's DNA instructions which include how to decode the instructions.

You have now disowned your earlier statement that organisms use your God’s mechanisms INDEPENDENTLY for minor adaptations. You refuse to say whether independent processing of information, communication and decision-making are or are not signs of intelligence, and after my questions about 3.8 billion years’ worth of “algorithms” to cover every single eventuality past, present and future, you began with “I admit…” but won’t say what you admit.

dhw: I am pointing out that if organisms (not just plants but all forms of life) have the autonomous intelligence to create minor adaptations, it is possible that they can do the same with major changes.

DAVID: The bold is your overarching cell intelligence theory based on the agreed-upon appearance of cell intelligence from all the cell activity we observe from the outside […]

Correct. It was agreed upon but now you’ve backtracked.

DAVID: […] but could come from God's instructions inside, based on a 50/50 probability I originally offered. I'm on the God side of the slash mark and you on the no-God side.

You did not offer 50/50 when you agreed that organisms acted INDEPENDENTLY when they used the God-given mechanism. I am not on the no-God side. I allow for your God as the inventor of cellular intelligence. What I oppose, in case you’ve forgotten, is the claim that your God individually preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the history of life – and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: As for continuity, the only form of it that you are offering is that the same maker made every species. The actual history of evolution, according to you, is one jump after another.

DAVID: The bold is Darwinist Gould's original observation, not mine.

You continually talk about the gaps between species (there is no fossil record), and try to use them as evidence that only God could have designed the new organs/organisms. “De novo” entails a jump, not a continuation!

dhw: [...]We should not forget that the reason for your insistence on “continuity” is your desperate attempt to prove that all life forms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”. (Otherwise why have you raised the subject?) I’m sorry, but even your definition of continuity does not explain why he designed the brontosaurus in order to design you and me.

DAVID: Unfortunately you've lost the fact that the complexity in evolution builds in stages from the past. Bronto is now the lizards and lizard-like organisms that fill a portion of the ecosystems that feed the other existing organisms. God ("the same maker") supplies the continuity. I do not accept Darwin's common descent, I accept Gould's.

I didn’t know Gould was a proponent of Creationism, and he certainly didn’t know it either. Was he deluding himself when he said he was an atheist? All organisms either feed on or are fed on by other organisms. That does not mean that all organisms were specially designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to produce humans.

Complexity of connections
" “The entire data set we produced is a cubic millimetre, which is usually one pixel in an MRI scan,” he says. “It’s interesting to uncover all the stuff under the hood of one pixel of an MRI.” (David’s bold)

And indeed it’s astonishing to think of all the stuff contained in a couple of hundred nanometres (the size of some bacteria), and if one considers the intelligence shown by even these tiniest organisms, imagine how over thousands of millions of years, tiny cells might combine in their billions to create all kinds of living things, from plants and funguses all the way through to elephants, whales and human beings.

Evolution of the universe
DAVID: The universe had to evolve just as life did when the universe reached a point of fine-tuning to allow life. dhw with his human brain attempts to question God's reasons for a universe that looks like ours does. It allows him to question God's existence. We may never find all of God's reasons. That doesn't cause Him to disappear, does it?

Your usual desperate attempt to divert attention from your illogical theories by pretending that I am trying to get rid of God. I AM AN AGNOSTIC. I query your illogical theory of evolution, and I offer alternative THEISTIC theories. My reasons for not embracing theism have nothing to do with these discussions.

Hippocampal connections” And also “another helper molecule
DAVID: When such an exact functioning molecule is found, repelling and attracting, I always wonder how chance evolution found it. There is no such thing as natural evolution.

I agree that chance evolution could not have organized these complexities, and I do NOT reject the idea of God as the designer. But that does not preclude his design of a cellular intelligence which would enable life forms to evolve autonomously.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 08, 2021, 15:54 (1024 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have now disowned your earlier statement that organisms use your God’s mechanisms INDEPENDENTLY for minor adaptations. You refuse to say whether independent processing of information, communication and decision-making are or are not signs of intelligence, and after my questions about 3.8 billion years’ worth of “algorithms” to cover every single eventuality past, present and future, you began with “I admit…” but won’t say what you admit.

I used 'I admit' as an introductory colloquial phase to a discussion of mountain and molehills of evolutionary adaptations. The only independent-of-God decisions by organisms are the decision to activate/use God's instructions in DNA


dhw: I am pointing out that if organisms (not just plants but all forms of life) have the autonomous intelligence to create minor adaptations, it is possible that they can do the same with major changes.

DAVID: The bold is your overarching cell intelligence theory based on the agreed-upon appearance of cell intelligence from all the cell activity we observe from the outside […]

Cdhw: orrect. It was agreed upon but now you’ve backtracked.

DAVID: […] but could come from God's instructions inside, based on a 50/50 probability I originally offered. I'm on the God side of the slash mark and you on the no-God side.

dhw: You did not offer 50/50 when you agreed that organisms acted INDEPENDENTLY when they used the God-given mechanism.

You should remember my prime positions

dhw: in case you’ve forgotten, is the claim that your God individually preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the history of life – and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”

I never forget that illogical position. If God created the universe and life, why shouldn't He be allowed to run evolution? Your God is god-like now and then.


Clear evidence of common descent

dhw: You continually talk about the gaps between species (there is no fossil record), and try to use them as evidence that only God could have designed the new organs/organisms. “De novo” entails a jump, not a continuation!

I'll repeat. Your argument is support for God, Who is required to jump the gaps.


DAVID: Unfortunately you've lost the fact that the complexity in evolution builds in stages from the past. Bronto is now the lizards and lizard-like organisms that fill a portion of the ecosystems that feed the other existing organisms. God ("the same maker") supplies the continuity. I do not accept Darwin's common descent, I accept Gould's.

dhw: I didn’t know Gould was a proponent of Creationism, and he certainly didn’t know it either. All organisms either feed on or are fed on by other organisms. That does not mean that all organisms were specially designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to produce humans.

Relax, it is fact Gould made much of the gaps.


Evolution of the universe
DAVID: The universe had to evolve just as life did when the universe reached a point of fine-tuning to allow life. dhw with his human brain attempts to question God's reasons for a universe that looks like ours does. It allows him to question God's existence. We may never find all of God's reasons. That doesn't cause Him to disappear, does it?

dhw: Your usual desperate attempt to divert attention from your illogical theories by pretending that I am trying to get rid of God. I AM AN AGNOSTIC. I query your illogical theory of evolution, and I offer alternative THEISTIC theories. My reasons for not embracing theism have nothing to do with these discussions.

Your alternative theistic theories do not offer a god-like God.


Hippocampal connections” And also “another helper molecule
DAVID: When such an exact functioning molecule is found, repelling and attracting, I always wonder how chance evolution found it. There is no such thing as natural evolution.

dhw: I agree that chance evolution could not have organized these complexities, and I do NOT reject the idea of God as the designer. But that does not preclude his design of a cellular intelligence which would enable life forms to evolve autonomously.

I still don't understand why you want a God who does things secondhand. Another example of your weak-god theistic theories. Most God-believing folks view Him as all powerful, all knowing, past present and future, all purposeful, etc. You always weaken and modify and make Him amorphous.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, June 09, 2021, 11:44 (1023 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I used 'I admit' as an introductory colloquial phase to a discussion of mountain and molehills of evolutionary adaptations. The only independent-of-God decisions by organisms are the decision to activate/use God's instructions in DNA.

I pointed out that the independence you had agreed to (organisms use the mechanisms for adaptation independently) did not mean obeying instructions, and I asked if you agreed that processing information, intercommunication and decision-making were signs of intelligence. Your reply made no sense: “I admit if one looks at all 3.8 billion years of God’s evolution mountains as in the Cambrian Explosion, which, by the way, bothered Darwin more than you.” I hoped you were admitting that 3.8 billion years’ worth of instructions was going a bit far, and that the information processing, communication and decision-making needed for the independent use you had agreed to meant independent intelligence.

dhw: What I oppose, in case you’ve forgotten, is the claim that your God individually preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the history of life – and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.”[/b]

DAVID: I never forget that illogical position. If God created the universe and life, why shouldn't He be allowed to run evolution? Your God is god-like now and then.

If God exists, he can do what he likes. That doesn't mean his one purpose was to design H. sapiens, and therefore he designed millions of organisms “de novo”, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. Dodge, dodge, dodge!

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: You continually talk about the gaps between species (there is no fossil record), and try to use them as evidence that only God could have designed the new organs/organisms. “De novo” entails a jump, not a continuation!

DAVID: I'll repeat. Your argument is support for God, Who is required to jump the gaps.

It's not my argument! It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.

DAVID: […] Bronto is now the lizards and lizard-like organisms that fill a portion of the eco-systems that feed other existing organisms. God ("the same maker") supplies the continuity. I do not accept Darwin's common descent, I accept Gould's.

dhw: I didn’t know Gould was a proponent of Creationism, and he certainly didn’t know it either. All organisms either feed on or are fed on by other organisms. That does not mean that all organisms were specially designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to produce humans.

DAVID: Relax, it is fact Gould made much of the gaps.

His point was that evolution is not slow and steady but proceeds in fits and starts. How does this come to mean that your God created all species “de novo” in order to design you and me?

Differing star nurseries
QUOTE: "[…] these stellar nurseries do not all look and act the same. In fact, they're as diverse as the people, homes, neighborhoods and regions that make up our own world.

DAVID: this will only add to dhw's confusion as to why God created this universe, which is not uniform everywhere. We still don't have many answers about the mysteries we observe. The simplest approach is to accept God's doings and then figure out why.

Hardly my “confusion” if you can’t understand it yourself. Of course the simplest approach if you can’t find a logical explanation is to cling to your rigid beliefs. Let me know when you’ve figured out why, and then I’ll stop questioning your rigid beliefs.

Blood clotting
QUOTE: The workhorses to stem bleeding are platelets -- tiny 2-micrometer cells in the blood in charge of making the initial plug.

DAVID: My question is how did unguided evolution invent such a critical but totally controlled process?

Every innovation would have required continuous solving of new problems. The common thread in this process is cells finding the solutions. You claim they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively your God was always there to deliver new instructions when needed. A theistic alternative is that he gave cells the wherewithal to figure out their own solutions.

Survival of the fittest
QUOTE: Oftentimes, the most reproductively successful species and individuals are the ones who cooperate, who are the friendliest.

Back we go to Lynn Margulis, who not only championed the cause of cooperation as the leading force in evolutionary progress, but was also a devout believer in cellular intelligence.

QUOTE: "'Survival of the fittest" […is…] not meant to refer to 'Hunger Games'-style ruthless competition, only to an organism's ability to thrive and reproduce in a specific environment."

DAVID: Good explanation of its limits, but it still a surviving tautology even with those limits.

Yes, it’s an important point, and all credit to Darwin for NOT having invented the term, which has so often been abused.

In view of all our continued disagreements, I’d like to restore the balance by once again saying how much I appreciate your posting these articles. They are now the true lifeblood of our forum.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 09, 2021, 13:07 (1023 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I never forget that illogical position. If God created the universe and life, why shouldn't He be allowed to run evolution? Your God is god-like now and then.

dhw: If God exists, he can do what he likes. That doesn't mean his one purpose was to design H. sapiens, and therefore he designed millions of organisms “de novo”, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. Dodge, dodge, dodge!

'Dodge, dodge, dodge' is my belief!!!


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: You continually talk about the gaps between species (there is no fossil record), and try to use them as evidence that only God could have designed the new organs/organisms. “De novo” entails a jump, not a continuation!

DAVID: I'll repeat. Your argument is support for God, Who is required to jump the gaps.

dhw: It's not my argument! It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.

It is continuous if God designs each stage creating the appearance of natural common descent


dhw: I didn’t know Gould was a proponent of Creationism,

DAVID: Relax, it is fact Gould made much of the gaps.

dhw: His point was that evolution is not slow and steady but proceeds in fits and starts. How does this come to mean that your God created all species “de novo” in order to design you and me?

Nature didn't do the de novo designs.


Differing star nurseries

DAVID: this will only add to dhw's confusion as to why God created this universe, which is not uniform everywhere. We still don't have many answers about the mysteries we observe. The simplest approach is to accept God's doings and then figure out why.

dhw: Hardly my “confusion” if you can’t understand it yourself. Of course the simplest approach if you can’t find a logical explanation is to cling to your rigid beliefs. Let me know when you’ve figured out why, and then I’ll stop questioning your rigid beliefs.

My so-called rigid belief is to simply accept God knows what He is doing and it takes our years and years of research to figure it out.

Blood clotting
QUOTE: The workhorses to stem bleeding are platelets -- tiny 2-micrometer cells in the blood in charge of making the initial plug.

DAVID: My question is how did unguided evolution invent such a critical but totally controlled process?

dhw: Every innovation would have required continuous solving of new problems. The common thread in this process is cells finding the solutions. You claim they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively your God was always there to deliver new instructions when needed. A theistic alternative is that he gave cells the wherewithal to figure out their own solutions.

To have controlled clotting all stop and start parts had to be designed together.


Survival of the fittest
QUOTE: Oftentimes, the most reproductively successful species and individuals are the ones who cooperate, who are the friendliest.

dhw: Back we go to Lynn Margulis, who not only championed the cause of cooperation as the leading force in evolutionary progress, but was also a devout believer in cellular intelligence.

QUOTE: "'Survival of the fittest" […is…] not meant to refer to 'Hunger Games'-style ruthless competition, only to an organism's ability to thrive and reproduce in a specific environment."

DAVID: Good explanation of its limits, but it still a surviving tautology even with those limits.

dhw: Yes, it’s an important point, and all credit to Darwin for NOT having invented the term, which has so often been abused.

In view of all our continued disagreements, I’d like to restore the balance by once again saying how much I appreciate your posting these articles. They are now the true lifeblood of our forum.

Thank you

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, June 10, 2021, 13:41 (1022 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If God created the universe and life, why shouldn't He be allowed to run evolution? Your God is god-like now and then.

dhw: If God exists, he can do what he likes. That doesn't mean his one purpose was to design H. sapiens, and therefore he designed millions of organisms “de novo”, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. Dodge, dodge, dodge!

DAVID: 'Dodge, dodge, dodge' is my belief!!!

Not exactly the most productive way of holding a discussion.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: You continually talk about the gaps between species (there is no fossil record), and try to use them as evidence that only God could have designed the new organs/organisms. “De novo” entails a jump, not a continuation!

DAVID: I'll repeat. Your argument is support for God, Who is required to jump the gaps.

dhw: It's not my argument! It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.

DAVID: It is continuous if God designs each stage creating the appearance of natural common descent.

But according to you he doesn’t. That’s why you harp on about the Cambrian. All you can talk about is the gaps in the fossil record as evidence that organisms did not descend from their predecessors but had to be created de novo, and only your God can create species de novo. It boils down to you saying that the absence of fossils proves that God designed new species de novo. It doesn’t. Nor does it prove that all organisms descended from earlier organisms. It doesn’t. It proves nothing. Although I do believe in common descent, and can find a logical reason for the gaps, even this leaves wide open the question of God’s existence and the role he would have played in evolution.

dhw: I didn’t know Gould was a proponent of Creationism.

DAVID: Relax, it is fact Gould made much of the gaps.

dhw: His point was that evolution is not slow and steady but proceeds in fits and starts. How does this come to mean that your God created all species “de novo” in order to design you and me?

DAVID: Nature didn't do the de novo designs.

How about answering the question? And they are not “the” de novo designs. It is your belief that the designs were de novo. As above, some of us believe in common descent.

Differing star nurseries
DAVID: this will only add to dhw's confusion as to why God created this universe, which is not uniform everywhere. We still don't have many answers about the mysteries we observe. The simplest approach is to accept God's doings and then figure out why.

dhw: Hardly my “confusion” if you can’t understand it yourself. Of course the simplest approach if you can’t find a logical explanation is to cling to your rigid beliefs. Let me know when you’ve figured out why, and then I’ll stop questioning your rigid beliefs.

DAVID: My so-called rigid belief is to simply accept God knows what He is doing and it takes our years and years of research to figure it out.

I have absolutely no doubt that if God exists, he knows what he is doing. But why should I accept your rigid belief that what he did was individually design billions of galaxies and millions of life forms etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing you and me (plus our lunch)?

Blood clotting
QUOTE: The workhorses to stem bleeding are platelets -- tiny 2-micrometer cells in the blood in charge of making the initial plug.

DAVID: My question is how did unguided evolution invent such a critical but totally controlled process?

dhw: Every innovation would have required continuous solving of new problems. The common thread in this process is cells finding the solutions. You claim they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively your God was always there to deliver new instructions when needed. A theistic alternative is that he gave cells the wherewithal to figure out their own solutions.

DAVID: To have controlled clotting all stop and start parts had to be designed together.

I don’t know enough about the evolution of blood and, especially, its precursors to discuss the subject. That is why my comment was a generalization about cells finding solutions to problems as they arise – as opposed to every problem and solution having already been preprogrammed.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 10, 2021, 19:01 (1022 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God created the universe and life, why shouldn't He be allowed to run evolution? Your God is god-like now and then.

dhw: If God exists, he can do what he likes. That doesn't mean his one purpose was to design H. sapiens, and therefore he designed millions of organisms “de novo”, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. Dodge, dodge, dodge!

DAVID: 'Dodge, dodge, dodge' is my belief!!!

Not exactly the most productive way of holding a discussion.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: You continually talk about the gaps between species (there is no fossil record), and try to use them as evidence that only God could have designed the new organs/organisms. “De novo” entails a jump, not a continuation!

DAVID: I'll repeat. Your argument is support for God, Who is required to jump the gaps.

dhw: It's not my argument! It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.

DAVID: It is continuous if God designs each stage creating the appearance of natural common descent.

But according to you he doesn’t. That’s why you harp on about the Cambrian. All you can talk about is the gaps in the fossil record as evidence that organisms did not descend from their predecessors but had to be created de novo, and only your God can create species de novo. It boils down to you saying that the absence of fossils proves that God designed new species de novo. It doesn’t. Nor does it prove that all organisms descended from earlier organisms. It doesn’t. It proves nothing. Although I do believe in common descent, and can find a logical reason for the gaps, even this leaves wide open the question of God’s existence and the role he would have played in evolution.

dhw: I didn’t know Gould was a proponent of Creationism.

DAVID: Relax, it is fact Gould made much of the gaps.

dhw: His point was that evolution is not slow and steady but proceeds in fits and starts. How does this come to mean that your God created all species “de novo” in order to design you and me?

DAVID: Nature didn't do the de novo designs.

How about answering the question? And they are not “the” de novo designs. It is your belief that the designs were de novo. As above, some of us believe in common descent.

Differing star nurseries
DAVID: this will only add to dhw's confusion as to why God created this universe, which is not uniform everywhere. We still don't have many answers about the mysteries we observe. The simplest approach is to accept God's doings and then figure out why.

dhw: Hardly my “confusion” if you can’t understand it yourself. Of course the simplest approach if you can’t find a logical explanation is to cling to your rigid beliefs. Let me know when you’ve figured out why, and then I’ll stop questioning your rigid beliefs.

DAVID: My so-called rigid belief is to simply accept God knows what He is doing and it takes our years and years of research to figure it out.

I have absolutely no doubt that if God exists, he knows what he is doing. But why should I accept your rigid belief that what he did was individually design billions of galaxies and millions of life forms etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing you and me (plus our lunch)?

Blood clotting
QUOTE: The workhorses to stem bleeding are platelets -- tiny 2-micrometer cells in the blood in charge of making the initial plug.

DAVID: My question is how did unguided evolution invent such a critical but totally controlled process?

dhw: Every innovation would have required continuous solving of new problems. The common thread in this process is cells finding the solutions. You claim they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively your God was always there to deliver new instructions when needed. A theistic alternative is that he gave cells the wherewithal to figure out their own solutions.

DAVID: To have controlled clotting all stop and start parts had to be designed together.

I don’t know enough about the evolution of blood and, especially, its precursors to discuss the subject. That is why my comment was a generalization about cells finding solutions to problems as they arise – as opposed to every problem and solution having already been preprogrammed.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 10, 2021, 19:14 (1022 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, he can do what he likes. That doesn't mean his one purpose was to design H. sapiens, and therefore he designed millions of organisms “de novo”, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. Dodge, dodge, dodge!

DAVID: 'Dodge, dodge, dodge' is my belief!!!

dhw: Not exactly the most productive way of holding a discussion.

It is not a dodge, but a full rejection of your constant illogical complaint. We have previous had full discussions of why God does what He does based on evidence


Clear evidence of common descent

DAVID: I'll repeat. Your argument is support for God, Who is required to jump the gaps.

dhw: It's not my argument! It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.

DAVID: It is continuous if God designs each stage creating the appearance of natural common descent.

But according to you he doesn’t. That’s why you harp on about the Cambrian. All you can talk about is the gaps in the fossil record as evidence that organisms did not descend from their predecessors but had to be created de novo, and only your God can create species de novo. It boils down to you saying that the absence of fossils proves that God designed new species de novo. It doesn’t. Nor does it prove that all organisms descended from earlier organisms. It doesn’t. It proves nothing. Although I do believe in common descent, and can find a logical reason for the gaps, even this leaves wide open the question of God’s existence and the role he would have played in evolution.

DAVID: Nature didn't do the de novo designs.

How about answering the question? And they are not “the” de novo designs. It is your belief that the designs were de novo. As above, some of us believe in common descent.

I believe in a God-caused common descent. They look the same.


Blood clotting
QUOTE: The workhorses to stem bleeding are platelets -- tiny 2-micrometer cells in the blood in charge of making the initial plug.

DAVID: My question is how did unguided evolution invent such a critical but totally controlled process?

dhw: Every innovation would have required continuous solving of new problems. The common thread in this process is cells finding the solutions. You claim they were all preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively your God was always there to deliver new instructions when needed. A theistic alternative is that he gave cells the wherewithal to figure out their own solutions.

DAVID: To have controlled clotting all stop and start parts had to be designed together.

dhw: I don’t know enough about the evolution of blood and, especially, its precursors to discuss the subject. That is why my comment was a generalization about cells finding solutions to problems as they arise – as opposed to every problem and solution having already been preprogrammed.

Dodging the obvious. A clot has to be controlled to just affect the leak area and not the while circulatory system. Pure non-scientific logic.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, June 11, 2021, 12:13 (1021 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, he can do what he likes. That doesn't mean his one purpose was to design H. sapiens, and therefore he designed millions of organisms “de novo”, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. Dodge, dodge, dodge!

DAVID: 'Dodge, dodge, dodge' is my belief!!!

dhw: Not exactly the most productive way of holding a discussion.

DAVID: It is not a dodge, but a full rejection of your constant illogical complaint. We have previous had full discussions of why God does what He does based on evidence.

The only way you can reject my complaint is by providing a logical reason why your God, whose only purpose you insist was to design humans plus lunch, should first have designed millions of life forms etc, 99% of which had no connection with humans or their lunch.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.[…]

DAVID: […] I believe in a God-caused common descent. They look the same.

Common descent means that every life form (apart from the very first) is descended from a preceding life form. De novo creation means that life forms were created from scratch – i.e. without any precedent. Please clarify which of them you believe in.

Horizontal gene transfer
QUOTE: "...the smelt discovery and other recent examples all point to horizontal transfers playing an influential role in evolution."

DAVID: The paper then covers many pages of research review on possible mechanism including parasite transfer. Nothing is conclusive but it certainly fits my notion of God dabbling.

Indeed, even the tiniest of changes fits your notion of your God dabbling. If you wished, you could claim that every word you write on this forum fits your notion of your God dabbling. After all, who can tell the difference between autonomous intelligence and God-guided intelligence? Meanwhile, these mechanisms also fit my notion of a free-for-all.

Controls over cell division
DAVID: A very clever mechanism, that had to be designed. Haphazard growth is not a logical process, and chance evolution is not logical.

I can’t pretend to understand the technicalities, but I can certainly agree that such processes are anything but the product of chance. Evolution is one long history of cells changing or adapting their structures as and when new problems and conditions arise. Design of some kind is apparent in every phase – but even a believer like yourself has no way of knowing whether the intelligence required for such design is that of the cells themselves (possibly designed originally by your God) or that of your God doing his divine programming/ dabbling. You have repeatedly offered odds of 50/50.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, June 11, 2021, 19:26 (1021 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 'Dodge, dodge, dodge' is my belief!!!

dhw: Not exactly the most productive way of holding a discussion.

DAVID: It is not a dodge, but a full rejection of your constant illogical complaint. We have previous had full discussions of why God does what He does based on evidence.

dhw: The only way you can reject my complaint is by providing a logical reason why your God, whose only purpose you insist was to design humans plus lunch, should first have designed millions of life forms etc, 99% of which had no connection with humans or their lunch.

My God chose to evolve us from bacteria is a reasonable belief based on lots of evidence.


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: It's you who claim that because there is no fossil record of every stage of every organism, God must have created species “de novo”. That means you believe evolution was NOT a continuous process of common descent.[…]

DAVID: […] I believe in a God-caused common descent. They look the same.

dhw: Common descent means that every life form (apart from the very first) is descended from a preceding life form. De novo creation means that life forms were created from scratch – i.e. without any precedent. Please clarify which of them you believe in.

You can't split the problem. God's management of evolution creates a common descent as He manages the various developments from stage to stage. Your 'common descent' implies a natural chance process, and you have expressed much doubt about chance mutations as the cause, as shown below bolded.


Horizontal gene transfer
QUOTE: "...the smelt discovery and other recent examples all point to horizontal transfers playing an influential role in evolution."

DAVID: The paper then covers many pages of research review on possible mechanism including parasite transfer. Nothing is conclusive but it certainly fits my notion of God dabbling.

dhw: Indeed, even the tiniest of changes fits your notion of your God dabbling. If you wished, you could claim that every word you write on this forum fits your notion of your God dabbling. After all, who can tell the difference between autonomous intelligence and God-guided intelligence? Meanwhile, these mechanisms also fit my notion of a free-for-all.

Tell me how you get the amazing human brain by free-for-all evolution?


Controls over cell division
DAVID: A very clever mechanism, that had to be designed. Haphazard growth is not a logical process, and chance evolution is not logical.

dhw: I can’t pretend to understand the technicalities, but I can certainly agree that such processes are anything but the product of chance. Evolution is one long history of cells changing or adapting their structures as and when new problems and conditions arise. Design of some kind is apparent in every phase – but even a believer like yourself has no way of knowing whether the intelligence required for such design is that of the cells themselves (possibly designed originally by your God) or that of your God doing his divine programming/ dabbling. You have repeatedly offered odds of 50/50.

Your cell intelligence theory is an extrapolation of what we observe from the outside of cells as cells react and process biochemical reactions so intelligently. The 50/50 is honest odds, but that doesn't mean I have any reason to accept your stretched interpretation that they actually have any form of innate intelligence that is capable of creating new evolutionary designs. It takes years of complex research just to understand just one simple biochemical step, as I constantly show here..

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, June 12, 2021, 09:31 (1020 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The only way you can reject my complaint is by providing a logical reason why your God, whose only purpose you insist was to design humans plus lunch, should first have designed millions of life forms etc, 99% of which had no connection with humans or their lunch

DAVID: My God chose to evolve us from bacteria is a reasonable belief based on lots of evidence.

That we evolved from bacteria is a reasonable belief accepted by all evolutionists. You simply black out the rest of your bolded theory in your constant game of dodge, dodge, dodge.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Common descent means that every life form (apart from the very first) is descended from a preceding life form. De novo creation means that life forms were created from scratch – i.e. without any precedent. Please clarify which of them you believe in.

DAVID: You can't split the problem. God's management of evolution creates a common descent as He manages the various developments from stage to stage. Your 'common descent' implies a natural chance process, and you have expressed much doubt about chance mutations as the cause...

More dodging. My common descent does not imply a natural chance process, as I propose that organisms intelligently adapt to or exploit new conditions. Your theory is not confined to “various developments from stage to stage”. You have your God individually designing every single life form (not to mention econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc.), 99% of which have no connection with the stage by stage development of humans. Once more: do you believe that every life form (apart from the first) is descended from a previous life form, or every life form was created from scratch (de novo)?

Horizontal gene transfer
DAVID: Nothing is conclusive but it certainly fits my notion of God dabbling.

dhw: Indeed, even the tiniest of changes fits your notion of your God dabbling. If you wished, you could claim that every word you write on this forum fits your notion of your God dabbling. After all, who can tell the difference between autonomous intelligence and God-guided intelligence? Meanwhile, these mechanisms also fit my notion of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Tell me how you get the amazing human brain by free-for-all evolution?

In the same way as you get amazing hearts, lungs,sexual organs, eyes, ears, legs and hands….By cells (whether God-designed or not) cooperating to find different ways of coping with or exploiting different conditions. The human brain is indeed amazing, but it was not a de novo creation. It developed from the brains of our antecedents, and you yourself have made great play of the fact that its superiority entails an initial increase in size and an increased capacity for complexification of its cells.

Controls over cell division
dhw: even a believer like yourself has no way of knowing whether the intelligence required for such design is that of the cells themselves (possibly designed originally by your God) or that of your God doing his divine programming/ dabbling. You have repeatedly offered odds of 50/50.

DAVID: Your cell intelligence theory is an extrapolation of what we observe from the outside of cells as cells react and process biochemical reactions so intelligently.

Correct.

DAVID: The 50/50 is honest odds, but that doesn't mean I have any reason to accept your stretched interpretation that they actually have any form of innate intelligence that is capable of creating new evolutionary designs. It takes years of complex research just to understand just one simple biochemical step, as I constantly show here.

So far no amount of complex research has succeeded in identifying the cause of intelligence (which entails some form of consciousness) human or non-human. One theory is that there is a God who invented it. The same applies to the mystery of speciation. I’m quite happy with your acceptance of 50/50 odds. In the context of evolution, that should put you in the same position of neutrality as my own in the context of God’s existence.

vagus nerve interoception
DAVID: Part of our conscious awareness is the way we sense our bodily functions primarily through the vagus nerve, one of 12 cranial nerves that connect directly to the brain for interpretation. We are the only organism that can make those interpretations.

Clearly the brains of rats also sense bodily functions through the vagus nerve. Neither you nor Tallon-Baudry have a clue how we come to be conscious of our brain’s ability to sense bodily functions!

Ingenious research tricks

Using fluorescence to depict cells and their functions:

DAVID: Cell intelligence (dhw theory) can't create this. Only a highly-advanced designing mind can.

I’m not proposing that the cell’s intelligence created the way in which it functions! The research (vividly) reveals the mechanisms. It can’t reveal the intelligence that controls the mechanisms, any more than it can reveal your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all its transformations.

Genome complexity
DAVID: Just now far this process is naturally used is not yet known. But re-writing DNA is shown to be possible. James Shapiro is applauding.

I don’t understand the technicalities, but if cells can rewrite their own DNA, I will join in the applause.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 12, 2021, 15:52 (1020 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You simply black out the rest of your bolded theory in your constant game of dodge, dodge, dodge.

Define dodging in a debate. I strongly feel I am answering honestly about my beliefs and theories.


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Common descent means that every life form (apart from the very first) is descended from a preceding life form. De novo creation means that life forms were created from scratch – i.e. without any precedent. Please clarify which of them you believe in.

DAVID: You can't split the problem. God's management of evolution creates a common descent as He manages the various developments from stage to stage. Your 'common descent' implies a natural chance process, and you have expressed much doubt about chance mutations as the cause...

dhw: More dodging. Once more: do you believe that every life form (apart from the first) is descended from a previous life form, or every life form was created from scratch (de novo)?

Many life forms are modifications of previous species: birds came from a branch of dinosaurs, and their design did not require a complete rewrite. I pose God as the rewriting engineer which gives us descent with modification. Frankly the only full de novo I know is the Cambrian explosion.


vagus nerve interoception
DAVID: Part of our conscious awareness is the way we sense our bodily functions primarily through the vagus nerve, one of 12 cranial nerves that connect directly to the brain for interpretation. We are the only organism that can make those interpretations.

dhw: Clearly the brains of rats also sense bodily functions through the vagus nerve. Neither you nor Tallon-Baudry have a clue how we come to be conscious of our brain’s ability to sense bodily functions!

Our God-given brain.


Ingenious research tricks

Using fluorescence to depict cells and their functions:

DAVID: Cell intelligence (dhw theory) can't create this. Only a highly-advanced designing mind can.

d hw: I’m not proposing that the cell’s intelligence created the way in which it functions! The research (vividly) reveals the mechanisms. It can’t reveal the intelligence that controls the mechanisms, any more than it can reveal your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all its transformations.

My same purpose: as we reveal the complexity of life's processes only a superior designing mind must exist.


Genome complexity
DAVID: Just how far this process is naturally used is not yet known. But re-writing DNA is shown to be possible. James Shapiro is applauding.

dhw: I don’t understand the technicalities, but if cells can rewrite their own DNA, I will join in the applause.

Thought you'd enjoy it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, June 13, 2021, 10:51 (1019 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You simply black out the rest of your bolded theory in your constant game of dodge, dodge, dodge.

DAVID: Define dodging in a debate. I strongly feel I am answering honestly about my beliefs and theories.

The most blatant of examples is when someone is asked a question and avoids answering it. You see it all the time in political interviews. In your case, the question is: why would a purposeful, all-powerful God whose sole purpose is to design H. sapiens (plus lunch), have specially designed millions of life forms, lunches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens? You generally dodge the question by picking on individual sections of your theory, which in themselves make perfect sense. Humans are unique, humans descended from bacteria, all life forms need food. And when the worst comes to the worst, you respond by attacking my alternatives. All perfectly legitimate, but none of them provide an answer to the bolded question, and the fact is you can’t provide an explanation for what in fact is inexplicable, as you yourself occasionally admit until once more you insist that the theory is logical. It isn’t, and so we begin the same round of question from me and dodges from you.

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Once more: do you believe that every life form (apart from the first) is descended from a previous life form, or every life form was created from scratch (de novo)?

DAVID: Many life forms are modifications of previous species: birds came from a branch of dinosaurs, and their design did not require a complete rewrite. I pose God as the rewriting engineer which gives us descent with modification. Frankly the only full de novo I know is the Cambrian explosion.

Thank you. Of course common descent entails modification – otherwise there would be no speciation! As regards the Cambrian, you do not “know” that species were designed “de novo”. You assume they were because of the absence of fossils, and because some scientists express disbelief that new species could evolve by chance during such a short period of time. Time is relative. The “explosion” began approx. 540 million years ago. That is one helluva long time by any standards, and the fact that ANY fossils have survived is itself amazing. It lasted for up to 25 million years, but even if the productive period was “only”, say, 10 million years, that is also one helluva long time. As for chance, I would argue that any innovation leading to the complexities of new organs and organisms suggests design rather than chance, BUT…design is not confined to your God. Hence the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly provided by your God). And the intelligent response of organisms to changing conditions through millions and millions of years would provide a rational explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, as it does for the rest of evolution. What remains unexplained is the origin of the mechanisms and the intelligence that drives them.

vagus nerve interoception
dhw: Clearly the brains of rats also sense bodily functions through the vagus nerve. Neither you nor Tallon-Baudry have a clue how we come to be conscious of our brain’s ability to sense bodily functions!

DAVID: Our God-given brain.

Fine, but nobody knows how the brain generates consciousness of the brain. In any case, that is the tenet of materialism, and I thought you were a dualist.

Ingenious research tricks
DAVID: Cell intelligence (dhw theory) can't create this. Only a highly-advanced designing mind can.

dhw: I’m not proposing that the cell’s intelligence created the way in which it functions! The research (vividly) reveals the mechanisms. It can’t reveal the intelligence that controls the mechanisms, any more than it can reveal your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all its transformations.

DAVID: My same purpose: as we reveal the complexity of life's processes only a superior designing mind must exist.

But we should separate Chapters One and Two of life’s processes. Your God may have designed the original mechanisms and processes involved in Chapter One (Darwin himself allows for that), which would include the cellular intelligence championed by certain distinguished scientists, but that does not mean God must have designed Chapter Two, which is the speciation that constitutes evolution.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 13, 2021, 15:52 (1019 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Define dodging in a debate. I strongly feel I am answering honestly about my beliefs and theories.

dhw: The most blatant of examples is when someone is asked a question and avoids answering it. You see it all the time in political interviews. In your case, the question is: why would a purposeful, all-powerful God whose sole purpose is to design H. sapiens (plus lunch), have specially designed millions of life forms, lunches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens?...the fact is you can’t provide an explanation for what in fact is inexplicable, as you yourself occasionally admit until once more you insist that the theory is logical. It isn’t, and so we begin the same round of question from me and dodges from you.

You have admitted God in charge can chose to do what He wishes to do. History displays God's actions. Therefore what is logical is God chose His method of producing humans by historical evolution. Your complaint is a dispute with God's logic as I view it. And as for your complaint that I can't explain why God did it that way, I just accept it. I can guess and have in the past, but those guesses are just as worthless as your as would be and in my view have been. I.E., free-for-all, for one.


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Once more: do you believe that every life form (apart from the first) is descended from a previous life form, or every life form was created from scratch (de novo)?

DAVID: Many life forms are modifications of previous species: birds came from a branch of dinosaurs, and their design did not require a complete rewrite. I pose God as the rewriting engineer which gives us descent with modification. Frankly the only full de novo I know is the Cambrian explosion.

dhw: Thank you. Of course common descent entails modification – otherwise there would be no speciation! As regards the Cambrian, you do not “know” that species were designed “de novo”. You assume they were because of the absence of fossils, and because some scientists express disbelief that new species could evolve by chance during such a short period of time. Time is relative. The “explosion” began approx. 540 million years ago. That is one helluva long time by any standards, and the fact that ANY fossils have survived is itself amazing. It lasted for up to 25 million years, but even if the productive period was “only”, say, 10 million years, that is also one helluva long time. As for chance, I would argue that any innovation leading to the complexities of new organs and organisms suggests design rather than chance, BUT…design is not confined to your God. Hence the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly provided by your God). And the intelligent response of organisms to changing conditions through millions and millions of years would provide a rational explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, as it does for the rest of evolution. What remains unexplained is the origin of the mechanisms and the intelligence that drives them.

Answered separately today


Ingenious research tricks
DAVID: Cell intelligence (dhw theory) can't create this. Only a highly-advanced designing mind can.

dhw: I’m not proposing that the cell’s intelligence created the way in which it functions! The research (vividly) reveals the mechanisms. It can’t reveal the intelligence that controls the mechanisms, any more than it can reveal your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all its transformations.

DAVID: My same purpose: as we reveal the complexity of life's processes only a superior designing mind must exist.

dhw: But we should separate Chapters One and Two of life’s processes. Your God may have designed the original mechanisms and processes involved in Chapter One (Darwin himself allows for that), which would include the cellular intelligence championed by certain distinguished scientists, but that does not mean God must have designed Chapter Two, which is the speciation that constitutes evolution.

Separating origin of life and evolution of life is a debating crutch to avoid the issues involved in a debate about God.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 13, 2021, 16:17 (1019 days ago) @ David Turell

From this thread earlier today:


Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Once more: do you believe that every life form (apart from the first) is descended from a previous life form, or every life form was created from scratch (de novo)?

DAVID: Many life forms are modifications of previous species: birds came from a branch of dinosaurs, and their design did not require a complete rewrite. I pose God as the rewriting engineer which gives us descent with modification. Frankly the only full de novo I know is the Cambrian explosion.

dhw: Thank you...The “explosion” began approx. 540 million years ago. That is one helluva long time by any standards, and the fact that ANY fossils have survived is itself amazing. It lasted for up to 25 million years, but even if the productive period was “only”, say, 10 million years, that is also one helluva long time.

To answer, our friend Gunter Bechly is back:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darwins-abominable-mystery-is-not-alone-gaps-everywhere/

"I have been introducing the subject of a mystery that bothered Charles Darwin himself. The abrupt origin of flowering plants is by no means an exception to the rule. Instead, it is representative of a general pattern in the history of life and the fossil record. In all groups of organisms, in all regions of the Earth, and over all periods of Earth history, new groups and new body plans appear abruptly in the fossil record, mostly without any potential precursors in the older layers. Another famous example is of course the Cambrian explosion of animal phyla (animal body plans), as Darwin (1859) wrote:

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks."

"This problem is still with us, as is clearly and unequivocally admitted by many recent evolutionary biologists and paleontologists specializing in Cambrian fossils. Here are just two prominent examples:

"The first is the Dutch ecologist Marten Scheffer, winner of the Spinosa Award and foreign associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In his 2009 Princeton University Press book, Critical Transitions in Nature and Society (pp. 169-170), he wrote:

"The collapse of the Ediacaran fauna is followed by the spectacular radiation of novel life-forms known as the Cambrian explosion. All of the main body plans that we know now evolved in as little as about 10 million years. It might have been thought that this apparent explosion of diversity might be an artifact. For instance, it could be that earlier rocks were not as good for preserving fossils. However, very well preserved fossils do exist from earlier periods, and it is now generally accepted that the Cambrian explosion was real."

"The second example is from one of the most recent books on the Cambrian explosion, by Nelson Cabej (2019), titled Epigenetic Mechanisms of the Cambrian Explosion and published by Academic Press. He said it even more clearly:

"Nevertheless, now, 150 years after The Origin, when an incomparably larger stock of animal fossils has been collected, Darwin’s gap remains, the abrupt appearance of Cambrian fossils is a reality, and we are still wondering about the forces and mechanisms that drove it. Despite the fact that, from time to time, a small number of students have questioned the reality of the Cambrian explosion on the same ground as Darwin, today’s consensus is that Cambrian explosion is a scientific fact (Linnemann et al., 2019) … The Cambrian explosion is real and its consequences set in motion a sea-change in evolutionary history (Conway Morris, 2000; Nichols et al., 2006). … Despite the accumulation of an immense fossil record, the development of a relevant theoretical groundwork, and the numerous attempts to deal with the causal basis of the Cambrian explosion, just like in Darwin’s time, it continues to be one of the greatest enigmas of modern biology. …Many hypotheses have been presented on the causal basis of the Cambrian explosion. Today, we are still grappling with the question, but no closer to understanding the nature and causes of the Cambrian explosion. … The erection of the metazoan structure, as an improbable structure, requires an immense volume of information, compared to which the information contained in even the most complex genomes represents but a negligible fraction." (my bold)

Comment: note my bold. A Darwinist scientist recognizes the amount of new information that must have been involved. Does dhw?

dhw: As for chance, I would argue that any innovation leading to the complexities of new organs and organisms suggests design rather than chance, BUT…design is not confined to your God. Hence the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly provided by your God). And the intelligent response of organisms to changing conditions through millions and millions of years would provide a rational explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, as it does for the rest of evolution. What remains unexplained is the origin of the mechanisms and the intelligence that drives them.

The bold is refuted in the quotes from Darwin scientists themselves. The Chinese Cambrian and Ediacaran fossils are much more plentiful than the Canadian and simply made the gap worse, and destroy Darwin's hope/wish for intermediates. All presented here previously.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by dhw, Monday, June 14, 2021, 14:35 (1018 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Thank you...The “explosion” began approx. 540 million years ago. That is one helluva long time by any standards, and the fact that ANY fossils have survived is itself amazing. It lasted for up to 25 million years, but even if the productive period was “only”, say, 10 million years, that is also one helluva long time.

DAVID: To answer, our friend Gunter Bechly is back:

Two important points to be made: Firstly, I’m not setting myself up to be an expert in the field, but the theory of cellular intelligence is championed by some highly respected scientists, and since NOBODY has yet solved the mystery of speciation, I am offering arguments which seem to me to make perfect sense in the light of their findings. The argument runs counter to Darwin’s attribution of innovation to random change, and favours intelligent design, but it neither favours nor excludes a superintellligent being of unknown origin, who set the process in motion. On the contrary, it allows for his existence. Secondly, Bechly is a devout Catholic who followed a similar course to yourself, David, in so far as the complexities of life converted him to the theory of intelligent design. It would appear, though, that he has never contemplated the possibility of cellular intelligence (possibly God’s invention) as a replacement for Darwin’s random mutations.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darwins-abominable-mystery-is-not-alone-gaps-everywhere/

QUOTE: "I have been introducing the subject of a mystery that bothered Charles Darwin himself. The abrupt origin of flowering plants is by no means an exception to the rule. Instead, it is representative of a general pattern in the history of life and the fossil record. In all groups of organisms, in all regions of the Earth, and over all periods of Earth history, new groups and new body plans appear abruptly in the fossil record, mostly without any potential precursors in the older layers."

He’s hit the nail on the head. Perhaps species appear abruptly in the fossil record because, surprise, surprise, we can hardly expect a complete record of every stage of every life form to have been preserved over the thousands of millions of years of life’s history. Please explain why you think such a record ought to exist.

QUOTE: "The collapse of the Ediacaran fauna is followed by the spectacular radiation of novel life-forms known as the Cambrian explosion. All of the main body plans that we know now evolved in as little as about 10 million years. It might have been thought that this apparent explosion of diversity might be an artifact. For instance, it could be that earlier rocks were not as good for preserving fossils. However, very well preserved fossils do exist from earlier periods, and it is now generally accepted that the Cambrian explosion was real."

He spends a lot of time arguing that the Cambrian Explosion was real. I am not disputing that. What I do dispute is the extraordinary statement that 10 million years is a “little period”. It may be little in terms of the age of the planet, but it is a huge expanse of time.

QUOTE: Today, we are still grappling with the question, but no closer to understanding the nature and causes of the Cambrian explosion.

Fair comment. All we have are theories, and establishing the truth about what happened 540 million years ago is quite likely to remain a matter of theory and not fact. Here is one theory: conditions (e.g. possibly relating to an increase in oxygen) changed to such a degree that they favoured new forms of life. Intelligent cell communities took advantage of the new opportunities.

QUOTE: The erection of the metazoan structure, as an improbable structure, requires an immense volume of information, compared to which the information contained in even the most complex genomes represents but a negligible fraction. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: note my bold. A Darwinist scientist recognizes the amount of new information that must have been involved. Does dhw?

Yes. It stands to reason that the more complex the structure, the greater the necessary amount of “information”, but if adaptations and, in this case more importantly, innovations are to survive, then they must function well enough for the organism to live and reproduce. I repeat, nobody knows how this happened, but I repeat, 10 million years means a vast number of generations to innovate, fail, succeed, improve etc. Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

dhw: […]the intelligent response of organisms to changing conditions through millions and millions of years would provide a rational explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, as it does for the rest of evolution. What remains unexplained is the origin of the mechanisms and the intelligence that drives them.

DAVID: The bold is refuted in the quotes from Darwin scientists themselves.

No it isn’t. You have not offered me a single quote yet in which your scientists discount the possibility of cellular intelligence providing the designs guiding the process of evolution.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, June 14, 2021, 18:28 (1018 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Thank you...The “explosion” began approx. 540 million years ago. That is one helluva long time by any standards, and the fact that ANY fossils have survived is itself amazing. It lasted for up to 25 million years, but even if the productive period was “only”, say, 10 million years, that is also one helluva long time.

DAVID: To answer, our friend Gunter Bechly is back:

dhw: Bechly is a devout Catholic who followed a similar course to yourself, David, in so far as the complexities of life converted him to the theory of intelligent design. It would appear, though, that he has never contemplated the possibility of cellular intelligence (possibly God’s invention) as a replacement for Darwin’s random mutations.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darwins-abominable-mystery-is-not-alone-gaps-everywhere/

QUOTE: In all groups of organisms, in all regions of the Earth, and over all periods of Earth history, new groups and new body plans appear abruptly in the fossil record, mostly without any potential precursors in the older layers."[/i]

dhw: He’s hit the nail on the head. Perhaps species appear abruptly in the fossil record because, surprise, surprise, we can hardly expect a complete record of every stage of every life form to have been preserved over the thousands of millions of years of life’s history. Please explain why you think such a record ought to exist.

Geology has advanced far beyond Darwin. Edicaran and Cambrian layers in China have nothing in between. Nothing is missing. The gap in fossil forms is enormous. Simply fronds to animals with eyes, legs, organ systems.


QUOTE: " However, very well preserved fossils do exist from earlier periods, and it is now generally accepted that the Cambrian explosion was real."

dhw:n He spends a lot of time arguing that the Cambrian Explosion was real. I am not disputing that. What I do dispute is the extraordinary statement that 10 million years is a “little period”. It may be little in terms of the age of the planet, but it is a huge expanse of time.

It is not the lapse of time. The intermediate fossils simply do not exist. Proved over the past 40 years in China.


QUOTE: Today, we are still grappling with the question, but no closer to understanding the nature and causes of the Cambrian explosion.

dhw: Fair comment. All we have are theories, and establishing the truth about what happened 540 million years ago is quite likely to remain a matter of theory and not fact. Here is one theory: conditions (e.g. possibly relating to an increase in oxygen) changed to such a degree that they favoured new forms of life. Intelligent cell communities took advantage of the new opportunities.

QUOTE: The erection of the metazoan structure, as an improbable structure, requires an immense volume of information, compared to which the information contained in even the most complex genomes represents but a negligible fraction. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: note my bold. A Darwinist scientist recognizes the amount of new information that must have been involved. Does dhw?

dhw: Yes. It stands to reason that the more complex the structure, the greater the necessary amount of “information”, but if adaptations and, in this case more importantly, innovations are to survive, then they must function well enough for the organism to live and reproduce. I repeat, nobody knows how this happened, but I repeat, 10 million years means a vast number of generations to innovate, fail, succeed, improve etc. Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

It is clear from China, no intermediate forms exist. Keep wishing.


dhw: […]the intelligent response of organisms to changing conditions through millions and millions of years would provide a rational explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, as it does for the rest of evolution. What remains unexplained is the origin of the mechanisms and the intelligence that drives them.

DAVID: The bold is refuted in the quotes from Darwin scientists themselves.

dhw: No it isn’t. You have not offered me a single quote yet in which your scientists discount the possibility of cellular intelligence providing the designs guiding the process of evolution.

I follow the new research carefully. No one discusses your theory in any way. That cells look intelligent is old news. Your speciation theory is your invention.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, June 15, 2021, 11:31 (1017 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The “explosion” began approx. 540 million years ago. That is one helluva long time by any standards, and the fact that ANY fossils have survived is itself amazing. It lasted for up to 25 million years, but even if the productive period was “only”, say, 10 million years, that is also one helluva long time.

DAVID: To answer, our friend Gunter Bechly is back:

dhw: Bechly is a devout Catholic who followed a similar course to yourself, David, in so far as the complexities of life converted him to the theory of intelligent design. It would appear, though, that he has never contemplated the possibility of cellular intelligence (possibly God’s invention) as a replacement for Darwin’s random mutations.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darwins-abominable-mystery-is-not-alone-gaps-everywhere/

QUOTE: In all groups of organisms, in all regions of the Earth, and over all periods of Earth history, new groups and new body plans appear abruptly in the fossil record, mostly without any potential precursors in the older layers."

dhw: He’s hit the nail on the head. Perhaps species appear abruptly in the fossil record because, surprise, surprise, we can hardly expect a complete record of every stage of every life form to have been preserved over the thousands of millions of years of life’s history. Please explain why you think such a record ought to exist.

DAVID: Geology has advanced far beyond Darwin. Edicaran and Cambrian layers in China have nothing in between. Nothing is missing. The gap in fossil forms is enormous. Simply fronds to animals with eyes, legs, organ systems.

Bechly tells us that the “gaps” occur everywhere and cover all times. Fossils are being found all the time, and each one is a sensation. Please explain why you think there should be a complete fossil record of the history of all organs and all species.

QUOTE: "However, very well preserved fossils do exist from earlier periods, and it is now generally accepted that the Cambrian explosion was real."

dhw: He spends a lot of time arguing that the Cambrian Explosion was real. I am not disputing that. What I do dispute is the extraordinary statement that 10 million years is a “little period”. It may be little in terms of the age of the planet, but it is a huge expanse of time.

DAVID: It is not the lapse of time. The intermediate fossils simply do not exist. Proved over the past 40 years in China.

There is no possible way of proving that fossils don’t exist, but even if they don’t, that doesn’t prove the organisms themselves didn’t exist. Again, please explain why you think they should exist.

dhw: Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

DAVID: It is clear from China, no intermediate forms exist. Keep wishing.

Dealt with above. This is a different question.

dhw: You have not offered me a single quote yet in which your scientists discount the possibility of cellular intelligence providing the designs guiding the process of evolution.

DAVID: I follow the new research carefully. No one discusses your theory in any way. That cells look intelligent is old news. Your speciation theory is your invention.

You resolutely “forget” the Shapiro quotes from your own book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully….They posses sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities…they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions” etc. This is not my invention, and Bechly hasn’t even considered it. It is the theory itself you should focus on, not how many people discuss it.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 15, 2021, 21:32 (1017 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: In all groups of organisms, in all regions of the Earth, and over all periods of Earth history, new groups and new body plans appear abruptly in the fossil record, mostly without any potential precursors in the older layers."

dhw: He’s hit the nail on the head. Perhaps species appear abruptly in the fossil record because, surprise, surprise, we can hardly expect a complete record of every stage of every life form to have been preserved over the thousands of millions of years of life’s history. Please explain why you think such a record ought to exist.

DAVID: Geology has advanced far beyond Darwin. Edicaran and Cambrian layers in China have nothing in between. Nothing is missing. The gap in fossil forms is enormous. Simply fronds to animals with eyes, legs, organ systems.

dhw: Bechly tells us that the “gaps” occur everywhere and cover all times. Fossils are being found all the time, and each one is a sensation. Please explain why you think there should be a complete fossil record of the history of all organs and all species.

There obviously won't be complete fill-ins during specific geologic ages. The Cambrian-Edicaran gap is different, known since before Darwin, with lots more forms recently found in the Edicaran, and that has not changed the gap. The gap is sudden complexity in the Cambrian with no precursors. It is not a time gap.


QUOTE: "However, very well preserved fossils do exist from earlier periods, and it is now generally accepted that the Cambrian explosion was real."

dhw: He spends a lot of time arguing that the Cambrian Explosion was real. I am not disputing that. What I do dispute is the extraordinary statement that 10 million years is a “little period”. It may be little in terms of the age of the planet, but it is a huge expanse of time.

DAVID: It is not the lapse of time. The intermediate fossils simply do not exist. Proved over the past 40 years in China.

dhw:b There is no possible way of proving that fossils don’t exist, but even if they don’t, that doesn’t prove the organisms themselves didn’t exist. Again, please explain why you think they should exist.

The new sites in China are well explored. What is found doesn't explain the complexity gap. Keep on your blinders. They will not help.


dhw: Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

DAVID: It is clear from China, no intermediate forms exist. Keep wishing.

he

dhw: Dealt with above. This is a different question. The complexity gap is very real .

dhw: You have not offered me a single quote yet in which your scientists discount the possibility of cellular intelligence providing the designs guiding the process of evolution.

DAVID: I follow the new research carefully. No one discusses your theory in any way. That cells look intelligent is old news. Your speciation theory is your invention.

dhw: You resolutely “forget” the Shapiro quotes from your own book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully….They posses sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities…they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions” etc. This is not my invention, and Bechly hasn’t even considered it. It is the theory itself you should focus on, not how many people discuss it.

You asked me about other discussions! Shapiro is pure theory, his, not taken up by anyone else.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 11:41 (1016 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian
dhw: Bechly tells us that the “gaps” occur everywhere and cover all times. Fossils are being found all the time, and each one is a sensation. Please explain why you think there should be a complete fossil record of the history of all organs and all species.

DAVID: There obviously won't be complete fill-ins during specific geologic ages. The Cambrian-Edicaran gap is different, known since before Darwin, with lots more forms recently found in the Edicaran, and that has not changed the gap. The gap is sudden complexity in the Cambrian with no precursors. It is not a time gap.

The fact that there have been recent finds in the Edicaran should alert you to the possibility that there might one day be finds in the Cambrian. But there will never be a complete record, and so there will always be jumps. However, I am not putting my theory forward as any sort of established truth! I simply find the concept of cellular intelligence, combined with the vast period of ten million years, much more convincing than that of random mutations creating all the complexities and, frankly, also more convincing than your own theory that your God individually designed "de novo" all kinds of new life forms, every one of which was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: The intermediate fossils simply do not exist. Proved over the past 40 years in China.

dhw: There is no possible way of proving that fossils don’t exist, but even if they don’t, that doesn’t prove the organisms themselves didn’t exist. Again, please explain why you think they should exist.

DAVID: The new sites in China are well explored. What is found doesn't explain the complexity gap. Keep on your blinders. They will not help.

Every inch is a possible site, but in any case that is not an answer. Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago?

dhw: Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

DAVID: It is clear from China, no intermediate forms exist. Keep wishing.

Again, not an answer. Please re-read my question and answer it.

DAVID: I follow the new research carefully. No one discusses your theory in any way. That cells look intelligent is old news. Your speciation theory is your invention.

dhw: You resolutely “forget” the Shapiro quotes from your own book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully….They posses sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities…they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions” etc. This is not my invention, and Bechly hasn’t even considered it. It is the theory itself you should focus on, not how many people discuss it.

DAVID: You asked me about other discussions! Shapiro is pure theory, his, not taken up by anyone else.

I am complaining about the fact that none of the scientists you quote seem to have heard of Shapiro’s theory. And I am pointing out to you that the speciation theory is not “my” invention, and I wish you would consider the arguments themselves rather than assuming that because Bechly and Co don’t consider them or even know about them, you needn’t bother either.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 19:46 (1016 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian

DAVID: There obviously won't be complete fill-ins during specific geologic ages. The Cambrian-Edicaran gap is different, known since before Darwin, with lots more forms recently found in the Edicaran, and that has not changed the gap. The gap is sudden complexity in the Cambrian with no precursors. It is not a time gap.

dhw: The fact that there have been recent finds in the Edicaran should alert you to the possibility that there might one day be finds in the Cambrian. But there will never be a complete record, and so there will always be jumps. However, I am not putting my theory forward as any sort of established truth! I simply find the concept of cellular intelligence, combined with the vast period of ten million years, much more convincing than that of random mutations creating all the complexities and, frankly, also more convincing than your own theory that your God individually designed "de novo" all kinds of new life forms, every one of which was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: The intermediate fossils simply do not exist. Proved over the past 40 years in China.

dhw: There is no possible way of proving that fossils don’t exist, but even if they don’t, that doesn’t prove the organisms themselves didn’t exist. Again, please explain why you think they should exist.

DAVID: The new sites in China are well explored. What is found doesn't explain the complexity gap. Keep on your blinders. They will not help.

dhw: Every inch is a possible site, but in any case that is not an answer. Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago?

dhw: Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

DAVID: It is clear from China, no intermediate forms exist. Keep wishing.

dhw: Again, not an answer. Please re-read my question and answer it.

I've seen the layers in the Grand Canyon. They are definitive slices in past time. What appears in the Cambrian is abrupt, just as stoppage of the Edicaran is abrupt. After 150 years of exploration what is found is also very abrupt in complexity. Edicaran sacks and fronds. In the Cambrian whole recognizable animals with complex organ system including eyes. The complexity gap is massive. That you are so hopeful for intermediates is wishful thinking.


DAVID: I follow the new research carefully. No one discusses your theory in any way. That cells look intelligent is old news. Your speciation theory is your invention.

dhw: You resolutely “forget” the Shapiro quotes from your own book: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully….They posses sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities…they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics…Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions” etc. This is not my invention, and Bechly hasn’t even considered it. It is the theory itself you should focus on, not how many people discuss it.

DAVID: You asked me about other discussions! Shapiro is pure theory, his, not taken up by anyone else.

dhw: I am complaining about the fact that none of the scientists you quote seem to have heard of Shapiro’s theory. And I am pointing out to you that the speciation theory is not “my” invention, and I wish you would consider the arguments themselves rather than assuming that because Bechly and Co don’t consider them or even know about them, you needn’t bother either.

I read the scientific literature carefully. Shapiro's excellent work is widely appreciated. No one has taken up his theory about evolution with further work and he is retired. ID touted his work which is how I found it out. Does that surprise you? You yearn for a form of cell intelligence that is pure theory. Research biochemistry into cell functions shows a highly regulated set of processes that even Dawkins described as looking designed.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 21:06 (1016 days ago) @ David Turell

The latest Ediacran findings in China announced:

http://www.ecns.cn/news/sci-tech/2021-06-16/detail-ihanfwct7388457.shtml

"Chinese scientists and researchers announced on Tuesday the discovery of new fossils from the Ediacaran Period from between 550 and 539 million years ago in the Qaidam Basin, located in Northwest China's Qinghai Province. This is the oldest fossil record found on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, according to a statement shared by the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology with the Global Times on Tuesday.

"It is the first time fossils from the Ediacaran Period are discovered in the Quanjishan Mountains of the northern margin of the Qaidam Basin.

"The fossils were found during a field research in the Qaidam Basin in July 2020 carried out by researchers from the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Peking University, and Chengdu University of Technology.

"The findings were published online on Monday on the comprehensive journal Geology.

"'The discovery indicates that the Qaidam and the North China basins were close to each other and located in the middle and high latitudes, rather than the equatorial region as previously thought," a research fellow from the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

"'It is the second Ediacaran biota fossil site found in China after the first one was found in the Three Gorges region in the spring of 2011," the researcher said.

"The Ediacaran Period had the most widely distributed complex biota in the world before the Cambrian explosion approximately 541 million years ago.

"The Ediacaran fossils newly discovered are represented by Charnia, a segmented leaf-like lifeform, which is one of the most typical fossils of the Ediacaran biota. (my bold)

"Ediacaran macrofossils characterize the late Ediacaran Period and are pivotal in understanding the early evolution of animals on the eve of the Cambrian explosion and useful in late Ediacaran biostratigraphy."

Comment: Same old, same old. Look at the pictures of what is found Nothing complex

Miscellany: gaps in evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 21:13 (1016 days ago) @ David Turell

More Chinese Edicaran findings:

http://english.cas.cn/newsroom/research_news/earth/202008/t20200825_242016.shtml

"Probably there is nothing as enigmatic as the iconic frondose fossils in the Ediacara biota. A typical frondose fossil consists of an upright leaf-like body (petalodium), a connecting stem, and a basal attachment disc. (my bold)

"In 2014, a type of frondose fossil - Charniodiscus was reported from the Shibantan biota in the Ediacaran Dengying Formation, Yangtze Gorges area, Hubei, China. However, recent studies have revealed that the type species of Charniodiscus is a frondose fossil with fractal branching and multiple petalodia. Hence, it is questionable to place the frondose fossils from the Yangtze Gorges area in Charniodiscus.

"Researchers from the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NIGPAS) and Virginia Tech conducted detailed morphological observation, analysis and determination of a major group of frondose fossils from the Shibantan biota. Related results were published in Journal of Paleontology on July 20.

"The results showed that the morphological of the frondose fossils from the Yangtze Gorges area were more similar to Arborea which is a bi-petaloid frondose fossil without fractal branching pattern, rather than the type species of Charniodiscus.

"The researchers placed these fronds into Arborea. They identified four species of Arborea from the Shibantan biota, including the type species Arborea arborea, Arborea denticulata new species, and two unnamed species, Arborea sp. A and Arborea sp. B.

"Biometric and principle component analysis were also conducted, and results showed that Charniodiscus sp. from the Bonavista Peninsula, Newfoundland, Canada is indistinguishable from Arborea arborea. Therefore, they are synonymized.

"This research also shows that frondose fossils still have a high diversity even in the latest Ediacaran, providing important evidence for understanding the evolution during the transition between the Ediacaran and Cambrian.

"The Shibantan Member in South China and the Khatyspyt Formation in Arctic Siberia represent the only two carbonate successions that are known to host morphologically complex, soft-bodied Ediacara-type macrofossils."

Comment: More of the same. Simple fronds which are some form of animal. Sure are enigmatic. They look nothing like the animals we know.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 22:54 (1016 days ago) @ David Turell

Major gaps are not explained:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/is-there-discontinuity-in-biology-and-how-would-we-know/

"whale fossils are supposed to provide some of the best examples of “transitional forms” in the fossil record, demonstrating common descent between whales and land mammals. Whale intermediates have become a favorite argument for common descent. I distinctly recall one of my professors teaching us that the evolution of whales happened “incredibly fast” — at an almost unbelievably rapid pace. ID researchers are looking at the genetic changes necessary to transform a land mammal into a whale, and when you apply the mathematics of population genetics to the time available from the fossil record, there simply is not enough time for standard evolutionary mechanisms to produce those genetic changes.

Koonin and Company:

"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.
EUGENE V. KOONIN, “THE BIOLOGICAL BIG BANG MODEL FOR THE MAJOR TRANSITIONS IN EVOLUTION,” BIOLOGY DIRECT, 2:21 (AUGUST 20, 2007)

"Below I list the most conspicuous instances of this pattern of discontinuity in the biological and pre-biological domains,

"1. Origin of protein folds:
There seem to exist ~1,000 or, by other estimates, a few thousand distinct structural folds the relationships between which (if existent) are unclear.

"2. Origin of viruses:
For several major classes of viruses, notably, positive strand RNA viruses and nucleo-cytoplasmic large DNA viruses (NCLDV) of eukaryotes, substantial evidence of monophyletic origin has been obtained. However, there is no evidence of a common ancestry for all viruses.

"3. Origin of cells:
The two principal cell types (the two prokaryotic domains of life), archaea and bacteria, have chemically distinct membranes, largely, non-homologous enzymes of membrane biogenesis, and also, non-homologous core DNA replication enzymes. This severely complicates the reconstruction of a cellular ancestor of archaea and bacteria and suggests alternative solutions.

"4. Origin of the major branches (phyla) of bacteria and archaea:
Although both bacteria and archaea show a much greater degree of molecular coherence within a domain than is seen between the domains (in particular, the membranes and the replication machineries are homologous throughout each domain), the topology of the deep branches in the archaeal and, especially, bacterial phylogenetic trees remains elusive. The trees conspicuously lack robustness with respect to the gene(s) analyzed and methods employed, and despite the considerable effort to delineate higher taxa of bacteria, a consensus is not even on the horizon. The division of the archaea into two branches, euryarchaeota and crenarchaeota is better established but even this split is not necessarily reproduced in trees, and further divisions in the archaeal domain remain murky.

"5. Origin of the major branches (supergroups) of eukaryotes:
Despite many ingenious attempts to decipher the branching order near the root of the phylogenetic tree of eukaryotes, there has been little progress, and an objective depiction of the state of affairs seems to be a “star” phylogeny, with the 5 or 6 supergroups established with reasonable confidence but the relationship between them remaining unresolved.

"6. Origin of the animal phyla:
The Cambrian explosion in animal evolution during which all the diverse body plans appear to have emerged almost in a geological instant is a highly publicized enigma. Although molecular clock analysis has been invoked to propose that the Cambrian explosion is an artifact of the fossil record whereas the actual divergence occurred much earlier, the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable...the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.”
KOONIN, “THE BIOLOGICAL BIG BANG MODEL FOR THE MAJOR TRANSITIONS IN EVOLUTION,” EMPHASES ADDED; CITATIONS OMITTED

***

"In biogeography, evolutionists appeal to unlikely and speculative explanations where species must raft across vast oceans in order for common descent to account for their unexpected locations.

"Paleontology fails to reveal the continuous branching pattern predicted by common ancestry, and the fossil record is dominated by abrupt explosions of new life forms.
Regarding molecular and morphology-based trees, conflicting phylogenies have left the “tree of life” in tatters. Inconsistent phylogenetic methods predict that shared similarity indicates common inheritance, except for when it doesn’t.

"Similar inconsistent methodological problems exist in embryology, where significant differences exist between embryos in their early stages, leading evolutionary biologists to predict that similarities will exist between vertebrate embryos, except for when we find differences, and then it predicts those too.

"The collective evidence cited above shows that those who believe the tree of life is not 100 percent continuous across all organisms aren’t crazy. Whatever burdens of proof need to be met to have our view taken seriously, we’ve far exceeded them."

Comment: Want more proof?

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Thursday, June 17, 2021, 11:21 (1015 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have asked two questions, neither of which has been answered: 1) Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago? 2) Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

I still wait in hope of answers.

dhw: I am complaining about the fact that none of the scientists you quote seem to have heard of Shapiro’s theory. […]

DAVID: I read the scientific literature carefully. Shapiro's excellent work is widely appreciated. No one has taken up his theory about evolution with further work and he is retired. ID touted his work which is how I found it out. Does that surprise you? You yearn for a form of cell intelligence that is pure theory. […]

I am not yearning, and all explanations, including your own, are “pure theory”. I am waiting for you and others to say why you dismiss or ignore Shapiro’s “excellent work”. There are/were notable scientists who also firmly believe/believed in cellular intelligence, and you have never explained why you think your God is incapable of designing the cellular intelligence that Shapiro believes designed the “novelties” of speciation.

QUOTE:"The fossils were found during a field research in the Qaidam Basin in July 2020…”

Thank you for proving my point. New discoveries are being made all the time. No one can possibly claim that what fossils we have are all that we shall ever have.

DAVID: More of the same. Simple fronds which are some form of animal. Sure are enigmatic. They look nothing like the animals we know.

We know the Cambrian produced new forms! We don’t know what triggered the Cambrian, or how ANY speciation takes place. Even Blechly acknowledges that in this sense, the Cambrian is not unique.

QUOTE: […] "... the reliability of these estimates appears to be questionable...the relationship between the animal phyla remains controversial and elusive.

Everything related to this subject is controversial and elusive. Hence all the different theories.

QUOTE: "In biogeography, evolutionists appeal to unlikely and speculative explanations where species must raft across vast oceans in order for common descent to account for their unexpected locations.”

How about convergent evolution as an explanation? And at what stages of evolution did the relevant land masses drift apart?

QUOTE: "Paleontology fails to reveal the continuous branching pattern predicted by common ancestry, and the fossil record is dominated by abrupt explosions of new life forms.”

We cannot expect a continuous fossil record. But in any case, a major change in conditions will require a swift response. There are three possible responses: extinction, adaptation (short term, in order to survive), innovation (to exploit new conditions and econiches, and thereby improve long-term chances of survival). “Abrupt explosions” are covered by Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium”: long periods of stasis until new conditions require or allow new developments.

QUOTE: "The collective evidence cited above shows that those who believe the tree of life is not 100 percent continuous across all organisms aren’t crazy. Whatever burdens of proof need to be met to have our view taken seriously, we’ve far exceeded them."

What 100% continuity? During thousands of millions of years, evolution has branched out all over the planet! But that does not mean all life did NOT descend from the first cells, and it does not mean that all forms of life have NOT descended from earlier forms.

DAVID: Want more proof?

Proof of what? One moment you desperately try to prove that all forms of life are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and therefore evolution is a continuous process from bacteria to us, and now you are triumphantly telling us there is no continuity.

Let me summarize some of the main points:
1) the history of the bush of life shows countless branches of life forms that have no connection with each other. Only one led from bacteria to humans. This makes nonsense of the claim that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food supply.
2) We cannot expect a complete fossil record of every life form that ever lived. Each discovery is a major event.
3) There is no need to spend all this time on proving that there are gaps. No one knows the causes of speciation in general, let alone the “explosion” of species during the Cambrian. We have nothing but theories. Your God’s pre-planning or personal dabbling is one theory for which there is no proof. Darwin’s random mutations seem to both of us to be unlikely in view of the complexities involved. Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence interacting with new environmental conditions makes perfect sense, but there is no proof.
4) Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 17, 2021, 18:41 (1015 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have asked two questions, neither of which has been answered: 1) Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago? 2) Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

The gap is complexity , not time. After over 150 years of hunting the gap persists, the fossils are not there.

dhw: I am waiting for you and others to say why you dismiss or ignore Shapiro’s “excellent work”. There are/were notable scientists who also firmly believe/believed in cellular intelligence, and you have never explained why you think your God is incapable of designing the cellular intelligence that Shapiro believes designed the “novelties” of speciation.

God is capable of whatever He wishes to create. All we know from Shapiro is bacteria and now I have presented some of our cells can edit DNA. This does not mean speciation comes this way. His reasonable theory awaits confirmation. Remember it is not fact.


QUOTE:"The fossils were found during a field research in the Qaidam Basin in July 2020…”

dhw: Thank you for proving my point. New discoveries are being made all the time. No one can possibly claim that what fossils we have are all that we shall ever have.

All of the new fossils support the complexity gap. All you can do is hope with Darwin


DAVID: More of the same. Simple fronds which are some form of animal. Sure are enigmatic. They look nothing like the animals we know.

dhw: We know the Cambrian produced new forms! We don’t know what triggered the Cambrian, or how ANY speciation takes place. Even Blechly acknowledges that in this sense, the Cambrian is not unique.

No matter how you wish it, the Cambrian is a giant leap in complexity


QUOTE: "In biogeography, evolutionists appeal to unlikely and speculative explanations where species must raft across vast oceans in order for common descent to account for their unexpected locations.”

dhw: How about convergent evolution as an explanation? And at what stages of evolution did the relevant land masses drift apart?

Those studies have been done, and I've presented some here in the long ago past. Similar monkeys in both Africa and So. America come to mind.


QUOTE: "Paleontology fails to reveal the continuous branching pattern predicted by common ancestry, and the fossil record is dominated by abrupt explosions of new life forms.”

dhw: We cannot expect a continuous fossil record. But in any case, a major change in conditions will require a swift response. There are three possible responses: extinction, adaptation (short term, in order to survive), innovation (to exploit new conditions and econiches, and thereby improve long-term chances of survival). “Abrupt explosions” are covered by Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium”: long periods of stasis until new conditions require or allow new developments.

Gould described the many gaps.

DAVID: Want more proof?

dhw: Proof of what? One moment you desperately try to prove that all forms of life are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and therefore evolution is a continuous process from bacteria to us, and now you are triumphantly telling us there is no continuity.

The point is the gaps require a designer.


dhw: Let me summarize some of the main points:
1) the history of the bush of life shows countless branches of life forms that have no connection with each other. Only one led from bacteria to humans. This makes nonsense of the claim that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food supply.
2) We cannot expect a complete fossil record of every life form that ever lived. Each discovery is a major event.
3) There is no need to spend all this time on proving that there are gaps. No one knows the causes of speciation in general, let alone the “explosion” of species during the Cambrian. We have nothing but theories. Your God’s pre-planning or personal dabbling is one theory for which there is no proof. Darwin’s random mutations seem to both of us to be unlikely in view of the complexities involved. Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence interacting with new environmental conditions makes perfect sense, but there is no proof.
4) Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

Again the gap is not time. It is sudden massive complexity.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Friday, June 18, 2021, 13:05 (1014 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have asked two questions, neither of which has been answered: 1) Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago? 2) Please explain why you think 10 million years is not long enough for innovations to be designed by intelligent cells combining their intelligences to restructure themselves under new conditions.

DAVID: The gap is complexity, not time. After over 150 years of hunting the gap persists, the fossils are not there.

The gap is lack of fossils to prove that one species developed from another. Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago? Some scientists believe that 10 million years is not long enough for the development of all the complexities of the new Cambrian species. I’ll assume from your non-response that you do not regard the time as inadequate.

dhw: I am waiting for you and others to say why you dismiss or ignore Shapiro’s “excellent work”. There are/were notable scientists who also firmly believe/believed in cellular intelligence, and you have never explained why you think your God is incapable of designing the cellular intelligence that Shapiro believes designed the “novelties” of speciation.

DAVID: God is capable of whatever He wishes to create. All we know from Shapiro is bacteria and now I have presented some of our cells can edit DNA. This does not mean speciation comes this way. His reasonable theory awaits confirmation. Remember it is not fact.

That’s what I keep telling you, but it should not stop us from discussing the theories. If God is capable of designing cellular intelligence, why do you dismiss Shapiro’s theory and cling to your equally unconfirmed theory – that God designed every species individually – which raises insoluble problems of logic when combined with your other beliefs? Please bear in mind that Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God.

QUOTE:"The fossils were found during a field research in the Qaidam Basin in July 2020…

dhw: Thank you for proving my point. New discoveries are being made all the time. No one can possibly claim that what fossils we have are all that we shall ever have.

DAVID: All of the new fossils support the complexity gap. All you can do is hope with Darwin.

I am not “hoping”, I am merely theorizing. What you call the “complexity gap” is simply another way of saying that we do not have a complete fossil record of how less complex organisms evolved into more complex organisms. And you take this to mean that such fossils do not exist and therefore the more complex organisms must have been separately designed. We have no way of knowing what fossils do or don’t exist, and we have no right to assume that after 540 million years there would be any fossils anyway.

QUOTE: "In biogeography, evolutionists appeal to unlikely and speculative explanations where species must raft across vast oceans in order for common descent to account for their unexpected locations.”

dhw: How about convergent evolution as an explanation? And at what stages of evolution did the relevant land masses drift apart?

DAVID: Those studies have been done, and I've presented some here in the long ago past. Similar monkeys in both Africa and So. America come to mind.

We know there are similar species in different continents. The authors are pooh-poohing rafting, so I’m asking about convergent evolution and the time when the continents were NOT separated by oceans.

QUOTE: "Paleontology fails to reveal the continuous branching pattern predicted by common ancestry, and the fossil record is dominated by abrupt explosions of new life forms.

dhw: We cannot expect a continuous fossil record. But in any case, a major change in conditions will require a swift response. There are three possible responses: extinction, adaptation (short term, in order to survive), innovation (to exploit new conditions and econiches, and thereby improve long-term chances of survival). “Abrupt explosions” are covered by Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium”: long periods of stasis until new conditions require or allow new developments.

DAVID: Gould described the many gaps.

I have tried to explain what the authors call “abrupt explosions”, which do NOT mean there is no continuous branching pattern.

DAVID: Want more proof?

dhw: Proof of what? One moment you desperately try to prove that all forms of life are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and therefore evolution is a continuous process from bacteria to us, and now you are triumphantly telling us there is no continuity.

DAVID: The point is the gaps require a designer.

The point is that you are tying yourself in knots over what constitutes continuity, and I am trying to straighten out the mess.

I shan’t repeat my summary of the main points, since you have ignored all but the final point:

dhw: 4) Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

DAVID: Again the gap is not time. It is sudden massive complexity.End of Cambrian

Fine. Shapiro’s theory would explain how organisms responded to what must have been a sudden massive change in conditions by adapting to or exploiting those conditions.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Friday, June 18, 2021, 20:56 (1014 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The gap is complexity, not time. After over 150 years of hunting the gap persists, the fossils are not there.

dhw: The gap is lack of fossils to prove that one species developed from another. Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago? Some scientists believe that 10 million years is not long enough for the development of all the complexities of the new Cambrian species. I’ll assume from your non-response that you do not regard the time as inadequate.

Time is not the issue and I don't think the fossils are there. Why do you think they should be there? My Grand Canyon experience tells me the boundary line is quite clear between the two layers and the Chinese discoveries h ave on ly increased teh complexity gap.


dhw: If God is capable of designing cellular intelligence, why do you dismiss Shapiro’s theory and cling to your equally unconfirmed theory – that God designed every species individually – which raises insoluble problems of logic when combined with your other beliefs? Please bear in mind that Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God.

I know that. I don't dismiss his theory. It is in my book!! I dismiss your extrapolations of his theory,


DAVID: All of the new fossils support the complexity gap. All you can do is hope with Darwin.

dhw: I am not “hoping”, I am merely theorizing. What you call the “complexity gap” is simply another way of saying that we do not have a complete fossil record of how less complex organisms evolved into more complex organisms. And you take this to mean that such fossils do not exist and therefore the more complex organisms must have been separately designed. We have no way of knowing what fossils do or don’t exist, and we have no right to assume that after 540 million years there would be any fossils anyway.

But the fossils exist and the complexity gap worsens.


DAVID: The point is the gaps require a designer.

dhw: The point is that you are tying yourself in knots over what constitutes continuity, and I am trying to straighten out the mess.

I shan’t repeat my summary of the main points, since you have ignored all but the final point:

dhw: 4) Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

The 10 million years is in the start of the Cambrian and only Cambrian complexity appears!!!


DAVID: Again the gap is not time. It is sudden massive complexity of Cambrian

dhw: Fine. Shapiro’s theory would explain how organisms responded to what must have been a sudden massive change in conditions by adapting to or exploiting those conditions.

Only if it is true and correct.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Saturday, June 19, 2021, 11:16 (1013 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The gap is complexity, not time. After over 150 years of hunting the gap persists, the fossils are not there.

dhw: The gap is lack of fossils to prove that one species developed from another. Why do you think there should be fossils of organisms that lived 540 million years ago? Some scientists believe that 10 million years is not long enough for the development of all the complexities of the new Cambrian species. I’ll assume from your non-response that you do not regard the time as inadequate.

DAVID: Time is not the issue and I don't think the fossils are there. Why do you think they should be there?

I don’t! That’s why I asked you the now bolded question above!

DAVID: My Grand Canyon experience tells me the boundary line is quite clear between the two layers and the Chinese discoveries have only increased the complexity gap.

I don’t know why you assume that every organism that ever lived must have visited the Grand Canyon and left a fossil or two behind.

dhw: If God is capable of designing cellular intelligence, why do you dismiss Shapiro’s theory and cling to your equally unconfirmed theory – that God designed every species individually – which raises insoluble problems of logic when combined with your other beliefs? Please bear in mind that Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God.

DAVID: I know that. I don't dismiss his theory. It is in my book!! I dismiss your extrapolations of his theory.

What extrapolations? The quotes could hardly be clearer: he believes that cellular intelligence produced the “novelties” that resulted in speciation. What have I added?

DAVID: All of the new fossils support the complexity gap. All you can do is hope with Darwin.

dhw: I am not “hoping”, I am merely theorizing. What you call the “complexity gap” is simply another way of saying that we do not have a complete fossil record of how less complex organisms evolved into more complex organisms. And you take this to mean that such fossils do not exist and therefore the more complex organisms must have been separately designed. We have no way of knowing what fossils do or don’t exist, and we have no right to assume that after 540 million years there would be any fossils anyway.

DAVID: But the fossils exist and the complexity gap worsens.

This is getting silly. We only know of the fossils that have been found. We do not know if there are others, but even if there are no more to be discovered, that does not prove that no other life forms existed.

DAVID: The point is the gaps require a designer.

dhw: The point is that you are tying yourself in knots over what constitutes continuity, and I am trying to straighten out the mess.

dhw: Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

DAVID: The 10 million years is in the start of the Cambrian and only Cambrian complexity appears!!!

How does that prove that intelligent cells (possibly created by your God) did not design the complexities?

dhw: Shapiro’s theory would explain how organisms responded to what must have been a sudden massive change in conditions by adapting to or exploiting those conditions.

DAVID: Only if it is true and correct.

You have grasped a fundamental truth. A theory will only be true if it is true.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 19, 2021, 15:41 (1013 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My Grand Canyon experience tells me the boundary line is quite clear between the two layers and the Chinese discoveries have only increased the complexity gap.

dhw: I don’t know why you assume that every organism that ever lived must have visited the Grand Canyon and left a fossil or two behind.

Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.


dhw: If God is capable of designing cellular intelligence, why do you dismiss Shapiro’s theory and cling to your equally unconfirmed theory – that God designed every species individually – which raises insoluble problems of logic when combined with your other beliefs? Please bear in mind that Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God.

DAVID: I know that. I don't dismiss his theory. It is in my book!! I dismiss your extrapolations of his theory.

dhw: What extrapolations? The quotes could hardly be clearer: he believes that cellular intelligence produced the “novelties” that resulted in speciation. What have I added?

You know, darn well, the extrapolation: brilliant cell committees produced evolution


DAVID: But the fossils exist and the complexity gap worsens.

dhw: This is getting silly. We only know of the fossils that have been found. We do not know if there are others, but even if there are no more to be discovered, that does not prove that no other life forms existed.

DAVID: The point is the gaps require a designer.

dhw: The point is that you are tying yourself in knots over what constitutes continuity, and I am trying to straighten out the mess.

dhw: Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

DAVID: The 10 million years is in the start of the Cambrian and only Cambrian complexity appears!!!

dhw: How does that prove that intelligent cells (possibly created by your God) did not design the complexities?

I've disagreed before: God does not do secondhand creation


dhw: Shapiro’s theory would explain how organisms responded to what must have been a sudden massive change in conditions by adapting to or exploiting those conditions.

DAVID: Only if it is true and correct.

dhw: You have grasped a fundamental truth. A theory will only be true if it is true.

Try that on yours. We both have firm theories we prefer.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Sunday, June 20, 2021, 09:33 (1012 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My Grand Canyon experience tells me the boundary line is quite clear between the two layers and the Chinese discoveries have only increased the complexity gap.

dhw: I don’t know why you assume that every organism that ever lived must have visited the Grand Canyon and left a fossil or two behind.

DAVID: Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.

Happy to have a bit of fun. Did he tell you that God personally designed every living form de novo “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus lunch, and this is proven by the fact that the Grand Canyon does not contain a complete record of every life form that ever lived?

dhw: If God is capable of designing cellular intelligence, why do you dismiss Shapiro’s theory and cling to your equally unconfirmed theory – that God designed every species individually – which raises insoluble problems of logic when combined with your other beliefs? Please bear in mind that Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God.

DAVID: I know that. I don't dismiss his theory. It is in my book!! I dismiss your extrapolations of his theory.

dhw: What extrapolations? The quotes could hardly be clearer: he believes that cellular intelligence produced the “novelties” that resulted in speciation. What have I added?

DAVID: You know, darn well, the extrapolation: brilliant cell committees produced evolution.

Neither he nor I use the words “brilliant committees”. He says that cells are cognitive beings which produce “evolutionary novelty” by means of self-modification. I wish you would stop pretending this doesn't mean intelligent cells were responsible for speciation.

DAVID: But the fossils exist and the complexity gap worsens.

dhw: This is getting silly. We only know of the fossils that have been found. We do not know if there are others, but even if there are no more to be discovered, that does not prove that no other life forms existed.

DAVID: The point is the gaps require a designer.

dhw: The point is that you are tying yourself in knots over what constitutes continuity, and I am trying to straighten out the mess.

dhw: Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

DAVID: The 10 million years is in the start of the Cambrian and only Cambrian complexity appears!!!

dhw: How does that prove that intelligent cells (possibly created by your God) did not design the complexities?

DAVID: I've disagreed before: God does not do secondhand creation.

Your usual statement of blinkered opinion as if it were a fact.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 20, 2021, 14:48 (1012 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.

dhw: Happy to have a bit of fun. Did he tell you that God personally designed every living form de novo “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus lunch, and this is proven by the fact that the Grand Canyon does not contain a complete record of every life form that ever lived?

Saw lots of fossils.

dhw: Neither he [Shapiro] nor I use the words “brilliant committees”. He says that cells are cognitive beings which produce “evolutionary novelty” by means of self-modification. I wish you would stop pretending this doesn't mean intelligent cells were responsible for speciation.

You make it sound as if cell committees drive evolution. Pure theory whichv I wish was that simple to answer. My answer is the complexity of design requires a designing mind.


dhw: Ten million years is an enormous expanse of time in terms of generations of intelligent organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions. Ignoring Shapiro's theory does not invalidate it.

DAVID: The 10 million years is in the start of the Cambrian and only Cambrian complexity appears!!!

dhw: How does that prove that intelligent cells (possibly created by your God) did not design the complexities?

DAVID: I've disagreed before: God does not do secondhand creation.

dhw: Your usual statement of blinkered opinion as if it were a fact.

I should have written 'my' God. Yours does.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Monday, June 21, 2021, 08:57 (1011 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.

dhw: Happy to have a bit of fun. Did he tell you that God personally designed every living form de novo “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus lunch, and this is proven by the fact that the Grand Canyon does not contain a complete record of every life form that ever lived?

DAVID: Saw lots of fossils.

Good for you. And what did they prove?

dhw: Neither he [Shapiro] nor I use the words “brilliant committees”. He says that cells are cognitive beings which produce “evolutionary novelty” by means of self-modification. I wish you would stop pretending this doesn't mean intelligent cells were responsible for speciation.

DAVID: You make it sound as if cell committees drive evolution. Pure theory which I wish was that simple to answer. My answer is the complexity of design requires a designing mind.

We don’t use your word “committee”, but yes, like every other theory of speciation, including yours, it is unproven. It is perfectly compatible with your “answer”: God can be the designer of cellular intelligence, just as you think he designed the human brain, which autonomously comes up with complex designs of its own.

DAVID: […] I've disagreed before: God does not do secondhand creation.

dhw: Your usual statement of blinkered opinion as if it were a fact.

DAVID: I should have written 'my' God. Yours does.

Mine remains a theory, not a rigid belief. And I hope you will now stop pretending that Shapiro does not advocate evolution through cellular intelligence.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Monday, June 21, 2021, 18:10 (1011 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.

dhw: Happy to have a bit of fun. Did he tell you that God personally designed every living form de novo “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus lunch, and this is proven by the fact that the Grand Canyon does not contain a complete record of every life form that ever lived?

DAVID: Saw lots of fossils.

dhw: Good for you. And what did they prove?

Fossils come in discrete layers representing old ages in time. The layers have fossils or not. In Cambrian and Edicaran eras no transitional forms are found. The jump is complexity is enormous, ever since Darwin times, no matter how many fossils are found, many in the past 30 years in the Edicaran with no change in the complexity gap..


dhw: Neither he [Shapiro] nor I use the words “brilliant committees”. He says that cells are cognitive beings which produce “evolutionary novelty” by means of self-modification. I wish you would stop pretending this doesn't mean intelligent cells were responsible for speciation.

DAVID: You make it sound as if cell committees drive evolution. Pure theory which I wish was that simple to answer. My answer is the complexity of design requires a designing mind.

dhw: We don’t use your word “committee”, but yes, like every other theory of speciation, including yours, it is unproven. It is perfectly compatible with your “answer”: God can be the designer of cellular intelligence, just as you think he designed the human brain, which autonomously comes up with complex designs of its own.

DAVID: […] I've disagreed before: God does not do secondhand creation.

dhw: Your usual statement of blinkered opinion as if it were a fact.

DAVID: I should have written 'my' God. Yours does.

dhw: Mine remains a theory, not a rigid belief. And I hope you will now stop pretending that Shapiro does not advocate evolution through cellular intelligence.

All he proved was bacteria can edit DNA which be automatic

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 14:10 (1010 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.

dhw: Happy to have a bit of fun. Did he tell you that God personally designed every living form de novo “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus lunch, and this is proven by the fact that the Grand Canyon does not contain a complete record of every life form that ever lived?

DAVID: Saw lots of fossils.

dhw: Good for you. And what did they prove?

DAVID: Fossils come in discrete layers representing old ages in time. The layers have fossils or not. In Cambrian and Edicaran eras no transitional forms are found. The jump is complexity is enormous, ever since Darwin times, no matter how many fossils are found, many in the past 30 years in the Edicaran with no change in the complexity gap.

Why are you repeating this? Do you think every life form at every stage of its evolution should have visited the Grand Canyon and left a fossil? Do you think every life form at every stage of its evolution should have left a fossil in China, or in Canada, or anywhere else you can think of? It’s not just the Cambrian that’s the mystery. Speciation itself is a mystery. Nobody knows how it happens. And so all we can do is theorize: you with your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or your divine dabbles, Darwin with his random mutations, Shapiro with his intelligent cells.

dhw: I hope you will now stop pretending that Shapiro does not advocate evolution through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: All he proved was bacteria can edit DNA which be automatic.

No theory has been proven – if it had been, there would be no discussion. Meanwhile, I hope you will now stop pretending that I have “extrapolated” ideas which Shapiro does not propose himself.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 19:17 (1010 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Make a fun point. My background in geology is what I illustrated. Our Geology professor guide taught us three semesters of geology in nine days.

dhw: Happy to have a bit of fun. Did he tell you that God personally designed every living form de novo “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus lunch, and this is proven by the fact that the Grand Canyon does not contain a complete record of every life form that ever lived?

DAVID: Saw lots of fossils.

dhw: Good for you. And what did they prove?

DAVID: Fossils come in discrete layers representing old ages in time. The layers have fossils or not. In Cambrian and Edicaran eras no transitional forms are found. The jump is complexity is enormous, ever since Darwin times, no matter how many fossils are found, many in the past 30 years in the Edicaran with no change in the complexity gap.

dhw: Why are you repeating this? Do you think every life form at every stage of its evolution should have visited the Grand Canyon and left a fossil? Do you think every life form at every stage of its evolution should have left a fossil in China, or in Canada, or anywhere else you can think of? It’s not just the Cambrian that’s the mystery. Speciation itself is a mystery. Nobody knows how it happens. And so all we can do is theorize: you with your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or your divine dabbles, Darwin with his random mutations, Shapiro with his intelligent cells.

Your pure wishful thinking continues. Don't denigrate my Canyon experience. My point is the demarcation lines between eras/geologic periods is quite precise. You are not worried as Darwin was about the Cambrian and he also pointed out the 'plant bloom' in which angiosperms appeared out of nowhere. In most of the evolutionary record the gaps are small, as in whales. Those huge gaps exist and should make you uncomfortable.


dhw: I hope you will now stop pretending that Shapiro does not advocate evolution through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: All he proved was bacteria can edit DNA which be automatic.

dhw: No theory has been proven – if it had been, there would be no discussion. Meanwhile, I hope you will now stop pretending that I have “extrapolated” ideas which Shapiro does not propose himself.

Shapiro proposed a possible solution by self-editing DNA. I just presented some minor evidence that it happens for minor modification. Your extrapolation is evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 11:25 (1009 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Fossils come in discrete layers representing old ages in time. The layers have fossils or not. In Cambrian and Edicaran eras no transitional forms are found. The jump is complexity is enormous, ever since Darwin times, no matter how many fossils are found, many in the past 30 years in the Edicaran with no change in the complexity gap.

dhw: Why are you repeating this? Do you think every life form at every stage of its evolution should have visited the Grand Canyon and left a fossil? Do you think every life form at every stage of its evolution should have left a fossil in China, or in Canada, or anywhere else you can think of? It’s not just the Cambrian that’s the mystery. Speciation itself is a mystery. Nobody knows how it happens. And so all we can do is theorize: you with your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or your divine dabbles, Darwin with his random mutations, Shapiro with his intelligent cells.

DAVID: Your pure wishful thinking continues. Don't denigrate my Canyon experience. My point is the demarcation lines between eras/geologic periods is quite precise.

Yes, you are quite right to split evolution up into periods, although for some reason you accuse me of “splitting evolution up into unrelated eras” (see the “possible God” thread).

DAVID: You are not worried as Darwin was about the Cambrian and he also pointed out the 'plant bloom' in which angiosperms appeared out of nowhere. In most of the evolutionary record the gaps are small, as in whales. Those huge gaps exist and should make you uncomfortable.

As we cannot expect to find a complete record of every stage of every life form, the smallness of gaps is generally taken to confirm the process of common descent. The possibility that the large gaps are due to the scarcity of fossils seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. But I am not comfortable with ANY of the explanations of speciation that are on offer. Shapiro’s cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) seems to me more likely than Darwin’s chance mutations and your own divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme and/or dabbling, but it remains a theory.

dhw: I hope you will now stop pretending that Shapiro does not advocate evolution through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: All he proved was bacteria can edit DNA which be automatic.

dhw: No theory has been proven – if it had been, there would be no discussion. Meanwhile, I hope you will now stop pretending that I have “extrapolated” ideas which Shapiro does not propose himself.

DAVID: Shapiro proposed a possible solution by self-editing DNA. I just presented some minor evidence that it happens for minor modification. Your extrapolation is evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change.

You simply refuse to take any notice of what you quote in your own book. How many more times? Cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities….Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self modification...” Please stop pretending that “evolutionary novelty” and “new structures” mean “minor modification”.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 18:25 (1009 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your pure wishful thinking continues. Don't denigrate my Canyon experience. My point is the demarcation lines between eras/geologic periods is quite precise.

dhw: Yes, you are quite right to split evolution up into periods, although for some reason you accuse me of “splitting evolution up into unrelated eras” (see the “possible God” thread).

You slice and dice as if evolution is all unrelated distinct parts. Now you suddenly deny it.


DAVID: You are not worried as Darwin was about the Cambrian and he also pointed out the 'plant bloom' in which angiosperms appeared out of nowhere. In most of the evolutionary record the gaps are small, as in whales. Those huge gaps exist and should make you uncomfortable.

dhw: As we cannot expect to find a complete record of every stage of every life form, the smallness of gaps is generally taken to confirm the process of common descent. The possibility that the large gaps are due to the scarcity of fossils seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. But I am not comfortable with ANY of the explanations of speciation that are on offer. Shapiro’s cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) seems to me more likely than Darwin’s chance mutations and your own divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme and/or dabbling, but it remains a theory.

Good discussion of your problem.


dhw: I hope you will now stop pretending that Shapiro does not advocate evolution through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: All he proved was bacteria can edit DNA which be automatic.

dhw: No theory has been proven – if it had been, there would be no discussion. Meanwhile, I hope you will now stop pretending that I have “extrapolated” ideas which Shapiro does not propose himself.

DAVID: Shapiro proposed a possible solution by self-editing DNA. I just presented some minor evidence that it happens for minor modification. Your extrapolation is evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change.

dhw: You simply refuse to take any notice of what you quote in your own book. How many more times? Cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities….Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self modification...” Please stop pretending that “evolutionary novelty” and “new structures” mean “minor modification”.

Those phrases are Shapiro's extrapolated theory from his findings, which I describe accurately. You extrapolate his theory further as above: " evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change." I agree it is all theory, and we don't know how speciation happens. I'm with God as designer, because of the complexity of the biological designs we find.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Thursday, June 24, 2021, 11:18 (1008 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your pure wishful thinking continues. Don't denigrate my Canyon experience. My point is the demarcation lines between eras/geologic periods is quite precise.

dhw: Yes, you are quite right to split evolution up into periods, although for some reason you accuse me of “splitting evolution up into unrelated eras” (see the “possible God” thread).

DAVID: You slice and dice as if evolution is all unrelated distinct parts. Now you suddenly deny it.

Total confusion. I’ll try to straighten it out. 1) You have just quite rightly sliced the history up into precise geological eras. This has nothing to do with 2) the continuity of common descent, in which every life form is descended from a previous life form. However, 3) although we believe all life forms are descended from the earliest (bacteria), there is NO continuity between the different branches which evolved separately. One branch went from bacteria to humans, and another branch went from bacteria to birds. But according to you, every branch was “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” plus their lunch. This discussion is continued on the “possible God” thread.

DAVID: You are not worried as Darwin was about the Cambrian and he also pointed out the 'plant bloom' in which angiosperms appeared out of nowhere. In most of the evolutionary record the gaps are small, as in whales. Those huge gaps exist and should make you uncomfortable.

dhw: As we cannot expect to find a complete record of every stage of every life form, the smallness of gaps is generally taken to confirm the process of common descent. The possibility that the large gaps are due to the scarcity of fossils seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. But I am not comfortable with ANY of the explanations of speciation that are on offer. Shapiro’s cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) seems to me more likely than Darwin’s chance mutations and your own divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme and/or dabbling, but it remains a theory.

DAVID: Good discussion of your problem.

I hope it will stop you harping on about the gaps.

dhw: […] I hope you will now stop pretending that I have “extrapolated” ideas which Shapiro does not propose himself.

DAVID: Shapiro proposed a possible solution by self-editing DNA. I just presented some minor evidence that it happens for minor modification. Your extrapolation is evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change.

dhw: You simply refuse to take any notice of what you quote in your own book. How many more times? Cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities….Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self modification...” Please stop pretending that “evolutionary novelty” and “new structures” mean “minor modification”.

DAVID: Those phrases are Shapiro's extrapolated theory from his findings, which I describe accurately. You extrapolate his theory further as above: " evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change."

You keep pretending that Shapiro does not attribute evolutionary novelty to cellular intelligence. Calling it “miraculous” and substituting “any design change” for evolutionary novelty does not make my theory any different to his.

DAVID: I agree it is all theory, and we don't know how speciation happens. I'm with God as designer, because of the complexity of the biological designs we find.

I know. Shapiro’s theory is that the cells do the designing. You know, but you pretend it isn’t his theory. My only addition is that if God exists, he would have designed cellular intelligence.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 24, 2021, 18:10 (1008 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You slice and dice as if evolution is all unrelated distinct parts. Now you suddenly deny it.


dhw: Total confusion. I’ll try to straighten it out. 1) You have just quite rightly sliced the history up into precise geological eras. This has nothing to do with 2) the continuity of common descent, in which every life form is descended from a previous life form. However, 3) although we believe all life forms are descended from the earliest (bacteria), there is NO continuity between the different branches which evolved separately. One branch went from bacteria to humans, and another branch went from bacteria to birds. But according to you, every branch was “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” plus their lunch.

Of course the branches physically split apart, but their relationship remains as we look to the past process, all run by the same DNA with local modifications. The necessity that remains at all stages (which you always ignore) is enough branches to be eaten to satisfy a requirement for energy.


dhw: […] I hope you will now stop pretending that I have “extrapolated” ideas which Shapiro does not propose himself.

DAVID: Shapiro proposed a possible solution by self-editing DNA. I just presented some minor evidence that it happens for minor modification. Your extrapolation is evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change.

dhw: You simply refuse to take any notice of what you quote in your own book. How many more times? Cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities….Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self modification...” Please stop pretending that “evolutionary novelty” and “new structures” mean “minor modification”.

DAVID: Those phrases are Shapiro's extrapolated theory from his findings, which I describe accurately. You extrapolate his theory further as above: " evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change."

dhw: You keep pretending that Shapiro does not attribute evolutionary novelty to cellular intelligence. Calling it “miraculous” and substituting “any design change” for evolutionary novelty does not make my theory any different to his.

No, in a way his theory is as much an extrapolation as you use. He presented it as an important finding that had to be further understood in the problem of how speciation works. I'm not aware anyone has done followup work, but Lenski's E.coli attempt, which hasn't offered answers so far, continues. I wish some real advance in understanding would occur.


DAVID: I agree it is all theory, and we don't know how speciation happens. I'm with God as designer, because of the complexity of the biological designs we find.

dhw: I know. Shapiro’s theory is that the cells do the designing. You know, but you pretend it isn’t his theory. My only addition is that if God exists, he would have designed cellular intelligence.

'
You keep unrealistically interpreting my view of Shapiro. Why is it so important for you to have a God that allows cells to do their own designing not under His control? To reduce God's power? What else?

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Friday, June 25, 2021, 11:34 (1007 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You slice and dice as if evolution is all unrelated distinct parts. Now you suddenly deny it.

dhw: Total confusion. I’ll try to straighten it out. 1) You have just quite rightly sliced the history up into precise geological eras. This has nothing to do with 2) the continuity of common descent, in which every life form is descended from a previous life form. However, 3) although we believe all life forms are descended from the earliest (bacteria), there is NO continuity between the different branches which evolved separately. One branch went from bacteria to humans, and another branch went from bacteria to birds. But according to you, every branch was “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” plus their lunch.

DAVID: Of course the branches physically split apart, but their relationship remains as we look to the past process, all run by the same DNA with local modifications. The necessity that remains at all stages (which you always ignore) is enough branches to be eaten to satisfy a requirement for energy.

The fact that all life forms are run by DNA etc. does not mean that they were all specially designed as part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging! And I have always recognized the self-evident truth that all life forms need food for energy, but that does not mean that all life forms were part of the goal of evolving humans and their lunch. Please stop dodging!

dhw (re Shapiro’s theory): You simply refuse to take any notice of what you quote in your own book. How many more times? Cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities….Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self modification...” Please stop pretending that “evolutionary novelty” and “new structures” mean “minor modification”.

DAVID: Those phrases are Shapiro's extrapolated theory from his findings, which I describe accurately. You extrapolate his theory further as above: " evidenced in your miraculous 'cell intelligence theory' that can theoretically produce any design change."

dhw: You keep pretending that Shapiro does not attribute evolutionary novelty to cellular intelligence. Calling it “miraculous” and substituting “any design change” for evolutionary novelty does not make my theory any different to his.

DAVID: No, in a way his theory is as much an extrapolation as you use. He presented it as an important finding that had to be further understood in the problem of how speciation works.

His theory is that speciation is caused by intelligent cells changing their own structure. So is mine.

DAVID: I'm not aware anyone has done follow up work, but Lenski's E.coli attempt, which hasn't offered answers so far, continues. I wish some real advance in understanding would occur.

So do I. And I also wish you would stop pretending that Shapiro does not propose cellular intelligence as the driving force behind speciation.

DAVID: You keep unrealistically interpreting my view of Shapiro. Why is it so important for you to have a God that allows cells to do their own designing not under His control? To reduce God's power? What else?

It is you who keep pretending that Shapiro’s theory is not what he says it is. Your questions completely miss the point not just of this discussion but of the forum in general. We are trying to find solutions to all the unsolved mysteries. One of them is how evolution works. Neither of us accepts Darwin’s random mutations. What are the alternatives? Your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations and solutions etc. is one. Your God incessantly dabbling to design every innovation, solve every problem, give courses in camouflage and nest-building and navigation and self-defence is another. Cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God, is another. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s power. If he exists, you have no more idea than I have about his nature, purpose, or method. But the object of all our discussions is to propose theories and discuss their likelihood.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Friday, June 25, 2021, 18:21 (1007 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No, in a way his [Shapiro's] theory is as much an extrapolation as you use. He presented it as an important finding that had to be further understood in the problem of how speciation works.

His theory is that speciation is caused by intelligent cells changing their own structure. So is mine.

DAVID: I'm not aware anyone has done follow up work, but Lenski's E.coli attempt, which hasn't offered answers so far, continues. I wish some real advance in understanding would occur.

dhw: So do I. And I also wish you would stop pretending that Shapiro does not propose cellular intelligence as the driving force behind speciation.

DAVID: You keep unrealistically interpreting my view of Shapiro. Why is it so important for you to have a God that allows cells to do their own designing not under His control? To reduce God's power? What else?

dhw: It is you who keep pretending that Shapiro’s theory is not what he says it is. Your questions completely miss the point not just of this discussion but of the forum in general. We are trying to find solutions to all the unsolved mysteries. One of them is how evolution works. Neither of us accepts Darwin’s random mutations. What are the alternatives? Your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations and solutions etc. is one. Your God incessantly dabbling to design every innovation, solve every problem, give courses in camouflage and nest-building and navigation and self-defence is another. Cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God, is another. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s power. If he exists, you have no more idea than I have about his nature, purpose, or method. But the object of all our discussions is to propose theories and discuss their likelihood.

We have discussed and debated just as you describe. And we do it from two differing positions, so we don't reach lots of agreement. And that keeps the discussion going forward, and it must be of interest as it is being followed by a number of lurkers.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by dhw, Saturday, June 26, 2021, 08:01 (1006 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why is it so important for you to have a God that allows cells to do their own designing not under His control? To reduce God's power? What else?

dhw: It is you who keep pretending that Shapiro’s theory is not what he says it is. Your questions completely miss the point not just of this discussion but of the forum in general. We are trying to find solutions to all the unsolved mysteries. One of them is how evolution works. Neither of us accepts Darwin’s random mutations. What are the alternatives? Your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations and solutions etc. is one. Your God incessantly dabbling to design every innovation, solve every problem, give courses in camouflage and nest-building and navigation and self-defence is another. Cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God, is another. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s power. If he exists, you have no more idea than I have about his nature, purpose, or method. But the object of all our discussions is to propose theories and discuss their likelihood.

DAVID: We have discussed and debated just as you describe. And we do it from two differing positions, so we don't reach lots of agreement. And that keeps the discussion going forward, and it must be of interest as it is being followed by a number of lurkers.

Unfortunately, the discussion doesn’t go forward. It goes round. But so long as you now accept that Shapiro’s theory of evolution is what both he and I say it is, and it is not designed to eliminate God or “reduce God’s power”, we can close this thread, which has diverged from its subject anyway.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 26, 2021, 15:13 (1006 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why is it so important for you to have a God that allows cells to do their own designing not under His control? To reduce God's power? What else?

dhw: It is you who keep pretending that Shapiro’s theory is not what he says it is. Your questions completely miss the point not just of this discussion but of the forum in general. We are trying to find solutions to all the unsolved mysteries. One of them is how evolution works. Neither of us accepts Darwin’s random mutations. What are the alternatives? Your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all innovations and solutions etc. is one. Your God incessantly dabbling to design every innovation, solve every problem, give courses in camouflage and nest-building and navigation and self-defence is another. Cellular intelligence, possibly designed by your God, is another. Nothing whatsoever to do with God’s power. If he exists, you have no more idea than I have about his nature, purpose, or method. But the object of all our discussions is to propose theories and discuss their likelihood.

DAVID: We have discussed and debated just as you describe. And we do it from two differing positions, so we don't reach lots of agreement. And that keeps the discussion going forward, and it must be of interest as it is being followed by a number of lurkers.

dhw: Unfortunately, the discussion doesn’t go forward. It goes round. But so long as you now accept that Shapiro’s theory of evolution is what both he and I say it is, and it is not designed to eliminate God or “reduce God’s power”, we can close this thread, which has diverged from its subject anyway.

We completely left the subject of gaps because of poor Shapiro. We do not agree on how to interpret him, but both of us recognize his rich research contributions.

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 15, 2022, 22:18 (560 days ago) @ David Turell

Look at the amazing complex development in 380-million-year-old fish:

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

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

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

***

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

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

Miscellany: gaps in evolution cause discontinuity

by David Turell @, Friday, March 17, 2023, 18:22 (377 days ago) @ dhw

The latest finding of an Ichthyosaur with no predecessors:

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, June 14, 2021, 14:28 (1018 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Define dodging in a debate. I strongly feel I am answering honestly about my beliefs and theories.

dhw: The most blatant of examples is when someone is asked a question and avoids answering it. You see it all the time in political interviews. In your case, the question is: why would a purposeful, all-powerful God whose sole purpose is to design H. sapiens (plus lunch), have specially designed millions of life forms, lunches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens?...the fact is you can’t provide an explanation for what in fact is inexplicable, as you yourself occasionally admit until once more you insist that the theory is logical. It isn’t, and so we begin the same round of question from me and dodges from you.

DAVID: You have admitted God in charge can chose to do what He wishes to do. History displays God's actions. Therefore what is logical is God chose His method of producing humans by historical evolution. Your complaint is a dispute with God's logic as I view it. And as for your complaint that I can't explain why God did it that way, I just accept it.

And yet again you edit your theory to leave out the part which is illogical! Of course if God exists, history displays his actions. Of course those of us who accept the theory of evolution believe that humans were produced by evolution. And I am not questioning why God might have chosen evolution as the method to achieve his purposes. If he exists, then he invented evolution. But in your edited summary you have left out the fact that evolution produced millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans, and you insist that all of them were specially designed. If his one and only purpose was to create humans and their lunch, it makes no sense that he would have specially designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. STOP DODGING!

Clear evidence of common descent
dhw: Once more: do you believe that every life form (apart from the first) is descended from a previous life form, or every life form was created from scratch (de novo)?

DAVID: Many life forms are modifications of previous species: birds came from a branch of dinosaurs, and their design did not require a complete rewrite. I pose God as the rewriting engineer which gives us descent with modification. Frankly the only full de novo I know is the Cambrian explosion.

dhw: Thank you. Of course common descent entails modification – otherwise there would be no speciation! As regards the Cambrian, you do not “know” that species were designed “de novo”. You assume they were because of the absence of fossils, and because some scientists express disbelief that new species could evolve by chance during such a short period of time. See the separate post for my response to you and Bechly.

Ingenious research tricks
DAVID: Cell intelligence (dhw theory) can't create this. Only a highly-advanced designing mind can.

dhw: I’m not proposing that the cell’s intelligence created the way in which it functions! The research (vividly) reveals the mechanisms. It can’t reveal the intelligence that controls the mechanisms, any more than it can reveal your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all its transformations.

DAVID: My same purpose: as we reveal the complexity of life's processes only a superior designing mind must exist.

dhw: But we should separate Chapters One and Two of life’s processes. Your God may have designed the original mechanisms and processes involved in Chapter One (Darwin himself allows for that), which would include the cellular intelligence championed by certain distinguished scientists, but that does not mean God must have designed Chapter Two, which is the speciation that constitutes evolution.

DAVID: Separating origin of life and evolution of life is a debating crutch to avoid the issues involved in a debate about God.

No it’s not. The debate concerns how speciation works, and for that purpose, I am quite happy for argument’s sake to accept the existence of God (as was Darwin). You use this argument in order to avoid discussing the illogicality of your theory concerning your God’s intentions and methods. God inventing cellular intelligence to run evolution is just as theistic as God dabbling or providing a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for the whole of life’s history.

Dark matter
QUOTES: "Colliding clusters cannot obey different gravitational rules from non-colliding ones."
"Inescapably, dark matter must therefore exist."

“Dark” here means totally unknown. So all they are telling us is that there is something unknown that holds the universe together. Giving an unknown something a name makes it seem nice and official, but it doesn't tell us much, does it?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, June 14, 2021, 17:52 (1018 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have admitted God in charge can chose to do what He wishes to do. History displays God's actions. Therefore what is logical is God chose His method of producing humans by historical evolution. Your complaint is a dispute with God's logic as I view it. And as for your complaint that I can't explain why God did it that way, I just accept it.

dhw:...But in your edited summary you have left out the fact that evolution produced millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans, and you insist that all of them were specially designed. If his one and only purpose was to create humans and their lunch, it makes no sense that he would have specially designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. STOP DODGING!

God's goal was to produce us at the end of the evolutionary process. That is my solid logical position. I have pointed out in the past your illogical complaint about God's method brings up the suggestion implied by you that God should have directly created us. Even the Genesis Eden story realizes a direct creation requires a garden filled with food supply. The huge bush of life is required to support our current population. Your complaint is the DODGE.


Ingenious research tricks

DAVID: Separating origin of life and evolution of life is a debating crutch to avoid the issues involved in a debate about God.

dhw: No it’s not. The debate concerns how speciation works, and for that purpose, I am quite happy for argument’s sake to accept the existence of God (as was Darwin). You use this argument in order to avoid discussing the illogicality of your theory concerning your God’s intentions and methods. God inventing cellular intelligence to run evolution is just as theistic as God dabbling or providing a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for the whole of life’s history.

Wrong. Initial life is a speciation!!! You like to slice and dice processes like evolution. Same DODGE.


Dark matter
QUOTES: "Colliding clusters cannot obey different gravitational rules from non-colliding ones."
"Inescapably, dark matter must therefore exist."

dhw: “Dark” here means totally unknown. So all they are telling us is that there is something unknown that holds the universe together. Giving an unknown something a name makes it seem nice and official, but it doesn't tell us much, does it?

It tells us the missing mass doesn't light up.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, June 15, 2021, 11:19 (1017 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If his one and only purpose was to create humans and their lunch, it makes no sense that he would have specially designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: God's goal was to produce us at the end of the evolutionary process. That is my solid logical position.

It would be logical were it not for the fact that you insist he directly created millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc, and 99% of these had no connection with humans. Hence my alternative proposal that if we were indeed his goal, the rest might be the result of experimentation in order to find the right combination.

DAVID: I have pointed out in the past your illogical complaint about God's method brings up the suggestion implied by you that God should have directly created us.

If we were his only purpose, and he was capable of directly designing every other life form, then there is no reason to believe that he could not have directly created us plus food supply. But of course I’m not saying what he should have done. I’m questioning your rigid and incompatible beliefs concerning what he wanted to do and what he did.

DAVID: Even the Genesis Eden story realizes a direct creation requires a garden filled with food supply. The huge bush of life is required to support our current population. Your complaint is the DODGE.

Of course we need food. But 99% of the life forms and food supplies you tell us he designed individually had nothing to do with humans! Why don’t you listen to yourself? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

Ingenious research tricks
DAVID: Separating origin of life and evolution of life is a debating crutch to avoid the issues involved in a debate about God.

dhw: […] God inventing cellular intelligence to run evolution is just as theistic as God dabbling or providing a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for the whole of life’s history.

DAVID: Wrong. Initial life is a speciation!!! You like to slice and dice processes like evolution. Same DODGE.

In my theory, the first cells (possibly designed by your God) would have contained the mechanisms for evolution (reproduction, heredity, potential for variation) plus the intelligence required to use the mechanism and change structures to meet or exploit new conditions. The very first cells were the very first species, if you like, but evolution is the history of all their changes. You claim that my theory is an attempt to avoid a debate about God. It’s an attempt to explain how evolution works, and it allows for God. What is “wrong”, and what have I dodged?

Planets with polar orbits
DAVID: Obviously all parts of the universe are not the same. Should they necessarily be similar? It is certainly possible some processes of evolution of the universe can have different results.

And all apparently specially designed for the purpose of designing humans plus their lunch?

The spinning universe
DAVID: We keep finding new mysteries in God's creation to study. Day and night are good for us living creatures who have to sleep. Is that the reason? That idea makes us very important.

Important to whom? Are you now saying that your God specially designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct, and made all of them spin so that humans and their lunch could sleep better?

Magic embryology
DAVID: We can see what works, but do not know how it works or why it works. Our knowledge of genomics is still on the outside looking in.

And from the outside, it looks as if the components are acting and cooperating intelligently. You grant that it’s 50/50, but you know it’s not.

Introducing the brain
QUOTE: In this region, many of the stem cells are in a quiescent state, sensing signals in the environment that stimulate them to awaken and transform into new nerve cells.

Again I wonder if the flexibility and versatility of stem cells might not be the key to the way cell communities speciate as they interact with environmental conditions.

Consciousness: free will exists
QUOTE: Experiments spanning the 1960s and 1980s measured brain signals noninvasively and led many neuroscientists to believe that our brains make decisions before we do—that human actions were initiated by electrical waves that did not reflect free, conscious thought.

I note the separation between “brain” and “we”. I imagine some neuroscientists think “we” ARE our brain. Personally, I don’t see how the speed of the electrical waves solves anything anyway. The argument about free will is not confined to the speed of electrical waves in relation to decisions taken. It revolves around all the factors that influence our decisions but are beyond our control, including our brains, bodies, heredity, upbringing, environment, chance events etc, We have discussed this many times.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 15, 2021, 19:22 (1017 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God's goal was to produce us at the end of the evolutionary process. That is my solid logical position. [/i]

dhw: It would be logical were it not for the fact that you insist he directly created millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.

Amazing! Your objection exactly describes God's evolutionary process!!!

DAVID: Even the Genesis Eden story realizes a direct creation requires a garden filled with food supply. The huge bush of life is required to support our current population. Your complaint is the DODGE.

dhw: Of course we need food. But 99% of the life forms and food supplies you tell us he designed individually had nothing to do with humans! Why don’t you listen to yourself? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

You are again just slicing evolution into unrelated segments. The term evolution requires continuity.


Ingenious research tricks

dhw: […] God inventing cellular intelligence to run evolution is just as theistic as God dabbling or providing a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for the whole of life’s history.

DAVID: Wrong. Initial life is a speciation!!! You like to slice and dice processes like evolution. Same DODGE.

dhw: In my theory, the first cells (possibly designed by your God) would have contained the mechanisms for evolution (reproduction, heredity, potential for variation) plus the intelligence required to use the mechanism and change structures to meet or exploit new conditions. The very first cells were the very first species, if you like, but evolution is the history of all their changes...what have I dodged?

You sort of made it disappear. First life is directly continuous to what follows.


Magic embryology
DAVID: We can see what works, but do not know how it works or why it works. Our knowledge of genomics is still on the outside looking in.

dhw: And from the outside, it looks as if the components are acting and cooperating intelligently. You grant that it’s 50/50, but you know it’s not.'

I strongly believe it is not.


Introducing the brain
QUOTE: In this region, many of the stem cells are in a quiescent state, sensing signals in the environment that stimulate them to awaken and transform into new nerve cells.

dhw: Again I wonder if the flexibility and versatility of stem cells might not be the key to the way cell communities speciate as they interact with environmental conditions.

Stem cells are very specialized to become regular cells which are never that specialized.


Consciousness: free will exists
QUOTE: Experiments spanning the 1960s and 1980s measured brain signals noninvasively and led many neuroscientists to believe that our brains make decisions before we do—that human actions were initiated by electrical waves that did not reflect free, conscious thought.

dhw: I note the separation between “brain” and “we”. I imagine some neuroscientists think “we” ARE our brain. Personally, I don’t see how the speed of the electrical waves solves anything anyway. The argument about free will is not confined to the speed of electrical waves in relation to decisions taken. It revolves around all the factors that influence our decisions but are beyond our control, including our brains, bodies, heredity, upbringing, environment, chance events etc, We have discussed this many times.

Part of the article I quoted reestablished a proper interpretation of Libet's thoughts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 11:31 (1016 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God's goal was to produce us at the end of the evolutionary process. That is my solid logical position.

dhw: It would be logical were it not for the fact that you insist he directly created millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Amazing! Your objection exactly describes God's evolutionary process!!!

No it doesn’t.The combination of bolded beliefs exactly describes your interpretation of the evolutionary process, and you can find no logical explanation for it, which at the very least suggests that your interpretation may be wrong.

DAVID: The huge bush of life is required to support our current population. Your complaint is the DODGE.

dhw: Of course we need food. But 99% of the life forms and food supplies you tell us he designed individually had nothing to do with humans! Why don’t you listen to yourself? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: You are again just slicing evolution into unrelated segments. The term evolution requires continuity.

The continuity consists in the concept of common descent – i.e. all organisms except the first descended from existing organisms. The huge bush of past life with its millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. was for the past, and so it is blatantly absurd to say that every single branch and twig of it was “required to support our current population”.

Ingenious research tricks
dhw: […] God inventing cellular intelligence to run evolution is just as theistic as God dabbling or providing a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for the whole of life’s history.

DAVID: Wrong. Initial life is a speciation!!! You like to slice and dice processes like evolution. Same DODGE.

dhw: In my theory, the first cells (possibly designed by your God) would have contained the mechanisms for evolution (reproduction, heredity, potential for variation) plus the intelligence required to use the mechanism and change structures to meet or exploit new conditions. The very first cells were the very first species, if you like, but evolution is the history of all their changes...what have I dodged?

DAVID: You sort of made it disappear. First life is directly continuous to what follows.

Of course it is, if you believe in common descent. You wrote that “separating origin and evolution of life is a debating crutch to avoid the issues in a debate about God”. God is always allowed for in my theories. There is no dodge.

Introducing the brain
QUOTE: In this region, many of the stem cells are in a quiescent state, sensing signals in the environment that stimulate them to awaken and transform into new nerve cells.

dhw: Again I wonder if the flexibility and versatility of stem cells might not be the key to the way cell communities speciate as they interact with environmental conditions.

DAVID: Stem cells are very specialized to become regular cells which are never that specialized.

Stem cells are “specialized” to become different cells! That is why I am intrigued by the role they may play in evolution, when environmental conditions require or allow changes to existing cellular structures.

Consciousness: free will exists
dhw: [...] The argument about free will is not confined to the speed of electrical waves in relation to decisions taken. It revolves around all the factors that influence our decisions but are beyond our control, including our brains, bodies, heredity, upbringing, environment, chance events etc, We have discussed this many times.

DAVID: Part of the article I quoted reestablished a proper interpretation of Libet's thoughts.

Yes, I know. And I am pointing out that the concept of free will is not limited to the speed of electrical waves, no matter what Libet and his opponents may discover!

Complaint about theoretical math
QUOTE: "During the first years of modern mathematical physics and the construction of its two central pillars, quantum theory and relativity theory, Alfred North Whitehead warned, “There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

It’s worth noting that Whitehead was the great proponent of process theology, which finds God “in the process of becoming, rather than as the transcendent source of being”. An interesting quote: “God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity. God is thus the ‘great companion – the fellow sufferer who understands.’” I’m not going to pretend that I understand the philosophical ins and outs of this, any more than I understand the worlds of quantum theory and relativity, but Whitehead’s concept of “becoming” suggests the direct opposite of David’s transcendent, know-it-all-from-the- beginning version of God. Theism can take many forms, even among devout believers. Question to David: would you call Whitehead's version of God weak, namby-pamby, or wishy-washy? (Quotations from Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 19:30 (1016 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Amazing! Your objection exactly describes God's evolutionary process!!!

dhw: No it doesn’t. The combination of bolded beliefs exactly describes your interpretation of the evolutionary process, and you can find no logical explanation for it, which at the very least suggests that your interpretation may be wrong.

I am not interpreting the evolutionary process, but simply accepting the history as God's work. It is your refusal to accept that approach that is totally illogical.


DAVID: You are again just slicing evolution into unrelated segments. The term evolution requires continuity.

dhw: The continuity consists in the concept of common descent – i.e. all organisms except the first descended from existing organisms. The huge bush of past life with its millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. was for the past, and so it is blatantly absurd to say that every single branch and twig of it was “required to support our current population”.

Distortion. Only the current bush supports current life. And yes, past supports past, but he continuity is on changing living forms by designed evolution.

Complaint about theoretical math
QUOTE: "During the first years of modern mathematical physics and the construction of its two central pillars, quantum theory and relativity theory, Alfred North Whitehead warned, “There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

dhw: It’s worth noting that Whitehead was the great proponent of process theology, which finds God “in the process of becoming, rather than as the transcendent source of being”. An interesting quote: “God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity. God is thus the ‘great companion – the fellow sufferer who understands.’” I’m not going to pretend that I understand the philosophical ins and outs of this, any more than I understand the worlds of quantum theory and relativity, but Whitehead’s concept of “becoming” suggests the direct opposite of David’s transcendent, know-it-all-from-the- beginning version of God. Theism can take many forms, even among devout believers. Question to David: would you call Whitehead's version of God weak, namby-pamby, or wishy-washy? (Quotations from Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

None of those. My thought about God evolving everything from Big Bang on sort of fits Whitehead's thoughts although I understand the difference. He is not accepting God as a personage behind the process.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, June 17, 2021, 10:59 (1015 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God's goal was to produce us at the end of the evolutionary process. That is my solid logical position.

dhw: It would be logical were it not for the fact that you insist he directly created millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.[/b]

DAVID: Amazing! Your objection exactly describes God's evolutionary process!!!

dhw: No it doesn’t. The combination of bolded beliefs exactly describes your interpretation of the evolutionary process, and you can find no logical explanation for it, which at the very least suggests that your interpretation may be wrong.

DAVID: I am not interpreting the evolutionary process, but simply accepting the history as God's work. It is your refusal to accept that approach that is totally illogical.

The history is that millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. have come and gone, and humans are the latest species to have emerged from the huge bush. It is not history that your God individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc., and it is not history that his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, and it is not history that every single life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans.” That is all interpretation, and the combination of interpretations leads you to the absurd conclusion that your all-powerful God only wanted to design humans plus lunch and therefore designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: You are again just slicing evolution into unrelated segments. The term evolution requires continuity.

dhw: The continuity consists in the concept of common descent – i.e. all organisms except the first descended from existing organisms. The huge bush of past life with its millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. was for the past, and so it is blatantly absurd to say that every single branch and twig of it was “required to support our current population”.

DAVID: Distortion. Only the current bush supports current life. And yes, past supports past

So will you please finally stop saying that “the huge bush of life is required to support our current population” when the dispute concerns your God’s reason for specially designing the huge PAST bush of life, which had no connection with humans!

DAVID: …but the continuity is on changing living forms by designed evolution.

And so you gloss over the fact that the continuity lies in ALL life forms on ALL branches of the bush having descended from former life forms. They were not ALL “part of the goal of evolving [= designing ] humans.”

dhw: Whitehead’s concept of “becoming” suggests the direct opposite of David’s transcendent, know-it-all-from-the- beginning version of God. Theism can take many forms, even among devout believers. Question to David: would you call Whitehead's version of God weak, namby-pamby, or wishy-washy? (Quotations from Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

DAVID: None of those. My thought about God evolving everything from Big Bang on sort of fits Whitehead's thoughts although I understand the difference. He is not accepting God as a personage behind the process.

He is not accepting God as the transcendent being who plans, knows, and designs everything in advance. He is a “becoming” God, not a God who had it all, right from the start.

Behe
QUOTE: "The overriding point is that we can only recognize design/mind in the purposeful arrangement of parts."

I can’t imagine anyone would disagree with his definition. I don’t know why he’s so concerned about terminology, though. I reckon most of us know the meaning of design!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 17, 2021, 15:43 (1015 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am not interpreting the evolutionary process, but simply accepting the history as God's work. It is your refusal to accept that approach that is totally illogical.

dhw: The history is that millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. have come and gone, and humans are the latest species to have emerged from the huge bush. It is not history that your God individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc., and it is not history that his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, and it is not history that every single life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans.” That is all interpretation, and the combination of interpretations leads you to the absurd conclusion that your all-powerful God only wanted to design humans plus lunch and therefore designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans.

This is a total distortion of my position in your twisted view. I am simply stating God chose to evolve humans starting with bacteria. The rest of our discussions have revolved about how evolution reached humans, and your wonder as to why God would want to do it that way. We are the result of His works in evolution. That we are so unusual is supreme support God did it.


DAVID: You are again just slicing evolution into unrelated segments. The term evolution requires continuity.

dhw: The continuity consists in the concept of common descent – i.e. all organisms except the first descended from existing organisms. The huge bush of past life with its millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. was for the past, and so it is blatantly absurd to say that every single branch and twig of it was “required to support our current population”.

DAVID: Distortion. Only the current bush supports current life. And yes, past supports past

dhw: So will you please finally stop saying that “the huge bush of life is required to support our current population” when the dispute concerns your God’s reason for specially designing the huge PAST bush of life, which had no connection with humans!

Same dicing and slicing the continuity of the evolutionary process.


dhw: Whitehead’s concept of “becoming” suggests the direct opposite of David’s transcendent, know-it-all-from-the- beginning version of God. Theism can take many forms, even among devout believers. Question to David: would you call Whitehead's version of God weak, namby-pamby, or wishy-washy? (Quotations from Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

DAVID: None of those. My thought about God evolving everything from Big Bang on sort of fits Whitehead's thoughts although I understand the difference. He is not accepting God as a personage behind the process.

dhw: He is not accepting God as the transcendent being who plans, knows, and designs everything in advance. He is a “becoming” God, not a God who had it all, right from the start.

I've viewed Whitehead as not accepting God but accepting evolution as as sort of God.


Behe
QUOTE: "The overriding point is that we can only recognize design/mind in the purposeful arrangement of parts."

I can’t imagine anyone would disagree with his definition. I don’t know why he’s so concerned about terminology, though. I reckon most of us know the meaning of design!

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, June 18, 2021, 12:57 (1014 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am not interpreting the evolutionary process, but simply accepting the history as God's work. It is your refusal to accept that approach that is totally illogical.

dhw: The history is that millions of life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. have come and gone, and humans are the latest species to have emerged from the huge bush. It is not history that your God individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc., and it is not history that his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, and it is not history that every single life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans.” That is all interpretation, and the combination of interpretations leads you to the absurd conclusion that your all-powerful God only wanted to design humans plus lunch and therefore designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: This is a total distortion of my position in your twisted view. I am simply stating God chose to evolve humans starting with bacteria.

So you no longer believe that we were his only purpose, that he designed every living form etc. himself, and every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus our lunch?

DAVID: The rest of our discussions have revolved about how evolution reached humans, and your wonder as to why God would want to do it that way.

It revolves around the combination of your beliefs I’ve just summarized. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: We are the result of His works in evolution. That we are so unusual is supreme support God did it.

According to you, the complexities of ALL living things provide support that God did it, and ALL living things are the result of his works in evolution. So why did he “evolve” (= design) millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans if humans and their lunch were his only goal? You simply go on and on dodging this question, except when you admit that you have no idea why.

DAVID: Only the current bush supports current life. And yes, past supports past

dhw: So will you please finally stop saying that “the huge bush of life is required to support our current population” when the dispute concerns your God’s reason for specially designing the huge PAST bush of life, which had no connection with humans!

DAVID: Same dicing and slicing the continuity of the evolutionary process.


Same attempt to gloss over the fact that although the bush of life sprang from the first cells (= continuity), the branches of the bush were not connected with one another! Only one branch allows for continuity between bacteria and humans, and 99% of past lunches have no connection with present lunches.

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: I've viewed Whitehead as not accepting God but accepting evolution as a sort of God.

WHITEHEAD: "It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.

He was a believer, and this quote is closely akin to your panentheism. But he rejected your version of a transcendent, all-knowing God. What you call wishy-washy and namby-pamby if an agnostic dares to challenge your own fixed view.

Ardipithecus ramidus
QUOTE: "Ardi’s unusual mix of apelike and monkeylike traits demolishes the long-standing assumption that today’s chimpanzees provide a reasonable model of either early hominids or the last common ancestor of people and chimps" etc.

All these different “ancestors” must surely make you wonder why your God didn’t just get on with designing what he knew he wanted to design. Unless, of course, he had other aims, or perhaps was experimenting…

Even our White matter is different
QUOTE: A complete portrait of the structural basis of cognition and emotion cannot neglect the white matter because it interacts so intimately with its gray matter counterpart."

DAVID: The main point is the enormous connectivity between the brain parts which allows to to have the thinking capacity we have. Had to be designed.

The heading of this thread is misleading. Our fellow animals also have white matter, but we just have much more of it. This is the basis of what we’ve called “complexification”. Whether our cells generate the thinking capacity which requires this enormous connectivity is, of course, the question that lies at the heart of the materialism v dualism debate.

Magic embryology
QUOTE: We were looking for the gene conversation that will allow the head to start developing in the embryo, and found that it was initiated by cells in the hypoblast—a disc of cells outside the embryo. They send the message to adjoining embryo cells, which respond by saying 'OK, now we'll set ourselves aside to develop into the head end.'"

DAVID: It has to be a highly controlled, orchestrated, programmed series of events. Therefore highly designed and never by chance mutations.

Agreed. And isn’t it amazing how often these researchers find themselves talking in terms of cells conversing and sending messages! All these processes must have had a beginning, and if cells are intelligent, as some prominent scientists believe - and a good friend of mine acknowledges that the odds are 50/50 – they could have developed the original design which, of course, would then have been passed on.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, June 18, 2021, 16:40 (1014 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This is a total distortion of my position in your twisted view. I am simply stating God chose to evolve humans starting with bacteria.

dhw: So you no longer believe that we were his only purpose, that he designed every living form etc. himself, and every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus our lunch?

God running evolution entails exactly what you ask.

DAVID: We are the result of His works in evolution. That we are so unusual is supreme support God did it.

dhw: According to you, the complexities of ALL living things provide support that God did it, and ALL living things are the result of his works in evolution. So why did he “evolve” (= design) millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans if humans and their lunch were his only goal?

Silly. You describe how evolution happens and then complain about the mechanism. His method is evolving bacteria to human in stages.


DAVID: Only the current bush supports current life. And yes, past supports past

dhw: So will you please finally stop saying that “the huge bush of life is required to support our current population” when the dispute concerns your God’s reason for specially designing the huge PAST bush of life, which had no connection with humans!

DAVID: Same dicing and slicing the continuity of the evolutionary process.


dhw: Same attempt to gloss over the fact that although the bush of life sprang from the first cells (= continuity), the branches of the bush were not connected with one another! Only one branch allows for continuity between bacteria and humans, and 99% of past lunches have no connection with present lunches.

Darwin's drawn tree had a connecting trunk!!!


A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: I've viewed Whitehead as not accepting God but accepting evolution as a sort of God.

WHITEHEAD: "It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.

dhw: He was a believer, and this quote is closely akin to your panentheism. But he rejected your version of a transcendent, all-knowing God. What you call wishy-washy and namby-pamby if an agnostic dares to challenge your own fixed view.

He believed with his view, I with mine, both equal.


Even our White matter is different
QUOTE: A complete portrait of the structural basis of cognition and emotion cannot neglect the white matter because it interacts so intimately with its gray matter counterpart."

DAVID: The main point is the enormous connectivity between the brain parts which allows to to have the thinking capacity we have. Had to be designed.

dhw: The heading of this thread is misleading. Our fellow animals also have white matter, but we just have much more of it.

That is a difference, isn't it?

Magic embryology
QUOTE: We were looking for the gene conversation that will allow the head to start developing in the embryo, and found that it was initiated by cells in the hypoblast—a disc of cells outside the embryo. They send the message to adjoining embryo cells, which respond by saying 'OK, now we'll set ourselves aside to develop into the head end.'"

DAVID: It has to be a highly controlled, orchestrated, programmed series of events. Therefore highly designed and never by chance mutations.

dhw: Agreed. And isn’t it amazing how often these researchers find themselves talking in terms of cells conversing and sending messages! All these processes must have had a beginning, and if cells are intelligent, as some prominent scientists believe - and a good friend of mine acknowledges that the odds are 50/50 – they could have developed the original design which, of course, would then have been passed on.

50/50 only because we are on the outside looking in. This is where interpretation is employed

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, June 19, 2021, 11:08 (1013 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This is a total distortion of my position in your twisted view. I am simply stating God chose to evolve humans starting with bacteria.

dhw: So you no longer believe that we were his only purpose, that he designed every living form etc. himself, and every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus our lunch?

DAVID: God running evolution entails exactly what you ask.

We were in the process of distinguishing fact from interpretation, and you claimed that you were simply stating that God chose to evolve humans from bacteria. That is not all you “simply” state, and the above list of your statements is pure interpretation. There was no distortion on my part.

DAVID: We are the result of His works in evolution. That we are so unusual is supreme support God did it.

dhw: According to you, the complexities of ALL living things provide support that God did it, and ALL living things are the result of his works in evolution. So why did he “evolve” (= design) millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans if humans and their lunch were his only goal?

DAVID: Silly. You describe how evolution happens and then complain about the mechanism. His method is evolving bacteria to human in stages.

My complaint is your constant attempts to dodge the fact that according to you his only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, and his “method” entailed individually designing millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and lunches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Only the current bush supports current life. And yes, past supports past…

dhw: So will you please finally stop saying that “the huge bush of life is required to support our current population” when the dispute concerns your God’s reason for specially designing the huge PAST bush of life, which had no connection with humans!

DAVID: Same dicing and slicing the continuity of the evolutionary process.

dhw: Same attempt to gloss over the fact that, although the bush of life sprang from the first cells and each branch sprang from preceding branches(= continuity), the branches of the bush were not connected with one another! Only one branch allows for continuity between bacteria and humans, and 99% of past lunches have no connection with present lunches.

DAVID: Darwin's drawn tree had a connecting trunk!!!

So what? We don’t like the trunk bit and so we prefer the image of a bush, but a tree also has branches, and the same argument applies: the roots are the first cells, but from them spring all the branches of all the different species which have no connection with one another.

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: I've viewed Whitehead as not accepting God but accepting evolution as a sort of God.

WHITEHEAD: "It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.”

dhw: He was a believer, and this quote is closely akin to your panentheism. But he rejected your version of a transcendent, all-knowing God. What you call wishy-washy and namby-pamby if an agnostic dares to challenge your own fixed view.

DAVID: He believed with his view, I with mine, both equal.

So when I propose a God who learns as he goes along (a continuous process of what Whitehead calls “becoming” – hence the term process theology), my theory is equal to yours, and is not to be dismissed as weak, namby-pamby, wishy-washy….

Even our White matter is different
QUOTE: A complete portrait of the structural basis of cognition and emotion cannot neglect the white matter because it interacts so intimately with its gray matter counterpart."

DAVID: The main point is the enormous connectivity between the brain parts which allows to to have the thinking capacity we have. Had to be designed.

dhw: The heading of this thread is misleading. Our fellow animals also have white matter, but we just have much more of it.

DAVID: That is a difference, isn't it?

If you have a million dollars and I have a hundred, does that make your dollars different from mine?

Magic embryology
DAVID: It has to be a highly controlled, orchestrated, programmed series of events. Therefore highly designed and never by chance mutations.

dhw: Agreed. And isn’t it amazing how often these researchers find themselves talking in terms of cells conversing and sending messages! All these processes must have had a beginning, and if cells are intelligent, as some prominent scientists believe - and a good friend of mine acknowledges that the odds are 50/50 – they could have developed the original design which, of course, would then have been passed on.

DAVID: 50/50 only because we are on the outside looking in. This is where interpretation is employed.

If the odds are 50/50 and you reject one of the 50s, I would suggest that is where prejudice is employed.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 19, 2021, 15:33 (1013 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Silly. You describe how evolution happens and then complain about the mechanism. His method is evolving bacteria to human in stages.

dhw: My complaint is your constant attempts to dodge the fact that according to you his only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, and his “method” entailed individually designing millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and lunches that had no connection with humans.

Again you describe evolution and claim God should not have done it that way, but He did. My total argument is from that position. No wonder you cannot accept belief in God with your line of reasoning. God, in charge of all creation, chose to evolve everything that ever existed with a goal of producing humans at the end.


A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: I've viewed Whitehead as not accepting God but accepting evolution as a sort of God.

WHITEHEAD: "It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.”

dhw: He was a believer, and this quote is closely akin to your panentheism. But he rejected your version of a transcendent, all-knowing God. What you call wishy-washy and namby-pamby if an agnostic dares to challenge your own fixed view.

DAVID: He believed with his view, I with mine, both equal.

dhw: So when I propose a God who learns as he goes along (a continuous process of what Whitehead calls “becoming” – hence the term process theology), my theory is equal to yours, and is not to be dismissed as weak, namby-pamby, wishy-washy….

I don't accept Whitehead either, but Whitehead doesn't describe an active God as you do.


Even our White matter is different
QUOTE: A complete portrait of the structural basis of cognition and emotion cannot neglect the white matter because it interacts so intimately with its gray matter counterpart."

DAVID: The main point is the enormous connectivity between the brain parts which allows to to have the thinking capacity we have. Had to be designed.

dhw: The heading of this thread is misleading. Our fellow animals also have white matter, but we just have much more of it.

DAVID: That is a difference, isn't it?

dhw: If you have a million dollars and I have a hundred, does that make your dollars different from mine?

But I've got a villa on the Riviera and you are living on the dole.


Magic embryology
DAVID: It has to be a highly controlled, orchestrated, programmed series of events. Therefore highly designed and never by chance mutations.

dhw: Agreed. And isn’t it amazing how often these researchers find themselves talking in terms of cells conversing and sending messages! All these processes must have had a beginning, and if cells are intelligent, as some prominent scientists believe - and a good friend of mine acknowledges that the odds are 50/50 – they could have developed the original design which, of course, would then have been passed on.

DAVID: 50/50 only because we are on the outside looking in. This is where interpretation is employed.

dhw: If the odds are 50/50 and you reject one of the 50s, I would suggest that is where prejudice is employed.

If my study leads to certain conclusions about the 50/50 (which are honest odds, nothing more and not in any way underlying fact), my studied conclusions are prejudiced and yours are?

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, June 20, 2021, 09:25 (1012 days ago) @ David Turell

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: I've viewed Whitehead as not accepting God but accepting evolution as a sort of God.

WHITEHEAD: "It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.”

dhw: He was a believer, and this quote is closely akin to your panentheism. But he rejected your version of a transcendent, all-knowing God. What you call wishy-washy and namby-pamby if an agnostic dares to challenge your own fixed view.

DAVID: He believed with his view, I with mine, both equal. (dhw's bold)

dhw: So when I propose a God who learns as he goes along (a continuous process of what Whitehead calls “becoming” – hence the term process theology), my theory is equal to yours, and is not to be dismissed as weak, namby-pamby, wishy-washy….

DAVID: I don't accept Whitehead either, but Whitehead doesn't describe an active God as you do.

I'm not sure how active his God is, but why is my active God weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy, whereas you regard an inactive God as equal to yours?

Even our White matter is different
dhw: The heading of this thread is misleading. Our fellow animals also have white matter, but we just have much more of it.

DAVID: That is a difference, isn't it?

dhw: If you have a million dollars and I have a hundred, does that make your dollars different from mine?

DAVID: But I've got a villa on the Riviera and you are living on the dole.

Our extra white matter has led to our intellectual superiority, as in your analogy. That does not make the dollars or the white matter different. We simply have more of them/it.

Magic embryology
dhw: […] isn’t it amazing how often these researchers find themselves talking in terms of cells conversing and sending messages! All these processes must have had a beginning, and if cells are intelligent, as some prominent scientists believe - and a good friend of mine acknowledges that the odds are 50/50 – they could have developed the original design which, of course, would then have been passed on.

DAVID: 50/50 only because we are on the outside looking in. This is where interpretation is employed.

dhw: If the odds are 50/50 and you reject one of the 50s, I would suggest that is where prejudice is employed.

DAVID: If my study leads to certain conclusions about the 50/50 (which are honest odds, nothing more and not in any way underlying fact), my studied conclusions are prejudiced and yours are?

I do not have a conclusion. That is why I am constantly offering alternative explanations and reiterating the fact that I do not have fixed beliefs. But I do find Shapiro’s theory more convincing than your own, since it explains many of the facets of evolution that your theory signally fails to explain. However, there are still far too many imponderables for me to say categorically, as you do, that one theory is the truth and nothing else is possible.

Human evolution: no time for chance

DAVID: The papers are filled with higher math formulas that I cannot follow and the conclusions seem to come out of thin air. This presentation is not that, but quite clear. Mutational changes seem driven and compressed into less time than current estimated mutation rates allow. And this can be applied to the Cambrian complexity gap in spades. Totally new complex body forms with a full complement of organ systems, including eyes with complex bifocal lenses.

There are no precedents or analogies. Nobody knows how speciation happened, and “current mutation rates” won’t help us to know what happened millions of years ago. However, you and I are agreed that all these organs and organisms – whether human or animal – are too complex to be the result of pure chance, regardless of time. We are therefore left with the same choices we have been left with since we began our discussions over 13 years ago: 1) there is a supermind (God) without a source who is simply there and designed it all; 2) the first cells were possessed with an intelligence that enabled them to rearrange their own structures as and when conditions required or allowed; 3) the source of that intelligence was the sourceless supermind, chance (not to be dismissed in an infinite and eternal universe which produces an infinite number of combinations of materials), or an innate rudimentary intelligence in materials (a form of panpsychism). Although I find cellular intelligence the most likely explanation of evolution itself (see above), the source is an absolute sticking point for me, and I find NONE of the explanations credible. Hence my agnosticism.


We learn to see
DAVID: Just as we learn to walk we learn to see, and obviously we learn to feel, to hear, to taste, etc. Our brain is designed as quite helpful to build up an encyclopedia of recorded knowledge to help us navigate living. This is the blank slate aspect of the newborn brain, I have referred to in the past. What is not blank is our congenital inheritance and our experiences as we develop from infanthood.

I can only add that even newborn babies react differently to their immediate surroundings, so we have no idea oF the extent to which our reactions are governed by our “congenital inheritance”. This is an important factor in our discussions on free will. […]

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 20, 2021, 14:39 (1012 days ago) @ dhw

A.N. Whitehead

DAVID: I don't accept Whitehead either, but Whitehead doesn't describe an active God as you do.

dhw: I'm not sure how active his God is, but why is my active God weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy, whereas you regard an inactive God as equal to yours?

It is the image your God presents to me, as you describe His probably wishes and works.


Even our White matter is different

DAVID: But I've got a villa on the Riviera and you are living on the dole.

dhw: Our extra white matter has led to our intellectual superiority, as in your analogy. That does not make the dollars or the white matter different. We simply have more of them/it.

All I meant is our amount is different.


Human evolution: no time for chance

DAVID: The papers are filled with higher math formulas that I cannot follow and the conclusions seem to come out of thin air. This presentation is not that, but quite clear. Mutational changes seem driven and compressed into less time than current estimated mutation rates allow. And this can be applied to the Cambrian complexity gap in spades. Totally new complex body forms with a full complement of organ systems, including eyes with complex bifocal lenses.

dhw: There are no precedents or analogies. Nobody knows how speciation happened, and “current mutation rates” won’t help us to know what happened millions of years ago. However, you and I are agreed that all these organs and organisms – whether human or animal – are too complex to be the result of pure chance, regardless of time. We are therefore left with the same choices we have been left with since we began our discussions over 13 years ago: 1) there is a supermind (God) without a source who is simply there and designed it all; 2) the first cells were possessed with an intelligence that enabled them to rearrange their own structures as and when conditions required or allowed; 3) the source of that intelligence was the sourceless supermind, chance (not to be dismissed in an infinite and eternal universe which produces an infinite number of combinations of materials), or an innate rudimentary intelligence in materials (a form of panpsychism). Although I find cellular intelligence the most likely explanation of evolution itself (see above), the source is an absolute sticking point for me, and I find NONE of the explanations credible. Hence my agnosticism.

An excellent review of your thoughts.>


We learn to see
DAVID: Just as we learn to walk we learn to see, and obviously we learn to feel, to hear, to taste, etc. Our brain is designed as quite helpful to build up an encyclopedia of recorded knowledge to help us navigate living. This is the blank slate aspect of the newborn brain, I have referred to in the past. What is not blank is our congenital inheritance and our experiences as we develop from infanthood.

dhw: I can only add that even newborn babies react differently to their immediate surroundings, so we have no idea oF the extent to which our reactions are governed by our “congenital inheritance”. This is an important factor in our discussions on free will. […]

I can only agree. we do that now and then!

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, June 21, 2021, 08:52 (1011 days ago) @ David Turell

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: I don't accept Whitehead either, but Whitehead doesn't describe an active God as you do.

dhw: I'm not sure how active his God is, but why is my active God weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy, whereas you regard an inactive God as equal to yours?

DAVID: It is the image your God presents to me, as you describe His probably wishes and works.

I describe different possibilities – experimenting to get what he wants, designing new things because he enjoys designing them, creating a free-for-all to see what will happen. All are active and condemned by you as weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy. You say Whitehead’s “becoming” God is inactive but equal to yours, who specially designs everything and knows everything in advance. I don’t understand your criteria for “equality”.

Even our White matter is different
DAVID: But I've got a villa on the Riviera and you are living on the dole.

dhw: Our extra white matter has led to our intellectual superiority, as in your analogy. That does not make the dollars or the white matter different. We simply have more of them/it.

DAVID: All I meant is our amount is different.

Yes, we have more of it, but it is not different. The heading is wrong. Thank you.

Human evolution: no time for chance
dhw: There are no precedents or analogies. Nobody knows how speciation happened, and “current mutation rates” won’t help us to know what happened millions of years ago. However, you and I are agreed that all these organs and organisms – whether human or animal – are too complex to be the result of pure chance, regardless of time. We are therefore left with the same choices we have been left with since we began our discussions over 13 years ago: 1) there is a supermind (God) without a source who is simply there and designed it all; 2) the first cells were possessed with an intelligence that enabled them to rearrange their own structures as and when conditions required or allowed; 3) the source of that intelligence was the sourceless supermind, chance (not to be dismissed in an infinite and eternal universe which produces an infinite number of combinations of materials), or an innate rudimentary intelligence in materials (a form of panpsychism). Although I find cellular intelligence the most likely explanation of evolution itself (see above), the source is an absolute sticking point for me, and I find NONE of the explanations credible. Hence my agnosticism.

DAVID: An excellent review of your thoughts.

Thank you. Perhaps you will bear it in mind during future discussions, especially when you claim that my alternative theories are attempts to get rid of God. I have left my review here in its entirety as it answers one of your non-arguments on the “Possible God” thread.

We learn to see
DAVID: Just as we learn to walk we learn to see, and obviously we learn to feel, to hear, to taste, etc. Our brain is designed as quite helpful to build up an encyclopedia of recorded knowledge to help us navigate living. This is the blank slate aspect of the newborn brain, I have referred to in the past. What is not blank is our congenital inheritance and our experiences as we develop from infanthood.

dhw: I can only add that even newborn babies react differently to their immediate surroundings, so we have no idea oF the extent to which our reactions are governed by our “congenital inheritance”. This is an important factor in our discussions on free will. […]

DAVID: I can only agree. we do that now and then!

Always a pleasure!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, June 21, 2021, 18:05 (1011 days ago) @ dhw

A.N. Whitehead

DAVID: It is the image your God presents to me, as you describe His probably wishes and works.

dhw: I describe different possibilities – experimenting to get what he wants, designing new things because he enjoys designing them, creating a free-for-all to see what will happen. All are active and condemned by you as weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy. You say Whitehead’s “becoming” God is inactive but equal to yours, who specially designs everything and knows everything in advance. I don’t understand your criteria for “equality”.

Your description is a very humanized God. You have an experimenting Creator who must try things out to see what He wants or allows an free-for-all with no known ending.

We learn to see
DAVID: Just as we learn to walk we learn to see, and obviously we learn to feel, to hear, to taste, etc. Our brain is designed as quite helpful to build up an encyclopedia of recorded knowledge to help us navigate living. This is the blank slate aspect of the newborn brain, I have referred to in the past. What is not blank is our congenital inheritance and our experiences as we develop from infanthood.

dhw: I can only add that even newborn babies react differently to their immediate surroundings, so we have no idea oF the extent to which our reactions are governed by our “congenital inheritance”. This is an important factor in our discussions on free will. […]

DAVID: I can only agree. we do that now and then!

Always a pleasure!

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 14:02 (1010 days ago) @ David Turell

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: It is the image your God presents to me, as you describe His probably wishes and works.

dhw: I describe different possibilities – experimenting to get what he wants, designing new things because he enjoys designing them, creating a free-for-all to see what will happen. All are active and condemned by you as weak, namby-pamby and wishy-washy. You say Whitehead’s “becoming” God is inactive but equal to yours, who specially designs everything and knows everything in advance. I don’t understand your criteria for “equality”.

DAVID: Your description is a very humanized God. You have an experimenting Creator who must try things out to see what He wants or allows an free-for-all with no known ending.

You don’t need to repeat what I have just described in the post you have quoted. I just want to know why you regard these versions of an active God as weak and namby-pamby, whereas Whitehead’s “becoming God”, who you say is inactive and therefore clearly does NOT control evolution, is equal to your humanized control freak with good intentions.

Insect smell receptors
QUOTE: “Effectively, olfactory systems have evolved to take arbitrary patterns of receptor activation and endow them with meaning through learning and experience,” Ruta said. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Amazingly complex as suggested. Note my bold. Odors are learned over time. Literally these receptors fondle the shape of the protein molecules they receive and gradually learn to understand what teh odor means and signifies.

Yes, endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience is a process integral to evolution and indicative of autonomous intelligence. It is the exact opposite of obeying instructions already planted at the beginning of life or implanted through a divine dabble.

Plant cell regulators
QUOTE: However, a large number of a plant cell's genes in its mitochondria and chloroplasts can develop defects, jeopardizing their function. Nevertheless, plant cells evolved an amazing tool called the RNA editosome (a large protein complex) to repair these kinds of errors. It can modify defective messenger RNA that result from defective DNA by transforming (deamination) of certain mRNA nucleotides.

DAVID: We have previously discussed God's error correction mechanisms. What is obvious is that they must be present when the plant is initially evolved. Chance evolution by chance mutation won't do that.

Yes, we have discussed the extraordinary idea that an all-powerful God with the best of intentions cannot avoid building errors into his creations but provides correction mechanisms that sometimes work and sometimes don’t (e.g. the diseases caused by some of the errors). We have also discussed the extraordinary idea that solutions are already present when problems first arise. The quote suggests something very different: plant cells evolved a tool to repair the errors. Of course the development of a cure is not done by chance. Cells are confronted by a problem, and so they develop a solution. If they don’t, the species will become extinct. You seem to think that every problem that arises should automatically and immediately kill off every individual. This strange thinking is perhaps best illustrated through bacteria. We develop a means of killing them. Billions of them die. But some survive and in due course develop their own means of combating our deadly weapons. Problem first...followed by solution.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 19:03 (1010 days ago) @ dhw

A.N. Whitehead

DAVID: Your description is a very humanized God. You have an experimenting Creator who must try things out to see what He wants or allows an free-for-all with no known ending.

dhw: You don’t need to repeat what I have just described in the post you have quoted. I just want to know why you regard these versions of an active God as weak and namby-pamby, whereas Whitehead’s “becoming God”, who you say is inactive and therefore clearly does NOT control evolution, is equal to your humanized control freak with good intentions.

Whitehead sees an evolving God and I see God evolving all creations. Sort of two sides of the same coin.


Insect smell receptors
QUOTE: “Effectively, olfactory systems have evolved to take arbitrary patterns of receptor activation and endow them with meaning through learning and experience,” Ruta said. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Amazingly complex as suggested. Note my bold. Odors are learned over time. Literally these receptors fondle the shape of the protein molecules they receive and gradually learn to understand what the odor means and signifies.

dhw: Yes, endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience is a process integral to evolution and indicative of autonomous intelligence. It is the exact opposite of obeying instructions already planted at the beginning of life or implanted through a divine dabble.

Wrong take. The insects are given an amazing mechanism that can learn to know odors. No intelligence involved.


Plant cell regulators
QUOTE: However, a large number of a plant cell's genes in its mitochondria and chloroplasts can develop defects, jeopardizing their function. Nevertheless, plant cells evolved an amazing tool called the RNA editosome (a large protein complex) to repair these kinds of errors. It can modify defective messenger RNA that result from defective DNA by transforming (deamination) of certain mRNA nucleotides.

DAVID: We have previously discussed God's error correction mechanisms. What is obvious is that they must be present when the plant is initially evolved. Chance evolution by chance mutation won't do that.

dhw: Yes, we have discussed the extraordinary idea that an all-powerful God with the best of intentions cannot avoid building errors into his creations but provides correction mechanisms that sometimes work and sometimes don’t (e.g. the diseases caused by some of the errors). We have also discussed the extraordinary idea that solutions are already present when problems first arise. The quote suggests something very different: plant cells evolved a tool to repair the errors. Of course the development of a cure is not done by chance. Cells are confronted by a problem, and so they develop a solution. If they don’t, the species will become extinct. You seem to think that every problem that arises should automatically and immediately kill off every individual. This strange thinking is perhaps best illustrated through bacteria. We develop a means of killing them. Billions of them die. But some survive and in due course develop their own means of combating our deadly weapons. Problem first...followed by solution.

And babies are born without immunities, but with an immune system that can learn automatically to fight any invaders. To fill that immunity gap, breast milk contains IGG general antibodies in colostrum, present for 48 hours in the first days of feeding, but only that long. God has arranged that open pores in the baby's intestine allow the giant IGG to enter the blood stream for that period and then they close because of their inappropriate size. Solution first. Irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 11:21 (1009 days ago) @ David Turell

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: Your description is a very humanized God. You have an experimenting Creator who must try things out to see what He wants or allows an free-for-all with no known ending.

dhw: You don’t need to repeat what I have just described in the post you have quoted. I just want to know why you regard these versions of an active God as weak and namby-pamby, whereas Whitehead’s “becoming God”, who you say is inactive and therefore clearly does NOT control evolution, is equal to your humanized control freak with good intentions.

DAVID: Whitehead sees an evolving God and I see God evolving all creations. Sort of two sides of the same coin.

So an inactive, evolving, learning, “becoming” God is equal to a God who is active and in total control and knows everything in advance, whereas a God who is active but also capable of learning and experimenting is weak and namby-pamby. I find your standards very confusing.

Insect smell receptors
QUOTE: “Effectively, olfactory systems have evolved to take arbitrary patterns of receptor activation and endow them with meaning through learning and experience,” Ruta said. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Amazingly complex as suggested. Note my bold. Odors are learned over time. Literally these receptors fondle the shape of the protein molecules they receive and gradually learn to understand what the odor means and signifies.

dhw: Yes, endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience is a process integral to evolution and indicative of autonomous intelligence. It is the exact opposite of obeying instructions already planted at the beginning of life or implanted through a divine dabble.

DAVID: Wrong take. The insects are given an amazing mechanism that can learn to know odors. No intelligence involved.

A mechanism that can endow patterns with meaning through learning and experience is what some of us would call a brain, which produces natural intelligence. If we humans were to create a machine that could endow patterns with meaning through learning and experience, we would call it artificial intelligence.

Plant cell regulators
DAVID: We have previously discussed God's error correction mechanisms. What is obvious is that they must be present when the plant is initially evolved. Chance evolution by chance mutation won't do that.

dhw: Yes, we have discussed the extraordinary idea that an all-powerful God with the best of intentions cannot avoid building errors into his creations but provides correction mechanisms that sometimes work and sometimes don’t (e.g. the diseases caused by some of the errors). We have also discussed the extraordinary idea that solutions are already present when problems first arise. The quote suggests something very different: plant cells evolved a tool to repair the errors. Of course the development of a cure is not done by chance. Cells are confronted by a problem, and so they develop a solution. If they don’t, the species will become extinct. You seem to think that every problem that arises should automatically and immediately kill off every individual. This strange thinking is perhaps best illustrated through bacteria. We develop a means of killing them. Billions of them die. But some survive and in due course develop their own means of combating our deadly weapons. Problem first...followed by solution.

DAVID: And babies are born without immunities, but with an immune system that can learn automatically to fight any invaders. To fill that immunity gap, breast milk contains IGG general antibodies in colostrum, present for 48 hours in the first days of feeding, but only that long. God has arranged that open pores in the baby's intestine allow the giant IGG to enter the blood stream for that period and then they close because of their inappropriate size. Solution first. Irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

You have forgotten that there is a process called evolution. The immune system is the product of millions and millions of years' development as cells have learned to cope with new problems. It all goes back to the bacteria from which we have evolved and which themselves had to learn to cope with problems as and when they arose. Are you now saying that your God created human baby immune systems “de novo”, or do you believe that they developed in and were passed on by our ancestors during the process called evolution?

Cosmic filaments spin
QUOTE: "Next, researchers want to tackle what makes these giant space structures spin, and how they get started. “What is that process?” Libeskind says. “Can we figure it out?'”

DAVID: At least the cosmologists are like dhw, who wants to know why God so many strange things in making the universe. They will find a cause and probably a reason. God knows what He is doing even if dhw doesn't think so. For life the Earth's rotation seems necessary.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he knew what he was doing. Even if, in the case of life forms, he was experimenting, he would still have known that he was experimenting and why. The cosmologists don’t seem to mention God. We all know that effects must have a cause, and that will be true even if there is no God. And so if the cosmologists do find the cause, I doubt very much that all of them will then cry “Hallelujah!” and rush off to church.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 23, 2021, 18:16 (1009 days ago) @ dhw

A.N. Whitehead

DAVID: Whitehead sees an evolving God and I see God evolving all creations. Sort of two sides of the same coin.

dhw: So an inactive, evolving, learning, “becoming” God is equal to a God who is active and in total control and knows everything in advance, whereas a God who is active but also capable of learning and experimenting is weak and namby-pamby. I find your standards very confusing.

An evolving God is not 'inactive'. You are confused because of your view of whom God might be.


Insect smell receptors

dhw: Yes, endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience is a process integral to evolution and indicative of autonomous intelligence. It is the exact opposite of obeying instructions already planted at the beginning of life or implanted through a divine dabble.

DAVID: Wrong take. The insects are given an amazing mechanism that can learn to know odors. No intelligence involved.

dhw: A mechanism that can endow patterns with meaning through learning and experience is what some of us would call a brain, which produces natural intelligence. If we humans were to create a machine that could endow patterns with meaning through learning and experience, we would call it artificial intelligence.

How much conceptual thought does AI do? Odor recognition is analysis, nothing more.


Plant cell regulators
DAVID: We have previously discussed God's error correction mechanisms. What is obvious is that they must be present when the plant is initially evolved. Chance evolution by chance mutation won't do that.

dhw: Yes, we have discussed the extraordinary idea that an all-powerful God with the best of intentions cannot avoid building errors into his creations but provides correction mechanisms that sometimes work and sometimes don’t (e.g. the diseases caused by some of the errors). We have also discussed the extraordinary idea that solutions are already present when problems first arise. The quote suggests something very different: plant cells evolved a tool to repair the errors. Of course the development of a cure is not done by chance. Cells are confronted by a problem, and so they develop a solution. If they don’t, the species will become extinct. You seem to think that every problem that arises should automatically and immediately kill off every individual. This strange thinking is perhaps best illustrated through bacteria. We develop a means of killing them. Billions of them die. But some survive and in due course develop their own means of combating our deadly weapons. Problem first...followed by solution.

DAVID: And babies are born without immunities, but with an immune system that can learn automatically to fight any invaders. To fill that immunity gap, breast milk contains IGG general antibodies in colostrum, present for 48 hours in the first days of feeding, but only that long. God has arranged that open pores in the baby's intestine allow the giant IGG to enter the blood stream for that period and then they close because of their inappropriate size. Solution first. Irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

dhw: You have forgotten that there is a process called evolution. The immune system is the product of millions and millions of years' development as cells have learned to cope with new problems. It all goes back to the bacteria from which we have evolved and which themselves had to learn to cope with problems as and when they arose. Are you now saying that your God created human baby immune systems “de novo”, or do you believe that they developed in and were passed on by our ancestors during the process called evolution?

The rudiments of our immune system came through God's evolutionary process.


Cosmic filaments spin
QUOTE: "Next, researchers want to tackle what makes these giant space structures spin, and how they get started. “What is that process?” Libeskind says. “Can we figure it out?'”

DAVID: At least the cosmologists are like dhw, who wants to know why God so many strange things in making the universe. They will find a cause and probably a reason. God knows what He is doing even if dhw doesn't think so. For life the Earth's rotation seems necessary.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he knew what he was doing. Even if, in the case of life forms, he was experimenting, he would still have known that he was experimenting and why. The cosmologists don’t seem to mention God. We all know that effects must have a cause, and that will be true even if there is no God. And so if the cosmologists do find the cause, I doubt very much that all of them will then cry “Hallelujah!” and rush off to church.

You know science uses science and not God. The complexity of God's works requires Him as designer.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, June 24, 2021, 11:09 (1008 days ago) @ David Turell

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: An evolving God is not 'inactive'. You are confused because of your view of whom God might be.

You wrote: “I don’t accept Whitehead either, but Whitehead doesn’t describe an active God as you do.” I assumed you meant that he was inactive. It doesn’t make much difference to the argument anyway. An evolving, “becoming” God is the exact opposite of your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, all-creating God, so why is Whitehead’s God equal to yours, whereas an experimenting or learning God is weak and namby-pamby?

Insect smell receptors
DAVID: The insects are given an amazing mechanism that can learn to know odors. No intelligence involved.

dhw: A mechanism that can endow patterns with meaning through learning and experience is what some of us would call a brain, which produces natural intelligence. If we humans were to create a machine that could endow patterns with meaning through learning and experience, we would call it artificial intelligence.

DAVID: How much conceptual thought does AI do? Odor recognition is analysis, nothing more.

Analysis and “endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience” are hallmarks of natural intelligence.

Plant cell regulators
DAVID: We have previously discussed God's error correction mechanisms. What is obvious is that they must be present when the plant is initially evolved. Chance evolution by chance mutation won't do that.

dhw: […] Of course the development of a cure is not done by chance. Cells are confronted by a problem, and so they develop a solution. If they don’t, the species will become extinct. You seem to think that every problem that arises should automatically and immediately kill off every individual. This strange thinking is perhaps best illustrated through bacteria. We develop a means of killing them. Billions of them die. But some survive and in due course develop their own means of combating our deadly weapons. Problem first...followed by solution.

DAVID: And babies are born without immunities, but with an immune system that can learn automatically to fight any invaders. […] God has arranged that open pores in the baby's intestine allow the giant IGG to enter the blood stream for that period and then they close because of their inappropriate size. Solution first. Irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

dhw: You have forgotten that there is a process called evolution. The immune system is the product of millions and millions of years' development as cells have learned to cope with new problems. It all goes back to the bacteria from which we have evolved and which themselves had to learn to cope with problems as and when they arose. Are you now saying that your God created human baby immune systems “de novo”, or do you believe that they developed in and were passed on by our ancestors during the process called evolution?

DAVID: The rudiments of our immune system came through God's evolutionary process.

They certainly came through the evolutionary process, so what is all this about God arranging the human baby’s solutions in advance of the problems? The human baby’s immune system is the result of a long evolutionary process in which problems arose, and solutions were found and passed on.

Cosmic filaments spin
DAVID: At least the cosmologists are like dhw, who wants to know why God so many strange things in making the universe. They will find a cause and probably a reason. God knows what He is doing even if dhw doesn't think so. For life the Earth's rotation seems necessary.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he knew what he was doing. […] The cosmologists don’t seem to mention God. We all know that effects must have a cause, and that will be true even if there is no God. And so if the cosmologists do find the cause, I doubt very much that all of them will then cry “Hallelujah!” and rush off to church.

DAVID: You know science uses science and not God. The complexity of God's works requires Him as designer.

The question is WHY your God would do all these strange things if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. Even if scientists discover the cause of the spinning effect, it will not answer dhw, who “wants to know why God [did] so many strange things” that apparently have no connection with humans and their lunch.

Jupiter and Saturn have fevers
DAVID: The Earth is very, very special, but hope springs eternal that we inhabit something that is not so special. Why?

I would put it down to our natural curiosity rather than hope. And my own curiosity makes me wonder why, if God exists and his only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he also designed billions and billions of other galaxies extant and extinct, which apparently have no life but simply exist until they stop existing.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 24, 2021, 17:54 (1008 days ago) @ dhw

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: An evolving God is not 'inactive'. You are confused because of your view of whom God might be.

dhw: An evolving, “becoming” God is the exact opposite of your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling, all-creating God, so why is Whitehead’s God equal to yours, whereas an experimenting or learning God is weak and namby-pamby?

Perception. Whitehead's God might be evolving, but His works are still the works of my God. No word of experimenting or allowing secondhand evolution with the inmates in charge of the asylum.


Insect smell receptors

DAVID: How much conceptual thought does AI do? Odor recognition is analysis, nothing more.

dhw: Analysis and “endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience” are hallmarks of natural intelligence.

As a surface analysis. Intelligently-run automaticity looks exactly the same. The same 50/50


Plant cell regulators

DAVID: And babies are born without immunities, but with an immune system that can learn automatically to fight any invaders. […] God has arranged that open pores in the baby's intestine allow the giant IGG to enter the blood stream for that period and then they close because of their inappropriate size. Solution first. Irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

DAVID: The rudiments of our immune system came through God's evolutionary process.

dhw: They certainly came through the evolutionary process, so what is all this about God arranging the human baby’s solutions in advance of the problems? The human baby’s immune system is the result of a long evolutionary process in which problems arose, and solutions were found and passed on.

As usual you skip over the complexity of the arrangement for newborn protection system. Not by chance edvolution.


Cosmic filaments spin

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he knew what he was doing. […] The cosmologists don’t seem to mention God. We all know that effects must have a cause, and that will be true even if there is no God. And so if the cosmologists do find the cause, I doubt very much that all of them will then cry “Hallelujah!” and rush off to church.

DAVID: You know science uses science and not God. The complexity of God's works requires Him as designer.

dhw: The question is WHY your God would do all these strange things if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. Even if scientists discover the cause of the spinning effect, it will not answer dhw, who “wants to know why God [did] so many strange thingsthat apparently have no connection with humans and their lunch.

The bold is your usual guesswork 'something might be wrong' or 'why do we need it?' God has his reasons, and bit by bit we figure them out.


Jupiter and Saturn have fevers
DAVID: The Earth is very, very special, but hope springs eternal that we inhabit something that is not so special. Why?

dhw: I would put it down to our natural curiosity rather than hope. And my own curiosity makes me wonder why, if God exists and his only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he also designed billions and billions of other galaxies extant and extinct, which apparently have no life but simply exist until they stop existing.

As above God has all the answers, and we try to figure them out, while you remain a doubting Thomas

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, June 25, 2021, 11:28 (1007 days ago) @ David Turell

A.N. Whitehead
DAVID: Whitehead's God might be evolving, but His works are still the works of my God. No word of experimenting or allowing secondhand evolution with the inmates in charge of the asylum.

I didn’t say Whitehead’s God was any of the alternative Gods I am proposing. I am simply objecting to your silly dismissal of them as “weak” and “namby-pamby”, whereas you view an evolving, “becoming” God as equal to a know-it-all, control-it-all God. I would regard all the alternatives as both feasible and worthy of the utmost respect.

Insect smell receptors
dhw: Analysis and “endowing patterns with meaning through learning and experience” are hallmarks of natural intelligence.

DAVID: As a surface analysis. Intelligently-run automaticity looks exactly the same. The same 50/50.

How does an automaton create meaning through learning and experience? I am simply pointing out that the terminology of the article favours intelligence. I know you don’t.

Plant cell regulators
DAVID: The rudiments of our immune system came through God's evolutionary process.

dhw: They certainly came through the evolutionary process, so what is all this about God arranging the human baby’s solutions in advance of the problems? The human baby’s immune system is the result of a long evolutionary process in which problems arose, and solutions were found and passed on.

DAVID: As usual you skip over the complexity of the arrangement for newborn protection system. Not by chance evolution.

I have never proposed chance evolution, and I do not skip over the complexity. I am pointing out that the complexity is the result of millions of years of complexification, as the cell communities of all organisms learn to solve new problems and pass their solutions on. The difference between our theories is that you insist that your God either preprogrammed every solution to every problem 3.8 billion years ago, or is constantly present and dabbling whenever a new problem arises. I find your theory somewhat far-fetched.

Cosmic filaments spin
dhw: The question is WHY your God would do all these strange things if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. Even if scientists discover the cause of the spinning effect, it will not answer dhw, who “wants to know why God [did] so many strange things” that apparently have no connection with humans and their lunch.

DAVID: The bold is your usual guesswork 'something might be wrong' or 'why do we need it?' God has his reasons, and bit by bit we figure them out.

The something that might be wrong is your inexplicable insistence that your God specially designed all these “strange things” although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. We may figure out sequences of cause and effect, but if you cannot find reasons for your dislocated theory of evolution, whereas you find my own alternatives logical, you can hardly expect me to be convinced by “God has his reasons” for doing and thinking what you say he does and thinks.

Jupiter and Saturn have fevers
DAVID: The Earth is very, very special, but hope springs eternal that we inhabit something that is not so special. Why?

dhw: I would put it down to our natural curiosity rather than hope. And my own curiosity makes me wonder why, if God exists and his only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he also designed billions and billions of other galaxies extant and extinct, which apparently have no life but simply exist until they stop existing.

DAVID: As above God has all the answers, and we try to figure them out, while you remain a doubting Thomas.

Since you have not figured out a single reason why God would act the way you think he acts, of course I doubt your theory. And please remember that my own alternatives always include the possibility of your God as the creator, so don’t try to use my agnosticism as an excuse for your rejecting them.

The Denisovan cave
QUOTE: The cave also contains sophisticated stone tools and jewelry at higher, later levels. But no modern human fossils have been found there.

What an amazing find – especially the mixed race Neanderthal/Denisovan child. This really sparks the imagination, as does the above quote. We know that Neanderthals were sophisticated, but it sounds as if the Denisovans were too. I wonder what kind of society they built together. Many thanks as always for keeping us so well informed about these discoveries.

Sleep length

QUOTE: Yet mice, and presumably humans with the short sleep gene mutation, remember quite well on little sleep, whereas most people won't remember much of anything if you deprive them of sleep," she said.

My younger son is perfectly OK with very few hours, my daughter sleeps like a log for about eight hours and is perfectly OK, and my elder son snatches a few hours when allowed to by his 4-year-old twins, but seems OK. As for me, I sometimes get about 5 hours in between trips to the bathroom, but make up for it later, stretched out on the sofa (deliberate sleep) or nodding off in front of the telly (involuntary sleep). I seem to be OK in between. Though come to think of it, I often forget...um...er...what was I going to say?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, June 25, 2021, 15:27 (1007 days ago) @ dhw

Insect smell receptors

DAVID: As a surface analysis. Intelligently-run automaticity looks exactly the same. The same 50/50.

dhw: How does an automaton create meaning through learning and experience? I am simply pointing out that the terminology of the article favours intelligence. I know you don’t.

I have to interpret from Darwinist articles. I can agree with an appearance of intelligence


Plant cell regulators

DAVID: As usual you skip over the complexity of the arrangement for newborn protection system. Not by chance evolution.

dhw: I have never proposed chance evolution, and I do not skip over the complexity. I am pointing out that the complexity is the result of millions of years of complexification, as the cell communities of all organisms learn to solve new problems and pass their solutions on. The difference between our theories is that you insist that your God either preprogrammed every solution to every problem 3.8 billion years ago, or is constantly present and dabbling whenever a new problem arises. I find your theory somewhat far-fetched.

God in charge is not far-fetched.


Cosmic filaments spin

DAVID: The bold is your usual guesswork 'something might be wrong' or 'why do we need it?' God has his reasons, and bit by bit we figure them out.

dhw: The something that might be wrong is your inexplicable insistence that your God specially designed all these “strange things” although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. We may figure out sequences of cause and effect, but if you cannot find reasons for your dislocated theory of evolution, whereas you find my own alternatives logical, you can hardly expect me to be convinced by “God has his reasons” for doing and thinking what you say he does and thinks.

You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.


Jupiter and Saturn have fevers

DAVID: As above God has all the answers, and we try to figure them out, while you remain a doubting Thomas.

dhw: Since you have not figured out a single reason why God would act the way you think he acts, of course I doubt your theory. And please remember that my own alternatives always include the possibility of your God as the creator, so don’t try to use my agnosticism as an excuse for your rejecting them.

You ask me to explain God's reasoning. You know I can't, nor can you. I don't try. No need.


Sleep length

QUOTE: Yet mice, and presumably humans with the short sleep gene mutation, remember quite well on little sleep, whereas most people won't remember much of anything if you deprive them of sleep," she said.

dhw: My younger son is perfectly OK with very few hours, my daughter sleeps like a log for about eight hours and is perfectly OK, and my elder son snatches a few hours when allowed to by his 4-year-old twins, but seems OK. As for me, I sometimes get about 5 hours in between trips to the bathroom, but make up for it later, stretched out on the sofa (deliberate sleep) or nodding off in front of the telly (involuntary sleep). I seem to be OK in between. Though come to think of it, I often forget...um...er...what was I going to say?

Napping is a habit pattern. i need my straight eight hours punctuated by potty calls

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, June 26, 2021, 07:59 (1006 days ago) @ David Turell

Insect smell receptors
DAVID: As a surface analysis. Intelligently-run automaticity looks exactly the same. The same 50/50.

dhw: How does an automaton create meaning through learning and experience? I am simply pointing out that the terminology of the article favours intelligence. I know you don’t.

DAVID: I have to interpret from Darwinist articles. I can agree with an appearance of intelligence.

If you agree that these organisms appear to be intelligent, how can you dismiss the idea that they might actually BE intelligent? And why do you bring your pet hate Darwin into it? Meaningful patterns created through learning and experience coincide with Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence.

Plant cell regulators
DAVID: As usual you skip over the complexity of the arrangement for newborn protection system. Not by chance evolution.

dhw: I have never proposed chance evolution, and I do not skip over the complexity. I am pointing out that the complexity is the result of millions of years of complexification, as the cell communities of all organisms learn to solve new problems and pass their solutions on. The difference between our theories is that you insist that your God either preprogrammed every solution to every problem 3.8 billion years ago, or is constantly present and dabbling whenever a new problem arises. I find your theory somewhat far-fetched.

DAVID: God in charge is not far-fetched.

Of course God in charge is not far-fetched. If he exists and can create a universe, then he can do whatever he likes. But that doesn’t mean he has to be a control freak, or that his sole purpose was to create humans and their lunch, or that he needed to preprogramme or dabble every species, lifestyle etc. that ever lived in order to achieve that purpose. You constantly resort to these generalizations in your effort to dodge the disconnected details of your theory.

Cosmic filaments spin
DAVID: The bold is your usual guesswork 'something might be wrong' or 'why do we need it?' God has his reasons, and bit by bit we figure them out.

dhw: The something that might be wrong is your inexplicable insistence that your God specially designed all these “strange things” although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch. We may figure out sequences of cause and effect, but if you cannot find reasons for your dislocated theory of evolution, whereas you find my own alternatives logical, you can hardly expect me to be convinced by “God has his reasons” for doing and thinking what you say he does and thinks.

DAVID: You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.

If God exists, I have no objection to your belief that he designed the universe. In that context, it is his existence that is the BIG question. But if he does exist, I object to your belief that he would have designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct and millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct solely in order to design H. sapiens plus lunch.

Jupiter and Saturn have fevers
DAVID: As above God has all the answers, and we try to figure them out, while you remain a doubting Thomas.

dhw: Since you have not figured out a single reason why God would act the way you think he acts, of course I doubt your theory. […]

DAVID: You ask me to explain God's reasoning. You know I can't, nor can you. I don't try. No need.

I do not ask you to explain God’s reasoning, because nobody knows God’s reasoning! I ask you to explain YOUR THEORY about God’s reasoning and his actions. But you can’t. I offer you alternative theories, each of which provides a logical explanation as to how his possible reasoning and possible actions can make sense when combined. You agree that all these alternative explanations are logical, but prefer to cling to your fixed set of incompatible beliefs.

Possible new hominin species
QUOTE: "'We forget, even as anthropologists, that it’s really weird for us to be the only hominins left alive," says Laura Buck. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Variations in form should be considered rather than multiple species, but even so the hominin bush is big, and could be the result of different types interbreeding and hybridizing. Note my bold. I'm not surprised because of our probable superior brain.

It’s also weird that there have been so many different forms. So which were the forms that ultimately evolved into sapiens? And if the other forms were not part of the evolution of sapiens, where does this leave your theory of all life forms being specially designed as part of your God’s goal to design sapiens and our lunch? Were all the other hominins supposed to evolve into our lunch? :-) But I agree with your comment. It seems to me that this diversity suggests convergent evolution, as each hominin form (= each community of cell communities) evolved in accordance with the conditions in which it lived. The fact that some must have travelled and interbred with others would account for their traces being found in us, and once we started to travel, it makes perfect sense that our probably superior brain eventually resulted in our taking over.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 26, 2021, 15:05 (1006 days ago) @ dhw

Insect smell receptors

DAVID: I have to interpret from Darwinist articles. I can agree with an appearance of intelligence.

dhw: If you agree that these organisms appear to be intelligent, how can you dismiss the idea that they might actually BE intelligent? And why do you bring your pet hate Darwin into it? Meaningful patterns created through learning and experience coincide with Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence.

As above all we can know is that they act as if intelligent. You can't argue past that.


Plant cell regulators

DAVID: God in charge is not far-fetched.

dhw: Of course God in charge is not far-fetched. If he exists and can create a universe, then he can do whatever he likes. But that doesn’t mean he has to be a control freak, or that his sole purpose was to create humans and their lunch, or that he needed to preprogramme or dabble every species, lifestyle etc. that ever lived in order to achieve that purpose. You constantly resort to these generalizations in your effort to dodge the disconnected details of your theory.

My theory is not disconnected through accepting God's works. The God you imagine in not my God.


Cosmic filaments spin

DAVID: You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection to your belief that he designed the universe. In that context, it is his existence that is the BIG question. But if he does exist, I object to your belief that he would have designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct and millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct solely in order to design H. sapiens plus lunch.

God is my belief as to why we are here. How do you explain us?


Jupiter and Saturn have fevers

DAVID: You ask me to explain God's reasoning. You know I can't, nor can you. I don't try. No need.

dhw:I do not ask you to explain God’s reasoning, because nobody knows God’s reasoning! I ask you to explain YOUR THEORY about God’s reasoning and his actions. But you can’t. I offer you alternative theories, each of which provides a logical explanation as to how his possible reasoning and possible actions can make sense when combined. You agree that all these alternative explanations are logical, but prefer to cling to your fixed set of incompatible beliefs.

The bold is always your escape valve. I have agreed your theories are logical only if applied to your humanized God. Obviously you position is so weak, you must leave out that part of my thinking.


Possible new hominin species
QUOTE: "'We forget, even as anthropologists, that it’s really weird for us to be the only hominins left alive," says Laura Buck. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Variations in form should be considered rather than multiple species, but even so the hominin bush is big, and could be the result of different types interbreeding and hybridizing. Note my bold. I'm not surprised because of our probable superior brain.

dhw: It’s also weird that there have been so many different forms. So which were the forms that ultimately evolved into sapiens? And if the other forms were not part of the evolution of sapiens, where does this leave your theory of all life forms being specially designed as part of your God’s goal to design sapiens and our lunch? Were all the other hominins supposed to evolve into our lunch? :-) But I agree with your comment. It seems to me that this diversity suggests convergent evolution, as each hominin form (= each community of cell communities) evolved in accordance with the conditions in which it lived. The fact that some must have travelled and interbred with others would account for their traces being found in us, and once we started to travel, it makes perfect sense that our probably superior brain eventually resulted in our taking over.

Wow!!! We agree. I also think the giant hominin bush is convergent evolution with the fossils showing different adaptations to climate, etc. and definite hybridization, especially recognizing how strong our sex drive seems to be. Only bonobos match it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, June 27, 2021, 09:30 (1005 days ago) @ David Turell

Insect smell receptors
DAVID: I have to interpret from Darwinist articles. I can agree with an appearance of intelligence.

dhw: If you agree that these organisms appear to be intelligent, how can you dismiss the idea that they might actually BE intelligent? And why do you bring your pet hate Darwin into it? Meaningful patterns created through learning and experience coincide with Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: As above all we can know is that they act as if intelligent. You can't argue past that.

An atheist can therefore say that all organisms look as if they are designed and you can’t argue past that. All our theories are based on extrapolations from what we know, but they remain theories. God the designer is one theoretical explanation for the appearance of evolutionary design; cellular intelligence is one theoretical explanation for the fact that cells appear intelligent; and cellular intelligence is one theoretical explanation for the appearance of evolutionary design, to which may be added one theoretical explanation for cellular intelligence: namely, God the designer. We constantly theorize “past” what we know.

Plant cell regulators
DAVID: God in charge is not far-fetched.

dhw: Of course God in charge is not far-fetched. If he exists and can create a universe, then he can do whatever he likes. But that doesn’t mean he has to be a control freak, or that his sole purpose was to create humans and their lunch, or that he needed to preprogramme or dabble every species, lifestyle etc. that ever lived in order to achieve that purpose. You constantly resort to these generalizations in your effort to dodge the disconnected details of your theory.

DAVID: My theory is not disconnected through accepting God's works. [...]

In the context of life’s evolution, God’s works - if he exists - consist of every form of life that ever existed (no matter how they were all produced). And so you accept every form of life that ever existed! Your theory is that every form of life was specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their lunch, although 99% of them had no connection with humans or their lunch. Please stop conflating your God’s works with your theory about why and how he produced them.

Cosmic filaments spin
DAVID: You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection to your belief that he designed the universe. In that context, it is his existence that is the BIG question. But if he does exist, I object to your belief that he would have designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct and millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct solely in order to design H. sapiens plus lunch.

DAVID: God is my belief as to why we are here. How do you explain us?

I have no objection to your belief that, if God exists, he designed the system that produced us and every other life form that ever lived. In one of my alternative theistic explanations, I even allow for us being his goal: experimentation would explain the great variety of unconnected life forms that preceded us. Another theistic explanation is that the idea of a being like himself came to him later on in life's history. A third theistic explanation is that he set in motion a free-for-all that began with the comparatively rudimentary form of intelligence of single cell organisms and, over thousands of millions of years, evolved through that intelligence into increasingly complex and intelligent organisms, culminating in ourselves. Three theistic explanations (regardless of atheistic explanations) for you, which you have heard over and over again, and which you agree are all perfectly logical.

dhw (under “Jupiter and Saturn have fevers”): You agree that all these alternative explanations are logical, but prefer to cling to your fixed set of incompatible beliefs.

DAVID: The bold is always your escape valve. I have agreed your theories are logical only if applied to your humanized God. Obviously you position is so weak, you must leave out that part of my thinking.

I have never left out this silly objection. You have agreed in the past that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions similar to ours, and you confirmed this only last week: “I am sure we mimic him in many ways as your statement shows, but just how much is unknown.” So you humanize him as a control freak who is single-minded, has one purpose, knows how to achieve it, plans it all advance, and always has good intentions. You even compare yourself to him through your experience of designing things. See also the thread on “A possible God….”

Shapiro
dhw: […] so long as you now accept that Shapiro’s theory of evolution is what both he and I say it is, and it is not designed to eliminate God or “reduce God’s power”, we can close this thread, which has diverged from its subject anyway.

DAVID: We completely left the subject of gaps because of poor Shapiro. We do not agree on how to interpret him, but both of us recognize his rich research contributions.

You claimed that he did NOT advocate cellular intelligence as the producer of evolutionary novelty, and that this was my extrapolation. I trust you have now withdrawn that misinterpretation.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 27, 2021, 14:37 (1005 days ago) @ dhw

Insect smell receptors

DAVID: As above all we can know is that they act as if intelligent. You can't argue past that.

dhw: An atheist can therefore say that all organisms look as if they are designed and you can’t argue past that. All our theories are based on extrapolations from what we know, but they remain theories. God the designer is one theoretical explanation for the appearance of evolutionary design; cellular intelligence is one theoretical explanation for the fact that cells appear intelligent; and cellular intelligence is one theoretical explanation for the appearance of evolutionary design, to which may be added one theoretical explanation for cellular intelligence: namely, God the designer. We constantly theorize “past” what we know.

Fair enough


Plant cell regulators

DAVID: My theory is not disconnected through accepting God's works. [...]

dhw: In the context of life’s evolution, God’s works - if he exists - consist of every form of life that ever existed (no matter how they were all produced). And so you accept every form of life that ever existed! Your theory is that every form of life was specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their lunch, although 99% of them had no connection with humans or their lunch. Please stop conflating your God’s works with your theory about why and how he produced them.

Stop giving us your tunnel-visioned God. The giant bush of life, produced by God was necessary to fill out His plans for evolution. The bold fits.


Cosmic filaments spin
DAVID: You are objecting to my belief God designed this universe.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection to your belief that he designed the universe. In that context, it is his existence that is the BIG question. But if he does exist, I object to your belief that he would have designed billions of galaxies extant and extinct and millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct solely in order to design H. sapiens plus lunch.

DAVID: God is my belief as to why we are here. How do you explain us?

dhw: I have no objection to your belief that, if God exists, he designed the system that produced us and every other life form that ever lived. In one of my alternative theistic explanations, I even allow for us being his goal: experimentation would explain the great variety of unconnected life forms that preceded us. Another theistic explanation is that the idea of a being like himself came to him later on in life's history. A third theistic explanation is that he set in motion a free-for-all that began with the comparatively rudimentary form of intelligence of single cell organisms and, over thousands of millions of years, evolved through that intelligence into increasingly complex and intelligent organisms, culminating in ourselves. Three theistic explanations (regardless of atheistic explanations) for you, which you have heard over and over again, and which you agree are all perfectly logical.

Logical only for a weak humanized God: has to experiment, no initial goals, no control over goals (free-for-all), as I've explained before, and you always avoid mentioning. Do not distort my position about hour God.


dhw (under “Jupiter and Saturn have fevers”): You agree that all these alternative explanations are logical, but prefer to cling to your fixed set of incompatible beliefs.

DAVID: The bold is always your escape valve. I have agreed your theories are logical only if applied to your humanized God. Obviously you position is so weak, you must leave out that part of my thinking.

dhw: I have never left out this silly objection. You have agreed in the past that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions similar to ours, and you confirmed this only last week: “I am sure we mimic him in many ways as your statement shows, but just how much is unknown.” So you humanize him as a control freak who is single-minded, has one purpose, knows how to achieve it, plans it all advance, and always has good intentions. You even compare yourself to him through your experience of designing things. See also the thread on “A possible God….”

You can't make my God 'human' by calling Him a 'control freak' a small percentage of humans, when God is anything but human. The god you describe is unsure of Himself, not in any sense God-like.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, June 28, 2021, 13:43 (1004 days ago) @ David Turell

Most of this thread was taken over by discussions about a possible God’s possible purpose and nature, so I’ve transferred all of that to the appropriate section.

Plants response to heat stress
QUOTES: "Researchers have found that plants adapt to heat stress via a specific 'memory' mechanism. The JUMONJI family of proteins can control small heat shock genes, allowing plants to become heat tolerant for better adaptation to future heat stress.
"Heat stress is often repeating and changing," says lead author of the study Nobutoshi Yamaguchi. "Once plants have undergone mild heat stress, they become tolerant and can adapt to further heat stress. This is referred to as heat stress 'memory' and has been reported to be correlated to epigenetic modifications." Epigenetic modifications are inheritable changes in the way genes are expressed, and do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequences.
"We wanted to discover how plants retain a memory of environmental changes."

DAVID: These plants are not thinking. Climbing heat makes them demethylate DNA and tolerate the heat. JUMONJ2 is an enzyme, which means a giant specialized molecule that must have been designed for the task.

I would never suggest that plants “think” in the same way as humans think. But that does not mean plants are not sentient, cognitive forms of life, and just as our immune system has evolved over millions of years from the rudimentary immune systems of other life forms to its current complexity, plants' resistance to heat goes back to the fact that in every organism you can think of, including ourselves, the cells must find means of adjusting to new conditions, or they and the whole organism will die. I agree that each adjustment must have been designed for the task. But nobody knows how. You offer us two possible explanations: 1) 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God provided the very first cells with a complete computer programme for the evolution of every single future organism plus every single adaptation that every organism would make throughout the future of life on Earth. Alternatively, he just kept on dabbling to design every new organism (although actually he only wanted to design us plus lunch), as well as to solve every new problem whenever it arose. A theistic alternative to these two theories is that he endowed the first cells with a mechanism of almost infinite flexibility that would enable some organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions, using their intelligence to work out suitable ways of using that mechanism. If the cells couldn’t cope, then of course the organism became extinct. I remain baffled by your firm embrace of the first two, and your outright rejection of the third.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, June 28, 2021, 14:52 (1004 days ago) @ dhw

Most of this thread was taken over by discussions about a possible God’s possible purpose and nature, so I’ve transferred all of that to the appropriate section.

Plants response to heat stress
QUOTES: "Researchers have found that plants adapt to heat stress via a specific 'memory' mechanism. The JUMONJI family of proteins can control small heat shock genes, allowing plants to become heat tolerant for better adaptation to future heat stress.
"Heat stress is often repeating and changing," says lead author of the study Nobutoshi Yamaguchi. "Once plants have undergone mild heat stress, they become tolerant and can adapt to further heat stress. This is referred to as heat stress 'memory' and has been reported to be correlated to epigenetic modifications." Epigenetic modifications are inheritable changes in the way genes are expressed, and do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequences.
"We wanted to discover how plants retain a memory of environmental changes."

DAVID: These plants are not thinking. Climbing heat makes them demethylate DNA and tolerate the heat. JUMONJ2 is an enzyme, which means a giant specialized molecule that must have been designed for the task.

dhw: I would never suggest that plants “think” in the same way as humans think. But that does not mean plants are not sentient, cognitive forms of life, and just as our immune system has evolved over millions of years from the rudimentary immune systems of other life forms to its current complexity, plants' resistance to heat goes back to the fact that in every organism you can think of, including ourselves, the cells must find means of adjusting to new conditions, or they and the whole organism will die. I agree that each adjustment must have been designed for the task. But nobody knows how. You offer us two possible explanations: 1) 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God provided the very first cells with a complete computer programme for the evolution of every single future organism plus every single adaptation that every organism would make throughout the future of life on Earth. Alternatively, he just kept on dabbling to design every new organism (although actually he only wanted to design us plus lunch), as well as to solve every new problem whenever it arose.

No need to comment here. You agree to design, but how about wonderment over the magic enzyme, JUMONJ2, is a giant intricately designed molecule of many thousand amino acids with specific trapping points to force a reaction?

dhw: A theistic alternative to these two theories is that he endowed the first cells with a mechanism of almost infinite flexibility that would enable some organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions, using their intelligence to work out suitable ways of using that mechanism. If the cells couldn’t cope, then of course the organism became extinct. I remain baffled by your firm embrace of the first two, and your outright rejection of the third.

God has designed mechanisms of 'almost infinite flexibility'. I fully accept that. But that is not intelligence, just automatic responses to built in instructions. Thus your alternative actually exists in your objections in the separated first part of your comments.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, June 29, 2021, 09:13 (1003 days ago) @ David Turell

I summarized David’s two explanations of how plants developed heat resistance: 1) God’s 3.8-billion-year-programme for all species and all such adaptations; 2) God’s constant dabbling.

DAVID: […] You agree to design, but how about wonderment over the magic enzyme, JUMONJ2 […]

I will give you blanket agreement on wonderment at the whole of life. Let’s get back to the subject.

dhw: A theistic alternative to these two theories is that he endowed the first cells with a mechanism of almost infinite flexibility that would enable some organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions, using their intelligence to work out suitable ways of using that mechanism. If the cells couldn’t cope, then of course the organism became extinct. I remain baffled by your firm embrace of the first two, and your outright rejection of the third.

DAVID: God has designed mechanisms of 'almost infinite flexibility'. I fully accept that. But that is not intelligence, just automatic responses to built in instructions. […]

Intelligence is what USES the mechanism! Why “built-in” instructions? Back you go to your 3.8-billion-year-old programme. You know perfectly well that the theistic version of my theory is that your God created the mechanism and gave organisms the intelligence to use it. Your only reason for rejecting this is that it does not coincide with your personal image of God, who always wishes to maintain total control over evolution.

Danish is difficult
DAVID: This still doesn't negate the theory of a universal syntax The Hawaiian language has lots of vowels all of which are pronounced. I doubt their kids have a problem.

The article has nothing to do with Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar, which as I understand it is all about grammatical structures, not vowel sounds pronounced or unpronounced.

Human evolution
DAVID: We are not chimps despite the similar DNA totals of bases:

QUOTE: "Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor perhaps about 7 million years ago, and their hands now look very different."

Having been to the zoo, I agree that we are not chimps, and I’m not surprised that when we and chimps diverged from an unknown common ancestor, there would have been differences between us and chimps as well as between us and the common ancestor. I’m applying for a grant to do research that will prove conclusively that whenever species diverge from other species, there are differences. I hope you will support my application.

Big brain evolution
DAVID: one gene appears to make our brain. Again, God at work? And the other issue is folks with almost no brain are normal humans with consciousness. Why? Again God at work His favorite created/evolved organisms?

One solution to the mystery of “folks with almost no brain” might be the fact that the brain, like all our organs, is a community of cells. Perhaps in some cases, the functions of the missing cells are taken over by other cells through the same process of adaptation that enables cells to change their structure in response to new conditions.

Aquatic beetle
DAVID: another weird discovery. Note the scientists try to see how the beetle fits into its econiche. dhw always tries to ignore this important aspect of all phases of past and present evolution.

Why do you spoil such fascinating articles with such silly comments? ALL organisms must fit into their econiche – if they don’t, they will not survive. And it is you who downplay the role of survival in the process of evolution. What you “always try to ignore” is the absurdity of claiming that every life form (presumably including this beetle) is or was part of your God’s one and only “goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their lunch.

Interoception
QUOTES: “past studies suggest that those with a stronger and more stable concept of self are more entuned with their inner bodily signals, particularly their heartbeat and breath, and are less prone to sensory illusions."
"[…] we claim that it is the cyclic physiology of the viscera that provides the self-concept with a firm foundation […] We argue that this stabilizing role of interoception on the self-concept is not limited to the material self, but also extends to the social and spiritual self."
“ […] humans' abstract concept of self is not merely embodied; it is deeply embodied."

I must be exceptional. I am only “deeply” aware of my heartbeat and breath when something goes wrong. By contrast I am always deeply aware of my emotions and my responses to my environment and to other people (the social and spiritual self). I do not believe that my abstract concept of myself is given a firm foundation by awareness of my breathing and my heartbeat.

Supernova
DAVID: This discovery should reassure dhw not every event in the universe is especially designed by God. This event is an obviously natural result of His designs. Supernovas deliver the life-required elements needed for life […]

I don’t believe that every supernova delivered the elements needed for life. The concept of events that are a natural result of his designs, and are not controlled by him for the sole purpose of designing humans plus lunch, fits in perfectly with the concept of evolution as a free-for-all, in which species emerge “as a natural result of his design” of the intelligent cell. Thank you.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 29, 2021, 18:38 (1003 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God has designed mechanisms of 'almost infinite flexibility'. I fully accept that. But that is not intelligence, just automatic responses to built in instructions. […]

dhw: Intelligence is what USES the mechanism! Why “built-in” instructions? Back you go to your 3.8-billion-year-old programme. You know perfectly well that the theistic version of my theory is that your God created the mechanism and gave organisms the intelligence to use it. Your only reason for rejecting this is that it does not coincide with your personal image of God, who always wishes to maintain total control over evolution.

Using a response algorithm does not require intelligence. It can still fully automatic.

Big brain evolution
DAVID: one gene appears to make our brain. Again, God at work? And the other issue is folks with almost no brain are normal humans with consciousness. Why? Again God at work His favorite created/evolved organisms?

dhw: One solution to the mystery of “folks with almost no brain” might be the fact that the brain, like all our organs, is a community of cells. Perhaps in some cases, the functions of the missing cells are taken over by other cells through the same process of adaptation that enables cells to change their structure in response to new conditions.

How about consciousness being separate from those cells? People with a thin shell of cortical cells are found just like us with full brains.

Interoception
QUOTES: “past studies suggest that those with a stronger and more stable concept of self are more entuned with their inner bodily signals, particularly their heartbeat and breath, and are less prone to sensory illusions."
"[…] we claim that it is the cyclic physiology of the viscera that provides the self-concept with a firm foundation […] We argue that this stabilizing role of interoception on the self-concept is not limited to the material self, but also extends to the social and spiritual self."
“ […] humans' abstract concept of self is not merely embodied; it is deeply embodied."

dhw: I must be exceptional. I am only “deeply” aware of my heartbeat and breath when something goes wrong. By contrast I am always deeply aware of my emotions and my responses to my environment and to other people (the social and spiritual self). I do not believe that my abstract concept of myself is given a firm foundation by awareness of my breathing and my heartbeat.

I have to agree. My BMs don't make my self-concepts.


Supernova
DAVID: This discovery should reassure dhw not every event in the universe is especially designed by God. This event is an obviously natural result of His designs. Supernovas deliver the life-required elements needed for life […]

dhw: I don’t believe that every supernova delivered the elements needed for life. The concept of events that are a natural result of his designs, and are not controlled by him for the sole purpose of designing humans plus lunch, fits in perfectly with the concept of evolution as a free-for-all, in which species emerge “as a natural result of his design” of the intelligent cell. Thank you.

I agree outside the Milky Way doesn't affect us in any direct way.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, June 30, 2021, 12:16 (1002 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God has designed mechanisms of 'almost infinite flexibility'. I fully accept that. But that is not intelligence, just automatic responses to built in instructions. […]

dhw: Intelligence is what USES the mechanism! Why “built-in” instructions? Back you go to your 3.8-billion-year-old programme. You know perfectly well that the theistic version of my theory is that your God created the mechanism and gave organisms the intelligence to use it. Your only reason for rejecting this is that it does not coincide with your personal image of God, who always wishes to maintain total control over evolution.

DAVID: Using a response algorithm does not require intelligence. It can still fully automatic.

Please explain the difference between a 3.8-billion-year-old response algorithm that will automatically provide instructions for every single innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder and defence strategy throughout the history of life, and a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme that will do the same.

Big brain evolution
DAVID: one gene appears to make our brain. Again, God at work? And the other issue is folks with almost no brain are normal humans with consciousness. Why? Again God at work His favorite created/evolved organisms?

dhw: One solution to the mystery of “folks with almost no brain” might be the fact that the brain, like all our organs, is a community of cells. Perhaps in some cases, the functions of the missing cells are taken over by other cells through the same process of adaptation that enables cells to change their structure in response to new conditions.

DAVID: How about consciousness being separate from those cells? People with a thin shell of cortical cells are found just like us with full brains.

Some people, not all. Even if there is such a thing as the dualist’s soul, the remaining cells will still have to take on functions normally performed by those that are missing: it is the cells that provide the dualist's soul with information and then implement its thoughts.

Interoception
QUOTES: “past studies suggest that those with a stronger and more stable concept of self are more entuned with their inner bodily signals, particularly their heartbeat and breath, and are less prone to sensory illusions."
"[…] we claim that it is the cyclic physiology of the viscera that provides the self-concept with a firm foundation […] We argue that this stabilizing role of interoception on the self-concept is not limited to the material self, but also extends to the social and spiritual self."
“ […] humans' abstract concept of self is not merely embodied; it is deeply embodied.
"

dhw: I must be exceptional. I am only “deeply” aware of my heartbeat and breath when something goes wrong. By contrast I am always deeply aware of my emotions and my responses to my environment and to other people (the social and spiritual self). I do not believe that my abstract concept of myself is given a firm foundation by awareness of my breathing and my heartbeat.

DAVID: I have to agree. My BMs don't make my self-concepts.

Thank you. I love it when we agree!


DAVID (re Supernova): This discovery should reassure dhw not every event in the universe is especially designed by God. This event is an obviously natural result of His designs. Supernovas deliver the life-required elements needed for life […]

dhw: I don’t believe that every supernova delivered the elements needed for life. The concept of events that are a natural result of his designs, and are not controlled by him for the sole purpose of designing humans plus lunch, fits in perfectly with the concept of evolution as a free-for-all, in which species emerge “as a natural result of his design” of the intelligent cell. Thank you.

DAVID: I agree outside the Milky Way doesn't affect us in any direct way.
And:
DAVID: (re Neutron star black hole merge): as dhw and I have agreed much of the happenings in the universe are at random, a result of initial design.

These two entries are an important step forward in our discussions. The concept of a God who designs a system resulting in random events lies at the heart of our discussion on evolution. But in the latter, the system I’m proposing has been designed by your God (theistic version) to allow organisms to do their own designing, and so the “random” element is that he does not control what the organisms design. He leaves his stars randomly to change their structure, and his black holes randomly to “merge with” (actually swallow) neutron stars, and he leaves his cell communities to deliberately change their structure or “merge with” other cell communities in response to what may be randomly changing conditions. And he watches all this with interest. Feasible theory?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 30, 2021, 20:12 (1002 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Using a response algorithm does not require intelligence. It can still fully automatic.

dhw: Please explain the difference between a 3.8-billion-year-old response algorithm that will automatically provide instructions for every single innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder and defence strategy throughout the history of life, and a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme that will do the same.

I cannot comment about the bold. Living organism do not follow computer programs as those are lifeless.


Big brain evolution

DAVID: How about consciousness being separate from those cells? People with a thin shell of cortical cells are found just like us with full brains.

dhw: Some people, not all. Even if there is such a thing as the dualist’s soul, the remaining cells will still have to take on functions normally performed by those that are missing: it is the cells that provide the dualist's soul with information and then implement its thoughts.

Your comment implies my dualist theory: just a few remaining cells can contain a whole consciousness. It can be received and squeezed into those remaining!!!


DAVID (re Supernova): This discovery should reassure dhw not every event in the universe is especially designed by God. This event is an obviously natural result of His designs. Supernovas deliver the life-required elements needed for life […]

dhw: I don’t believe that every supernova delivered the elements needed for life. The concept of events that are a natural result of his designs, and are not controlled by him for the sole purpose of designing humans plus lunch, fits in perfectly with the concept of evolution as a free-for-all, in which species emerge “as a natural result of his design” of the intelligent cell. Thank you.

DAVID: I agree outside the Milky Way doesn't affect us in any direct way.
And:
DAVID: (re Neutron star black hole merge): as dhw and I have agreed much of the happenings in the universe are at random, a result of initial design.

dhw: These two entries are an important step forward in our discussions. The concept of a God who designs a system resulting in random events lies at the heart of our discussion on evolution. But in the latter, the system I’m proposing has been designed by your God (theistic version) to allow organisms to do their own designing, and so the “random” element is that he does not control what the organisms design. He leaves his stars randomly to change their structure, and his black holes randomly to “merge with” (actually swallow) neutron stars, and he leaves his cell communities to deliberately change their structure or “merge with” other cell communities in response to what may be randomly changing conditions. And he watches all this with interest. Feasible theory?

The two actions don't match. God may have purposely designed the Milky Way for His purpose to create life and eventually us. So my comments discuss the now of this universe, just as in evolution, I recognize the older time parts of the evolutionary process and how they relate to the now, all part pf God's tight control over what He ended up evolving. In no way can you equate the mechanics of the universe with evolving life. A fine-tuned-for-life universe can have larger parts running on its own once the needs for li fe are satisfied. .

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, July 01, 2021, 09:11 (1001 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please explain the difference between a 3.8-billion-year-old response algorithm that will automatically provide instructions for every single innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder and defence strategy throughout the history of life, and a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme that will do the same.

DAVID: I cannot comment about the bold. Living organism do not follow computer programs as those are lifeless.

After 13 years, you now wish to swap a computer programme for an algorithm. Fine. I find a 3.8-billion-year-old algorithm for the above list of instructions just as hard to swallow.

Big brain evolution
DAVID: How about consciousness being separate from those cells? People with a thin shell of cortical cells are found just like us with full brains.

dhw: […] Even if there is such a thing as the dualist’s soul, the remaining cells will still have to take on functions normally performed by those that are missing: it is the cells that provide the dualist's soul with information and then implement its thoughts.

DAVID: Your comment implies my dualist theory: just a few remaining cells can contain a whole consciousness. It can be received and squeezed into those remaining!!!

It implies no such thing. If cells themselves are the source of consciousness, then the remaining cells will take on the functions of processing information, communicating and decision-making which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence (although you don’t believe it). I remain neutral on the subject.

DAVID: (re Supernova): I agree outside the Milky Way doesn't affect us in any direct way.
And:
DAVID: (re Neutron star black hole merge): as dhw and I have agreed much of the happenings in the universe are at random, a result of initial design.

dhw: […] The concept of a God who designs a system resulting in random events lies at the heart of our discussion on evolution. […] He leaves his stars randomly to change their structure, and his black holes randomly to “merge with” (actually swallow) neutron stars, and he leaves his cell communities to deliberately change their structure or “merge with” other cell communities in response to what may be randomly changing conditions. And he watches all this with interest. Feasible theory?

DAVID: […] In no way can you equate the mechanics of the universe with evolving life. A fine-tuned-for-life universe can have larger parts running on its own once the needs for life are satisfied.

I am not equating the two actions. I am saying that both actions may illustrate the same principle: that God sets things in motion, and then leaves them to do their own thing. A fine-tuned-for-life universe runs on its own; a finely designed living cell runs on its own.

Ant raft movements
QUOTE: Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behavior. (David’s bold)

DAVID: […] The individual ant follows simple rules for himself to create the whole raft behaviour. […] No overall controlling mind, but swarm action based on programmed individual responses.

Stunning! Thank you. But as usual, you skip the origin of their behaviour, which can only have begun through intelligent experimentation. Ants communicate, and their ingenuity may be an exact mirror of the way our own intelligent cell communities cooperate in producing new ideas and implementing them. A successful strategy will be passed on. What is your theory? That God provided the first cells with an algorithm for the evolution of ants plus all their strategies? Or once he’d designed ants, he popped in to give them courses in bridge-building?

The big bang
DAVID: The Big Bang created space-time reality. Its origin is as mysterious as God, Himself. We can not imagine the BB in any way as a start of what is now present. We cannot treat the BB as a natural event. […] I am left with God, the Creator.

No one can “imagine” the BB or God. If you can cope with the idea of an all-powerful conscious mind that has simply always been there, then why can’t you cope with the idea of an eternal unconscious universe of mindless matter and energy which one fine day produced some sort of explosion that gave rise to our universe, which could even itself be a tiny part of an infinite universe that stretches beyond our powers of observation? No, I’m not proposing that. I’m merely offering alternatives to your God and to the absurd theory that “nothing” can be the source of everything.

Heme
QUOTE: "How about that; cells know the law of supply and demand. Where did they learn that? In protocell economics class?

Good question. If God exists, perhaps he gave them all the necessary mechanisms for life to exist and evolve, plus the intelligence to “know” how to use those mechanisms.

DAVID: Tell me how that happens by chance. There is no answer but a careful designer creating the process […]

I have no idea how much of the mechanism was in place right from the start, but as always, you have presented the strongest possible case for design.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 01, 2021, 17:43 (1001 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot comment about the bold. Living organism do not follow computer programs as those are lifeless.

dhw: After 13 years, you now wish to swap a computer programme for an algorithm. Fine. I find a 3.8-billion-year-old algorithm for the above list of instructions just as hard to swallow.

I never said DNA is a computer code. Algorithms are specific answers to specific issues.


Big brain evolution

DAVID: Your comment implies my dualist theory: just a few remaining cells can contain a whole consciousness. It can be received and squeezed into those remaining!!!

dhw: It implies no such thing. If cells themselves are the source of consciousness, then the remaining cells will take on the functions of processing information, communicating and decision-making which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence (although you don’t believe it). I remain neutral on the subject.

As usual, wrong. Cells are not the source of consciousness, but the receivers. Smaller aerials can still receive large signals. Why a crust of brain works.


DAVID: (re Supernova): I agree outside the Milky Way doesn't affect us in any direct way.
And:
DAVID: (re Neutron star black hole merge): as dhw and I have agreed much of the happenings in the universe are at random, a result of initial design.

DAVID: […] In no way can you equate the mechanics of the universe with evolving life. A fine-tuned-for-life universe can have larger parts running on its own once the needs for life are satisfied.

dhw: I am not equating the two actions. I am saying that both actions may illustrate the same principle: that God sets things in motion, and then leaves them to do their own thing. A fine-tuned-for-life universe runs on its own; a finely designed living cell runs on its own.

You are equating the material universe actions with living actions. True, but I noted the truer issue is control over directions of evolution, not life after it evolved!!!


Ant raft movements
QUOTE: Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behavior. (David’s bold)

DAVID: […] The individual ant follows simple rules for himself to create the whole raft behaviour. […] No overall controlling mind, but swarm action based on programmed individual responses.

dhw: Stunning! Thank you. But as usual, you skip the origin of their behaviour, which can only have begun through intelligent experimentation. Ants communicate, and their ingenuity may be an exact mirror of the way our own intelligent cell communities cooperate in producing new ideas and implementing them. A successful strategy will be passed on.

Now ants have the ability to analyze, create and pass on concepts. Your God gave ants powerful brains. Individual ants have the same limited responses all researchers note.


The big bang
DAVID: The Big Bang created space-time reality. Its origin is as mysterious as God, Himself. We can not imagine the BB in any way as a start of what is now present. We cannot treat the BB as a natural event. […] I am left with God, the Creator.

No one can “imagine” the BB or God. If you can cope with the idea of an all-powerful conscious mind that has simply always been there, then why can’t you cope with the idea of an eternal unconscious universe of mindless matter and energy which one fine day produced some sort of explosion that gave rise to our universe, which could even itself be a tiny part of an infinite universe that stretches beyond our powers of observation? No, I’m not proposing that. I’m merely offering alternatives to your God and to the absurd theory that “nothing” can be the source of everything.

God is not nothing.


Heme

DAVID: Tell me how that happens by chance. There is no answer but a careful designer creating the process […]

dhw: I have no idea how much of the mechanism was in place right from the start, but as always, you have presented the strongest possible case for design.

And you refuse to accept the need for a designing mind, which some of us call God.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, July 02, 2021, 08:45 (1000 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: After 13 years, you now wish to swap a computer programme for an algorithm. Fine. I find a 3.8-billion-year-old algorithm for the above list of instructions just as hard to swallow.

DAVID: I never said DNA is a computer code. Algorithms are specific answers to specific issues.

For 13 years, you have offered us two explanations for evolution: every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago by your God, or he dabbled them. A specific answer to a specific problem would not cover the whole of life’s history, and you now reject the computer image, so please just tell us what sort of programme your God might have installed in the first cells.

Big brain evolution
DAVID: Your comment implies my dualist theory […]

dhw: It implies no such thing. If cells themselves are the source of consciousness, then the remaining cells will take on the functions of processing information, communicating and decision-making which are the hallmarks of conscious intelligence (although you don’t believe it). I remain neutral on the subject.

DAVID: As usual, wrong. Cells are not the source of consciousness, but the receivers. Smaller aerials can still receive large signals. Why a crust of brain works.

At a stroke you claim to have resolved centuries of debate between materialists and dualists. Congratulations. May I ask how you know that cells are not the source of consciousness?

DAVID: (re Neutron star black hole merge): as dhw and I have agreed much of the happenings in the universe are at random, a result of initial design.
And:
DAVID: […] In no way can you equate the mechanics of the universe with evolving life. A fine-tuned-for-life universe can have larger parts running on its own once the needs for life are satisfied.

dhw: I am not equating the two actions. I am saying that both actions may illustrate the same principle: that God sets things in motion, and then leaves them to do their own thing. A fine-tuned-for-life universe runs on its own; a finely designed living cell runs on its own.

DAVID: You are equating the material universe actions with living actions. True, but I noted the truer issue is control over directions of evolution, not life after it evolved!!!

Directions of evolution ARE life after it evolved. And what do you mean by the “truer” issue?
You accept that your God can create a system (the mechanics of the universe) in which he does not control the consequences of his design. I have proposed the same for evolution: once he has set the process in motion, he leaves it to run itself.

Ant raft movements
dhw: […] Ants communicate, and their ingenuity may be an exact mirror of the way our own intelligent cell communities cooperate in producing new ideas and implementing them. A successful strategy will be passed on.

DAVID: Now ants have the ability to analyze, create and pass on concepts. Your God gave ants powerful brains. Individual ants have the same limited responses all researchers note.

Why are you so averse to the idea of your God giving ants the intelligence to analyze, create and pass on concepts? We have no idea how such strategies originated, but there is no reason to suppose that ants did not combine their intelligences, just as human teams collaborate to solve problems. What is your alternative? Preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or God popping in to give courses in bridge-building?

The big bang
DAVID: The Big Bang created space-time reality. Its origin is as mysterious as God, Himself. We can not imagine the BB in any way as a start of what is now present. We cannot treat the BB as a natural event. […] I am left with God, the Creator.

dhw: No one can “imagine” the BB or God. If you can cope with the idea of an all-powerful conscious mind that has simply always been there, then why can’t you cope with the idea of an eternal unconscious universe of mindless matter and energy which one fine day produced some sort of explosion that gave rise to our universe, which could even itself be a tiny part of an infinite universe that stretches beyond our powers of observation? No, I’m not proposing that. I’m merely offering alternatives to your God and to the absurd theory that “nothing” can be the source of everything.

DAVID: God is not nothing.

Of course not. My suggestion is an alternative to your God theory and to the “everything came from nothing” theory. If you can imagine a sourceless, eternal, conscious mind, why can’t you imagine a sourceless, infinite, eternal unconscious combination of energy and matter eventually producing consciousness?

Heme
dhw: I have no idea how much of the mechanism was in place right from the start, but as always, you have presented the strongest possible case for design.

DAVID: And you refuse to accept the need for a designing mind, which some of us call God.

As usual, you choose to ignore the factors that make me agnostic. They are summarized above: I find a sourceless conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as an infinite, eternal universe of energy and matter eventually combining them to produce consciousness.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, July 02, 2021, 16:00 (1000 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I never said DNA is a computer code. Algorithms are specific answers to specific issues.

dhw: For 13 years, you have offered us two explanations for evolution: every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago by your God, or he dabbled them. A specific answer to a specific problem would not cover the whole of life’s history, and you now reject the computer image, so please just tell us what sort of programme your God might have installed in the first cells.

There was a code to form structure and basic function for each evolutionary advance. Above is my thought about everyday automatic responses to everyday stimuli by DNA coded algorithm. Two separate types of coding.


Big brain evolution

DAVID: As usual, wrong. Cells are not the source of consciousness, but the receivers. Smaller aerials can still receive large signals. Why a crust of brain works.

d hw: At a stroke you claim to have resolved centuries of debate between materialists and dualists. Congratulations. May I ask how you know that cells are not the source of consciousness?

Because of the concept of receivership. It doesn't take lots of cells to receive a consciousness. No specific number required. Shown by shell brains. Also NDE evidence

dhw: I am not equating the two actions. I am saying that both actions may illustrate the same principle: that God sets things in motion, and then leaves them to do their own thing. A fine-tuned-for-life universe runs on its own; a finely designed living cell runs on its own.

DAVID: You are equating the material universe actions with living actions. True, but I noted the truer issue is control over directions of evolution, not life after it evolved!!!

dhw: Directions of evolution ARE life after it evolved. And what do you mean by the “truer” issue?
You accept that your God can create a system (the mechanics of the universe) in which he does not control the consequences of his design. I have proposed the same for evolution: once he has set the process in motion, he leaves it to run itself.

As usual a directionless purposeless God not in exact control of evolution, which is required to achieve purpose. "Truer" refers to this. A mechanical universe can run itself, but living evolution must have specific goals.


Ant raft movements

dhw: Why are you so averse to the idea of your God giving ants the intelligence to analyze, create and pass on concepts? We have no idea how such strategies originated, but there is no reason to suppose that ants did not combine their intelligences, just as human teams collaborate to solve problems. What is your alternative? Preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or God popping in to give courses in bridge-building?

Ignores the 'swarming concept of limited automatic individual actions producing the swarm, as the experts note.

Heme
dhw: I have no idea how much of the mechanism was in place right from the start, but as always, you have presented the strongest possible case for design.

DAVID: And you refuse to accept the need for a designing mind, which some of us call God.

dhw: As usual, you choose to ignore the factors that make me agnostic. They are summarized above: I find a sourceless conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as an infinite, eternal universe of energy and matter eventually combining them to produce consciousness.

Why can't you accept the concept that the complexity of living designs must require a designing mind? Nothing cannot precede our reality.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, July 03, 2021, 08:39 (999 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I never said DNA is a computer code. Algorithms are specific answers to specific issues.

dhw: For 13 years, you have offered us two explanations for evolution: every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago by your God, or he dabbled them. A specific answer to a specific problem would not cover the whole of life’s history, and you now reject the computer image, so please just tell us what sort of programme your God might have installed in the first cells.

DAVID: There was a code to form structure and basic function for each evolutionary advance. Above is my thought about everyday automatic responses to everyday stimuli by DNA coded algorithm. Two separate types of coding.

So your two theories of evolution are 1) 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with codes for every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder for the whole future history of life, other than 2), when he popped in to insert a new algorithm for any uncoded developments. Is that right? (If so, I’m afraid I still find them just as hard to swallow.)

Big brain evolution
DAVID: As usual, wrong. Cells are not the source of consciousness, but the receivers. Smaller aerials can still receive large signals. Why a crust of brain works.

dhw: At a stroke you claim to have resolved centuries of debate between materialists and dualists. Congratulations. May I ask how you know that cells are not the source of consciousness?

DAVID: Because of the concept of receivership. It doesn't take lots of cells to receive a consciousness. No specific number required. Shown by shell brains. Also NDE evidence.

I know the concept, and I know the evidence. But I don’t know how you can claim with such authority that cells are NOT the source of consciousness, when there is also evidence that any number of material factors can change the identity and behaviour – and hence the consciousness – of those affected. I must repeat that I remain neutral on the subject, since there is so much conflicting evidence, but in two earlier threads (“Reconciling materialism and dualism” and “A theory of intelligence”), I tried to offer a compromise between the two approaches.

Neutron star black hole merge
dhw: You accept that your God can create a system (the mechanics of the universe) in which he does not control the consequences of his design. I have proposed the same for evolution: once he has set the process in motion, he leaves it to run itself.

DAVID: As usual a directionless purposeless God not in exact control of evolution, which is required to achieve purpose. […] A mechanical universe can run itself, but living evolution must have specific goals.

If God exists, of course he has a purpose. If he doesn’t exist, I suggest the only purpose ALL living organisms have in common is survival and ways to improve chances of survival. Let’s stick to theism, though. You refuse to recognize any purpose other than your God wanting to design humans and their lunch (although when pushed you have him “humanly” wanting a being who would recognize his works and with whom he might form a relationship.) You refuse to consider enjoyment of creation and interest in an ever changing bush of life as his possible purpose, and you refuse to consider the possibility that autonomous beings might be more interesting than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings. Your refusal, however, does not make such a God directionless or purposeless.

Ant raft movements
dhw: Why are you so averse to the idea of your God giving ants the intelligence to analyze, create and pass on concepts? […] What is your alternative? Preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or God popping in to give courses in bridge-building?

DAVID: Ignores the 'swarming concept of limited automatic individual actions producing the swarm, as the experts note.

The swarming concept does not explain the origin of the strategy. And you have not answered my questions.

Heme
dhw: […]I find a sourceless conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as an infinite, eternal universe of energy and matter eventually combining them to produce consciousness.

DAVID: Why can't you accept the concept that the complexity of living designs must require a designing mind? Nothing cannot precede our reality.

Of course I agree that nothing is not an option. And I have already agreed that the complexity of living designs requires a designing mind or minds, but I distinguish between the origin of life and the process of evolution. I propose that the latter is carried out by intelligent cells (designing minds), but their origin remains a mystery. I understand why they and their possible intelligence are so complex that they can inspire faith in the existence of the designing mind you call God, and I have no objections to the argument itself. But see the bold above for my problem with the God theory.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 03, 2021, 15:42 (999 days ago) @ dhw

Big brain evolution

dhw: At a stroke you claim to have resolved centuries of debate between materialists and dualists. Congratulations. May I ask how you know that cells are not the source of consciousness?

DAVID: Because of the concept of receivership. It doesn't take lots of cells to receive a consciousness. No specific number required. Shown by shell brains. Also NDE evidence.

dhw: I know the concept, and I know the evidence. But I don’t know how you can claim with such authority that cells are NOT the source of consciousness, when there is also evidence that any number of material factors can change the identity and behaviour – and hence the consciousness – of those affected.

You miss the obvious point that damaged brain cells will not receive or use consciousness properly.

Neutron star black hole merge
dhw: You accept that your God can create a system (the mechanics of the universe) in which he does not control the consequences of his design. I have proposed the same for evolution: once he has set the process in motion, he leaves it to run itself.

DAVID: As usual a directionless purposeless God not in exact control of evolution, which is required to achieve purpose. […] A mechanical universe can run itself, but living evolution must have specific goals.

dhw: If God exists, of course he has a purpose. If he doesn’t exist, I suggest the only purpose ALL living organisms have in common is survival and ways to improve chances of survival. Let’s stick to theism, though. You refuse to recognize any purpose other than your God wanting to design humans and their lunch (although when pushed you have him “humanly” wanting a being who would recognize his works and with whom he might form a relationship.) You refuse to consider enjoyment of creation and interest in an ever changing bush of life as his possible purpose, and you refuse to consider the possibility that autonomous beings might be more interesting than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings. Your refusal, however, does not make such a God directionless or purposeless.

No. it makes Him very human, not God-like with very human-like intentions.


Ant raft movements
dhw: Why are you so averse to the idea of your God giving ants the intelligence to analyze, create and pass on concepts? […] What is your alternative? Preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or God popping in to give courses in bridge-building?

DAVID: Ignores the 'swarming concept of limited automatic individual actions producing the swarm, as the experts note.

dhw: The swarming concept does not explain the origin of the strategy. And you have not answered my questions.

You still miss the point of my answers to your questions re' ants. Each individual ant has a limited program of action and it is those actions that create the swarms and the bridges. Stated by studies' authors!


Heme
dhw: […]I find a sourceless conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as an infinite, eternal universe of energy and matter eventually combining them to produce consciousness.

DAVID: Why can't you accept the concept that the complexity of living designs must require a designing mind? Nothing cannot precede our reality.

dhw: Of course I agree that nothing is not an option. And I have already agreed that the complexity of living designs requires a designing mind or minds, but I distinguish between the origin of life and the process of evolution. I propose that the latter is carried out by intelligent cells (designing minds), but their origin remains a mystery. I understand why they and their possible intelligence are so complex that they can inspire faith in the existence of the designing mind you call God, and I have no objections to the argument itself. But see the bold above for my problem with the God theory.

You must split origin of life from evolution to avoid God. Darwin did the same. They are a continuum.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, July 04, 2021, 09:21 (998 days ago) @ David Turell

Big brain evolution
DAVID: As usual, wrong. Cells are not the source of consciousness, but the receivers. […]

dhw: […] I don’t know how you can claim with such authority that cells are NOT the source of consciousness, when there is also evidence that any number of material factors can change the identity and behaviour – and hence the consciousness – of those affected.

DAVID: You miss the obvious point that damaged brain cells will not receive or use consciousness properly.

So if the brain cells of a normally placid man become diseased, are you telling us that the placid conscious "soul" tells him not to beat his wife, but the cells have a mind of their own, misread the received message and decide otherwise? Ugh, I wonder what his "soul" is thinking all this time! (I’m defending the case for materialism because as usual you only see one side of the argument. I remain neutral, as I’m fully aware of the evidence for dualism.)

Neutron star black hole merge
dhw: You accept that your God can create a system (the mechanics of the universe) in which he does not control the consequences of his design. I have proposed the same for evolution: once he has set the process in motion, he leaves it to run itself.

DAVID: As usual a directionless purposeless God not in exact control of evolution, which is required to achieve purpose.[…]

dhw: You refuse to consider enjoyment of creation and interest in an ever changing bush of life as his possible purpose, and you refuse to consider the possibility that autonomous beings might be more interesting than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings. Your refusal, however, does not make such a God directionless or purposeless.

DAVID: No. it makes Him very human, not God-like with very human-like intentions.

Thank you for withdrawing your silly argument that my proposal makes him directionless and purposeless. No thanks for your assumption that God is not God-like unless he conforms to your own humanized concept of him, as summarized yesterday:

dhw: How can you possibly talk about purposes without “humanizing” him? And do you honestly imagine your God as an emotionless mind simply creating without any feelings – although elsewhere you have expressed your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates? When pushed, you even come up with possible “humanized” reasons why he wanted to design humans, [to recognize his works, and to have a relationship with him] and you have him kindly providing possible antidotes to the diseases his specially created viruses and bacteria have created - because he has "good intentions".
You object to my "humanizing" him because some of my humanizations conflict with your own, though you can find no fault in the logic which explains those parts of your theories which you can't explain.

DAVID: Your humanized God has logical intentions.

Correct. This in my view makes my humanized God considerably more believable than yours, which leaves you with no idea how to explain your interpretation of his intentions and means of fulfilling them.

Ant raft movements
dhw: Why are you so averse to the idea of your God giving ants the intelligence to analyze, create and pass on concepts? […] What is your alternative? Preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or God popping in to give courses in bridge-building? […]

DAVID: […] You still miss the point of my answers to your questions re' ants. Each individual ant has a limited program of action and it is those actions that create the swarms and the bridges. Stated by studies' authors!

Stated by the authors:
QUOTE: Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behavior.

Even your authors call it “swarm intelligence”, which covers their behaviour after the strategy has been invented. I am simply proposing that “swarm intelligence” devised the simple rules in the first place, when ants were first confronted with the problem of the gap. Now please answer my questions.

Heme
dhw: I have already agreed that the complexity of living designs requires a designing mind or minds, but I distinguish between the origin of life and the process of evolution. I propose that the latter is carried out by intelligent cells (designing minds), but their origin remains a mystery. I understand why they and their possible intelligence are so complex that they can inspire faith in the existence of the designing mind you call God, and I have no objections to the argument itself. […]

DAVID: You must split origin of life from evolution to avoid God. Darwin did the same. They are a continuum.

How can it possibly be “to avoid God”, when I am proposing that the originator of the cellular intelligence might have been God? As for the agnostic Darwin, he could see “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one” (On the Origin of Species…). Please stop pretending that a theistic alternative to your version of evolution and God makes the proposer an atheist.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 04, 2021, 15:14 (998 days ago) @ dhw

Big brain evolution

DAVID: You miss the obvious point that damaged brain cells will not receive or use consciousness properly.

dhw: So if the brain cells of a normally placid man become diseased, are you telling us that the placid conscious "soul" tells him not to beat his wife, but the cells have a mind of their own, misread the received message and decide otherwise? Ugh, I wonder what his "soul" is thinking all this time! I’m defending the case for materialism because as usual you only see one side of the argument.

All of us are fully aware as in schizophrenia, neurons are sick and misinterpret consciousness thought. You cannot excape dualism.


Neutron star black hole merge

dhw: You refuse to consider enjoyment of creation and interest in an ever changing bush of life as his possible purpose, and you refuse to consider the possibility that autonomous beings might be more interesting than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings. Your refusal, however, does not make such a God directionless or purposeless.

DAVID: No. it makes Him very human, not God-like with his very human-like intentions.

dhw: Thank you for withdrawing your silly argument that my proposal makes him directionless and purposeless. No thanks for your assumption that God is not God-like unless he conforms to your own humanized concept of him, as summarized yesterday:

dhw: You object to my "humanizing" him because some of my humanizations conflict with your own, though you can find no fault in the logic which explains those parts of your theories which you can't explain.[/i]

DAVID: Your humanized God has logical intentions.

dhw: Correct. This in my view makes my humanized God considerably more believable than yours, which leaves you with no idea how to explain your interpretation of his intentions and means of fulfilling them.

One of your problems is you want explanations God's actions, and they are all judgement calls based on one's analysis of God's personality.


Ant raft movements

DAVID: […] You still miss the point of my answers to your questions re' ants. Each individual ant has a limited program of action and it is those actions that create the swarms and the bridges. Stated by studies' authors!

Stated by the authors:
QUOTE: Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behavior.

dhw: Even your authors call it “swarm intelligence”, which covers their behaviour after the strategy has been invented. I am simply proposing that “swarm intelligence” devised the simple rules in the first place, when ants were first confronted with the problem of the gap. Now please answer my questions.

'Swarm intelligence' is the author's name for the result. The cause remains a result of individual specific actions.


Heme
dhw: I have already agreed that the complexity of living designs requires a designing mind or minds, but I distinguish between the origin of life and the process of evolution. I propose that the latter is carried out by intelligent cells (designing minds), but their origin remains a mystery. I understand why they and their possible intelligence are so complex that they can inspire faith in the existence of the designing mind you call God, and I have no objections to the argument itself. […]

DAVID: You must split origin of life from evolution to avoid God. Darwin did the same. They are a continuum.

dhw: How can it possibly be “to avoid God”, when I am proposing that the originator of the cellular intelligence might have been God? As for the agnostic Darwin, he could see “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one” (On the Origin of Species…). Please stop pretending that a theistic alternative to your version of evolution and God makes the proposer an atheist.

You never answered my complaint. Continuum or not?

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, July 05, 2021, 09:12 (997 days ago) @ David Turell

Big brain evolution
DAVID: You miss the obvious point that damaged brain cells will not receive or use consciousness properly.

dhw: So if the brain cells of a normally placid man become diseased, are you telling us that the placid conscious "soul" tells him not to beat his wife, but the cells have a mind of their own, misread the received message and decide otherwise? Ugh, I wonder what his "soul" is thinking all this time! I’m defending the case for materialism because as usual you only see one side of the argument.

DAVID: All of us are fully aware as in schizophrenia, neurons are sick and misinterpret consciousness thought. You cannot excape dualism.

How can non-conscious cells misinterpret anything? As in the example I have given above, you cannot avoid giving the cells minds of their own! We know for a fact that alcohol and drugs can affect “conscious thought”. Why would they affect an immaterial soul that does all the thinking? And we know that in some cases, “misinterpretations” can be adjusted by material medication. All this is inescapable evidence for materialism.

Neutron star black hole merge
dhw: Thank you for withdrawing your silly argument that my proposal makes him directionless and purposeless. No thanks for your assumption that God is not God-like unless he conforms to your own humanized concept of him […]

DAVID: Your humanized God has logical intentions.

dhw: Correct. This in my view makes my humanized God considerably more believable than yours, which leaves you with no idea how to explain your interpretation of his intentions and means of fulfilling them.

DAVID: One of your problems is you want explanations God's actions, and they are all judgement calls based on one's analysis of God's personality.

No they are not. I want explanations of the history of life, and if God exists, I want coherence between that history and what might have been his intentions. You cannot explain why, if his one and only intention had been to design humans plus lunch, he would have chosen to design millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus lunch. Therefore at least one part of your theory is illogical. I see no reason for you to assume that your God would act illogically, especially if there are other explanations which ARE logical.

Ant raft movements
DAVID: […] Each individual ant has a limited program of action and it is those actions that create the swarms and the bridges. Stated by studies' authors!

dhw: Stated by the authors:
QUOTE: Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behavior.

dhw: Even your authors call it “swarm intelligence”, which covers their behaviour after the strategy has been invented. I am simply proposing that “swarm intelligence” devised the simple rules in the first place, when ants were first confronted with the problem of the gap. [...]

DAVID: 'Swarm intelligence' is the author's name for the result. The cause remains a result of individual specific actions.

The cause remains a result? The authors believe that the combined intelligences of the individuals have produced the bridge-building strategy. You quote them, and then you want to focus on the fact that an individual ant could not have thought up the strategy! What is your alternative explanation? Ant speciation and all their strategies were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God popped in to provide lessons in bridge-building?

Heme
dhw: I have no objections to the [design] argument itself. […]

DAVID: You must split origin of life from evolution to avoid God. Darwin did the same. They are a continuum.

dhw: How can it possibly be “to avoid God”, when I am proposing that the originator of the cellular intelligence might have been God? As for the agnostic Darwin, he could see “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one” (On the Origin of Species…). Please stop pretending that a theistic alternative to your version of evolution and God makes the proposer an atheist.

DAVID: You never answered my complaint. Continuum or not?

There is of course a continuum from the origin to the subsequent evolution. In your theory, the continuum is God creating the first cells and providing them with programmes for all non-dabbled developments. In my theory, the continuum is the first cells (possibly designed by your God) going on to design their own developments. I trust you have now withdrawn your silly proposal that the latter is an attempt to “avoid God”.

Bacterial motors
QUOTE: Can any partial implementation of a motility system be even slightly advantageous to a bacterium? Examples of a partial system might lack sensors, lack decision logic, lack control messages, lack a rotor or stator, lack sealed bearings, lack a rod, lack a propeller, or lack redirection means. Would such partial systems be preserved long enough for additional cooperating components to evolve?

Why wouldn’t they have survived? Initially, the only competition when they were evolving was their fellow bacteria.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, July 05, 2021, 17:18 (997 days ago) @ dhw

Big brain evolution

DAVID: All of us are fully aware as in schizophrenia, neurons are sick and misinterpret consciousness thought. You cannot escape dualism.

dhw: How can non-conscious cells misinterpret anything?

Your question does not fit my example. Neurons receive consciousness. So they receive a signal and if sick, garble it. Pure dualism


Neutron star black hole merge

DAVID: One of your problems is you want explanations God's actions, and they are all judgement calls based on one's analysis of God's personality.

dhw: No they are not. I want explanations of the history of life, and if God exists, I want coherence between that history and what might have been his intentions.

The moment you make an attempt to assume God's intentions, you are assuming a God's possible personality, and yours is always humanized.


Ant raft movements

DAVID: 'Swarm intelligence' is the author's name for the result. The cause remains a result of individual specific actions.

dhw: The cause remains a result? The authors believe that the combined intelligences of the individuals have produced the bridge-building strategy. You quote them, and then you want to focus on the fact that an individual ant could not have thought up the strategy!

In bird flocks, bacterial colonies, or in ants the limited individual actions produce the swarm. We interpret it as a swarm as our concept. Again as in cell functions, we are on the outside making an observation/judgement. You have yours, I have mine.

Bacterial motors

QUOTE: Can any partial implementation of a motility system be even slightly advantageous to a bacterium? Examples of a partial system might lack sensors, lack decision logic, lack control messages, lack a rotor or stator, lack sealed bearings, lack a rod, lack a propeller, or lack redirection means. Would such partial systems be preserved long enough for additional cooperating components to evolve?

dhw: Why wouldn’t they have survived? Initially, the only competition when they were evolving was their fellow bacteria.

The point is not your reply. How does evolution add useless parts until the proper form of a useful motor is present?

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, July 06, 2021, 08:57 (996 days ago) @ David Turell

Big brain evolution
DAVID: All of us are fully aware as in schizophrenia, neurons are sick and misinterpret consciousness thought. You cannot escape dualism.

dhw: How can non-conscious cells misinterpret anything?

DAVID: Your question does not fit my example. Neurons receive consciousness. So they receive a signal and if sick, garble it. Pure dualism.

You mean my question does not fit your theory, the alternative to which is that neurons create consciousness. So they not only receive information from outside themselves, but if sick they also misinterpret (garble) it and produce false thoughts. Pure materialism. (See also Bacterial motors 2)

Neutron star black hole merge
DAVID: One of your problems is you want explanations God's actions, and they are all judgement calls based on one's analysis of God's personality.

dhw: No they are not. I want explanations of the history of life, and if God exists, I want coherence between that history and what might have been his intentions.

DAVID: The moment you make an attempt to assume God's intentions, you are assuming a God's possible personality, and yours is always humanized.

So when you say that your God only had one purpose, knew exactly how to fulfil his purpose, was always in full control, would never deliberately relinquish control, and deliberately designed “bad” viruses and bacteria, but “all his works are for the good”, you are not assuming a God’s possible personality with human traits?

Ant raft movements
dhw: The authors believe that the combined intelligences of the individuals have produced the bridge-building strategy. You quote them, and then you want to focus on the fact that an individual ant could not have thought up the strategy!

DAVID: In bird flocks, bacterial colonies, or in ants the limited individual actions produce the swarm. We interpret it as a swarm as our concept. Again as in cell functions, we are on the outside making an observation/judgement. You have yours, I have mine.

Yes, a collection of individuals may be called a swarm. And collectively they produce intelligent solutions to problems which an individual might not be able to solve. We agree. But you insist that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to give lessons in bridge-building or migration or on how to deal with the latest anti-bacterial measures we pesky humans devise in order to undo the damage caused by his deliberate design of what we call “bad” bacteria. I propose that what looks like intelligence might actually be intelligence.

Bacterial motors 1
QUOTE: [...] Examples of a partial system might lack sensors, lack decision logic, lack control messages, lack a rotor or stator, lack sealed bearings, lack a rod, lack a propeller, or lack redirection means. Would such partial systems be preserved long enough for additional cooperating components to evolve?

dhw: Why wouldn’t they have survived? Initially, the only competition when they were evolving was their fellow bacteria.

DAVID: The point is not your reply. How does evolution add useless parts until the proper form of a useful motor is present?

We have no idea how or when these different parts evolved, but may I suggest that in whatever combination and at whatever time they evolved, they were not useless. See also the next item:

Bacterial motors 2
QUOTE: Motile cilia, which themselves have sensory functions, also work as propeller-like extensions that allow us to breathe because they keep our lungs clean, to reproduce because they propel sperm cells, and even to properly reason because they contribute to the flow of cerebrospinal fluid in our brain ventricles. Not surprisingly, defects in the assembly and function of these tiny organelles result in devastating pathologies,

DAVID: the study of the bacterial flagellum all over again evolved into helpful celia/hairs that are vital to health. Pure irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

An excellent example of how one development leads to another as cells or parts of cells take on new functions, as they may have done in the evolution of bacterial motors themselves. Furthermore, the final sentence of the quote suggests defective material “organelles” may have devastating effects on the material brain, which then cannot reason properly. No mention here of devastating effects on the dualist’s immaterial soul. And the question remains: why would material drugs and diseases have any effect on an immaterial soul, which is supposed to do all the thinking? (I'm putting the case for materialism because David ignores it – not because I'm committed to either of the –isms.)

Root microbiome helps plants
DAVID: All the branches of evolution are necessary cooperative organisms to maintain life during evolution's steps. dhw seems confused about the issue.

Such cooperation is necessary at all times and for all forms of life, but that does not mean that at all times every form of life and cooperation was individually designed by your God, or that every form of life and cooperation was part of his one and only goal of specially designing humans and their lunch. You seem confused about the issue that is in dispute, as you keep leaving it out.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 06, 2021, 17:53 (996 days ago) @ dhw

Big brain evolution
DAVID: Your question does not fit my example. Neurons receive consciousness. So they receive a signal and if sick, garble it. Pure dualism.

dhw: You mean my question does not fit your theory, the alternative to which is that neurons create consciousness. So they not only receive information from outside themselves, but if sick they also misinterpret (garble) it and produce false thoughts. Pure materialism.

You object by representing your materialism theory. Your neurons make consciousness, mine receive it. Answer my proposal as a strong possibility based on NDE studies


Neutron star black hole merge

DAVID: The moment you make an attempt to assume God's intentions, you are assuming a God's possible personality, and yours is always humanized.

dhw: So when you say that your God only had one purpose, knew exactly how to fulfil his purpose, was always in full control, would never deliberately relinquish control, and deliberately designed “bad” viruses and bacteria, but “all his works are for the good”, you are not assuming a God’s possible personality with human traits?

Of course I must discuss a non-human God in humans personality terms.


Ant raft movements

DAVID: In bird flocks, bacterial colonies, or in ants the limited individual actions produce the swarm. We interpret it as a swarm as our concept. Again as in cell functions, we are on the outside making an observation/judgement. You have yours, I have mine.

dhw: Yes, a collection of individuals may be called a swarm. And collectively they produce intelligent solutions to problems which an individual might not be able to solve. We agree. But you insist that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago,... I propose that what looks like intelligence might actually be intelligence.

God did not design/program swarms which are automatic results of specific individual action


Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: The point is not your reply. How does evolution add useless parts until the proper form of a useful motor is present?

dhw: We have no idea how or when these different parts evolved, but may I suggest that in whatever combination and at whatever time they evolved, they were not useless.

Wishful Darwinist thought. A partially complete mechanism cannot be used!!! Be logical


Bacterial motors 2

DAVID: the study of the bacterial flagellum all over again evolved into helpful celia/hairs that are vital to health. Pure irreducible complexity requiring a designer.

dhw: An excellent example of how one development leads to another as cells or parts of cells take on new functions, as they may have done in the evolution of bacterial motors themselves. Furthermore, the final sentence of the quote suggests defective material “organelles” may have devastating effects on the material brain, which then cannot reason properly. No mention here of devastating effects on the dualist’s immaterial soul. And the question remains: why would material drugs and diseases have any effect on an immaterial soul, which is supposed to do all the thinking? (I'm putting the case for materialism because David ignores it – not because I'm committed to either of the –isms.)

as usual dhw doesn't understand the concept of a neuron as a receiver. See the entry today of deep brain stimulation curing OCD.


Root microbiome helps plants
DAVID: All the branches of evolution are necessary cooperative organisms to maintain life during evolution's steps. dhw seems confused about the issue.

dhw: Such cooperation is necessary at all times and for all forms of life, but that does not mean that at all times every form of life and cooperation was individually designed by your God, or that every form of life and cooperation was part of his one and only goal of specially designing humans and their lunch. You seem confused about the issue that is in dispute, as you keep leaving it out.

I leave out nothing. You object to my God as designing everything. If you accept the existence of design, a designer must exist.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, July 07, 2021, 11:31 (995 days ago) @ David Turell

Big brain evolution
Transferred to dualism v materialism again

Neutron star black hole merge
DAVID: The moment you make an attempt to assume God's intentions, you are assuming a God's possible personality, and yours is always humanized.

dhw: So when you say that your God only had one purpose, knew exactly how to fulfil his purpose, was always in full control, would never deliberately relinquish control, and deliberately designed “bad” viruses and bacteria, but “all his works are for the good”, you are not assuming a God’s possible personality with human traits?

DAVID: Of course I must discuss a non-human God in humans personality terms.

Then would you please stop criticizing me for using human personality terms when you do exactly the same, and instead focus on the logic of our respective theories.

Ant raft movements
DAVID: In bird flocks, bacterial colonies, or in ants the limited individual actions produce the swarm. We interpret it as a swarm as our concept. Again as in cell functions, we are on the outside making an observation/judgement. You have yours, I have mine.

dhw: Yes, a collection of individuals may be called a swarm. And collectively they produce intelligent solutions to problems which an individual might not be able to solve. We agree. But you insist that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago,... I propose that what looks like intelligence might actually be intelligence.

DAVID: God did not design/program swarms which are automatic results of specific individual action.

Swarms are simply collections of individuals! The article deals with “swarm intelligence”, which creates strategies, such as bridge and raft building, that would presumably be beyond the powers of individual ant intelligences. In other words, the ants collectively pool their intelligences to come up with solutions to new problems. You pooh-pooh the idea. Presumably you prefer the theory that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to give ants the appropriate lessons or algorithms?

Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: The point is not your reply. How does evolution add useless parts until the proper form of a useful motor is present?

dhw: We have no idea how or when these different parts evolved, but may I suggest that in whatever combination and at whatever time they evolved, they were not useless.

DAVID: Wishful Darwinist thought. A partially complete mechanism cannot be used!!! Be logical.

Neither you nor I can have the slightest idea what was or wasn’t useful. A light sensitive nerve may have been useful to its owner, even if it wasn’t an eye. A wheel is not a motor car. But I’m obviously in no position to make any kind of statement on the subject. I am merely querying the authority of the authors’ claim that the flagellum could not have evolved. Bearing in mind that there are different types of bacteria, here is a different view:
Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

QUOTEL Eubacterial flagellum is a multifunctional organelle. It’s also one of a range of motility systems in bacteria. The structure of the organelle appears like a motor, shaft and a propeller.[7] However, the structure of eubacterial flagellae varies based on whether their motor systems run on protons or sodium, and on the complexity of the flagellar whip.[8] The evolutionary origin of eubacterial flagellae is probably an example of indirect evolution. A hypothesis on the evolutionary pathway of the eubacterial flagellum argues that a secretory system evolved first, based around the SMC rod- and pore-forming complex. This is presumed to be the common ancestor of the type-III secretory system and the flagellar system. Then, an ion pump was introduced to this structure which improved secretion. The ion pump later became the motor protein. This was followed by the emergence of the proto-flagellar filament as part of the protein-secretion structure. Gliding-twitching motility arose at this stage or later and was then refined into swimming motility.[7]

Different writers, different theories.

Root microbiome helps plants
DAVID: All the branches of evolution are necessary cooperative organisms to maintain life during evolution's steps. dhw seems confused about the issue.

dhw: Such cooperation is necessary at all times and for all forms of life, but that does not mean that at all times every form of life and cooperation was individually designed by your God, or that every form of life and cooperation was part of his one and only goal of specially designing humans and their lunch. You seem confused about the issue that is in dispute, as you keep leaving it out.

DAVID: I leave out nothing. You object to my God as designing everything. If you accept the existence of design, a designer must exist.

The existence of a designer is not the issue we are discussing. I object to your theory that, although your God's sole purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he designed every life form, lunch, etc., 99% of which had no connection to humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to edit your theory by leaving out the bits which do not fit together, or by changing the subject.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 07, 2021, 15:00 (995 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course I must discuss a non-human God in humans personality terms.

dhw: Then would you please stop criticizing me for using human personality terms when you do exactly the same, and instead focus on the logic of our respective theories.

Off point. My image of your God, based on what He does, is that He is very human in thought and planning. The difference is I don't view my God as human or having human desires. Using the human terms we have to use is a truism.


Ant raft movements
DAVID: In bird flocks, bacterial colonies, or in ants the limited individual actions
DAVID: God did not design/program swarms which are automatic results of specific individual action.

dhw:...You pooh-pooh the idea. Presumably you prefer the theory that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to give ants the appropriate lessons or algorithms?

Your distorted view if this particular discussion. Individual action creates the swarm, yes or no?


Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: The point is not your reply. How does evolution add useless parts until the proper form of a useful motor is present?

dhw: We have no idea how or when these different parts evolved, but may I suggest that in whatever combination and at whatever time they evolved, they were not useless.

DAVID: Wishful Darwinist thought. A partially complete mechanism cannot be used!!! Be logical.

dhw: Neither you nor I can have the slightest idea what was or wasn’t useful. A light sensitive nerve may have been useful to its owner, even if it wasn’t an eye. A wheel is not a motor car. But I’m obviously in no position to make any kind of statement on the subject. I am merely querying the authority of the authors’ claim that the flagellum could not have evolved. Bearing in mind that there are different types of bacteria, here is a different view:
Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella.....deleted.

dhw: Different writers, different theories.

I know the theory I deleted. It is mental invention of possibilities without a smidgen of proof. All we can know for fact is a complete amazing machine that works an d is obviously designed.


Root microbiome helps plants
DAVID: All the branches of evolution are necessary cooperative organisms to maintain life during evolution's steps. dhw seems confused about the issue.

dhw: Such cooperation is necessary at all times and for all forms of life, but that does not mean that at all times every form of life and cooperation was individually designed by your God, or that every form of life and cooperation was part of his one and only goal of specially designing humans and their lunch. You seem confused about the issue that is in dispute, as you keep leaving it out.

DAVID: I leave out nothing. You object to my God as designing everything. If you accept the existence of design, a designer must exist.

dhw: The existence of a designer is not the issue we are discussing. I object to your theory that, although your God's sole purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he designed every life form, lunch, etc., 99% of which had no connection to humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to edit your theory by leaving out the bits which do not fit together, or by changing the subject.

I simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. I don't understand how you can object to that belief

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, July 08, 2021, 11:25 (994 days ago) @ David Turell

First item transferred to “A possible God’s possible purpose and nature”.

Ant raft movements
DAVID: God did not design/program swarms which are automatic results of specific individual action

dhw:[…] The article deals with “swarm intelligence” […] In other words, the ants collectively pool their intelligences to come up with solutions to new problems. You pooh-pooh the idea.Presumably you prefer the theory that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to give ants the appropriate lessons or algorithms?

DAVID: Your distorted view if this particular discussion. Individual action creates the swarm, yes or no?

This particular discussion concerns what the authors call “swarm intelligence”. A swarm is the result of lots of individuals combining to form a community. There is no dispute over the definition of a swarm. The question is how the swarm comes up with strategies such as bridge or raft building. Do you stand by the bolded theory above, or do you accept the possibility that combined intelligences might produce results which the individual could not produce on its own?

Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: A partially complete mechanism cannot be used!!! Be logical.

dhw: Neither you nor I can have the slightest idea what was or wasn’t useful. A light sensitive nerve may have been useful to its owner, even if it wasn’t an eye. A wheel is not a motor car. But I’m obviously in no position to make any kind of statement on the subject. I am merely querying the authority of the authors’ claim that the flagellum could not have evolved. Bearing in mind that there are different types of bacteria, here is a different view:
Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella.....(deleted by David).

dhw: Different writers, different theories.

DAVID: I know the theory I deleted. It is mental invention of possibilities without a smidgen of proof. All we can know for fact is a complete amazing machine that works and is obviously designed.

No one can “prove” that there is an eternal, sourceless, conscious mind called God, or if there is, there is not a smidgen of proof that it designed the amazing machine in one go, whereas so many other amazing machines developed in stages. If you are going to start playing the “proof” game, then all we can know for a fact is that there is a machine that works.

Root microbiome helps plants
DAVID:I leave out nothing. You object to my God as designing everything. If you accept the existence of design, a designer must exist.

dhw: The existence of a designer is not the issue we are discussing. I object to your theory that, although your God's sole purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he designed every life form, lunch, etc., 99% of which had no connection to humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to edit your theory by leaving out the bits which do not fit together, or by changing the subject.

DAVID: I simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. I don't understand how you can object to that belief.

That is NOT what you simply accept, and it is not what I object to! Once again, you have left out the bits I object to, as bolded above. See “A possible God…” for the non-stop repetition of this particular dodge.

One lubricant beats Teflon
DAVID: Nature is always way ahead of us. Or should I say God?

Why would your God, whose one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, specially design the Zophobas morio beetle’s wonderful lubricant? Since when was the Zophobas morio or its lubricant on your lunch menu?

Phase precession
DAVID: Just to show all of us the brain is not a computer as AI folks are learning. Note we find early evidence of these systems in lesser brained animals. In evolution early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms. dhw take note.

That is indeed how evolution works. The human brain is not something brand new but is the result of millions of years of evolutionary development. It is an advance, not an innovation. For some reason, you think EVERY advance (not just the human brain) from bacteria to every life form plus lunch plus strategy plus natural wonder that ever existed required a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or, alternatively, a personal dabble by your God. A simpler theistic explanation would be that your God endowed cells (of which all life forms are made) with the intelligence to do their own designing. I think we’ve had this discussion before.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 08, 2021, 15:28 (994 days ago) @ dhw

First item transferred to “A possible God’s possible purpose and nature”.

Ant raft movements

DAVID: Your distorted view if this particular discussion. Individual action creates the swarm, yes or no?

dhw:...The question is how the swarm comes up with strategies such as bridge or raft building. Do you stand by the bolded theory above, or do you accept the possibility that combined intelligences might produce results which the individual could not produce on its own?

You didn't answer. Bridges and rafts are dependent on individual specific limited actions. That creates the swarm activities as interpreted by humans watching


Bacterial motors 1

DAVID: I know the theory I deleted. It is mental invention of possibilities without a smidgen of proof. All we can know for fact is a complete amazing machine that works and is obviously designed.

dhw: No one can “prove” that there is an eternal, sourceless, conscious mind called God, or if there is, there is not a smidgen of proof that it designed the amazing machine in one go, whereas so many other amazing machines developed in stages. If you are going to start playing the “proof” game, then all we can know for a fact is that there is a machine that works.

And thinking humans can recognize it was designed.


Root microbiome helps plants

dhw: The existence of a designer is not the issue we are discussing. I object to your theory that, although your God's sole purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he designed every life form, lunch, etc., 99% of which had no connection to humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to edit your theory by leaving out the bits which do not fit together, or by changing the subject.

DAVID: I simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. I don't understand how you can object to that belief.

dhw: That is NOT what you simply accept, and it is not what I object to! Once again, you have left out the bits I object to, as bolded above. See “A possible God…” for the non-stop repetition of this particular dodge.

No bits left out!!! God deciding to evolve us includes all the parts you object to.


One lubricant beats Teflon
DAVID: Nature is always way ahead of us. Or should I say God?

dhw: Why would your God, whose one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, specially design the Zophobas morio beetle’s wonderful lubricant? Since when was the Zophobas morio or its lubricant on your lunch menu?

God prefers superb design. Maybe He shows off now and then.


Phase precession
DAVID: Just to show all of us the brain is not a computer as AI folks are learning. Note we find early evidence of these systems in lesser brained animals. In evolution early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms. dhw take note.

dhw: That is indeed how evolution works. The human brain is not something brand new but is the result of millions of years of evolutionary development. It is an advance, not an innovation. For some reason, you think EVERY advance (not just the human brain) from bacteria to every life form plus lunch plus strategy plus natural wonder that ever existed required a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or, alternatively, a personal dabble by your God. A simpler theistic explanation would be that your God endowed cells (of which all life forms are made) with the intelligence to do their own designing. I think we’ve had this discussion before

You just raised it again. I'm just pointing out how evolution must work, which you reject when you tell me my theory is irrational.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, July 09, 2021, 11:28 (993 days ago) @ David Turell

Dualism versus materialism again
DAVID: […] Malfunctioning neurons are material and misfiring receivers of an immaterial consciousness. Thus two-part dualism. Neurons don't create consciousness as dhw seems to imply.

dhw: I do not “seem to imply” – I state categorically that any instance in which materials or material actions affect someone’s character and consequent behaviour […] can be taken as evidence for materialism. Conversely, I would argue that many psychic experiences, including NDEs, can be taken as evidence for dualism. You simply refuse to recognize that in nearly all our discussions, there are opinions which are just as understandable as your own.

DAVID: I'll keep refuting your approach.

My approach presents both sides, and your method of “refuting” it is to repeat one side as if it were a fact. (See bold above)

Ant raft movements
DAVID: […] Bridges and rafts are dependent on individual specific limited actions. That creates the swarm activities as interpreted by humans watching.

As in any team, individuals perform their own role in a communal activity. No one would deny this! The question is how the strategy first came about! I propose that the individuals pooled their intelligences (= “swarm intelligence”) to work it out, and once they had found the solution, the strategy was passed on to subsequent generations. I find this more convincing than your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant speciation followed by ant-rafting, or your God giving courses for ants on the art of bridge-building. Do you have any other theories to explain the origin of such strategies?

Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: I know the theory I deleted. It is mental invention of possibilities without a smidgen of proof. All we can know for fact is a complete amazing machine that works and is obviously designed.

dhw: No one can “prove” that there is an eternal, sourceless, conscious mind called God, or if there is, there is not a smidgen of proof that it designed the amazing machine in one go, whereas so many other amazing machines developed in stages. If you are going to start playing the “proof” game, then all we can know for a fact is that there is a machine that works.

DAVID: And thinking humans can recognize it was designed.

Thinking humans can theorize that a God preprogrammed or dabbled the machine, motorless bacteria underwent random mutations, or intelligent motorless bacteria came up with a good idea. No proof available for any of these theories, so there is no point in your dismissing those that differ from yours just because there isn’t a smidgen of proof.

Root microbiome helps plants
Dealt with under “A possible God’s possible purpose and nature”.

One lubricant beats Teflon
DAVID: Nature is always way ahead of us. Or should I say God?

dhw: Why would your God, whose one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, specially design the Zophobas morio beetle’s wonderful lubricant? Since when was the Zophobas morio or its lubricant on your lunch menu?

DAVID: God prefers superb design. Maybe He shows off now and then.

How very human of him.:-)

Phase precession
DAVID: Just to show all of us the brain is not a computer as AI folks are learning. Note we find early evidence of these systems in lesser brained animals. In evolution early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms. dhw take note.

dhw: That is indeed how evolution works. […] For some reason, you think EVERY advance (not just the human brain) from bacteria to every life form plus lunch plus strategy plus natural wonder that ever existed required a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or, alternatively, a personal dabble by your God. A simpler theistic explanation would be that your God endowed cells [...] with the intelligence to do their own designing. I think we’ve had this discussion before

DAVID: You just raised it again. I'm just pointing out how evolution must work, which you reject when you tell me my theory is irrational.

I have just agreed with your statement that “early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms”. Your irrational theory is that every single design and advancement was specially created as part of your God’s one and only goal to design humans (plus lunch), although 99% of them had no connection with humans (plus lunch).

Far out cosmology
DAVID: […] The oddball activities in the universe, for which dhw wonders about for God's reasons, all have purpose. Just wait for research to explain. Just because we don't know all the answers is no reason for doubt.

We don’t “know” any of the answers to the big questions, which is why discussions and new theories continue to emerge. Not knowing the answers is no reason for faith in one possible answer and rejection of every other possible answer.

Otters
QUOTE: "It’s not yet clear if otters inherit this trait or develop it with exposure to cold water.” (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: How did otters develop this? Hypothermia kills quickly. Two possibilities: otters developed in warm seas and changed/adapted as seas cooled. Or God designed them that way.

A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, July 09, 2021, 15:56 (993 days ago) @ dhw

Ant raft movements
DAVID: […] Bridges and rafts are dependent on individual specific limited actions. That creates the swarm activities as interpreted by humans watching.

dhw: As in any team, individuals perform their own role in a communal activity. No one would deny this! The question is how the strategy first came about! I propose that the individuals pooled their intelligences (= “swarm intelligence”) to work it out, and once they had found the solution, the strategy was passed on to subsequent generations. I find this more convincing than your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant speciation followed by ant-rafting, or your God giving courses for ants on the art of bridge-building. Do you have any other theories to explain the origin of such strategies?

The 'strategies' are human interpretations resulting from the limited individual specified actions. I look at it from the ant viewpoint. This discussion started with swarming bacteria and birds. No purpose just movement. Ant swarms are the same. Individual ants float. Do you think they know about rafts? I doubt it. I view ant bridges as human interpretations


Bacterial motors 1

DAVID: And thinking humans can recognize it was designed.

dhw: Thinking humans can theorize that a God preprogrammed or dabbled the machine, motorless bacteria underwent random mutations, or intelligent motorless bacteria came up with a good idea. No proof available for any of these theories, so there is no point in your dismissing those that differ from yours just because there isn’t a smidgen of proof.

Non-answer. Looks designed, doesn't it? Keeps you agnostic.

Phase precession

dhw: That is indeed how evolution works. […] For some reason, you think EVERY advance (not just the human brain) from bacteria to every life form plus lunch plus strategy plus natural wonder that ever existed required a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or, alternatively, a personal dabble by your God. A simpler theistic explanation would be that your God endowed cells [...] with the intelligence to do their own designing. I think we’ve had this discussion before

DAVID: You just raised it again. I'm just pointing out how evolution must work, which you reject when you tell me my theory is irrational.

dhw: I have just agreed with your statement that “early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms”. Your irrational theory is that every single design and advancement was specially created as part of your God’s one and only goal to design humans (plus lunch), although 99% of them had no connection with humans (plus lunch).

You have again described how God evolved us and then objected to his process of cretion.


Otters
QUOTE: "It’s not yet clear if otters inherit this trait or develop it with exposure to cold water.” (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: How did otters develop this? Hypothermia kills quickly. Two possibilities: otters developed in warm seas and changed/adapted as seas cooled. Or God designed them that way.

dhw: A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

Yes, the possibility of gradual epigenetic adaptation was presented by me above.

Miscellany: birds can smell

by David Turell @, Friday, July 09, 2021, 18:29 (993 days ago) @ David Turell

Despite Audubon, birds do smell and respond to smells:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/09_july_2021/MobilePagedArticle....

"Almost 200 years ago, the renowned U.S. naturalist John James Audubon hid a decaying pig carcass under a pile of brush to test vultures’ sense of smell. When the birds overlooked the pig—while one flocked to a nearly odorless stuffed deer skin—he took it as proof that they rely on vision, not smell, to find their food.

***

"...that dogma is being eroded by findings on birds’ behavior and molecular hardware, two of which were published just last month. One showed storks home in on the smell of freshly mowed grass; another documented scores of functional olfactory receptors in multiple bird species. Researchers are realizing, says evolutionary biologist Scott Edwards of Harvard University, that “olfaction has a lot of impact on different aspects of bird biology.”

***

"Last month, Christopher Balakrishnan, an evolutionary biologist at East Carolina University, and graduate student Robert Driver examined some of the best available bird genomes and for some species found many more olfactory genes. Their analysis of genomes from a hummingbird, emu, chicken, zebra finch, and a tropical fruit eater called a manakin revealed scores of new olfactory receptors, they reported on 28 June in the journal Integrative and Comparative Biology.

"That the emu has so many of these genes excites Whittaker, because this bird sits near the base of the bird family tree.

”'This result suggests that the ancestor to all birds must have had a very diverse set of olfactory receptor genes as well,” she says. Smell must have been important to birds from the beginning, and comparisons of their olfactory receptor genes today confirm it remains so. Balakrishnan and Driver found that one diverse set of receptors unique to birds has split into multiple types specific to different bird lineages. That suggests these genes evolved rapidly as the birds diversified. Natural selection may have honed the genes to perform crucial tasks.

***

"Wikelski piloted his plane in circles to observe a flock of 70 storks on sunny spring and summer days. Even when the storks couldn’t see or hear the mowing, he and his colleagues noted, they homed in on mowed fields upwind of them, as if drawn to the smell of the cut grass. To confirm the suspicion, the team sprayed cut-grass smell—a mix of three volatile chemicals—onto fields that hadn’t been mowed recently. The storks came flocking,

***

"Other bird species may also respond to “calls” from injured plants, recent evidence shows. Two European birds, the great tit and the blue tit, locate insects that are attacking pine trees by detecting the volatile chemicals the stressed trees release, ecologist Elina Mäntylä of the Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences and colleagues reported

***

"...studies of bird olfaction expand into new species. Published papers on the topic have doubled every decade since 1992, reaching 80 this past year. The field is, belatedly, putting Audubon’s misconception to rest and acknowledging that birds—champions of flight, vision, and song—have another power as well."

Comment: Humans tend to rely on 'experts' opinions. Why shouldn't birds smell like the rest of us? The answer is don't accept experts opinions. Prove the point beyond doubt.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, July 10, 2021, 08:03 (992 days ago) @ David Turell

Ant raft movements
DAVID: The 'strategies' are human interpretations resulting from the limited individual specified actions. I look at it from the ant viewpoint. This discussion started with swarming bacteria and birds. No purpose just movement. Ant swarms are the same. Individual ants float. Do you think they know about rafts? I doubt it. I view ant bridges as human interpretations.

This discussion started with an article on ant raft movements – if I remember rightly, with videos of them combining to build their rafts or bridges – from which I quoted the following, which you yourself had bolded: “Alone, a fire ant is nothing spectacular. But lump them together, and the insects behave with what is called swarm intelligence; individuals work as a team, obeying simple rules to give rise to far more complex collective behaviour.” Does this mean ant rafts and complex behaviour have “no purpose just movement”? I pointed out that this could be an exact reflection of the way our own intelligent cells cooperate in producing new ideas and implementing them. Since then you have tried desperately to dodge even the mention of “swarm intelligence”, and you also avoid confirming that your only alternative explanation for such strategies is your God having preprogrammed ant rafts and bridges 3.8 billion years ago, or having given ants courses on how to build rafts and bridges.

Bacterial motors 1
dhw: The article claimed that the motors could not have evolved. I quoted another article that explained how they could have evolved. You said there was not a smidgen of proof for this theory, and I pointed out that there was not a smidgen of proof for your theory either, and the only fact we have is a machine that works.

DAVID: And thinking humans can recognize it was designed.

dhw: Thinking humans can theorize that a God preprogrammed or dabbled the machine, motorless bacteria underwent random mutations, or intelligent motorless bacteria came up with a good idea. No proof available for any of these theories, so there is no point in your dismissing those that differ from yours just because there isn’t a smidgen of proof.

DAVID: Non-answer. Looks designed, doesn't it? Keeps you agnostic.

Your only answer to the alternative theory was that there was no proof. I pointed out that there was no proof for any of the theories, including your own, and so if the fact that there is no proof leads you to dismiss one theory, logically you should dismiss other theories too. I do not ask you to do so. I only ask you to open your mind to other possibilities than your own opinion. I might add that the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the designer of ant rafts and bacterial motors is a theory of intelligent design.

Phase precession
DAVID: I'm just pointing out how evolution must work, which you reject when you tell me my theory is irrational.

dhw: I have just agreed with your statement that “early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms”. Your irrational theory is that every single design and advancement was specially created as part of your God’s one and only goal to design humans (plus lunch), although 99% of them had no connection with humans (plus lunch).

DAVID: You have again described how God evolved us and then objected to his process of creation.

I have done no such thing! I have agreed that early designs appear later in advanced forms! The brontosaurus is more advanced than the bacterium. That is not a description of how your God evolved (by which you mean designed) humans! And I have no objection to any of the alternative means by which your God may have seen to it that early forms later became more advanced: e.g. by experiment, by learning as he went along, or by giving organisms the intelligence to improve themselves. I only object to your non sequiturs bolded above.

Otters
QUOTE: "It’s not yet clear if otters inherit this trait or develop it with exposure to cold water.” (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: How did otters develop this? Hypothermia kills quickly. Two possibilities: otters developed in warm seas and changed/adapted as seas cooled. Or God designed them that way.

dhw: A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

DAVID: Yes, the possibility of gradual epigenetic adaptation was presented by me above.

Does your “yes” mean that at last you agree that epigenetic adaptation is brought about by the intelligence of cells? This is a wonderful step forward. After all, if they have the intelligence to reconstruct themselves in order to meet the demands of new conditions, who knows to what other, even more advanced developments their intelligence might lead them? First the otter, then – who knows – the whale?

Dying cells protect living ones
QUOTE: "These observations are important as they illustrate the incredible self-organizing ability of biological tissues, a property that enables them to withstand stressful conditions. So there is no need for a conductor to orchestrate where and when the cells should die; everything is based on highly local communications between neighboring cells," adds Romain Levayer.

Self-organizing and communicating with one another. Some would say these are signs of intelligence.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 10, 2021, 15:49 (992 days ago) @ dhw

Ant raft movements

dhw: Since then you have tried desperately to dodge even the mention of “swarm intelligence”, and you also avoid confirming that your only alternative explanation for such strategies is your God having preprogrammed ant rafts and bridges 3.8 billion years ago, or having given ants courses on how to build rafts and bridges.

As I have studied ant articles, as in describing termite mounds, what I think God designed was the organization of those mounds, while rafts and bridges are simple results of individual ants limited responses, clearly described in the articles, over-emphasized by human interpretations


Bacterial motors 1

DAVID: Non-answer. Looks designed, doesn't it? Keeps you agnostic.

dhw: Your only answer to the alternative theory was that there was no proof. I pointed out that there was no proof for any of the theories, including your own, and so if the fact that there is no proof leads you to dismiss one theory, logically you should dismiss other theories too. I do not ask you to do so. I only ask you to open your mind to other possibilities than your own opinion. I might add that the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the designer of ant rafts and bacterial motors is a theory of intelligent design.

So you propose little minds can make great designs. Not logical.


Phase precession

dhw: I have just agreed with your statement that “early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms”. Your irrational theory is that every single design and advancement was specially created as part of your God’s one and only goal to design humans (plus lunch), although 99% of them had no connection with humans (plus lunch).

DAVID: You have again described how God evolved us and then objected to his process of creation.

dhw: I have done no such thing! I have agreed that early designs appear later in advanced forms! The brontosaurus is more advanced than the bacterium. That is not a description of how your God evolved (by which you mean designed) humans! And I have no objection to any of the alternative means by which your God may have seen to it that early forms later became more advanced: e.g. by experiment, by learning as he went along, or by giving organisms the intelligence to improve themselves. I only object to your non sequiturs bolded above.

The non-sequiturs are your invention, slicing and dicing evolution, while it is obviously a continuous process. God evolved us from bacteria is a simple concept, easy to understand.


Otters
QUOTE: "It’s not yet clear if otters inherit this trait or develop it with exposure to cold water.” (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: How did otters develop this? Hypothermia kills quickly. Two possibilities: otters developed in warm seas and changed/adapted as seas cooled. Or God designed them that way.

dhw: A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

DAVID: Yes, the possibility of gradual epigenetic adaptation was presented by me above.

dhw: Does your “yes” mean that at last you agree that epigenetic adaptation is brought about by the intelligence of cells? This is a wonderful step forward. After all, if they have the intelligence to reconstruct themselves in order to meet the demands of new conditions, who knows to what other, even more advanced developments their intelligence might lead them? First the otter, then – who knows – the whale?

Cells are simply following instructions for epigenetic changes.


Dying cells protect living ones
QUOTE: "These observations are important as they illustrate the incredible self-organizing ability of biological tissues, a property that enables them to withstand stressful conditions. So there is no need for a conductor to orchestrate where and when the cells should die; everything is based on highly local communications between neighboring cells," adds Romain Levayer.

dhw: Self-organizing and communicating with one another. Some would say these are signs of intelligence.

Or intelligently designed processes

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, July 11, 2021, 12:46 (991 days ago) @ David Turell

Ant raft movements
dhw: Since then you have tried desperately to dodge even the mention of “swarm intelligence”, and you also avoid confirming that your only alternative explanation for such strategies is your God having preprogrammed ant rafts and bridges 3.8 billion years ago, or having given ants courses on how to build rafts and bridges.

DAVID: As I have studied ant articles, as in describing termite mounds, what I think God designed was the organization of those mounds, while rafts and bridges are simple results of individual ants limited responses, clearly described in the articles, over-emphasized by human interpretations.

You yourself regard the rafts and bridges as “wonders”, but when authors attribute them to “swarm intelligence”, they become simple responses. How, in such examples, you can believe in a divine 3.8-billion-year old programme for ant speciation, mounds, rafts and bridges - or divine courses in mound/raft/bridge-building - and totally dismiss a divine invention of formic intelligence, remains a mystery to me.

Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: Non-answer. Looks designed, doesn't it? Keeps you agnostic.

dhw: Your only answer to the alternative theory was that there was no proof. I pointed out that there was no proof for any of the theories, including your own, and so if the fact that there is no proof leads you to dismiss one theory, logically you should dismiss other theories too. I do not ask you to do so. I only ask you to open your mind to other possibilities than your own opinion. I might add that the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the designer of ant rafts and bacterial motors is a theory of intelligent design.

DAVID: So you propose little minds can make great designs. Not logical.

Are you talking about size or quality? Of course that is what I'm proposing, in both senses. Your comment epitomizes Shapiro’s complaint about “large organisms chauvinism”. If, as you believe, your God can create big human minds that build big cities and fly rockets to the moon and beyond, why do you think he is incapable of creating little animal minds that can build their own little cities and their own little rockets to “fly” them to the nearest source of food?

Phase precession
dhw: I have just agreed with your statement that “early working designs appear later in more advanced designs in more advanced forms”. Your irrational theory is that every single design and advancement was specially created as part of your God’s one and only goal to design humans (plus lunch), although 99% of them had no connection with humans (plus lunch).

DAVID: You have again described how God evolved us and then objected to his process of creation.

dhw: I have done no such thing! I have agreed that early designs appear later in advanced forms! The brontosaurus is more advanced than the bacterium. That is not a description of how your God evolved (by which you mean designed) humans! And I have no objection to any of the alternative means by which your God may have seen to it that early forms later became more advanced: e.g. by experiment, by learning as he went along, or by giving organisms the intelligence to improve themselves. I only object to your non sequiturs bolded above.

DAVID: The non-sequiturs are your invention, slicing and dicing evolution, while it is obviously a continuous process. God evolved us from bacteria is a simple concept, easy to understand.

It is indeed a simple concept to understand. The non-sequiturs are that God only wanted to design humans and lunch (= evolve us from bacteria), and therefore he designed all the life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. And you don’t know why.

Otters
dhw: A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

DAVID: Yes, the possibility of gradual epigenetic adaptation was presented by me above.

dhw: Does your “yes” mean that at last you agree that epigenetic adaptation is brought about by the intelligence of cells?

DAVID: Cells are simply following instructions for epigenetic changes.

The suggestion was that intelligent cells designed the adaptation, and you said yes. Now you are saying no. Please clarify what your "yes" refers to.

Dying cells protect living ones
QUOTE: "These observations are important as they illustrate the incredible self-organizing ability of biological tissues, a property that enables them to withstand stressful conditions. So there is no need for a conductor to orchestrate where and when the cells should die; everything is based on highly local communications between neighboring cells."

dhw: Self-organizing and communicating with one another. Some would say these are signs of intelligence.

DAVID: Or intelligently designed processes.

I can understand the argument that the tools for self-organization and communication may have been designed, but perhaps you can explain how do-it-yourselfers’ actions, plus all the necessary messages between all the doers, can have been designed beforehand. The article itself says there is no need for a conductor to give instructions – so that would leave you with your 3.8-billion-year-programme for every dying cell to come. A little far-fetched even for you?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 11, 2021, 16:26 (991 days ago) @ dhw

Ant raft movements

DAVID: As I have studied ant articles, as in describing termite mounds, what I think God designed was the organization of those mounds, while rafts and bridges are simple results of individual ants limited responses, clearly described in the articles, over-emphasized by human interpretations.

dhw: You yourself regard the rafts and bridges as “wonders”, but when authors attribute them to “swarm intelligence”, they become simple responses.

I view the issue as human interpretation in which we assume a lot about the ants.


Bacterial motors 1

DAVID: So you propose little minds can make great designs. Not logical.

dhw: Are you talking about size or quality? Of course that is what I'm proposing, in both senses...why do you think he is incapable of creating little animal minds that can build their own little cities and their own little rockets to “fly” them to the nearest source of food?

You are using the anything is possible argument. I don't think those little brains are that bright.


Phase precession

DAVID: You have again described how God evolved us and then objected to his process of creation.

DAVID: The non-sequiturs are your invention, slicing and dicing evolution, while it is obviously a continuous process. God evolved us from bacteria is a simple concept, easy to understand.

dhw: It is indeed a simple concept to understand. The non-sequiturs are that God only wanted to design humans and lunch (= evolve us from bacteria), and therefore he designed all the life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. And you don’t know why.

Same totally illogical complaint. Evolution from bacteria to us is shown in the known history you seem reject. My God creates this history you reject.


Otters
dhw: A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

DAVID: Yes, the possibility of gradual epigenetic adaptation was presented by me above.

dhw: Does your “yes” mean that at last you agree that epigenetic adaptation is brought about by the intelligence of cells?

DAVID: Cells are simply following instructions for epigenetic changes.

dhw: The suggestion was that intelligent cells designed the adaptation, and you said yes. Now you are saying no. Please clarify what your "yes" refers to.

My statement just above, my always view.


Dying cells protect living ones


dhw: Self-organizing and communicating with one another. Some would say these are signs of intelligence.

DAVID: Or intelligently designed processes.

dhw: I can understand the argument that the tools for self-organization and communication may have been designed, but perhaps you can explain how do-it-yourselfers’ actions, plus all the necessary messages between all the doers, can have been designed beforehand. The article itself says there is no need for a conductor to give instructions – so that would leave you with your 3.8-billion-year-programme for every dying cell to come. A little far-fetched even for you?

Your imagination of my God is He cannot program as He wishes the intelligently designed instructions and processes. Remember God is the designer of reality.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, July 12, 2021, 10:47 (990 days ago) @ David Turell

Ant raft movements
DAVID: As I have studied ant articles, as in describing termite mounds, what I think God designed was the organization of those mounds, while rafts and bridges are simple results of individual ants limited responses, clearly described in the articles, over-emphasized by human interpretations.

dhw: You yourself regard the rafts and bridges as “wonders”, but when authors attribute them to “swarm intelligence”, they become simple responses.

DAVID: I view the issue as human interpretation in which we assume a lot about the ants.

I know you do. You cannot stand the thought of tiny organisms being intelligent, although their behaviour and their astonishing “wonders” are evidence to the contrary. Instead you insist that all their achievements were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or taught to them in special classes by your dabbling God.

Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: So you propose little minds can make great designs. Not logical.

dhw: Are you talking about size or quality? Of course that is what I'm proposing, in both senses...why do you think he is incapable of creating little animal minds that can build their own little cities and their own little rockets to “fly” them to the nearest source of food?

DAVID: You are using the anything is possible argument. I don't think those little brains are that bright.

I know you don’t. "Large organisms chauvinism" (Shapiro). See above for your alternative explanations.

Phase precession

DAVID: The non-sequiturs are your invention, slicing and dicing evolution, while it is obviously a continuous process. God evolved us from bacteria is a simple concept, easy to understand.

dhw: It is indeed a simple concept to understand. The non-sequiturs are that God only wanted to design humans and lunch (= evolve us from bacteria), and therefore he designed all the life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. And you don’t know why.

DAVID: Same totally illogical complaint. Evolution from bacteria to us is shown in the known history you seem reject. My God creates this history you reject.

Evolution from bacteria to every other life form that ever existed is shown in the known history, but you claim that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus their lunch, and you have no idea why your God chose specially to design all those that had no connection with humans and their lunch. That is why you continue to edit your theory by leaving out those parts of it which make no sense even to you.

Otters
dhw: A theist might suggest that God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptation.

DAVID: Yes, the possibility of gradual epigenetic adaptation was presented by me above.

dhw: Does your “yes” mean that at last you agree that epigenetic adaptation is brought about by the intelligence of cells?

DAVID: Cells are simply following instructions for epigenetic changes.

dhw: The suggestion was that intelligent cells designed the adaptations, and you said yes. Now you are saying no. Please clarify what your "yes" refers to.

DAVID: My statement just above, my always view.

So it’s yes, your God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptations, but no, he didn’t design intelligent cells, he gave them instructions on what to do. I find your logic pretty baffling.

Dying cells protect living ones
dhw: Self-organizing and communicating with one another. Some would say these are signs of intelligence.

DAVID: Or intelligently designed processes.

dhw: I can understand the argument that the tools for self-organization and communication may have been designed, but perhaps you can explain how do-it-yourselfers’ actions, plus all the necessary messages between all the doers, can have been designed beforehand. The article itself says there is no need for a conductor to give instructions – so that would leave you with your 3.8-billion-year-programme for every dying cell to come. A little far-fetched even for you?

DAVID: Your imagination of my God is He cannot program as He wishes the intelligently designed instructions and processes. Remember God is the designer of reality.

For argument’s sake, I am leaving aside my agnosticism and discussing a possible God’s possible purpose and nature. In my view, a possible God would be perfectly capable of designing instructions and programmes etc. But if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, I don’t understand why he would first programme or dabble [= individually design] vast numbers of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. I even doubt whether the current weaverbird’s nest and ant bridges and termite mounds and the Covid virus are essential for the existence and nourishment of us humans. And so I propose that a possible God might possibly have given life forms and viruses the ability to design their own means of survival. But “your imagination” of a possible God is that he cannot or would not design anything with an inventive mind of its own, apart from us humans. Why not?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, July 12, 2021, 16:17 (990 days ago) @ dhw

Phase precession

DAVID: Same totally illogical complaint. Evolution from bacteria to us is shown in the known history you seem reject. My God creates this history you reject.

dhw: Evolution from bacteria to every other life form that ever existed is shown in the known history, but you claim that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus their lunch, and you have no idea why your God chose specially to design all those that had no connection with humans and their lunch. That is why you continue to edit your theory by leaving out those parts of it which make no sense even to you.

My thoughts about God leave nothing out. Somehow you edit out that evolution is a stepwise continuous process from simple to complex, and humans are the endpoint. All preceding us was and is required. Your bold makes no sense if viewed from my standpoint


Otters

DAVID: Cells are simply following instructions for epigenetic changes.

dhw: The suggestion was that intelligent cells designed the adaptations, and you said yes. Now you are saying no. Please clarify what your "yes" refers to.

DAVID: My statement just above, my always view.

dhw: So it’s yes, your God designed the intelligent cells that designed the adaptations, but no, he didn’t design intelligent cells, he gave them instructions on what to do. I find your logic pretty baffling.

Why baffled? Long ago we agreed either cells are innately intelligent or they follow intelligent instructions. Your choice of interpretation and mine differ.


Dying cells protect living ones
dhw: Self-organizing and communicating with one another. Some would say these are signs of intelligence.

DAVID: Or intelligently designed processes.

dhw: I can understand the argument that the tools for self-organization and communication may have been designed, but perhaps you can explain how do-it-yourselfers’ actions, plus all the necessary messages between all the doers, can have been designed beforehand. The article itself says there is no need for a conductor to give instructions – so that would leave you with your 3.8-billion-year-programme for every dying cell to come. A little far-fetched even for you?

DAVID: Your imagination of my God is He cannot program as He wishes the intelligently designed instructions and processes. Remember God is the designer of reality.

dhw: For argument’s sake, I am leaving aside my agnosticism and discussing a possible God’s possible purpose and nature. In my view, a possible God would be perfectly capable of designing instructions and programmes etc. But if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their lunch, I don’t understand why he would first programme or dabble [= individually design] vast numbers of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. I even doubt whether the current weaverbird’s nest and ant bridges and termite mounds and the Covid virus are essential for the existence and nourishment of us humans. And so I propose that a possible God might possibly have given life forms and viruses the ability to design their own means of survival. But “your imagination” of a possible God is that he cannot or would not design anything with an inventive mind of its own, apart from us humans. Why not?

As explained elsewhere today, it all depends on how you view God. All of life contributes to food supply for all which you constantly try to ignore. You have again raised to issue of why didn't God just create us directly without all the rest of evolved life. He didn't. It is your issue alone.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:46 (989 days ago) @ David Turell

Phase precession
DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to us is shown in the known history you seem reject. My God creates this history you reject.

dhw: Evolution from bacteria to every other life form that ever existed is shown in the known history, but you claim that every other life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus their lunch, and you have no idea why your God chose specially to design all those that had no connection with humans and their lunch. That is why you continue to edit your theory by leaving out those parts of it which make no sense even to you.

DAVID: My thoughts about God leave nothing out. Somehow you edit out that evolution is a stepwise continuous process from simple to complex, and humans are the endpoint. All preceding us was and is required. Your bold makes no sense if viewed from my standpoint.

Required for what? The bold IS your standpoint, and you’re right, it makes no sense! Yes, evolution proceeds from simple to complex, and humans are the last species to have appeared. How does that come to mean that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form and food form etc. because even those that had no connection with humans plus lunch were “required” before he could fulfil his only purpose and specially design humans plus lunch?

Dying cells protect living ones
dhw: “your imagination” of a possible God is that he cannot or would not design anything with an inventive mind of its own, apart from us humans. Why not?

DAVID: As explained elsewhere today, it all depends on how you view God. All of life contributes to food supply for all which you constantly try to ignore.

There you go again. Yes, all life forms require and required food. That does not explain the bold. Once more: Why do you think your God could not or would not have designed anything with an inventive mind of its own, apart from humans?

DAVID: You have again raised to issue of why didn't God just create us directly without all the rest of evolved life. He didn't. It is your issue alone.

No, he didn’t just create us directly. If he exists, we are in total agreement. But you have proposed the illogical theory bolded above. If you propose a theory and the theory makes no sense, why is that my issue alone? What is the point of any discussion if an elementary question elicits the response that it’s the questioner’s problem, not the theorist’s.

BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES
QUOTE: "Because the research also showed the significant impact of environment on the gut microbiomes in baboons, their findings agreed with previous studies showing that environmental effects on the variation in the gut microbiome play a larger role than additive genetic effects."

DAVID: More evidence that bacteria must be here and have a strong role to play, even if some act badly at times.

I’m interested in the role of the environment, since in my view it is a key to why organisms (including bacteria) make changes to themselves. As regards your own comment, no one would deny the importance of bacteria. The problem you refuse to face up to is why your God would specially design the sort of “bad” bacteria mentioned below:

ROLE IN HUMAN THERAPY
Quote: "A recent trial has shown that nose drops of modified 'friendly' bacteria may protect against meningitis."

DAVID: We humans can use our God-given brains to use bacteria for our benefit.

Lucky us. This does not explain why, according to you, your God specially designed Neisseria meningitidis. Do you really think he did so in order to enable humans to use other bacteria to protect some (not all) against it?

Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning, therefore we have absolute proof of God. The space-time we live in had to have a cause. God's proof then relies upon whether one believe the Big Bang really happened, We all know the BB is not proven, but what if it is? Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.

Lots of word games here. The issue itself doesn’t need all this messing about. We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. You are then claiming that the cause of the bang was a conscious mind which had no source. It could just as well have been a non-conscious, sourceless combination of matter and energy, constantly changing forms and big-banging for ever and ever throughout past eternity. Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 16:10 (989 days ago) @ dhw

Dying cells protect living ones
dhw: “your imagination” of a possible God is that he cannot or would not design anything with an inventive mind of its own, apart from us humans. Why not?

DAVID: As explained elsewhere today, it all depends on how you view God. All of life contributes to food supply for all which you constantly try to ignore.

dhw: There you go again. Yes, all life forms require and required food. That does not explain the bold. Once more: Why do you think your God could not or would not have designed anything with an inventive mind of its own, apart from humans?

You are right on one point, God can invent whatever He wishes. But what we imagine God did directly depends on one's image of God. Mine is purposeful, knows exactly what He will achieve, while yours is a humanized struggling form who needs to experiment, changes his mind in midstream and wants to watch free-for-alls. Our disagreement cannot find an end when your God and my God are so different.


BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES
QUOTE: "Because the research also showed the significant impact of environment on the gut microbiomes in baboons, their findings agreed with previous studies showing that environmental effects on the variation in the gut microbiome play a larger role than additive genetic effects."

DAVID: More evidence that bacteria must be here and have a strong role to play, even if some act badly at times.

dhw: I’m interested in the role of the environment, since in my view it is a key to why organisms (including bacteria) make changes to themselves. As regards your own comment, no one would deny the importance of bacteria. The problem you refuse to face up to is why your God would specially design the sort of “bad” bacteria mentioned below:

My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.


ROLE IN HUMAN THERAPY
Quote: "A recent trial has shown that nose drops of modified 'friendly' bacteria may protect against meningitis."

DAVID: We humans can use our God-given brains to use bacteria for our benefit.

dhw: Lucky us. This does not explain why, according to you, your God specially designed Neisseria meningitidis. Do you really think he did so in order to enable humans to use other bacteria to protect some (not all) against it?

Neisseria meningitidis lives with most of us quite benignly. The problem is our collapse of symbiotic relationship. We can solve it, can't we?


Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning, therefore we have absolute proof of God. The space-time we live in had to have a cause. God's proof then relies upon whether one believe the Big Bang really happened, We all know the BB is not proven, but what if it is? Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.

dhw: Lots of word games here. The issue itself doesn’t need all this messing about. We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. You are then claiming that the cause of the bang was a conscious mind which had no source. It could just as well have been a non-conscious, sourceless combination of matter and energy, constantly changing forms and big-banging for ever and ever throughout past eternity. Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.

Note the bold. The issue is the problem of accepting the idea something cannot come from nothing. So you wish before the Big Bang there was something. I believe it was God. At least we both think the BB must have had a cause.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, July 14, 2021, 11:27 (988 days ago) @ David Turell

Dying cells protect living ones

We can drop this item, since it simply repeats matters dealt with under "A possible God..."

BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES
QUOTE: "Because the research also showed the significant impact of environment on the gut microbiomes in baboons, their findings agreed with previous studies showing that environmental effects on the variation in the gut microbiome play a larger role than additive genetic effects."

DAVID: More evidence that bacteria must be here and have a strong role to play, even if some act badly at times.

dhw: I’m interested in the role of the environment, since in my view it is a key to why organisms (including bacteria) make changes to themselves. As regards your own comment, no one would deny the importance of bacteria. The problem you refuse to face up to is why your God would specially design the sort of “bad” bacteria mentioned below:

DAVID: My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.

So who would the murderous ones have been “good” for? See “bad bacteria seen differently” for a full discussion. (We can drop “Role in human therapy” as it deals with the same subject.)

Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning, therefore we have absolute proof of God. The space-time we live in had to have a cause. God's proof then relies upon whether one believe the Big Bang really happened, We all know the BB is not proven, but what if it is? Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.

dhw: Lots of word games here. The issue itself doesn’t need all this messing about. We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. You are then claiming that the cause of the bang was a conscious mind which had no source. It could just as well have been a non-conscious, sourceless combination of matter and energy, constantly changing forms and big-banging for ever and ever throughout past eternity. Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.

DAVID: Note the bold. The issue is the problem of accepting the idea something cannot come from nothing. So you wish before the Big Bang there was something. I believe it was God. At least we both think the BB must have had a cause.

Not “wish”! We both agree that something cannot come from nothing, and it is you who should note the bold because it is an alternative to your God. Now perhaps you will answer the question (also bolded) which follows my alternative to your theory.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 14, 2021, 16:49 (988 days ago) @ dhw

BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES


DAVID: My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.

dhw: So who would the murderous ones have been “good” for? See “bad bacteria seen differently” for a full discussion. (We can drop “Role in human therapy” as it deals with the same subject.)

The article points out so-called 'bad' may act to block 'bad'.


Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning, therefore we have absolute proof of God. The space-time we live in had to have a cause. God's proof then relies upon whether one believe the Big Bang really happened, We all know the BB is not proven, but what if it is? Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.

dhw: Lots of word games here. The issue itself doesn’t need all this messing about. We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. You are then claiming that the cause of the bang was a conscious mind which had no source. It could just as well have been a non-conscious, sourceless combination of matter and energy, constantly changing forms and big-banging for ever and ever throughout past eternity. Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.

DAVID: Note the bold. The issue is the problem of accepting the idea something cannot come from nothing. So you wish before the Big Bang there was something. I believe it was God. At least we both think the BB must have had a cause.

dhw: Not “wish”! We both agree that something cannot come from nothing, and it is you who should note the bold because it is an alternative to your God. Now perhaps you will answer the question (also bolded) which follows my alternative to your theory.

Back to design. Only a designing mind could have created our reality. You have, previously, raised the issue of a chance mulling together of energies to do it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, July 15, 2021, 10:55 (987 days ago) @ David Turell

BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES
DAVID: My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.

dhw: So who would the murderous ones have been “good” for? See "Theodicy...” for a full discussion. (We can drop “Role in human therapy” as it deals with the same subject.)

DAVID: The article points out so-called 'bad' may act to block 'bad'.

All of which raises the question of why your God deliberately designed ‘bad’ in the first place. See the “Theodicy” thread.

Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning,therefore we have absolute proof of God. […] Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.[dhw’s bold]

dhw: […] We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. […] Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.[…]

DAVID: Back to design. Only a designing mind could have created our reality. You have, previously, raised the issue of a chance mulling together of energies to do it.

I challenged your statement that the BB provides absolute proof of God. How can it possibly do so? But I agreed with your good design argument. So you proceed to ignore my bolded question, and repeat the design argument! Yet more dodging!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 15, 2021, 18:13 (987 days ago) @ dhw

BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES
DAVID: My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.

dhw: So who would the murderous ones have been “good” for? See "Theodicy...” for a full discussion. (We can drop “Role in human therapy” as it deals with the same subject.)

DAVID: The article points out so-called 'bad' may act to block 'bad'.

dhw: All of which raises the question of why your God deliberately designed ‘bad’ in the first place. See the “Theodicy” thread.

Question raised in wrong. It is our human interpretation the bugs are bad. WE have decided in recent days we are the innocent bystanders in the other organisms battles.


Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning,therefore we have absolute proof of God. […] Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.[dhw’s bold]

dhw: […] We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. […] Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.[…]

DAVID: Back to design. Only a designing mind could have created our reality. You have, previously, raised the issue of a chance mulling together of energies to do it.

dhw: I challenged your statement that the BB provides absolute proof of God. How can it possibly do so? But I agreed with your good design argument. So you proceed to ignore my bolded question, and repeat the design argument! Yet more dodging!

Your favorite 'dodging' complaint. You accept highly complex designs and then somehow illogically propose 'a sourceless unconscious' is possible. Anything is possible, but not every possibility is logical as you then note: "the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds". You just sit on your fence wanting it both ways!!!

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, July 16, 2021, 13:02 (986 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacterias’ role in human biomes
Shifted to Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently

Proper Big Bang view
DAVID: If we are sure the universe had a beginning,therefore we have absolute proof of God. […] Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong.[dhw’s bold]

dhw: […] We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. […]Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible? But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.[…]

DAVID: Back to design. Only a designing mind could have created our reality. You have, previously, raised the issue of a chance mulling together of energies to do it.

dhw: I challenged your statement that the BB provides absolute proof of God. How can it possibly do so? But I agreed with your good design argument. So you proceed to ignore my bolded question, and repeat the design argument! Yet more dodging!

DAVID: Your favorite 'dodging' complaint. You accept highly complex designs and then somehow illogically propose 'a sourceless unconscious' is possible. Anything is possible, but not every possibility is logical as you then note: "the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds". You just sit on your fence wanting it both ways!!!

The design argument was your SECOND “proof” of God. Once more, I accept the logical proposal that biological complexity provides a “very strong” argument for your God’s existence. I do not accept that the Big Bang provides “absolute proof” of God because nothing can provide “absolute proof” unless he pops in to introduce himself to us. We don’t know the source of our own life and consciousness, and so you propose sourceless life and consciousness as the source of life and consciousness. I do not “want” anything both ways. I find both explanations equally unconvincing. More fool me, as one must be closer to the truth than the other, but that does not justify your claim that if the BB happened, you have “absolute proof” that your guess is correct. You don’t.

Humans correcting errors
QUOTE: The results also suggest the brain has an unexpected ability to make new connections once a missing enzyme is restored." (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: we have the brains to help when molecular mistakes happen.

Yes indeed. Aren’t you impressed by the way in which the cells of the brain are able to adjust themselves to new factors? Or do you think it’s part of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for brain adjustment, or your God dabbling?

Detergent defenses
QUOTE: “'The really interesting finding is how the APOL3 is able to distinguish between bacterial membranes and host membranes,” she says. That evolution found such an elegant way to control this powerful tool “is a beautiful thing.'”

DAVID: As usual, an attacking molecule must come designed from the beginning with protections for the cells that produce the molecule. Only design of the whole mechanism can produce this.

Strange comment. The article suggests that this was an evolutionary process. Sounds to me like a case of intelligent cells being confronted with new problems and using all their components to work out a solution.

Slime mold
"'Our discovery of this slime mold's use of biomechanics to probe and react to its surrounding environment underscores how early this ability evolved in living organisms, and how closely related intelligence, behavior, and morphogenesis are. In this organism, which grows out to interact with the world, its shape change is its behavior. Other research has shown that similar strategies are used by cells in more complex animals, including neurons, stem cells, and cancer cells. This work in Physarum offers a new model in which to explore the ways in which evolution uses physics to implement primitive cognition that drives form and function."

DAVID: this study shows the slime mold can sense the stresses and respond. I think the response are automatic to what is sensed. As the authors note an early step in setting up responses in more complex cells and structures.

The authors could hardly make it clearer that they attribute changes in form and function to intelligence and “primitive cognition”. One up for Shapiro.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, July 16, 2021, 19:17 (986 days ago) @ dhw

Proper Big Bang view

[/i]

DAVID: Your favorite 'dodging' complaint. You accept highly complex designs and then somehow illogically propose 'a sourceless unconscious' is possible. Anything is possible, but not every possibility is logical as you then note: "the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds". You just sit on your fence wanting it both ways!!!

dhw: The design argument was your SECOND “proof” of God. Once more, I accept the logical proposal that biological complexity provides a “very strong” argument for your God’s existence. I do not accept that the Big Bang provides “absolute proof” of God because nothing can provide “absolute proof” unless he pops in to introduce himself to us. We don’t know the source of our own life and consciousness, and so you propose sourceless life and consciousness as the source of life and consciousness. I do not “want” anything both ways. I find both explanations equally unconvincing. More fool me, as one must be closer to the truth than the other, but that does not justify your claim that if the BB happened, you have “absolute proof” that your guess is correct. You don’t.

If we absolutely prove the BB, and we recognize our universe did not come from nothing, its design, fine-tuned-for-life, demands a designing mind. Yo can accept some sort of chance event if you wish, but logically that is wishful thinking.


Humans correcting errors
QUOTE: The results also suggest the brain has an unexpected ability to make new connections once a missing enzyme is restored." (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: we have the brains to help when molecular mistakes happen.

dhw: Yes indeed. Aren’t you impressed by the way in which the cells of the brain are able to adjust themselves to new factors? Or do you think it’s part of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for brain adjustment, or your God dabbling?


God's intelligent design of the neurons and their instructions.


Detergent defenses
QUOTE: “'The really interesting finding is how the APOL3 is able to distinguish between bacterial membranes and host membranes,” she says. That evolution found such an elegant way to control this powerful tool “is a beautiful thing.'”

DAVID: As usual, an attacking molecule must come designed from the beginning with protections for the cells that produce the molecule. Only design of the whole mechanism can produce this.

dhw: Strange comment. The article suggests that this was an evolutionary process. Sounds to me like a case of intelligent cells being confronted with new problems and using all their components to work out a solution.

So your thinking cells designed the manufacture of the attacking molecule and their own self-protection mechanism all at once with complex biochemical designs. The article is pure Darwinism, which I ignore as I analyze from design standpoint. You know that, so why complain. Your brilliant cells are like finding fairies in the dell. To do this the cells must recode DNA to create the new information/instructions. How do cells create new information?


Slime mold
"'Our discovery of this slime mold's use of biomechanics to probe and react to its surrounding environment underscores how early this ability evolved in living organisms, and how closely related intelligence, behavior, and morphogenesis are. In this organism, which grows out to interact with the world, its shape change is its behavior. Other research has shown that similar strategies are used by cells in more complex animals, including neurons, stem cells, and cancer cells. This work in Physarum offers a new model in which to explore the ways in which evolution uses physics to implement primitive cognition that drives form and function."

DAVID: this study shows the slime mold can sense the stresses and respond. I think the responses are automatic to what is sensed. As the authors note an early step in setting up responses in more complex cells and structures.

dhw: The authors could hardly make it clearer that they attribute changes in form and function to intelligence and “primitive cognition”. One up for Shapiro.

And my take, as above, bis just the opposite. The authors are Darwinists.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, July 17, 2021, 14:03 (985 days ago) @ David Turell

Proper Big Bang view
dhw: I do not accept that the Big Bang provides “absolute proof” of God because nothing can provide “absolute proof” unless he pops in to introduce himself to us. […]

DAVID: If we absolutely prove the BB, and we recognize our universe did not come from nothing, its design, fine-tuned-for-life, demands a designing mind. You can accept some sort of chance event if you wish, but logically that is wishful thinking.

We would all accept that life and consciousness must have a source. The idea that the source of life and consciousness is sourceless life and consciousness could be called “wishful thinking”. You have never understood that for an agnostic, both explanations are equally difficult to accept. And your claim that proof of the BB provides “absolute proof” of God’s existence remains untenable. Do you really think that every scientist who believes the BB happened is also a staunch theist – or, if he/she is not, then they are total idiots?

Humans correcting errors
QUOTE: The results also suggest the brain has an unexpected ability to make new connections once a missing enzyme is restored." (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Aren’t you impressed by the way in which the cells of the brain are able to adjust themselves to new factors? Or do you think it’s part of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for brain adjustment, or your God dabbling?

DAVID: God's intelligent design of the neurons and their instructions.

I can accept the theory that your God designed the first cells. I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago, he gave them instructions to cover every undabbled evolutionary innovation, econiche, natural wonder, strategy and solution to all future problems. How else could your God have passed on his “instructions”?

Detergent defenses
dhw:. The article suggests that this was an evolutionary process. Sounds to me like a case of intelligent cells being confronted with new problems and using all their components to work out a solution.

DAVID: So your thinking cells designed the manufacture of the attacking molecule and their own self-protection mechanism all at once with complex biochemical designs.

Not all at once. My proposal is that defences are only invented once there is a new problem. And yes, I find Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells are able to come up with all the complex biochemical designs needed for evolution and problem-solving more convincing than your theory bolded above.

DAVID: The article is pure Darwinism, which I ignore as I analyze from design standpoint. […] Your brilliant cells are like finding fairies in the dell. To do this the cells must recode DNA to create the new information/instructions. How do cells create new information?

I don’t know why you think the name Darwin automatically invalidates any argument. You argue not just from “design standpoint” (your God’s design of cellular intelligence, and intelligent design by intelligent cells are both from “design standpoint”) but also from your belief in the theory bolded above, though you prefer to gloss that over with terms such as “instructions”. Of course recoding and new “information” are required for all kinds of changes. Why do you think your God is incapable of designing a mechanism which can make these changes, and therefore he has to preprogramme every single one or do a dabble?

Slime mold
"'Our discovery of this slime mold's use of biomechanics to probe and react to its surrounding environment underscores […] how closely related intelligence, behavior, and morphogenesis are. [..] This work in Physarum offers a new model in which to explore the ways in which evolution uses physics to implement primitive cognition that drives form and function."[/b]

DAVID: […] I think the responses are automatic to what is sensed.

dhw: The authors could hardly make it clearer that they attribute changes in form and function to intelligence and “primitive cognition”. One up for Shapiro.

DAVID: And my take, as above, is just the opposite. The authors are Darwinists.

Please tell me whereabouts Darwin refers to the link between intelligence and morphogenesis, or to the “primitive cognition that drives form and function”. But thank you for your integrity in quoting yet more scientists putting a case contrary to your own.

Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: "When we are exposed to a pathogen, the immune system's B cells swarm to our lymph nodes, spleens, and tonsils. There, those cells mutate in germinal centers—microscopic boot camps that rush the B cells through volleys of mutations to produce the most potent antibodies for neutralizing the infectious agent. As long as a germinal center is up and running, B cells are free to mature and perfect their approach to fighting disease.

Cells having the ability to mutate (change themselves) and to ”perfect” their response to different demands is of course crucial to the theory of evolution by way of cellular intelligence. It is clear from this process that the solution to the problem is NOT already there: it is the mechanism for solving the problem that is there.

Miscellany: new life evolves Earth's climate

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 17, 2021, 15:22 (985 days ago) @ dhw

The appearance of life changes the Carbon-silicon cycle:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-07/jgum-crc071521.php

"Earth's climate was relatively stable for a long period of time. For three billion years, temperatures were mostly warm and carbon dioxide levels high - until a shift occurred about 400 million years ago. A new study suggests that the change at this time was accompanied by a fundamental alteration to the carbon-silicon cycle. "This transformation of what was a consistent status quo in the Precambrian era into the more unstable climate we see today was likely due to the emergence and spread of new life forms," said Professor Philip Pogge von Strandmann, a geoscientist at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz....he has traced the long-term evolution of the carbon-silicon cycle with the help of lithium isotopes in marine sediments. This cycle is regarded as a key mechanism controlling the Earth's climate, as it regulates carbon dioxide levels and, with it, temperature. The researchers' findings have been published recently in Nature.

"The carbon-silicon cycle has kept Earth's climate stable over long periods of time, despite extensive variations in solar luminosity, in atmospheric oxygen concentrations, and the makeup of the Earth's crust. Such a stable climate created the conditions for long-term colonization of the Earth by life and allowed initially simple and later complex life forms to develop over billions of years. The carbon-silicon cycle contributes to this by regulating the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Silicate rock is transformed into carbonate rock as a result of weathering and sedimentation, and carbonate rock is transformed back into silicate rock by, among other things, volcanism. When silicate rock is converted to carbonate rock, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, while the reverse process releases carbon dioxide once again. "We consider this to be the main mechanism by which Earth's climate is stabilized over the long term," explained Pogge von Strandmann.

"To trace long-term carbon-silicon cycles back in time and gain a better understanding of the precise relationships governing Earth's climate, the research team studied the ratio of lithium isotopes in marine carbonates. Lithium is present only in silicate rocks and their silicate and carbonate weathering products.

***

"These data show that the ratio of lithium-7 to lithium-6 isotopes in the oceans was low from three billion years ago to 400 million years ago, and then suddenly increased. It was precisely at this time that land plants evolved, while simultaneously marine animals with skeletons composed of silicon, such as sponges and radiolarians, spread throughout the oceans. "Both played a role, but as yet we do not know exactly how the processes are coupled," Professor Philip Pogge von Strandmann added.

***

"According to the authors of the Nature paper, this suggests that the mode of climate regulation on Earth as well as the primary location where that process occurs has changed dramatically through time: "The shift from a Precambrian Earth state to the modern state can probably be attributed to major biological innovations - the radiation of sponges, radiolarians, diatoms and land plants." The result of this modification of climate regulation has been apparent ever since in the form of the frequent alternation between cold glacial periods on the one hand and warmer periods on the other. However, this climate instability, in turn, helps to accelerate evolution." (my bold)

Comment: note the bold. Of course changing climate changes the course of evolution. This brings me back to the proposal I've presented. God works to creates our reality by evolving each part, the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its origin and life from its. From this article we see Earth-Life-Climate co-evolvement.

Miscellany: new life evolves Earth's climate

by David Turell @, Friday, March 04, 2022, 19:27 (755 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 17, 2021, 18:51 (985 days ago) @ dhw

Proper Big Bang view
dhw: We would all accept that life and consciousness must have a source. The idea that the source of life and consciousness is sourceless life and consciousness could be called “wishful thinking”. You have never understood that for an agnostic, both explanations are equally difficult to accept. And your claim that proof of the BB provides “absolute proof” of God’s existence remains untenable. Do you really think that every scientist who believes the BB happened is also a staunch theist – or, if he/she is not, then they are total idiots?

The scientists, who are 90% atheists , evoke material reasons for the BB. There are those of us who feel the BB came from nothing by God's endevours.


Humans correcting errors

DAVID: God's intelligent design of the neurons and their instructions.

dhw: I can accept the theory that your God designed the first cells. I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago, he gave them instructions to cover every undabbled evolutionary innovation, econiche, natural wonder, strategy and solution to all future problems. How else could your God have passed on his “instructions”?

That is why I consider Him dabbles as necessary. The human brain didn't just appear. i view it as a God design.


Detergent defenses

DAVID: So your thinking cells designed the manufacture of the attacking molecule and their own self-protection mechanism all at once with complex biochemical designs.

dhw: Not all at once. My proposal is that defences are only invented once there is a new problem. And yes, I find Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells are able to come up with all the complex biochemical designs needed for evolution and problem-solving more convincing than your theory bolded above.

You didn't answer the requirement for cells, producing two processes at once, untested for worthiness.


DAVID: The article is pure Darwinism, which I ignore as I analyze from design standpoint. […] Your brilliant cells are like finding fairies in the dell. To do this the cells must recode DNA to create the new information/instructions. How do cells create new information?

dhw: I don’t know why you think the name Darwin automatically invalidates any argument. You argue not just from “design standpoint” (your God’s design of cellular intelligence, and intelligent design by intelligent cells are both from “design standpoint”) but also from your belief in the theory bolded above, though you prefer to gloss that over with terms such as “instructions”. Of course recoding and new “information” are required for all kinds of changes. Why do you think your God is incapable of designing a mechanism which can make these changes, and therefore he has to preprogramme every single one or do a dabble?

You bring up the point of whether God is in control completely or not. I favor full control.


Slime mold

DAVID: […] I think the responses are automatic to what is sensed.

dhw: The authors could hardly make it clearer that they attribute changes in form and function to intelligence and “primitive cognition”. One up for Shapiro.

DAVID: And my take, as above, is just the opposite. The authors are Darwinists.

dhw: Please tell me whereabouts Darwin refers to the link between intelligence and morphogenesis, or to the “primitive cognition that drives form and function”. But thank you for your integrity in quoting yet more scientists putting a case contrary to your own.

I have to do it to present scientific evidence for my theistic analysis


Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: "When we are exposed to a pathogen, the immune system's B cells swarm to our lymph nodes, spleens, and tonsils. There, those cells mutate in germinal centers—microscopic boot camps that rush the B cells through volleys of mutations to produce the most potent antibodies for neutralizing the infectious agent. As long as a germinal center is up and running, B cells are free to mature and perfect their approach to fighting disease.

dhw: Cells having the ability to mutate (change themselves) and to ”perfect” their response to different demands is of course crucial to the theory of evolution by way of cellular intelligence. It is clear from this process that the solution to the problem is NOT already there: it is the mechanism for solving the problem that is there.

Exactly, the cells contain information/instructions from God in their DNA's as to how to do it,

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, July 18, 2021, 09:35 (984 days ago) @ David Turell

Proper Big Bang view
dhw: […] your claim that proof of the BB provides “absolute proof” of God’s existence remains untenable. Do you really think that every scientist who believes the BB happened is also a staunch theist – or, if he/she is not, then they are total idiots?

DAVID: The scientists, who are 90% atheists , evoke material reasons for the BB. There are those of us who feel the BB came from nothing by God's endevours.

Precisely. You could hardly provide a better demolition of your claim that if the BB happened, it would provide “absolute proof” of God’s existence.

Humans correcting errors
DAVID: God's intelligent design of the neurons and their instructions.

dhw: I can accept the theory that your God designed the first cells. I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago, he gave them instructions to cover every undabbled evolutionary innovation, econiche, natural wonder, strategy and solution to all future problems. How else could your God have passed on his “instructions”?

DAVID: That is why I consider Him dabbles as necessary. The human brain didn't just appear. i view it as a God design.

According to you, there are no life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. that “just appeared” – you view them all as God’s designs. Have you now discarded the 3.8-billion-year-old programme altogether? This would suggest that your God was constantly at work designing and directing absolutely everything bit by bit from the first cells to trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the duckbilled platypus, ant bridges and the weaverbird’s nest – and all as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their lunch. You don’t find this a little far-fetched?

Detergent defenses
DAVID: So your thinking cells designed the manufacture of the attacking molecule and their own self-protection mechanism all at once with complex biochemical designs.

dhw: Not all at once. My proposal is that defences are only invented once there is a new problem. And yes, I find Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells are able to come up with all the complex biochemical designs needed for evolution and problem-solving more convincing than your theory above.

DAVID: You didn't answer the requirement for cells, producing two processes at once, untested for worthiness.

I don’t understand what you mean. My proposal is that whenever a new threat appears, the cells work out a defence. This may take time – it is a sequence: problem first, solution second. The two processes only exist at once after the solution has been designed.

DAVID: To do this the cells must recode DNA to create the new information/instructions. How do cells create new information?

dhw: Of course recoding and new “information” are required for all kinds of changes. Why do you think your God is incapable of designing a mechanism which can make these changes, and therefore he has to preprogramme every single one or do a dabble?

DAVID: You bring up the point of whether God is in control completely or not. I favor full control.

I know you do. You challenged my proposal, and so I am asking why you think your God is incapable of designing cellular intelligence that can recode DNA and create new information.

Slime mold
dhw: […] thank you for your integrity in quoting yet more scientists putting a case contrary to your own.

DAVID: I have to do it to present scientific evidence for my theistic analysis.

Where have you found scientific evidence that your God popped in to teach slime mold how to look after itself?

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Cells having the ability to mutate (change themselves) and to ”perfect” their response to different demands is of course crucial to the theory of evolution by way of cellular intelligence. It is clear from this process that the solution to the problem is NOT already there: it is the mechanism for solving the problem that is there.

DAVID: Exactly, the cells contain information/instructions from God in their DNA's as to how to do it.

As to how to do what? New problems require new solutions and new mutations – hence evolution. You seem to have dropped the 3.8-billion-year-old plan for every individual solution, so now you have your God popping in to issue new instructions a zillion times? Why do you totally reject the simplest explanation: that your God (theistic version) gave all organisms, from single cells to the most complex cell communities, the ability (i.e. intelligence) to solve problems as and when they arose without his having to do all the work himself?

New life evolves earth’s climate
QUOTE: However, this climate instability, in turn, helps to accelerate evolution." (David’s bold)

DAVID: note the bold. Of course changing climate changes the course of evolution. This brings me back to the proposal I've presented. God works to creates our reality by evolving each part, the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its origin and life from its.[something missing] From this article we see Earth-Life-Climate co-evolvement.

I don’t think even the most ardent atheist would disagree that evolution, Earth, life and climate are inextricably linked

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 18, 2021, 15:35 (984 days ago) @ dhw

Humans correcting errors

DAVID: That is why I consider His dabbles as necessary. The human brain didn't just appear. I view it as a God design.

dhw: According to you, there are no life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. that “just appeared” – you view them all as God’s designs. Have you now discarded the 3.8-billion-year-old programme altogether? This would suggest that your God was constantly at work designing and directing absolutely everything bit by bit from the first cells to trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the duckbilled platypus, ant bridges and the weaverbird’s nest – and all as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their lunch. You don’t find this a little far-fetched?

My view of God's powers is not far-fetched. I firmly accept that God designs the complexity of living biochemistry


Detergent defenses

DAVID: You didn't answer the requirement for cells, producing two processes at once, untested for worthiness.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean. My proposal is that whenever a new threat appears, the cells work out a defence. This may take time – it is a sequence: problem first, solution second. The two processes only exist at once after the solution has been designed.

Again a non-answer which is not deliberate. It shows me you do not understand the problem. The bacteria making the new detergent will kill itself without a built-in protective mechanism. It must invent both simultaneously to be a successful advance. That must require new information developed in its DNA (think Shapiro) for both new processes. No time for trial and error over survival steps, per Darwin. Design, all at once, is the only fit, logically.


DAVID: You bring up the point of whether God is in control completely or not. I favor full control.

dhw: I know you do. You challenged my proposal, and so I am asking why you think your God is incapable of designing cellular intelligence that can recode DNA and create new information.

It requires a mind which can see the future consequences of detergent action and how to protect itself from the effects.


Immunity system complexity
dhw: Cells having the ability to mutate (change themselves) and to ”perfect” their response to different demands is of course crucial to the theory of evolution by way of cellular intelligence. It is clear from this process that the solution to the problem is NOT already there: it is the mechanism for solving the problem that is there.

DAVID: Exactly, the cells contain information/instructions from God in their DNA's as to how to do it.

dhw:...Why do you totally reject the simplest explanation: that your God (theistic version) gave all organisms, from single cells to the most complex cell communities, the ability (i.e. intelligence) to solve problems as and when they arose without his having to do all the work himself?

I've just shown you immune cells are programmed to protect us without God stepping in each time we get sick. Many parts of our bodies work just that way


New life evolves earth’s climate
QUOTE: However, this climate instability, in turn, helps to accelerate evolution." (David’s bold)

DAVID: note the bold. Of course changing climate changes the course of evolution. This brings me back to the proposal I've presented. God works to creates our reality by evolving each part, the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its origin and life from its.[som From this article we see Earth-Life-Climate co-evolvement.

dhw: I don’t think even the most ardent atheist would disagree that evolution, Earth, life and climate are inextricably linked

My main point you missed, or I poorly referred to it, is: God prefers to create by evolution of all aspects of reality. Explains why He evolved us. Only the BB is direct creation, as an initiation must be.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, July 19, 2021, 08:29 (983 days ago) @ David Turell

Humans correcting errors
DAVID: That is why I consider His dabbles as necessary. The human brain didn't just appear. I view it as a God design.

dhw: According to you, there are no life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. that “just appeared” – you view them all as God’s designs. Have you now discarded the 3.8-billion-year-old programme altogether? bbbThis would suggest that your God was constantly at work designing and directing absolutely everything bit by bit from the first cells to trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the duckbilled platypus, ant bridges and the weaverbird’s nest – and all as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their lunch. You don’t find this a little far-fetched?

DAVID: My view of God's powers is not far-fetched. I firmly accept that God designs the complexity of living biochemistry.

The above does not dispute the reasonableness of your belief that your God designed the complexity of living biochemistry. It challenges the reasonableness of believing that he popped in zillions of times to individually design every new life form etc., as bolded above. Why do you insist on answering a question by changing its terms?

Detergent defenses

dhw:. My proposal is that whenever a new threat appears, the cells work out a defence. This may take time – it is a sequence: problem first, solution second. The two processes only exist at once after the solution has been designed.

DAVID: Again a non-answer which is not deliberate. It shows me you do not understand the problem. The bacteria making the new detergent will kill itself without a built-in protective mechanism. It must invent both simultaneously to be a successful advance. That must require new information developed in its DNA (think Shapiro) for both new processes. No time for trial and error over survival steps, per Darwin. Design, all at once, is the only fit, logically.

You may be right about this particular problem. The article mentioned the ability of the APOL3 to “distinguish between bacterial membranes and host membranes” and admired the elegant way evolution had found to “control this powerful tool”. This seemed to me to illustrate my general observation that cells are directed by their own intelligence, and problems always precede solutions. But I’m in no position to discuss the precise details of this one individual process.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Cells having the ability to mutate (change themselves) and to ”perfect” their response to different demands is of course crucial to the theory of evolution by way of cellular intelligence. It is clear from this process that the solution to the problem is NOT already there: it is the mechanism for solving the problem that is there.

DAVID: Exactly, the cells contain information/instructions from God in their DNA's as to how to do it.

dhw:...Why do you totally reject the simplest explanation: that your God (theistic version) gave all organisms, from single cells to the most complex cell communities, the ability (i.e. intelligence) to solve problems as and when they arose without his having to do all the work himself?

DAVID: I've just shown you immune cells are programmed to protect us without God stepping in each time we get sick. Many parts of our bodies work just that way.

The cells contain information/instructions/a programme from God enabling cells to solve
problems without your God stepping in. But each new problem is different. The cells
must make new adjustments. The information/instructions/programme would have to
be colossal to cover every problem for the rest of time. And so once more: Why do you
think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each
solution as each new problem arose?

New life evolves earth’s climate
QUOTE: However, this climate instability, in turn, helps to accelerate evolution." (David’s bold)

DAVID: note the bold. Of course changing climate changes the course of evolution. This brings me back to the proposal I've presented. God works to creates our reality by evolving each part, the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its origin and life from its.[som From this article we see Earth-Life-Climate co-evolvement.

dhw: I don’t think even the most ardent atheist would disagree that evolution, Earth, life and climate are inextricably linked.

DAVID: My main point you missed, or I poorly referred to it, is: God prefers to create by evolution of all aspects of reality. Explains why He evolved us. Only the BB is direct creation, as an initiation must be.

Again, no one would deny that the earth itself has evolved. One might ask why an all-powerful God who is in total control couldn’t come up straight away with conditions that were needed for his one and only goal – humans and their lunch – but that will only lead us round in the same circles: we mustn’t query the logic of your theories.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, July 19, 2021, 20:47 (983 days ago) @ dhw

Humans correcting errors

DAVID: My view of God's powers is not far-fetched. I firmly accept that God designs the complexity of living biochemistry.

dhw: The above does not dispute the reasonableness of your belief that your God designed the complexity of living biochemistry. It challenges the reasonableness of believing that he popped in zillions of times to individually design every new life form etc., as bolded above. Why do you insist on answering a question by changing its terms?

You, as a non-believer, question my beliefs. We differ, so we dicuss.


Detergent defenses

DAVID: Again a non-answer which is not deliberate. It shows me you do not understand the problem. The bacteria making the new detergent will kill itself without a built-in protective mechanism. It must invent both simultaneously to be a successful advance. That must require new information developed in its DNA (think Shapiro) for both new processes. No time for trial and error over survival steps, per Darwin. Design, all at once, is the only fit, logically.

dhw: You may be right about this particular problem. The article mentioned the ability of the APOL3 to “distinguish between bacterial membranes and host membranes” and admired the elegant way evolution had found to “control this powerful tool”. This seemed to me to illustrate my general observation that cells are directed by their own intelligence, and problems always precede solutions. But I’m in no position to discuss the precise details of this one individual process.

Thank you for recognizing the design problem.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: I've just shown you immune cells are programmed to protect us without God stepping in each time we get sick. Many parts of our bodies work just that way.

dhw: The cells contain information/instructions/a programme from God enabling cells to solve
problems without your God stepping in. But each new problem is different. The cells
must make new adjustments. The information/instructions/programme would have to
be colossal to cover every problem for the rest of time. And so once more: Why do you
think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each
solution as each new problem arose?

Cells cannot design for the future. The immune cells can analyze a present problems b ecaue their instructions tell them how.


New life evolves earth’s climate
QUOTE: However, this climate instability, in turn, helps to accelerate evolution." (David’s bold)

DAVID: My main point you missed, or I poorly referred to it, is: God prefers to create by evolution of all aspects of reality. Explains why He evolved us. Only the BB is direct creation, as an initiation must be.

dhw: Again, no one would deny that the earth itself has evolved. One might ask why an all-powerful God who is in total control couldn’t come up straight away with conditions that were needed for his one and only goal – humans and their lunch – but that will only lead us round in the same circles: we mustn’t query the logic of your theories.

Keep it simple. God, who can do anything, chose to evolve us by design.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, July 22, 2021, 13:48 (980 days ago) @ David Turell

Humans correcting errors
DAVID: My view of God's powers is not far-fetched. I firmly accept that God designs the complexity of living biochemistry.

dhw: The above does not dispute the reasonableness of your belief that your God designed the complexity of living biochemistry. It challenges the reasonableness of believing that he popped in zillions of times to individually design every new life form etc.[…]. Why do you insist on answering a question by changing its terms?

DAVID: You, as a non-believer, question my beliefs. We differ, so we discuss.

My agnosticism is irrelevant. I accept the reasonableness of your design argument, and I question the logic behind your belief that humans were his only purpose, and therefore he designed billions of years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Why do you think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each solution as each new problem arose?

DAVID: Cells cannot design for the future. The immune cells can analyze a present problems b ecaue their instructions tell them how.

Firstly, in my theory cells do not design for the future. They respond to new requirements. You always forget that existing responses are passed on, but they must have been new at one time. This is exemplified by the immune system, which “analyzes” new problems in order to find the answers. I find it hard to accept your belief that your God pops in with new instructions to counter every new problem. (Have you permanently dropped the idea that he provided the first cells with a list of instructions 3.8 billion years ago to cover every problem for the rest of time?)

New life evolves earth’s climate

dhw: […] no one would deny that the earth itself has evolved. One might ask why an all-powerful God who is in total control couldn’t come up straight away with conditions that were needed for his one and only goal – humans and their lunch – but that will only lead us round in the same circles: we mustn’t query the logic of your theories.

DAVID: Keep it simple. God, who can do anything, chose to evolve us by design.

When you say “keep it simple”, you mean we should ignore the rest of your theory: that we were his only purpose, and therefore he “evolved” everything that had no connection with us.

Does dark matter exist?
DAVID: It seems like we need a new paradigm about dark matter. I am no judge as to which theory might be correct.

I find the whole debate very difficult to follow. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” simply refer to matter and energy that we know absolutely nothing about. Does it exist? Nobody knows. If they find out what it is, they will give it a name. It’s not dissimilar to the mystery of something we call God.

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/

Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design
QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.
...agnostics & atheists leaving

Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 22, 2021, 18:31 (980 days ago) @ dhw

Humans correcting errors

DAVID: You, as a non-believer, question my beliefs. We differ, so we discuss.

dhw: My agnosticism is irrelevant. I accept the reasonableness of your design argument, and I question the logic behind your belief that humans were his only purpose, and therefore he designed billions of years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans.

Your constant illogical analysis of my thoughts.


Immunity system complexity
dhw: Why do you think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each solution as each new problem arose?

DAVID: Cells cannot design for the future. The immune cells can analyze a present problems b ecaue their instructions tell them how.

dhw: Firstly, in my theory cells do not design for the future. They respond to new requirements. You always forget that existing responses are passed on, but they must have been new at one time.

A good designer foresees how a new system will handle the problems in the future.

dhw: This is exemplified by the immune system, which “analyzes” new problems in order to find the answers. I find it hard to accept your belief that your God pops in with new instructions to counter every new problem. (Have you permanently dropped the idea that he provided the first cells with a list of instructions 3.8 billion years ago to cover every problem for the rest of time?)

My entries in immunity show the cells are programmed to respond to new infections, with general antibodies and the ability to create new ones. See article on how T cells are specialized.


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/

Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design
QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.
...agnostics & atheists leaving

dhw: Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

My point is real research of ID's theories changes minds. I can't answer your rhetorical questions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, July 23, 2021, 10:42 (979 days ago) @ David Turell

Humans correcting errors
dhw: My agnosticism is irrelevant. I accept the reasonableness of your design argument, and I question the logic behind your belief that humans were his only purpose, and therefore he designed billions of years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Your constant illogical analysis of my thoughts.

Calling my analysis “illogical” does not provide a logical explanation for an all-powerful God with a single purpose designing life forms etc. that had no connection with his purpose.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Why do you think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each solution as each new problem arose?

DAVID: Cells cannot design for the future. The immune cells can analyze a present problems b ecaue their instructions tell them how.

dhw: Firstly, in my theory cells do not design for the future. They respond to new requirements. You always forget that existing responses are passed on, but they must have been new at one time.

DAVID: A good designer foresees how a new system will handle the problems in the future.

If your God designed cellular intelligence, he might well gaze into his crystal ball and “foresee” how his intelligent invention would cope. That does not mean he gave his invention a list of instructions to solve every problem for the rest of time.

dhw: I find it hard to accept your belief that your God pops in with new instructions to counter every new problem. (Have you permanently dropped the idea that he provided the first cells with a list of instructions 3.8 billion years ago to cover every problem for the rest of time?)

DAVID: My entries in immunity show the cells are programmed to respond to new infections, with general antibodies and the ability to create new ones. See article on how T cells are specialized.

So is this the 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or is it the one personally delivered by God whenever there’s a problem? Your entries show that cells respond. Your entries do not show that cells are following a list of instructions laid out for them by your God. Known infections were once new infections, and so the antibodies will already have been produced, whereas new infections will require the production of new antibodies, as you say. It is an ongoing process of cellular RESPONSE to new situations – the same, I suggest, as for evolution itself.

T-cells
QUOTE: We discuss these features from an evolutionary perspective to provide insights into the development and function of unconventional T cells.

This might be interesting, since cellular development and changes of function are integral to Shapiro’s theory.

DAVID: […] this describes how specialized T cells create special ligands, receptor molecular receivers of foreign molecules, which increases the ability to sense invaders and respond. (dhw's bold)

This is interesting too, since it supports the (obvious) proposal that cells constantly RESPOND to new conditions, as opposed to your theory of anticipation.

Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The brain is so important it should have immediate strong protections, built-in all around it. Chance mutations are not going to find this necessary, since they are not drive by designing thoughts. Only purposeful design creates this.

Total agreement on the subject of random mutations and on purposeful design. We should note that this applies to all brains – not just human brains. As so many of your posts demonstrate, design applies to all the organs of all organisms. Our own disagreements are not over random mutations but over your insistence that every single innovation and modification in every organism is directly designed by your God as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, as opposed to - theistic theory – his having given the cells the ability to do their own designing.

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” […] Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

You have not responded.

...agnostics & atheists leaving
dhw: Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

DAVID: My point is real research of ID's theories changes minds. I can't answer your rhetorical questions.

They are not rhetorical. You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, July 23, 2021, 16:14 (979 days ago) @ dhw

Immunity system complexity

dhw: I find it hard to accept your belief that your God pops in with new instructions to counter every new problem. (Have you permanently dropped the idea that he provided the first cells with a list of instructions 3.8 billion years ago to cover every problem for the rest of time?)

DAVID: My entries in immunity show the cells are programmed to respond to new infections, with general antibodies and the ability to create new ones. See article on how T cells are specialized.

dhw: So is this the 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or is it the one personally delivered by God whenever there’s a problem? Your entries show that cells respond. Your entries do not show that cells are following a list of instructions laid out for them by your God. Known infections were once new infections, and so the antibodies will already have been produced, whereas new infections will require the production of new antibodies, as you say. It is an ongoing process of cellular RESPONSE to new situations – the same, I suggest, as for evolution itself.

And my retort is God created those cells to know how to respond to new infections. Same 50/50 as always


T-cells
QUOTE: We discuss these features from an evolutionary perspective to provide insights into the development and function of unconventional T cells.

dhw: This might be interesting, since cellular development and changes of function are integral to Shapiro’s theory.

DAVID: […] this describes how specialized T cells create special ligands, receptor molecular receivers of foreign molecules, which increases the ability to sense invaders and respond. (dhw's bold)

dhw: This is interesting too, since it supports the (obvious) proposal that cells constantly RESPOND to new conditions, as opposed to your theory of anticipation.

They are designed/coded to respond this way They are coded to respond to new events.


Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The brain is so important it should have immediate strong protections, built-in all around it. Chance mutations are not going to find this necessary, since they are not drive by designing thoughts. Only purposeful design creates this.

dhw: Total agreement on the subject of random mutations and on purposeful design. We should note that this applies to all brains – not just human brains. As so many of your posts demonstrate, design applies to all the organs of all organisms. Our own disagreements are not over random mutations but over your insistence that every single innovation and modification in every organism is directly designed by your God as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, as opposed to - theistic theory – his having given the cells the ability to do their own designing.

The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” […] Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

dhw: You have not responded.

Your Darwin love is obvious. Should I bring up his racism again?


...agnostics & atheists leaving
dhw: Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

DAVID: My point is real research of ID's theories changes minds. I can't answer your rhetorical questions.

dhw: They are not rhetorical. You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.

The evidence is some are turning to ID. I view your personal research as incomplete without reading some ID info.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, July 24, 2021, 06:48 (978 days ago) @ David Turell

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: My entries in immunity show the cells are programmed to respond to new infections, with general antibodies and the ability to create new ones.

dhw: So is this the 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or is it the one personally delivered by God whenever there’s a problem? Your entries show that cells respond. Your entries do not show that cells are following a list of instructions laid out for them by your God. Known infections were once new infections, and so the antibodies will already have been produced, whereas new infections will require the production of new antibodies, as you say. It is an ongoing process of cellular RESPONSE to new situations – the same, I suggest, as for evolution itself.

DAVID: And my retort is God created those cells to know how to respond to new infections. […]

I don’t have a problem with this – they would “know how to respond” can simply mean they have the intelligence to work out solutions as each new problem arises. It’s when you talk of them being programmed 3.8 billion years ago with every solution, or being given instructions (God pops in whenever there’s a new problem) that my credulity is stretched.

T-cells
DAVID: […] this describes how specialized T cells create special ligands, receptor molecular receivers of foreign molecules, which increases the ability to sense invaders and respond. (dhw's bold)

dhw: This is interesting too, since it supports the (obvious) proposal that cells constantly RESPOND to new conditions, as opposed to your theory of anticipation.

DAVID: They are designed/coded to respond this way. They are coded to respond to new events.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about the meaning of “coded” and “programmed”. As above, is this the 3.8-billion-year-old code/programme for every single new problem/solution/development in the history of life? Or God planting instructions whenever there’s a new problem? Cells are “designed to respond” could mean they have been given the intelligence with which to work out their responses. That’s fine with me, but it's totally the opposite of your theory that they have been given the individual solutions to every individual problem in advance.

Specific organs protection:
dhw: Our own disagreements are not over random mutations but over your insistence that every single innovation and modification in every organism is directly designed by your God as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, as opposed to - theistic theory – his having given the cells the ability to do their own designing.

DAVID: The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!

Stated with your usual authority, as if you knew that for some reason your God could not or would not provide cells with the intelligence to join together in communities and produce increasingly complex designs, building on the designs of their predecessors (= common descent, which you sometimes believe in and sometimes don’t).

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” […] Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!.

DAVID: Your Darwin love is obvious. Should I bring up his racism again?

Why don’t you stick to the subject? Darwinism is not against theism. What has racism got to do with it? This slur was discredited in great detail long ago, when you last used it to try and justify your hatred of Darwin. See my post: Busting the myth of Darwin's "racism" (Evolution) Thursday, December 05, 2019, which ended:
"This humanist plea for sympathies to extend to the men of all nations and races, and indeed to all sentient beings, could scarcely be clearer."
You replied:
DAVID: That is certainly convincing material of Darwin's true thoughts. It seems the Nazis misused his book, which I have not read. But the each of us has not the time to read everything. Thank you.

dhw: You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.

DAVID: The evidence is some are turning to ID. I view your personal research as incomplete without reading some ID info.

I have long ago accepted the argument for intelligent design, and you may recall that you yourself put the case in your two books, which I have read and admired. It is perfectly possible to accept the logic of the ID argument without rejecting common descent and without becoming a theist.

Microglial repair mechanism
QUOTE: "Rather than simply cleaning up debris, the microglia began forming pouches. These pouches didn't swallow up damaged material, as many immune cells do. Instead, they began tending to swollen dendrites—the branches of nerve cells that transmit nerve impulses. They weren't removing, the scientists realized; they appeared to be healing."

One might compare these cell communities to ant colonies, as all the individuals go about their business, contributing their particular form of intelligence to the functioning of the whole community.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 24, 2021, 16:46 (978 days ago) @ dhw

Immunity system complexity

DAVID: And my retort is God created those cells to know how to respond to new infections. […]

dhw: I don’t have a problem with this – they would “know how to respond” can simply mean they have the intelligence to work out solutions as each new problem arises. It’s when you talk of them being programmed 3.8 billion years ago with every solution, or being given instructions (God pops in whenever there’s a new problem) that my credulity is stretched.

I believe God designed each stage of evolution knowing how each stage could/would handle future problems by using His implanted instructions. Popping in is primarily at each new stage creation. "Dabble" is only at each new stage of evolution design.


T-cells

DAVID: They are designed/coded to respond this way. They are coded to respond to new events.

dhw: Perhaps you could be a little more specific about the meaning of “coded” and “programmed”. As above, is this the 3.8-billion-year-old code/programme for every single new problem/solution/development in the history of life? Or God planting instructions whenever there’s a new problem? Cells are “designed to respond” could mean they have been given the intelligence with which to work out their responses. That’s fine with me, but it's totally the opposite of your theory that they have been given the individual solutions to every individual problem in advance.

As above each new stage is designed for its future needs, based on an underlying very flexible genome code present in its initial design in bacteria.


Specific organs protection:

DAVID: The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!

dhw: Stated with your usual authority, as if you knew that for some reason your God could not or would not provide cells with the intelligence to join together in communities and produce increasingly complex designs, building on the designs of their predecessors (= common descent, which you sometimes believe in and sometimes don’t).

I accept the appearance of common descent. Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]

dhw: You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.

DAVID: The evidence is some are turning to ID. I view your personal research as incomplete without reading some ID info.

dhw: I have long ago accepted the argument for intelligent design, and you may recall that you yourself put the case in your two books, which I have read and admired. It is perfectly possible to accept the logic of the ID argument without rejecting common descent and without becoming a theist.

Have you really accepted it? Al of us accept common descent which is not an active issue


Microglial repair mechanism
QUOTE: "Rather than simply cleaning up debris, the microglia began forming pouches. These pouches didn't swallow up damaged material, as many immune cells do. Instead, they began tending to swollen dendrites—the branches of nerve cells that transmit nerve impulses. They weren't removing, the scientists realized; they appeared to be healing."

dhw: One might compare these cell communities to ant colonies, as all the individuals go about their business, contributing their particular form of intelligence to the functioning of the whole community.

All in the programming.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, July 25, 2021, 14:07 (977 days ago) @ David Turell

Immunity system complexity

DAVID: I believe God designed each stage of evolution knowing how each stage could/would handle future problems by using His implanted instructions. Popping in is primarily at each new stage creation. "Dabble" is only at each new stage of evolution design.

Each stage of what? Since you believe in common descent, this means that he popped in to make every change in every organism that ever lived (and we shouldn’t forget that you think he also popped in to organize every lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder). So now, instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every solution to every problem, you have him separately planting every future solution ad hoc to every problem that every individual life form will experience – until, of course, it becomes extinct, so he must have deliberately omitted to enclose instructions for the particular problem that makes them become extinct. And all these individual operations were designed as part of the one and only goal to design H. sapiens plus our food, and apparently this theory is based on science.

T-cells
DAVID: They are designed/coded to respond this way. They are coded to respond to new events.

dhw: Perhaps you could be a little more specific about the meaning of “coded” and “programmed”. As above, is this the 3.8-billion-year-old code/programme for every single new problem/solution/development in the history of life? Or God planting instructions whenever there’s a new problem? Cells are “designed to respond” could mean they have been given the intelligence with which to work out their responses. That’s fine with me, but it's totally the opposite of your theory that they have been given the individual solutions to every individual problem in advance.

DAVID: As above each new stage is designed for its future needs, based on an underlying very flexible genome code present in its initial design in bacteria.

A flexible genome code has to be present in all life forms if they are to evolve into something else. According to you, T cells respond to new events. I suggest that is the case with ALL cells and cell communities, and underlies the whole process of evolution. Every change is a RESPONSE to something new, as opposed to being pre-planned.

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.

DAVID: The evidence is some are turning to ID. I view your personal research as incomplete without reading some ID info.

dhw: I have long ago accepted the argument for intelligent design, and you may recall that you yourself put the case in your two books, which I have read and admired. It is perfectly possible to accept the logic of the ID argument without rejecting common descent and without becoming a theist.

DAVID: Have you really accepted it?

Yes, I have really accepted it, just as I have really accepted the possible authenticity of any psychic experiences. If I hadn’t, I would be far more inclined to embrace atheism. Since I have constantly repeated my acceptance of the logic of ID, perhaps you will now do me the honour of assuming that I mean what I say!

DAVID: All of us accept common descent which is not an active issue.

Whenever you talk of “de novo” creation, you oppose the concept of common descent.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 25, 2021, 15:22 (977 days ago) @ dhw

Immunity system complexity

DAVID: I believe God designed each stage of evolution knowing how each stage could/would handle future problems by using His implanted instructions. Popping in is primarily at each new stage creation. "Dabble" is only at each new stage of evolution design.

dhw: Each stage of what? Since you believe in common descent, this means that he popped in to make every change in every organism that ever lived (and we shouldn’t forget that you think he also popped in to organize every lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder). So now, instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every solution to every problem, you have him separately planting every future solution ad hoc to every problem that every individual life form will experience – until, of course, it becomes extinct, so he must have deliberately omitted to enclose instructions for the particular problem that makes them become extinct. And all these individual operations were designed as part of the one and only goal to design H. sapiens plus our food, and apparently this theory is based on science.

I believe in the appearance of common descent from the way God evolved everything. When something is no longer needed for an advance it becomes extinct. It is logical that the Earth cannot hold everything ling forever. Wou ld you like to live with dinosaurs?


T-cells

DAVID: As above each new stage is designed for its future needs, based on an underlying very flexible genome code present in its initial design in bacteria.

dhw: A flexible genome code has to be present in all life forms if they are to evolve into something else. According to you, T cells respond to new events. I suggest that is the case with ALL cells and cell communities, and underlies the whole process of evolution. Every change is a RESPONSE to something new, as opposed to being pre-planned.

They are designed to be as responsive as you describe


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.

DAVID: The evidence is some are turning to ID. I view your personal research as incomplete without reading some ID info.

dhw: I have long ago accepted the argument for intelligent design, and you may recall that you yourself put the case in your two books, which I have read and admired. It is perfectly possible to accept the logic of the ID argument without rejecting common descent and without becoming a theist.

DAVID: Have you really accepted it?

dhw: Yes, I have really accepted it, just as I have really accepted the possible authenticity of any psychic experiences. If I hadn’t, I would be far more inclined to embrace atheism. Since I have constantly repeated my acceptance of the logic of ID, perhaps you will now do me the honour of assuming that I mean what I say!

I know you do.


DAVID: All of us accept common descent which is not an active issue.

dhw: Whenever you talk of “de novo” creation, you oppose the concept of common descent.

'Common descent' is the result/appearance of God designing successive stages of life.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, July 26, 2021, 06:57 (976 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So now, instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every solution to every problem, you have him separately planting every future solution ad hoc to every problem that every individual life form will experience – until, of course, it becomes extinct, so he must have deliberately omitted to enclose instructions for the particular problem that makes them become extinct. And all these individual operations were designed as part of the one and only goal to design H. sapiens plus our food, and apparently this theory is based on science.

DAVID: I believe in the appearance of common descent from the way God evolved everything. When something is no longer needed for an advance it becomes extinct.

Let us remember that by “evolved” you mean individually designed. So he individually designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans to make it appear that they had descended from an earlier organism. And apparently extinction doesn’t take place when an organism is no longer able to cope with existing conditions, but when God doesn’t need it any more for the next step in his design of humans, although he had originally designed most organisms without their having any connection with humans anyway.

DAVID: It is logical that the Earth cannot hold everything ling forever. Wou ld you like to live with dinosaurs?

Same old puzzle for you: if your God only wanted humans plus their food, why keep filling the earth with organisms that had no connection with humans and that had to be killed off in order to make room for the only one he really wanted in the first place?

T-cells
DAVID: As above each new stage is designed for its future needs, based on an underlying very flexible genome code present in its initial design in bacteria.

dhw: A flexible genome code has to be present in all life forms if they are to evolve into something else. According to you, T cells respond to new events. I suggest that is the case with ALL cells and cell communities, and underlies the whole process of evolution. Every change is a RESPONSE to something new, as opposed to being pre-planned.

DAVID: They are designed to be as responsive as you describe.

Thank you. Exit the theory that cells are only designed to obey instructions set out for them before changes are required (= pre-planning).

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: Since I have constantly repeated my acceptance of the logic of ID, perhaps you will now do me the honour of assuming that I mean what I say!

DAVID: I know you do.

Thank you. Another non-argument put to rest.

DAVID: All of us accept common descent which is not an active issue.

dhw: Whenever you talk of “de novo” creation, you oppose the concept of common descent.

DAVID: 'Common descent' is the result/appearance of God designing successive stages of life.

Common descent is the theory that every organism apart from the first descended from earlier organisms. It is not life that undergoes successive stages, but organisms. If you say your God created species “de novo” there can be no link with preceding organisms.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, July 26, 2021, 19:32 (976 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believe in the appearance of common descent from the way God evolved everything. When something is no longer needed for an advance it becomes extinct.

dhw: Let us remember that by “evolved” you mean individually designed. So he individually designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans to make it appear that they had descended from an earlier organism. And apparently extinction doesn’t take place when an organism is no longer able to cope with existing conditions, but when God doesn’t need it any more for the next step in his design of humans, although he had originally designed most organisms without their having any connection with humans anyway.

Is it hard to conceive that God created each succeeding stage by modifying the previous stage? Thus each advance is based upon the previous and can appear from the outside like the Darwin 'descent by modification' evolution you accept? I'm saying the same thing but I use God as the driver, and certainly not the need for survival Which is your unproven common sense reasoning. I hope you can really recognize the limits of common sense that directly tells me the sun revolves about the Earth.

T-cells
DAVID: As above each new stage is designed for its future needs, based on an underlying very flexible genome code present in its initial design in bacteria.

dhw: A flexible genome code has to be present in all life forms if they are to evolve into something else. According to you, T cells respond to new events. I suggest that is the case with ALL cells and cell communities, and underlies the whole process of evolution. Every change is a RESPONSE to something new, as opposed to being pre-planned.

DAVID: They are designed to be as responsive as you describe.

dhw: Thank you. Exit the theory that cells are only designed to obey instructions set out for them before changes are required (= pre-planning).

I love your wishful thinking I've changed. :-P


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: Since I have constantly repeated my acceptance of the logic of ID, perhaps you will now do me the honour of assuming that I mean what I say!

DAVID: I know you do.

Thank you. Another non-argument put to rest.

DAVID: All of us accept common descent which is not an active issue.

dhw: Whenever you talk of “de novo” creation, you oppose the concept of common descent.

DAVID: 'Common descent' is the result/appearance of God designing successive stages of life.

dhw: Common descent is the theory that every organism apart from the first descended from earlier organisms. It is not life that undergoes successive stages, but organisms. If you say your God created species “de novo” there can be no link with preceding organisms.

We don't interpret de novo the same. I have been using it in the 'anew' sense, and see that is not strictly correct.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, July 27, 2021, 14:02 (975 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I believe in the appearance of common descent from the way God evolved everything. When something is no longer needed for an advance it becomes extinct.

dhw: Let us remember that by “evolved” you mean individually designed. So he individually designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans to make it appear that they had descended from an earlier organism. And apparently extinction doesn’t take place when an organism is no longer able to cope with existing conditions, but when God doesn’t need it any more for the next step in his design of humans, although he had originally designed most organisms without their having any connection with humans anyway.

DAVID: Is it hard to conceive that God created each succeeding stage by modifying the previous stage? Thus each advance is based upon the previous and can appear from the outside like the Darwin 'descent by modification' evolution you accept? I'm saying the same thing but I use God as the driver, and certainly not the need for survival Which is your unproven common sense reasoning. I hope you can really recognize the limits of common sense that directly tells me the sun revolves about the Earth.

We are not talking about the sun and the earth! Please tell us why you think [edited later] adaptation to new conditions, new methods of catching prey, defence strategies, dealing with disease etc. have no connection with survival, and why you are convinced that less efficient life forms are just as likely to survive as more efficient life forms.

T-cells
DAVID: As above each new stage is designed for its future needs, based on an underlying very flexible genome code present in its initial design in bacteria.

dhw: A flexible genome code has to be present in all life forms if they are to evolve into something else. According to you, T cells respond to new events. I suggest that is the case with ALL cells and cell communities, and underlies the whole process of evolution. Every change is a RESPONSE to something new, as opposed to being pre-planned.

DAVID: They are designed to be as responsive as you describe.

dhw: Thank you. Exit the theory that cells are only designed to obey instructions set out for them before changes are required (= pre-planning).

DAVID: I love your wishful thinking I've changed.

If organisms are designed to RESPOND to something new by making changes, as opposed to the changes being planned and made BEFORE the arrival of something new, it is obviously nonsense to say they have already been provided with the responses before the new situation arose! (See also "tomatoes" on the ID thread.)

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: Since I have constantly repeated my acceptance of the logic of ID, perhaps you will now do me the honour of assuming that I mean what I say!

DAVID: I know you do.

Thank you. Another non-argument put to rest.

DAVID: All of us accept common descent which is not an active issue.

dhw: Whenever you talk of “de novo” creation, you oppose the concept of common descent.

DAVID: 'Common descent' is the result/appearance of God designing successive stages of life.

dhw: Common descent is the theory that every organism apart from the first descended from earlier organisms. It is not life that undergoes successive stages, but organisms. If you say your God created species “de novo” there can be no link with preceding organisms.

DAVID: We don't interpret de novo the same. I have been using it in the 'anew' sense, and see that is not strictly correct.

“De novo” does mean “anew” in the sense of starting all over again (repetition), and that is certainly not what you meant. Another meaning is doing something different right from the beginning, which again does not = common descent. I think you mean that your God took existing creatures and then modified them in different ways. Unfortunately, however, you keep seizing on the Cambrian and telling us that all those species came out of thin air and not out of antecedents. So you believe in common descent except when your God creates species out of thin air.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 27, 2021, 16:26 (975 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Is it hard to conceive that God created each succeeding stage by modifying the previous stage? Thus each advance is based upon the previous and can appear from the outside like the Darwin 'descent by modification' evolution you accept? I'm saying the same thing but I use God as the driver, and certainly not the need for survival Which is your unproven common sense reasoning. I hope you can really recognize the limits of common sense that directly tells me the sun revolves about the Earth.

dhw: We are not talking about the sun and the earth! Please tell us why you do not think adaptation to new conditions, new methods of catching prey, defence strategies, dealing with disease etc. have no connection with survival, and why you are convinced that less efficient life forms are just as likely to survive as more efficient life forms.

You are still confused about my view of survival as it relates to evolution. All organisms try to survive as you describe, and forms live or die by bad genes or bad luck with Raup supporting bad luck. Species die out for many reasons.


T-cells

DAVID: They are designed to be as responsive as you describe.

dhw: Thank you. Exit the theory that cells are only designed to obey instructions set out for them before changes are required (= pre-planning).

DAVID: I love your wishful thinking I've changed.

dhw: If organisms are designed to RESPOND to something new by making changes, as opposed to the changes being planned and made BEFORE the arrival of something new, it is obviously nonsense to say they have already been provided with the responses before the new situation arose! (See also "tomatoes" on the ID thread.)

Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]

DAVID: 'Common descent' is the result/appearance of God designing successive stages of life.

dhw: Common descent is the theory that every organism apart from the first descended from earlier organisms. It is not life that undergoes successive stages, but organisms. If you say your God created species “de novo” there can be no link with preceding organisms.

DAVID: We don't interpret de novo the same. I have been using it in the 'anew' sense, and see that is not strictly correct.

dhw: “De novo” does mean “anew” in the sense of starting all over again (repetition), and that is certainly not what you meant. Another meaning is doing something different right from the beginning, which again does not = common descent. I think you mean that your God took existing creatures and then modified them in different ways. Unfortunately, however, you keep seizing on the Cambrian and telling us that all those species came out of thin air and not out of antecedents. So you believe in common descent except when your God creates species out of thin air.

For Darwin and I the Cambrian is still out of thin air. The huge Chinese Ediacaran and Cambrian findings have simply made the gap sharper. Haven't you noticed what I present?

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 10:37 (974 days ago) @ David Turell

T-cells
DAVID: They are designed to be as responsive as you describe.

dhw: Thank you. Exit the theory that cells are only designed to obey instructions set out for them before changes are required (= pre-planning).

DAVID: I love your wishful thinking I've changed.

dhw: If organisms are designed to RESPOND to something new by making changes, as opposed to the changes being planned and made BEFORE the arrival of something new, it is obviously nonsense to say they have already been provided with the responses before the new situation arose! (See also "tomatoes" on the ID thread.)

DAVID: Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.

Thank you for this excellent summary of the process I have been describing. We are born with the protections already produced by our forebears, and we develop new responses to new threats. The only “design for future problems” is our ability to make new answers. That means the new answers are not preprogrammed or dabbled in advance – it is only the ability (i.e. intelligence) to provide new answers that is already provided (possibly by your God). At last you have cottoned on.

Immunity system complexity
"Scientists have long suspected that even cells that are not traditionally involved in the immune response have the rudimentary ability to remember prior insults and learn from experience.

Yet more evidence of cellular intelligence. It may be rudimentary by comparison with our own, but it is efficient enough to do the jobs for which it is required.

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
DAVID: We don't interpret de novo the same. I have been using it in the 'anew' sense, and see that is not strictly correct.

dhw: “De novo” does mean “anew” in the sense of starting all over again (repetition), and that is certainly not what you meant. Another meaning is doing something different right from the beginning, which again does not = common descent. I think you mean that your God took existing creatures and then modified them in different ways. Unfortunately, however, you keep seizing on the Cambrian and telling us that all those species came out of thin air and not out of antecedents. So you believe in common descent except when your God creates species out of thin air.

DAVID: For Darwin and I the Cambrian is still out of thin air. The huge Chinese Ediacaran and Cambrian findings have simply made the gap sharper. Haven't you noticed what I present?

Of course I have. And it presents the same problem for you as for Darwin. You say you believe in common descent, but you also believe in separate creation. Darwin suggests that the fossil record is incomplete, and you suggest that your God changes his policy and creates species out of thin air. I support the theory that the fossil record is incomplete, and add that the other argument used by Creationists (not enough time for these new species to evolve) becomes irrelevant if we accept the theory of cellular intelligence (which plays no part in Darwin’s thinking).

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 19:18 (974 days ago) @ dhw

T-cells

dhw: If organisms are designed to RESPOND to something new by making changes, as opposed to the changes being planned and made BEFORE the arrival of something new, it is obviously nonsense to say they have already been provided with the responses before the new situation arose! (See also "tomatoes" on the ID thread.)

DAVID: Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.

dhw: Thank you for this excellent summary of the process I have been describing. We are born with the protections already produced by our forebears, and we develop new responses to new threats. The only “design for future problems” is our ability to make new answers. That means the new answers are not preprogrammed or dabbled in advance – it is only the ability (i.e. intelligence) to provide new answers that is already provided (possibly by your God). At last you have cottoned on.

You are the cottoning one. Have you really recognized God's design for protection?


Immunity system complexity
"Scientists have long suspected that even cells that are not traditionally involved in the immune response have the rudimentary ability to remember prior insults and learn from experience.

dhw: Yet more evidence of cellular intelligence. It may be rudimentary by comparison with our own, but it is efficient enough to do the jobs for which it is required.

Yes, from information God implanted in them.


Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]

DAVID: For Darwin and I the Cambrian is still out of thin air. The huge Chinese Ediacaran and Cambrian findings have simply made the gap sharper. Haven't you noticed what I present?

dhw: Of course I have. And it presents the same problem for you as for Darwin. You say you believe in common descent, but you also believe in separate creation. Darwin suggests that the fossil record is incomplete, and you suggest that your God changes his policy and creates species out of thin air. I support the theory that the fossil record is incomplete, and add that the other argument used by Creationists (not enough time for these new species to evolve) becomes irrelevant if we accept the theory of cellular intelligence (which plays no part in Darwin’s thinking).

Your invention of thinking cell committees solves your problem but is no answer for the issues of complex design and great gaps in the fossil record. All of all of us recognize the gaps. That is why China shale locations are such hot spots for searching. So far nothing in 30 years of looking has narrowed the gap. The Edicarans that have been found never shown any inkling of the Cambrian complex animals. The gaps are your wishful thinking avoiding God.:-(

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, July 29, 2021, 07:26 (973 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If organisms are designed to RESPOND to something new by making changes, as opposed to the changes being planned and made BEFORE the arrival of something new, it is obviously nonsense to say they have already been provided with the responses before the new situation arose!

DAVID: Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.

dhw: Thank you for this excellent summary of the process I have been describing. […] At last you have cottoned on.

DAVID: You are the cottoning one. Have you really recognized God's design for protection?

Yes, you’ve just described it: we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God. Thank you for at last accepting the theory and for describing it so accurately... :-)

Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: "Scientists have long suspected that even cells that are not traditionally involved in the immune response have the rudimentary ability to remember prior insults and learn from experience.”

dhw: Yet more evidence of cellular intelligence. It may be rudimentary by comparison with our own, but it is efficient enough to do the jobs for which it is required.

DAVID: Yes, from information God implanted in them.

If they remember prior results,learn from experience, and use what they have remembered and learned, what information has your God “implanted” in them?

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
DAVID: For Darwin and I the Cambrian is still out of thin air.

dhw: I support the theory that the fossil record is incomplete, and add that the other argument used by Creationists (not enough time for these new species to evolve) becomes irrelevant if we accept the theory of cellular intelligence (which plays no part in Darwin’s thinking).

DAVID: Your invention of thinking cell committees solves your problem but is no answer for the issues of complex design and great gaps in the fossil record. […] The gaps are your wishful thinking avoiding God.

There is no avoidance of God if I propose cellular intelligence as the perhaps God-given instrument by means of which cells produce intelligent, complex designs. Gaps in the fossil record are inevitable over such vast periods

Earliest pre-Cambrian animals
QUOTE: "If sponges existed 890 million years ago, then the origin of animals must have occurred much earlier than previous fossils have suggested.

DAVID: Very simple early animals had to have a start in our past. Doesn't fill teh Cambrian gap.

I'm glad you accept that simple animals must have existed, even though no fossils have yet been found. Please note: the cell communities have just been given an extra 300 million years to design the new complexities.

Examples of Darwinist thinking
QUOTES: small single-celled organisms may have evolved into larger multicellular life forms to better propel themselves through icy waters.
How did life on Earth, which started off teeny-tiny, get so big?
"'Once organisms get big, they have a clear ecological advantage because the physics around how they capture food become totally different […] But the hard part for researchers has been explaining how they got big in the first place."

DAVID: …so the cells knew to join forces. Darwinist magical thinking.

I didn’t know Darwinists had officially embraced Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence. This is good news! Whether cells started cooperating for the reason given here is obviously a moot point, but the comments on multicellularity are right on target. The whole of evolution springs from the manner in which cells have combined and cooperated to create different life forms by designing different modes of survival. (Presumably you don’t think the bacterial swimmers were trying to survive.) I have no idea why you dismiss this as more “magical” than having an unknown, sourceless mind pop in and do a psychokinetic twiddle.

New extremophiles
QUOTE: "Organisms that use other sources of energy besides solar energy exist pretty much everywhere on the planet," said Caitlin Casar. […] "You can find them at the surface of the Earth, you can find them in soil, you can find them deep in the Earth's crust, you can find them at the bottom of the ocean, in the ocean's water column, in the air.

DAVID: Organisms can live anywhere they wish. Life was designed to appear and survive from the beginning. Only by design.

If they can live anywhere they wish, doesn’t that suggest to you a free-for-all? And doesn’t it suggest that, if your God exists, he actually designed cells in such a way that they could live and survive by autonomously adapting to whatever conditions they encountered and by solving whatever problems came their way? Or do you believe that each of them follows instructions/is given a divine course on how to extract energy from their own special surroundings, and on how to counter every other threat to their survival?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 29, 2021, 17:31 (973 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.

dhw: Thank you for this excellent summary of the process I have been describing. […] At last you have cottoned on.

Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.


DAVID: You are the cottoning one. Have you really recognized God's design for protection?

Yes, you’ve just described it: we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God. Thank you for at last accepting the theory and for describing it so accurately... :-)

The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: Yes, from information God implanted in them.

dhw: If they remember prior results,learn from experience, and use what they have remembered and learned, what information has your God “implanted” in them?

How to do the exactly what the bold asks. They learn from experience and respond appropriately by God's instructions.


Earliest pre-Cambrian animals
QUOTE: "If sponges existed 890 million years ago, then the origin of animals must have occurred much earlier than previous fossils have suggested.

DAVID: Very simple early animals had to have a start in our past. Doesn't fill the Cambrian gap.

dhw: I'm glad you accept that simple animals must have existed, even though no fossils have yet been found. Please note: the cell communities have just been given an extra 300 million years to design the new complexities.

The fossils are what I presented! The earliest animals. The time was always there.

New extremophiles
QUOTE: "Organisms that use other sources of energy besides solar energy exist pretty much everywhere on the planet," said Caitlin Casar. […] "You can find them at the surface of the Earth, you can find them in soil, you can find them deep in the Earth's crust, you can find them at the bottom of the ocean, in the ocean's water column, in the air.

DAVID: Organisms can live anywhere they wish. Life was designed to appear and survive from the beginning. Only by design.

dhw: If they can live anywhere they wish, doesn’t that suggest to you a free-for-all? And doesn’t it suggest that, if your God exists, he actually designed cells in such a way that they could live and survive by autonomously adapting to whatever conditions they encountered and by solving whatever problems came their way? Or do you believe that each of them follows instructions/is given a divine course on how to extract energy from their own special surroundings, and on how to counter every other threat to their survival?

God initially designed life to be as tough as these examples. Your bold is exactly right and then you backtrack. Of course I believe God gave them instructions on extracting energy in many ways.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, July 30, 2021, 14:26 (972 days ago) @ David Turell

Death is built in
DAVID: Makes my survival view quite clear.

Absolutely no connection with your survival view, which is that although all the adaptations and innovations and strategies and lifestyles are designed to enable organisms to survive, all the adaptations etc. that result in the evolution of species have nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: Death is built in for all life, although longevity varies. Of course all organisms have protective measures. It seems to me very short life spans would not allow for adaptive mechanism to have a role and then perhaps reduce the chances for evolution designs to appear from God. He may need a specific time table.

Of course death is “built in” – no materials survive forever in the same form! I have no idea why you think your God needs organisms to have a long life span, since according to you he pops in and does a dabble any time he wants. How long, then, do you reckon he needed to operate on pre-whale legs before those poor creatures finally entered the water?

Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: “Scientists have long suspected that even cells that are not traditionally involved in the immune response have the rudimentary ability to remember prior results and learn from experience."

dhw:: Yet more evidence of cellular intelligence. It may be rudimentary by comparison with our own, but is efficient enough to do the jobs for which it is required.

DAVID: Yes, from information God implanted in them.

dhw: If they remember prior results,learn from experience, and use what they have remembered and learned, what information has your God “implanted” in them?

DAVID: How to do the exactly what the bold asks. They learn from experience and respond appropriately by God's instructions.

WHAT instructions? What would be the point of them remembering and learning and using what they remember and have learned if God is going to come along anyway and tell them what to do? If he has provided them with the ABILITY to respond, then they will not need to be told what to do.

Earliest pre-Cambrian animals
QUOTE: "If sponges existed 890 million years ago, then the origin of animals must have occurred much earlier than previous fossils have suggested.”

DAVID: Very simple early animals had to have a start in our past. Doesn't fill the Cambrian gap.

dhw: I'm glad you accept that simple animals must have existed, even though no fossils have yet been found. Please note: the cell communities have just been given an extra 300 million years to design the new complexities.

DAVID: The fossils are what I presented! The earliest animals. The time was always there.

Yes indeed. You accept that there were animals which preceded the Cambrians, even though no fossils have been found.

Horseshoe crab
QUOTE: Our new fossil demonstrates arthropod brains can be preserved in an entirely different way. The specimen of the horseshoe crab, Euproops danae, comes from the world-famous Mazon Creek deposit of Illinois, in the US. Fossils from this deposit are preserved within concretions made of an iron carbonate mineral called siderite.
"Uncovering these exceptional specimens gives palaeontologists a rare glimpse into the deep past, enhancing our understanding of the biology and evolution of long-extinct animals. It seems Charles Darwin need not have been so pessimistic about the fossil record after all."

DAVID: see the pictures of comparison. Stasis, not an advance, can happen also. Modern fossil analysis techniques are far in advanced of what Darwin thought could be.

That is what he thought might happen, and indeed each miraculous new discovery – made in different parts of the world - confirms the continuity of evolution. This, of course, should not be taken to mean that evolution was a continuous line from bacteria to humans - unless you think humans are direct descendants of horseshoe crabs as well as brontosauruses.

New extremophiles
DAVID: Organisms can live anywhere they wish. Life was designed to appear and survive from the beginning. Only by design.

dhw: If they can live anywhere they wish, doesn’t that suggest to you a free-for-all? And doesn’t it suggest that, if your God exists, he actually designed cells in such a way that they could live and survive by autonomously adapting to whatever conditions they encountered and by solving whatever problems came their way? Or do you believe that each of them follows instructions/is given a divine course on how to extract energy from their own special surroundings, and on how to counter every other threat to their survival?

DAVID: God initially designed life to be as tough as these examples. Your bold is exactly right and then you backtrack. Of course I believe God gave them instructions on extracting energy in many ways.

Where is the backtrack? I have proposed (the bold) that your God, if he exists, designed cells to live and survive autonomously, you say that is exactly right, and then YOU backtrack by saying he gave them instructions on how to live and survive!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, July 30, 2021, 16:39 (972 days ago) @ dhw

Death is built in
DAVID: Makes my survival view quite clear.

dhw: Absolutely no connection with your survival view, which is that although all the adaptations and innovations and strategies and lifestyles are designed to enable organisms to survive, all the adaptations etc. that result in the evolution of species have nothing to do with survival.

We don't know that adaptations for survival drive evolution!!!!! Pure Darwinist unproven theory that survival of the fittest drives evolution.


Immunity system complexity

dhw: If they remember prior results, learn from experience, and use what they have remembered and learned, what information has your God “implanted” in them?

DAVID: How to do the exactly what the bold asks. They learn from experience and respond appropriately by God's instructions.

dhw: WHAT instructions? What would be the point of them remembering and learning and using what they remember and have learned if God is going to come along anyway and tell them what to do? If he has provided them with the ABILITY to respond, then they will not need to be told what to do.

Exactly. God's immunity instructions allow all of us to learn how to fight new infections from birth!!! mRNA covid vaccine shows it.


New extremophiles
DAVID: Organisms can live anywhere they wish. Life was designed to appear and survive from the beginning. Only by design.

dhw: If they can live anywhere they wish, doesn’t that suggest to you a free-for-all? And doesn’t it suggest that, if your God exists, he actually designed cells in such a way that they could live and survive by autonomously adapting to whatever conditions they encountered and by solving whatever problems came their way? Or do you believe that each of them follows instructions/is given a divine course on how to extract energy from their own special surroundings, and on how to counter every other threat to their survival?

DAVID: God initially designed life to be as tough as these examples. Your bold is exactly right and then you backtrack. Of course I believe God gave them instructions on extracting energy in many ways.

dhw: Where is the backtrack? I have proposed (the bold) that your God, if he exists, designed cells to live and survive autonomously, you say that is exactly right, and then YOU backtrack by saying he gave them instructions on how to live and survive!

We are discussing God's implanted instructions cells do not self-invent in order to live extremely. You won't accept them.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, July 31, 2021, 11:29 (971 days ago) @ David Turell

Death is built in
DAVID: Makes my survival view quite clear.

dhw: Absolutely no connection with your survival view, which is that although all the adaptations and innovations and strategies and lifestyles are designed to enable organisms to survive, all the adaptations etc. that result in the evolution of species have nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: We don't know that adaptations for survival drive evolution!!!!! Pure Darwinist unproven theory that survival of the fittest drives evolution.

Even you have accepted that your God designed adaptations, innovations, strategies, lifestyles etc. in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival. Since you claim to believe in common descent (except when you don’t), how then can you possibly argue that the adaptations and innovations which your God preprogrammes or dabbles and which lead to speciation (one life form changing into another) have no connection with the quest for survival? You don’t need to use the word “drive”. The purpose of the changes is survival, and the mechanism that implements the changes may be your God, and may be cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given). You and I have rejected Darwin’s random mutations.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: If they remember prior results, learn from experience, and use what they have remembered and learned, what information has your God “implanted” in them?

DAVID: How to do the exactly what the bold asks. They learn from experience and respond appropriately by God's instructions.

dhw: WHAT instructions? What would be the point of them remembering and learning and using what they remember and have learned if God is going to come along anyway and tell them what to do? If he has provided them with the ABILITY to respond, then they will not need to be told what to do.

DAVID: Exactly. God's immunity instructions allow all of us to learn how to fight new infections from birth!!! mRNA covid vaccine shows it.

WHAT instructions? Here is my theistic proposal: God has given cells the ABILITY to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the SOLUTIONS to all the problems. Do you agree?

New extremophiles
DAVID: Organisms can live anywhere they wish. Life was designed to appear and survive from the beginning. Only by design.

dhw: If they can live anywhere they wish, doesn’t that suggest to you a free-for-all? And doesn’t it suggest that, if your God exists, he actually designed cells in such a way that they could live and survive by autonomously adapting to whatever conditions they encountered and by solving whatever problems came their way? Or do you believe that each of them follows instructions/is given a divine course on how to extract energy from their own special surroundings, and on how to counter every other threat to their survival?

DAVID: God initially designed life to be as tough as these examples. Your bold is exactly right and then you backtrack. Of course I believe God gave them instructions on extracting energy in many ways.

dhw: Where is the backtrack? I have proposed (the bold) that your God, if he exists, designed cells to live and survive autonomously, you say that is exactly right, and then YOU backtrack by saying he gave them instructions on how to live and survive!

DAVID: We are discussing God's implanted instructions cells do not self-invent in order to live extremely. You won't accept them.

Same as above. God has given cells the ability to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the solutions to all the problems. Do you agree?

Caterpillar memory
DAVID: Wow!!! Memories carried to the butterfly form in the discs of genome. That wasn't designed by chance. Chance could not have logically developed metamorphosis. Only a designer.

I echo your wow, but for the life of me I cannot see why your God, whose only purpose was to design humans and their food, would have preprogrammed or personally dabbled this extraordinary – but obviously efficient – process of metamorphosis. It looks to me like living proof that all forms of life find their own special ways of surviving in a great-free-for-all possibly set in motion by a designer who gave them the means to do their own designing.

Larvae use virus for immunity
QUOTE: "Putting our research together created this very interesting story about the biological arms race occurring on a very large scale between multiple pathogens, wasps, and hosts, which we now know are also fighting back,” Theilmann says.

Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 31, 2021, 15:32 (971 days ago) @ dhw

Death is built in

DAVID: We don't know that adaptations for survival drive evolution!!!!! Pure Darwinist unproven theory that survival of the fittest drives evolution.

dhw: Even you have accepted that your God designed adaptations, innovations, strategies, lifestyles etc. in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival. Since you claim to believe in common descent (except when you don’t), how then can you possibly argue that the adaptations and innovations which your God preprogrammes or dabbles and which lead to speciation (one life form changing into another) have no connection with the quest for survival? You don’t need to use the word “drive”. The purpose of the changes is survival, and the mechanism that implements the changes may be your God, and may be cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given). You and I have rejected Darwin’s random mutations.

This is a non-answer. I also know life has survival mechanisms. I reject 'survival of the fittest' drives/advances evolution. How do you see evolution advanced?


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: Exactly. God's immunity instructions allow all of us to learn how to fight new infections from birth!!! mRNA covid vaccine shows it.

WHAT instructions? Here is my theistic proposal: God has given cells the ABILITY to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the SOLUTIONS to all the problems. Do you agree?

Word play. The instructions tell the cells how to recognize new invaders and then manufacture appropriate antibodies to fit onto the invading molecules to inactivate them. Of course God gave them this ability.


New extremophiles
DAVID: Organisms can live anywhere they wish. Life was designed to appear and survive from the beginning. Only by design.

dhw: If they can live anywhere they wish, doesn’t that suggest to you a free-for-all? And doesn’t it suggest that, if your God exists, he actually designed cells in such a way that they could live and survive by autonomously adapting to whatever conditions they encountered and by solving whatever problems came their way? Or do you believe that each of them follows instructions/is given a divine course on how to extract energy from their own special surroundings, and on how to counter every other threat to their survival?

DAVID: God initially designed life to be as tough as these examples. Your bold is exactly right and then you backtrack. Of course I believe God gave them instructions on extracting energy in many ways.

dhw: Where is the backtrack? I have proposed (the bold) that your God, if he exists, designed cells to live and survive autonomously, you say that is exactly right, and then YOU backtrack by saying he gave them instructions on how to live and survive!

DAVID: We are discussing God's implanted instructions cells do not self-invent in order to live extremely. You won't accept them.

dhw: Same as above. God has given cells the ability to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the solutions to all the problems. Do you agree?

Of course, unless you backtrack as before. God gives the cells the ability to have the proper responses.


Caterpillar memory
DAVID: Wow!!! Memories carried to the butterfly form in the discs of genome. That wasn't designed by chance. Chance could not have logically developed metamorphosis. Only a designer.

dhw: I echo your wow, but for the life of me I cannot see why your God, whose only purpose was to design humans and their food, would have preprogrammed or personally dabbled this extraordinary – but obviously efficient – process of metamorphosis. It looks to me like living proof that all forms of life find their own special ways of surviving in a great-free-for-all possibly set in motion by a designer who gave them the means to do their own designing.

At least you note the need for design from teh beginning.


Larvae use virus for immunity
QUOTE: "Putting our research together created this very interesting story about the biological arms race occurring on a very large scale between multiple pathogens, wasps, and hosts, which we now know are also fighting back,” Theilmann says.

dhw: Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.

Survival is not the way speciation happens. Survival is simply live and let live. That is the true 'survival of the fittest' meaning.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, August 01, 2021, 11:16 (970 days ago) @ David Turell

Death is built in
DAVID: We don't know that adaptations for survival drive evolution!!!!! Pure Darwinist unproven theory that survival of the fittest drives evolution.

dhw: Even you have accepted that your God designed adaptations, innovations, strategies, lifestyles etc. in order to improve organisms’ chances of survival. Since you claim to believe in common descent (except when you don’t), how then can you possibly argue that the adaptations and innovations which your God preprogrammes or dabbles and which lead to speciation (one life form changing into another) have no connection with the quest for survival? You don’t need to use the word “drive”. The purpose of the changes is survival, and the mechanism that implements the changes may be your God, and may be cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given). You and I have rejected Darwin’s random mutations.

DAVID: This is a non-answer. I also know life has survival mechanisms. I reject 'survival of the fittest' drives/advances evolution. How do you see evolution advanced?

Evolution advances when organisms find new ways to improve their chances of survival. Just like the adaptations we know of – when organisms (cell communities) make changes to themselves in order to retain their identity when faced with new conditions (e.g. fish coping with polluted waters) – more complex changes are also engineered by the cells when required (e.g. legs changing into flippers). In all cases, the purpose of the changes is survival. What you call the “drive” is the need for change to enable survival, and the changes are what “advance” evolution.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: God's immunity instructions allow all of us to learn how to fight new infections from birth!!! mRNA covid vaccine shows it.

dhw: WHAT instructions? Here is my theistic proposal: God has given cells the ABILITY to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the SOLUTIONS to all the problems. Do you agree?

DAVID: Word play. The instructions tell the cells how to recognize new invaders and then manufacture appropriate antibodies to fit onto the invading molecules to inactivate them. Of course God gave them this ability.

An ability is not the same as instructions. You have the ability to design your own house. God has not given you instructions on how to design your house. If you now agree that your God has given cells the autonomous ability to design appropriate antibodies, but does not give them instructions on how to construct each and every antibody, we can shake hands and duly apply the same distinction to evolution itself: cells have the autonomous ability to do their own designing. You believe that God gave them this ability, and I accept that possibility.

New extremophiles
dhw: Same as above. God has given cells the ability to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the solutions to all the problems. Do you agree?

DAVID: Of course, unless you backtrack as before. God gives the cells the ability to have the proper responses.

You will have to tell me where I have backtracked, since this is the proposal I have been putting forward for years (if we presume that your God exists). Thank you anyway for confirming your agreement that your God does NOT provide solutions in advance, but has only provided the ability to find solutions. In the hope that you will not “backtrack”, may I point out to you that the ABILITY to solve problems requires autonomous intelligence and does not depend on being giving precise instructions on how to solve every individual problem.

Caterpillar memory
DAVID: Wow!!! Memories carried to the butterfly form in the discs of genome. That wasn't designed by chance. Chance could not have logically developed metamorphosis. Only a designer.

dhw: I echo your wow, but for the life of me I cannot see why your God, whose only purpose was to design humans and their food, would have preprogrammed or personally dabbled this extraordinary – but obviously efficient – process of metamorphosis. It looks to me like living proof that all forms of life find their own special ways of surviving in a great-free-for-all possibly set in motion by a designer who gave them the means to do their own designing.

DAVID: At least you note the need for design from teh beginning.

Yes, of course. And you have agreed that cells/cell communities have the ABILITY to do their own designing. And I’m sure you will agree that this particular natural wonder is geared to the survival of the butterfly, and I’m sure you would rather I didn’t ask why God had to design this process of metamorphosis in order to design humans and their food.

Larvae use virus for immunity
dhw: Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.

DAVID: Survival is not the way speciation happens. Survival is simply live and let live. That is the true 'survival of the fittest' meaning.

The NEED for survival entails finding new ways of coping with changing conditions, and the new ways result in the anatomical changes that constitute speciation. See my post on ID.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 01, 2021, 16:25 (970 days ago) @ dhw

Death is built in

DAVID: This is a non-answer. I also know life has survival mechanisms. I reject 'survival of the fittest' drives/advances evolution. How do you see evolution advanced?

dhw: Evolution advances when organisms find new ways to improve their chances of survival. Just like the adaptations we know of – when organisms (cell communities) make changes to themselves in order to retain their identity when faced with new conditions (e.g. fish coping with polluted waters) – more complex changes are also engineered by the cells when required (e.g. legs changing into flippers). In all cases, the purpose of the changes is survival. What you call the “drive” is the need for change to enable survival, and the changes are what “advance” evolution.

The same empty survival of the fittest argument repeated. The 'drive' is God's designs of new advanced species as in whale series.


Immunity system complexity

dhw: WHAT instructions? Here is my theistic proposal: God has given cells the ABILITY to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the SOLUTIONS to all the problems. Do you agree?

DAVID: Word play. The instructions tell the cells how to recognize new invaders and then manufacture appropriate antibodies to fit onto the invading molecules to inactivate them. Of course God gave them this ability.

dhw: An ability is not the same as instructions. You have the ability to design your own house. God has not given you instructions on how to design your house. If you now agree that your God has given cells the autonomous ability to design appropriate antibodies, but does not give them instructions on how to construct each and every antibody, we can shake hands and duly apply the same distinction to evolution itself: cells have the autonomous ability to do their own designing. You believe that God gave them this ability, and I accept that possibility.

More word play. By 'ability' I mean instructive mechanisms in recognition and response by teh cells..


New extremophiles
dhw: Same as above. God has given cells the ability to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the solutions to all the problems. Do you agree?

DAVID: Of course, unless you backtrack as before. God gives the cells the ability to have the proper responses.

You will have to tell me where I have backtracked, since this is the proposal I have been putting forward for years (if we presume that your God exists). Thank you anyway for confirming your agreement that your God does NOT provide solutions in advance, but has only provided the ability to find solutions. In the hope that you will not “backtrack”, may I point out to you that the ABILITY to solve problems requires autonomous intelligence and does not depend on being giving precise instructions on how to solve every individual problem.

As above God provides cells with complete mechanisms or recognition and response,.


Caterpillar memory

DAVID: At least you note the need for design from the beginning.

dhw: Yes, of course. And you have agreed that cells/cell communities have the ABILITY to do their own designing.

That is your misinterpretation of my theories.


Larvae use virus for immunity
dhw: Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.

DAVID: Survival is not the way speciation happens. Survival is simply live and let live. That is the true 'survival of the fittest' meaning.

dhw: The NEED for survival entails finding new ways of coping with changing conditions, and the new ways result in the anatomical changes that constitute speciation. See my post on ID.

Same repeated feeble survival of the fittest.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, August 02, 2021, 10:37 (969 days ago) @ David Turell

Death is built in
dhw: What you call the “drive” is the need for change to enable survival, and the changes are what “advance” evolution.

DAVID: The same empty survival of the fittest argument repeated. The 'drive' is God's designs of new advanced species as in whale series.

Please explain why you think your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: WHAT instructions? Here is my theistic proposal: God has given cells the ABILITY to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the SOLUTIONS to all the problems. Do you agree?

DAVID: Word play. The instructions tell the cells how to recognize new invaders and then manufacture appropriate antibodies to fit onto the invading molecules to inactivate them. Of course God gave them this ability.

dhw: An ability is not the same as instructions. You have the ability to design your own house. God has not given you instructions on how to design your house. If you now agree that your God has given cells the autonomous ability to design appropriate antibodies, but does not give them instructions on how to construct each and every antibody, we can shake hands and duly apply the same distinction to evolution itself: cells have the autonomous ability to do their own designing. You believe that God gave them this ability, and I accept that possibility.

DAVID: More word play. By 'ability' I mean instructive mechanisms in recognition and response by the cells..

What is an “instructive mechanism”? The ability to recognize a problem and to respond by solving it is the polar opposite of being provided with instructions on how to solve each individual problem. Please stop obfuscating.

New extremophiles
dhw: Same as above. God has given cells the ability to solve problems. God has NOT given cells the solutions to all the problems. Do you agree?

DAVID: Of course, unless you backtrack as before. God gives the cells the ability to have the proper responses.

You will have to tell me where I have backtracked, since this is the proposal I have been putting forward for years (if we presume that your God exists). Thank you anyway for confirming your agreement that your God does NOT provide solutions in advance, but has only provided the ability to find solutions. In the hope that you will not “backtrack”, may I point out to you that the ABILITY to solve problems requires autonomous intelligence and does not depend on being giving precise instructions on how to solve every individual problem.

DAVID: As above God provides cells with complete mechanisms or recognition and response.

I presume “or” is meant to be “of”, and yes, the mechanisms enabling recognition and response are what give cells the ABILITY to recognize and solve problems. As above, being able to recognize and solve problems is the exact opposite of being provided with instructions on how to solve each individual problem.

Caterpillar memory
DAVID: At least you note the need for design from the beginning.

dhw: Yes, of course. And you have agreed that cells/cell communities have the ABILITY to do their own designing.

DAVID: That is your misinterpretation of my theories.

You agree that they have the mechanisms for recognizing and responding, and the response is a designed mode of survival, so what have I misinterpreted?

Larvae use virus for immunity
dhw: Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.[…]

DAVID: Same repeated feeble survival of the fittest.

I don’t know why you think this repetition, accompanied by the word “feeble”, somehow invalidates the theory that organisms adapt and innovate in order to improve their chances of survival, and those which fail to master new conditions fail to survive. The same principle would apply even if your God did the designing. As I have asked above, why else would he have changed legs into flippers?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, August 02, 2021, 16:13 (969 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: More word play. By 'ability' I mean instructive mechanisms in recognition and response by the cells..

dhw: What is an “instructive mechanism”? The ability to recognize a problem and to respond by solving it is the polar opposite of being provided with instructions on how to solve each individual problem. Please stop obfuscating.

Once again, on the outside looking in, cells following instructions look as though they are innately intelligent. Our usual difference.


New extremophiles

DAVID: As above God provides cells with complete mechanisms of recognition and response.

dhw: yes, the mechanisms enabling recognition and response are what give cells the ABILITY to recognize and solve problems. As above, being able to recognize and solve problems is the exact opposite of being provided with instructions on how to solve each individual problem.

Same difference ininterpretation


Caterpillar memory
DAVID: At least you note the need for design from the beginning.

dhw: Yes, of course. And you have agreed that cells/cell communities have the ABILITY to do their own designing.

DAVID: That is your misinterpretation of my theories.

dhw: You agree that they have the mechanisms for recognizing and responding, and the response is a designed mode of survival, so what have I misinterpreted?

You implied cells design for speciation. They design minor adaptations only.


Larvae use virus for immunity
dhw: Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.[…]

DAVID: Same repeated feeble survival of the fittest.

dhw: I don’t know why you think this repetition, accompanied by the word “feeble”, somehow invalidates the theory that organisms adapt and innovate in order to improve their chances of survival, and those which fail to master new conditions fail to survive. The same principle would apply even if your God did the designing. As I have asked above, why else would he have changed legs into flippers?

God obviously knew flippers were a requirement.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, August 03, 2021, 10:34 (968 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: More word play. By 'ability' I mean instructive mechanisms in recognition and response by the cells..

dhw: What is an “instructive mechanism”? The ability to recognize a problem and to respond by solving it is the polar opposite of being provided with instructions on how to solve each individual problem. Please stop obfuscating.

DAVID: Once again, on the outside looking in, cells following instructions look as though they are innately intelligent. Our usual difference.

Your usual desperate backtracking. You wrote: “..we are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problems by making new answers de novo.

How can “we create new answers de novo” possibly mean we obey instructions already planted in us by your God?

New extremophiles
DAVID: As above God provides cells with complete mechanisms of recognition and response.

dhw: yes, the mechanisms enabling recognition and response are what give cells the ABILITY to recognize and solve problems. As above, being able to recognize and solve problems is the exact opposite of being provided with instructions on how to solve each individual problem.

DAVID: Same difference in interpretation.

Same refusal to accept your own statement that God gave cells “complete mechanisms of recognition and response” which constitute what, in another quote, scientists call “the rudimentary ability to remember prior results and learn from experience”. All these abilities enable cells to “create the answers de novo”. Remembering, learning and then creating de novo do not mean following instructions.

Caterpillar memory
DAVID: At least you note the need for design from the beginning.

dhw: Yes, of course. And you have agreed that cells/cell communities have the ABILITY to do their own designing.

DAVID: That is your misinterpretation of my theories.

dhw: You agree that they have the mechanisms for recognizing and responding, and the response is a designed mode of survival, so what have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: You implied cells design for speciation. They design minor adaptations only.

I imply that just as we know cells can change themselves for minor adaptations, it is perfectly feasible to argue that the same mechanisms for recognizing and responding, and the ability to create answers de novo, could produce the major changes which lead to speciation.

Larvae use virus for immunity
dhw: Another wonderful example of the gigantic free-for-all, as all life forms struggle to find their own ways of survival. It’s half the story of evolution – the other half being cooperation for exactly the same purpose of survival. And yet some people can’t see the connection between evolution and the quest for survival.[…]

DAVID: Same repeated feeble survival of the fittest.

dhw: I don’t know why you think this repetition, accompanied by the word “feeble”, somehow invalidates the theory that organisms adapt and innovate in order to improve their chances of survival, and those which fail to master new conditions fail to survive. The same principle would apply even if your God did the designing. As I have asked above, why else would he have changed legs into flippers?

DAVID: God obviously knew flippers were a requirement.

A requirement for what, if not for improving their chances of survival?

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
Quote: The ganglion cell ultimately collects the incoming information from the bipolar cells and encodes it in signals that provides the brain with information about the motion of the object. With information from many thousands of these ganglion cells about the path of the object, the brain can then quickly predict its trajectory.

Yet another example of the ways in which cells gather information and send it to the brain cells, which process the information and make their decisions. We are a community of cell communities, all working in harmony with one another, much like my favourite analogy, the ant colony. Where does the guiding intelligence/consciousness come from? The term “swarm intelligence” comes to mind in the context of this analogy – following the line that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But of course that does not exclude the possibility of God as the original designer of cellular intelligence.

QUOTE: It's an ability so important to survival that evolution has hardwired it into our nervous system.'"

David doesn’t believe in the quest for survival as a determining factor for evolutionary innovation. And he doesn’t believe that it is natural that something important for survival should itself survive.

DAVID: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process.

How massive is massive? It is perfectly possible that a nerve’s rudimentary sensitivity to light should be advantageous, and that in time, increased sensitivity should prove even more advantageous. Even now, different animals have different degrees of vision, hearing and smell. Do you think your God kept stepping in to adjust them all?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 03, 2021, 17:44 (968 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again, on the outside looking in, cells following instructions look as though they are innately intelligent. Our usual difference.

dhw: Your usual desperate backtracking. You wrote: “..we are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problems by making new answers de novo.

dhw: How can “we create new answers de novo” possibly mean we obey instructions already planted in us by your God?

New antibodies to new threats are made by following instructions that exist from birth


New extremophiles

DAVID: Same difference in interpretation.

dhw: Same refusal to accept your own statement that God gave cells “complete mechanisms of recognition and response” which constitute what, in another quote, scientists call “the rudimentary ability to remember prior results and learn from experience”. All these abilities enable cells to “create the answers de novo”. Remembering, learning and then creating de novo do not mean following instructions.

In my mind that is exactly what I mean. Our cells can make entirely new antibodies following instructions

Larvae use virus for immunity

DAVID: God obviously knew flippers were a requirement.

dhw: A requirement for what, if not for improving their chances of survival?

Helping survival doesn't advance speciation


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
Quote: The ganglion cell ultimately collects the incoming information from the bipolar cells and encodes it in signals that provides the brain with information about the motion of the object. With information from many thousands of these ganglion cells about the path of the object, the brain can then quickly predict its trajectory.

dhw: Yet another example of the ways in which cells gather information and send it to the brain cells, which process the information and make their decisions. We are a community of cell communities, all working in harmony with one another, much like my favourite analogy, the ant colony. Where does the guiding intelligence/consciousness come from? The term “swarm intelligence” comes to mind in the context of this analogy – following the line that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But of course that does not exclude the possibility of God as the original designer of cellular intelligence.

This deseign requires lots more than cells thinking. My comment was ignored: "Comment: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process."


QUOTE: It's an ability so important to survival that evolution has hardwired it into our nervous system.'"

dhw: David doesn’t believe in the quest for survival as a determining factor for evolutionary innovation. And he doesn’t believe that it is natural that something important for survival should itself survive.

Survival is important in and of itself. It doesn't create speciation.


DAVID: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process.

dhw: How massive is massive? It is perfectly possible that a nerve’s rudimentary sensitivity to light should be advantageous, and that in time, increased sensitivity should prove even more advantageous. Even now, different animals have different degrees of vision, hearing and smell. Do you think your God kept stepping in to adjust them all?

Pure Darwinist think. The fossil record does not how gradualism, remember?

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, August 04, 2021, 09:12 (967 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again, on the outside looking in, cells following instructions look as though they are innately intelligent. Our usual difference.

dhw: Your usual desperate backtracking. You wrote: “..we are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problems by making new answers de novo.” […] How can “we create new answers de novo” possibly mean we obey instructions already planted in us by your God?

DAVID: New antibodies to new threats are made by following instructions that exist from birth.

Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

Larvae use virus for immunity
DAVID: God obviously knew flippers were a requirement.

dhw: A requirement for what, if not for improving their chances of survival?

DAVID: Helping survival doesn't advance speciation.

So you agree that legs changing to flippers helped pre-whales to survive, but apparently legs changing to flippers do not advance speciation! The same argument, then, for every adaptation/innovation that “helped survival”. If speciation happens when parts of the body are changed, and if the changes help those organisms to survive, how can you possibly believe that “helping survival doesn’t advance speciation”?

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: Yet another example of the ways in which cells gather information and send it to the brain cells, which process the information and make their decisions. We are a community of cell communities, all working in harmony with one another, much like my favourite analogy, the ant colony. Where does the guiding intelligence/consciousness come from? The term “swarm intelligence” comes to mind in the context of this analogy – following the line that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But of course that does not exclude the possibility of God as the original designer of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: This design requires lots more than cells thinking.

Many people (materialists) believe that thinking cells have produced cities and computers and rockets to the moon. They may be wrong, but you might also be wrong.

DAVID: My comment was ignored: "Comment: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process."

It was not ignored. You quoted my answer, and commented on it:
dhw: How massive is massive? It is perfectly possible that a nerve’s rudimentary sensitivity to light should be advantageous, and that in time, increased sensitivity should prove even more advantageous. Even now, different animals have different degrees of vision, hearing and smell. Do you think your God kept stepping in to adjust them all?

DAVID: Pure Darwinist think. The fossil record does not how gradualism, remember?

That is why I asked how massive is massive? We have no idea how long it would have taken the dog to develop its extraordinary sense of smell. But it is totally absurd to expect to find fossils of every single stage of dog-nose development. Now please answer my question – do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 04, 2021, 16:37 (967 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: New antibodies to new threats are made by following instructions that exist from birth.

dhw: Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!


Larvae use virus for immunity
DAVID: God obviously knew flippers were a requirement.

dhw: A requirement for what, if not for improving their chances of survival?

DAVID: Helping survival doesn't advance speciation.

dhw: So you agree that legs changing to flippers helped pre-whales to survive, but apparently legs changing to flippers do not advance speciation! The same argument, then, for every adaptation/innovation that “helped survival”. If speciation happens when parts of the body are changed, and if the changes help those organisms to survive, how can you possibly believe that “helping survival doesn’t advance speciation”?

Interesting word game. God obviously makes flippers as part of a new species, built for survival. Survival of the fittest did not make a new species, God did..


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

DAVID: My comment was ignored: "Comment: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process."

It was not ignored. You quoted my answer, and commented on it:
dhw: How massive is massive? It is perfectly possible that a nerve’s rudimentary sensitivity to light should be advantageous, and that in time, increased sensitivity should prove even more advantageous. Even now, different animals have different degrees of vision, hearing and smell. Do you think your God kept stepping in to adjust them all?

DAVID: Pure Darwinist think. The fossil record does not how gradualism, remember?

dhw: That is why I asked how massive is massive? We have no idea how long it would have taken the dog to develop its extraordinary sense of smell. But it is totally absurd to expect to find fossils of every single stage of dog-nose development. Now please answer my question – do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?

Design means a complex plan is formed all at once, and cannot be stepwise.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, August 05, 2021, 11:32 (966 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: New antibodies to new threats are made by following instructions that exist from birth.

dhw: Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

DAVID: You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

And now at last it seems that you’ve got it too. Your God did NOT plant instructions for every new antibody, which can only mean that cells have the autonomous ability to process new information, make decisions and create new antibodies without any intervention from him. If cells have the autonomous ability to do so, then they have the autonomous ability to recognize changing conditions and to respond by creating changes within themselves – and that is what Shapiro regards as the process by which evolution works: cells are intelligent beings that do their own designing. I’m delighted that you’ve got it!!! CELLS HAVE THE AUTONOMOUS ABILITY TO CHANGE THEMSELVES IN RESPONSE TO NEW CONDITIONS, WITH NO INTERVENTION FROM YOUR GOD. Please don’t backtrack. If you do, I shall quote you.

Larvae use virus for immunity
DAVID: God obviously knew flippers were a requirement.

dhw: A requirement for what, if not for improving their chances of survival?

DAVID: Helping survival doesn't advance speciation.

dhw: So you agree that legs changing to flippers helped pre-whales to survive, but apparently legs changing to flippers do not advance speciation! The same argument, then, for every adaptation/innovation that “helped survival”. If speciation happens when parts of the body are changed, and if the changes help those organisms to survive, how can you possibly believe that “helping survival doesn’t advance speciation”?

DAVID: Interesting word game. God obviously makes flippers as part of a new species, built for survival. Survival of the fittest did not make a new species, God did..

It is you who are playing word games. A purpose doesn’t “make” anything! The purpose of the flippers was to improve the animal’s chances of survival. This and other such changes caused speciation. It is absurd to argue that the purpose of a change is not the reason for the change. Speciation happens because life forms change in the quest for survival, whether God makes the changes or the cells do it themselves.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: We have no idea how long it would have taken the dog to develop its extraordinary sense of smell. But it is totally absurd to expect to find fossils of every single stage of dog-nose development. Now please answer my question – do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?

DAVID: Design means a complex plan is formed all at once, and cannot be stepwise.

You are tying yourself in knots. According to you, your God spent 3.8 billion years changing simple bacteria step by step into complex humans (not to mention all the other steps as he specially designed every other branch of life that had nothing to do with humans).

Balance of nature: importance of ecosystems
DAVID: when humans change the top predator by bringing in foreign animals, the ecosystem falls part. The giant bush of life is made of of many thousand such systems, which should not be disturbed.

You are so right. Humans are the most destructive of all animals, and we are currently in the process of destroying both our environment and ourselves.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 05, 2021, 22:31 (966 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: And now at last it seems that you’ve got it too. Your God did NOT plant instructions for every new antibody, which can only mean that cells have the autonomous ability to process new information, make decisions and create new antibodies without any intervention from him.

No. God gave the cells the ability to recognize invading foreign proteins, and add to them a poisoning addition to kill them. The cells are fully programmed to do this.

dhw: Please don’t backtrack. If you do, I shall quote you.

You deliberately changed your version again. My initial response above was to see if you would weasel out of your initial remarks. I'm still with God's programming cells recognition and response, as described above.


dhw: So you agree that legs changing to flippers helped pre-whales to survive, but apparently legs changing to flippers do not advance speciation! The same argument, then, for every adaptation/innovation that “helped survival”. If speciation happens when parts of the body are changed, and if the changes help those organisms to survive, how can you possibly believe that “helping survival doesn’t advance speciation”?

DAVID: Interesting word game. God obviously makes flippers as part of a new species, built for survival. Survival of the fittest did not make a new species, God did..

dhw: It is you who are playing word games. A purpose doesn’t “make” anything! The purpose of the flippers was to improve the animal’s chances of survival. This and other such changes caused speciation. It is absurd to argue that the purpose of a change is not the reason for the change. Speciation happens because life forms change in the quest for survival, whether God makes the changes or the cells do it themselves.

The bold is your usual scurry back to pure unproven Darwinism. Living creatures like living and try to survive. That is all the quest for survival can tell us about evolution..


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: We have no idea how long it would have taken the dog to develop its extraordinary sense of smell. But it is totally absurd to expect to find fossils of every single stage of dog-nose development. Now please answer my question – do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?

DAVID: Design means a complex plan is formed all at once, and cannot be stepwise.

dhw: You are tying yourself in knots. According to you, your God spent 3.8 billion years changing simple bacteria step by step into complex humans (not to mention all the other steps as he specially designed every other branch of life that had nothing to do with humans).

Dragging in the wrong response, as usual. Please discuss the meaning of design for the future, the point of my comment.


Balance of nature: importance of ecosystems
DAVID: when humans change the top predator by bringing in foreign animals, the ecosystem falls part. The giant bush of life is made of of many thousand such systems, which should not be disturbed.

dhw: You are so right. Humans are the most destructive of all animals, and we are currently in the process of destroying both our environment and ourselves.

And some of us elect the stupid politicians who are doing it. But I might add, trying to change the current natural environmental responses is trying to change Mother Nature. Impossible

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, August 06, 2021, 11:32 (965 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

DAVID: You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: And now at last it seems that you’ve got it too. Your God did NOT plant instructions for every new antibody, which can only mean that cells have the autonomous ability to process new information, make decisions and create new antibodies without any intervention from him.

DAVID: No. God gave the cells the ability to recognize invading foreign proteins, and add to them a poisoning addition to kill them. The cells are fully programmed to do this.

A programme = planted instructions. The ability to recognize each new threat and to respond by creating new antibodies de novo without any intervention from God does not mean following God’s instructions. I guessed you would backtrack. But substituting “programme” for instructions will not change your acknowledgement that cells have the autonomous ability (no intervention from God) to recognize and respond, creating NEW antibodies.

DAVID: You deliberately changed your version again. My initial response above was to see if you would weasel out of your initial remarks. I'm still with God's programming cells recognition and response, as described above.

What “weasel”? You have agreed that your God did NOT plant instructions (the first alternative) but that he gave cells the ability to come up with their own solutions (second alternative). This ability is the exact opposite of your God programming their responses. And of course it opens the door to the theory that cells have the autonomous ability to respond more generally to new conditions, and make changes to themselves through the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation. That no doubt is why you are now backtracking.

DAVID: God obviously makes flippers as part of a new species, built for survival. Survival of the fittest did not make a new species, God did..

dhw: It is you who are playing word games. A purpose doesn’t “make” anything! The purpose of the flippers was to improve the animal’s chances of survival. This and other such changes caused speciation. It is absurd to argue that the purpose of a change is not the reason for the change. Speciation happens because life forms change in the quest for survival, whether God makes the changes or the cells do it themselves.

DAVID: The bold is your usual scurry back to pure unproven Darwinism. Living creatures like living and try to survive. That is all the quest for survival can tell us about evolution.

Their efforts to survive lead to the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation. Speciation IS evolution.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: We have no idea how long it would have taken the dog to develop its extraordinary sense of smell. But it is totally absurd to expect to find fossils of every single stage of dog-nose development. Now please answer my question – do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?

DAVID: Design means a complex plan is formed all at once, and cannot be stepwise.

dhw: You are tying yourself in knots. According to you, your God spent 3.8 billion years changing simple bacteria step by step into complex humans (not to mention all the other steps as he specially designed every other branch of life that had nothing to do with humans).

DAVID: Dragging in the wrong response, as usual. Please discuss the meaning of design for the future, the point of my comment.

According to you, your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every step in the evolution of all species. How does this come to mean “a complex plan cannot be stepwise”? The point of your original comment was that if retinal design “required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process”. Hence my reply at the top of this entry on retinal design, and my now bolded question concerning degrees of vision etc. Do please answer it.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, August 06, 2021, 21:40 (965 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And now at last it seems that you’ve got it too. Your God did NOT plant instructions for every new antibody, which can only mean that cells have the autonomous ability to process new information, make decisions and create new antibodies without any intervention from him.

DAVID: No. God gave the cells the ability to recognize invading foreign proteins, and add to them a poisoning addition to kill them. The cells are fully programmed to do this.

dhw: A programme = planted instructions. The ability to recognize each new threat and to respond by creating new antibodies de novo without any intervention from God does not mean following God’s instructions. I guessed you would backtrack. But substituting “programme” for instructions will not change your acknowledgement that cells have the autonomous ability (no intervention from God) to recognize and respond, creating NEW antibodies.

All you have to make it correct above is agree that the cells abilities ere programmed by God.


DAVID: God obviously makes flippers as part of a new species, built for survival. Survival of the fittest did not make a new species, God did..

dhw: It is you who are playing word games. A purpose doesn’t “make” anything! The purpose of the flippers was to improve the animal’s chances of survival. This and other such changes caused speciation. It is absurd to argue that the purpose of a change is not the reason for the change. Speciation happens because life forms change in the quest for survival, whether God makes the changes or the cells do it themselves.

DAVID: The bold is your usual scurry back to pure unproven Darwinism. Living creatures like living and try to survive. That is all the quest for survival can tell us about evolution.

dhw: Their efforts to survive lead to the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation. Speciation IS evolution.

Pure unadulterated Darwinism again. Modifications by existing organisms leading to speciation is pure unproven theory.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: We have no idea how long it would have taken the dog to develop its extraordinary sense of smell. But it is totally absurd to expect to find fossils of every single stage of dog-nose development. Now please answer my question – do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?

DAVID: Design means a complex plan is formed all at once, and cannot be stepwise.

dhw: You are tying yourself in knots. According to you, your God spent 3.8 billion years changing simple bacteria step by step into complex humans (not to mention all the other steps as he specially designed every other branch of life that had nothing to do with humans).

DAVID: Dragging in the wrong response, as usual. Please discuss the meaning of design for the future, the point of my comment.

dhw: According to you, your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every step in the evolution of all species. How does this come to mean “a complex plan cannot be stepwise”? The point of your original comment was that if retinal design “required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process”. Hence my reply at the top of this entry on retinal design, and my now bolded question concerning degrees of vision etc. Do please answer it.

Your bold asks how God did the designs, and I have constantly instructed you in understanding how designers look at future uses and needs and do complete designs to fit those requirements. Not Darwinism 'bit by bit' but the opposite approach of all at once.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, August 07, 2021, 13:09 (964 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And now at last it seems that you’ve got it too. Your God did NOT plant instructions for every new antibody, which can only mean that cells have the autonomous ability to process new information, make decisions and create new antibodies without any intervention from him.

DAVID: No. God gave the cells the ability to recognize invading foreign proteins, and add to them a poisoning addition to kill them. The cells are fully programmed to do this.

dhw: A programme = planted instructions. The ability to recognize each new threat and to respond by creating new antibodies de novo without any intervention from God does not mean following God’s instructions. I guessed you would backtrack. But substituting “programme” for instructions will not change your acknowledgement that cells have the autonomous ability (no intervention from God) to recognize and respond, creating NEW antibodies.

DAVID: All you have to make it correct above is agree that the cells abilities ere programmed by God.

If by this you mean that your God designed the ability of cells to respond to new conditions by autonomously designing their own solutions to the new problems, then I will happily agree to this possibility, as the theory has always allowed for God as the designer of this ability. You have already agreed that your God did not provide explicit instructions for every new solution to every new problem, and so there is no alternative anyway.

dhw: It is absurd to argue that the purpose of a change is not the reason for the change. Speciation happens because life forms change in the quest for survival, whether God makes the changes or the cells do it themselves.

DAVID: The bold is your usual scurry back to pure unproven Darwinism. Living creatures like living and try to survive. That is all the quest for survival can tell us about evolution.

dhw: Their efforts to survive lead to the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation. Speciation IS evolution.

DAVID: Pure unadulterated Darwinism again. Modifications by existing organisms leading to speciation is pure unproven theory.

Speciation by definition means that one life form changes into another life form. What is “pure unproven theory” is how it happens. As for improving chances of survival, what other purpose could there be for land-based legs to change or be changed into flippers? Once more, it is absurd to argue that the changes which result in speciation are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival, but improving chances of survival has no connection with speciation.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

dhw: According to you, your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every step in the evolution of all species. How does this come to mean “a complex plan cannot be stepwise”? The point of your original comment was that if retinal design “required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process”. Hence my reply at the top of this entry on retinal design, and my now bolded question concerning degrees of vision etc. –[ do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?] Do please answer it.

DAVID: Your bold asks how God did the designs, and I have constantly instructed you in understanding how designers look at future uses and needs and do complete designs to fit those requirements. Not Darwinism 'bit by bit' but the opposite approach of all at once.

You have constantly dodged from all at once to step by step. Your “instruction” concerning future design boiled down to the fact that when you designed your house, you took into consideration what changes might be made to it later. Hardly comparable to the question of why and how speciation takes place. You argue that your God changes organisms in advance of the need for change. I argue that changes take place in response to current needs. Example: your God changes legs to flippers in before pre-whales enter the water. My theory is that legs change into flippers after pre-whales enter the water, i.e. in response to the new requirements. (Your God may have given them the ability to make such changes – (see the ID thread).

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, August 07, 2021, 13:16 (964 days ago) @ dhw

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Humans are slowly learning to edit genome metabolic errors. The complexity of the genome is mind-boggling, showing us a designer is required
Back to theodicy: banishing bad bacteria
DAVID: humans can solve the bad bacteria problems that challenge human food supplies. Most E. coli are 'good' in human gut biomes, but as with the human population, 'bad' ones also exist.

I have no idea why you have included this under “Back to theodicy”. But presumably the implication is that humans are left to undo the harm caused by your God’s designs.

Consciousness and other science mysteries
Quote: "As thukdam researchers continue to seek a signal of post-mortem consciousness of some sort, it's fair to ask what — and where — consciousness is in the first place. It is a question with which Big Think readers are familiar. We write about new theories all the time: consciousness happens on a quantum level; consciousness is everywhere."

DAVID: It seems the body maintains some control over bacteria that can decompose, while the brain has ceased activity. The decomposing bugs are in the gut, and generally once the heart stops pumping, immunity defense disappears. A real puzzle.

It certainly is. I don’t know what the researchers are hoping to prove. If there are no signs of consciousness, it can mean that consciousness dies when the cells die (materialism), or the soul has departed (dualism). If there are signs, either the cells are still producing consciousness, or the soul is still hanging around.

My computer keeps breaking down. If I don't reply in the next day or two, it will mean that my computer has died - though probably not gone to heaven.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 07, 2021, 17:03 (964 days ago) @ dhw

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Humans are slowly learning to edit genome metabolic errors. The complexity of the genome is mind-boggling, showing us a designer is required
Back to theodicy: banishing bad bacteria
DAVID: humans can solve the bad bacteria problems that challenge human food supplies. Most E. coli are 'good' in human gut biomes, but as with the human population, 'bad' ones also exist.

dhw: I have no idea why you have included this under “Back to theodicy”. But presumably the implication is that humans are left to undo the harm caused by your God’s designs.

Exactly


Consciousness and other science mysteries
Quote: "As thukdam researchers continue to seek a signal of post-mortem consciousness of some sort, it's fair to ask what — and where — consciousness is in the first place. It is a question with which Big Think readers are familiar. We write about new theories all the time: consciousness happens on a quantum level; consciousness is everywhere."

DAVID: It seems the body maintains some control over bacteria that can decompose, while the brain has ceased activity. The decomposing bugs are in the gut, and generally once the heart stops pumping, immunity defense disappears. A real puzzle.

dhw: It certainly is. I don’t know what the researchers are hoping to prove. If there are no signs of consciousness, it can mean that consciousness dies when the cells die (materialism), or the soul has departed (dualism). If there are signs, either the cells are still producing consciousness, or the soul is still hanging around.

Or, the monk's immune systems are controlling the bad GUT bugs from getting out to start decomposition.


dhw: My computer keeps breaking down. If I don't reply in the next day or two, it will mean that my computer has died - though probably not gone to heaven.

I doubt my prayers can help, but I wish your computer well or I can bless the new one

On another subject, I have Neil Thomas Taking Leave of Darwin. The first 70 pages are an erudite (and for me boring) recitation of the history and criticisms of Darwin's theory. The only mistake I found was to attribute to Arthur Russel Wallace full support of natural selection, whereas he fully supported God as designer. Now Thomas' reasoning can appear, I hope.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, August 08, 2021, 08:24 (963 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I view God's standardized instructions as allowing the immune cells to respond as necessary to each new invasion/infection.

I don’t know what you mean by “standardized instructions”. As you will have gathered by now, I like language to be clear. Please say whether you accept the following theistic theory: your God gave cells the autonomous ability to recognize and respond to new problems by designing their own solutions.

dhw: […] it is absurd to argue that the changes which result in speciation are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival, but improving chances of survival has no connection with speciation.

DAVID: […] That organisms survive does not create speciation.

Of course their survival does not create anything! The fact that they survive is due to the fact that they have changed in response to new conditions. It is changes in organisms that “create” speciation. And if the reason for those changes is to enable them to survive, then speciation is the result of their trying to improve their chances of survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that improving chances of survival has no connection with speciation.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: The point of your original comment was that if retinal design “required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process”. Hence […] my now bolded question concerning degrees of vision etc. –[do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?]

dhw: […] You argue that your God changes organisms in advance of the need for change. I argue that changes take place in response to current needs. […] Your God may have given them the ability to make such changes – (see the ID thread).

DAVID: Same old view I don't accept, which implies a gradualism in adaptation. The fossil record of giant gaps in form offers you no support. So you'll revert to the wish for missing fossil forms.

There are two issues here: 1) you claim that retinal design had to be instant. I propose that the different degrees of vision etc. found in different organisms would have developed gradually. Your answer apparently is that we have not found fossils that record every single “step” from primitive vision, hearing, smell etc. to the different degrees that we find in current life forms. 2) Speciation: you claim that your God made all the changes in advance of any need for them (pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water). I propose that flippers evolved AS A RESULT of them entering the water. Again, it is unreasonable to expect fossils for every single transitional stage.

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Humans are slowly learning to edit genome metabolic errors. […]
Back to theodicy: banishing bad bacteria
DAVID: humans can solve the bad bacteria problems that challenge human food supplies. […]

dhw: I have no idea why you have included this under “Back to theodicy”. But presumably the implication is that humans are left to undo the harm caused by your God’s designs.

DAVID: Exactly.

This does not explain why the God you believe in (who is all-powerful and has good intentions) designed the bad bacteria in the first place. That is the essence of the theodicy problem.

Consciousness and other science mysteries
Quote: "As thukdam researchers continue to seek a signal of post-mortem consciousness of some sort, it's fair to ask what — and where — consciousness is in the first place. […]"

DAVID: It seems the body maintains some control over bacteria that can decompose, while the brain has ceased activity. The decomposing bugs are in the gut, and generally once the heart stops pumping, immunity defense disappears. A real puzzle.

dhw: It certainly is. I don’t know what the researchers are hoping to prove. If there are no signs of consciousness, it can mean that consciousness dies when the cells die (materialism), or the soul has departed (dualism). If there are signs, either the cells are still producing consciousness, or the soul is still hanging around.

DAVID: Or, the monk's immune systems are controlling the bad GUT bugs from getting out to start decomposition.

And what do you think would be the purpose of that, since decomposition will take place anyway?

dhw: My computer keeps breaking down. If I don't reply in the next day or two, it will mean that my computer has died - though probably not gone to heaven.

DAVID: I doubt my prayers can help, but I wish your computer well or I can bless the new one.

It seems your prayers have been answered. My computer has made a miraculous recovery. Thank you for your intercession!

DAVID: On another subject, I have Neil Thomas Taking Leave of Darwin. The first 70 pages are an erudite (and for me boring) recitation of the history and criticisms of Darwin's theory. The only mistake I found was to attribute to Arthur Russel Wallace full support of natural selection, whereas he fully supported God as designer. Now Thomas' reasoning can appear, I hope.

Huge thanks for following this up. The impression I had from the summary was that we were not going to learn anything new, but I hope I’m wrong or you will have wasted your time.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 08, 2021, 15:36 (963 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please say whether you accept the following theistic theory: your God gave cells the autonomous ability to recognize and respond to new problems by designing their own solutions.

They follow chemical algorithms accomplish that task.


DAVID: […] That organisms survive does not create speciation.

dhw: Of course their survival does not create anything! The fact that they survive is due to the fact that they have changed in response to new conditions. It is changes in organisms that “create” speciation. And if the reason for those changes is to enable them to survive, then speciation is the result of their trying to improve their chances of survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that improving chances of survival has no connection with speciation.

Pure speculation. Adaptation within species results only in slightly changed original species


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

dhw: […] You argue that your God changes organisms in advance of the need for change. I argue that changes take place in response to current needs. […] Your God may have given them the ability to make such changes – (see the ID thread).

DAVID: Same old view I don't accept, which implies a gradualism in adaptation. The fossil record of giant gaps in form offers you no support. So you'll revert to the wish for missing fossil forms.

dhw: There are two issues here: 1) you claim that retinal design had to be instant. I propose that the different degrees of vision etc. found in different organisms would have developed gradually. 2) Speciation: you claim that your God made all the changes in advance of any need for them (pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water). I propose that flippers evolved AS A RESULT of them entering the water. Again, it is unreasonable to expect fossils for every single transitional stage.

Yes, you reverted.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes

dhw: I have no idea why you have included this under “Back to theodicy”. But presumably the implication is that humans are left to undo the harm caused by your God’s designs.

DAVID: Exactly.

dhw: This does not explain why the God you believe in (who is all-powerful and has good intentions) designed the bad bacteria in the first place. That is the essence of the theodicy problem.

And my answer is the human impression of bad bacteria may be a mistaken human impression of bacteria acting in the wrong place. Bacteria started life and are very important in their current roles.


Consciousness and other science mysteries

dhw: It certainly is. I don’t know what the researchers are hoping to prove. If there are no signs of consciousness, it can mean that consciousness dies when the cells die (materialism), or the soul has departed (dualism). If there are signs, either the cells are still producing consciousness, or the soul is still hanging around.

DAVID: Or, the monk's immune systems are controlling the bad GUT bugs from getting out to start decomposition.

dhw: And what do you think would be the purpose of that, since decomposition will take place anyway?

Why should there be a purpose, when it may be a byproduct of lifestyle.


DAVID: On another subject, I have Neil Thomas Taking Leave of Darwin. The first 70 pages are an erudite (and for me boring) recitation of the history and criticisms of Darwin's theory. The only mistake I found was to attribute to Arthur Russel Wallace full support of natural selection, whereas he fully supported God as designer. Now Thomas' reasoning can appear, I hope.

dhw: Huge thanks for following this up. The impression I had from the summary was that we were not going to learn anything new, but I hope I’m wrong or you will have wasted your time.

I've found on page 55, I think, a strong objection to Darwin splitting the subject into two parts and ignored the origin of life to concentrate then on only evolution as if they were not obviously fully connected issues. More later

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, August 09, 2021, 09:23 (962 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please say whether you accept the following theistic theory: your God gave cells the autonomous ability to recognize and respond to new problems by designing their own solutions.

DAVID: They follow chemical algorithms accomplish that task.

Wednesday, 4th August:
dhw: Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

DAVID: You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

On 4th August, there were no instructions but your God gave cells the autonomous ability to design their own solutions “de novo”. On August 8th, cells follow algorithms (= instructions). It seems I am discussing these matters with two different people.


dhw: It is changes in organisms that “create” speciation. And if the reason for those changes is to enable them to survive, then speciation is the result of their trying to improve their chances of survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that improving chances of survival has no connection with speciation.

DAVID: Pure speculation. Adaptation within species results only in slightly changed original species.

You have changed the subject. Even if your God designed the major changes, their purpose (e.g. turning legs into flippers) was to improve the organism’s chances of survival. These changes ARE speciation, and so….yet again…it is absurd to say that changes made in order to improve chances of survival have no connection with speciation.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: There are two issues here: 1) you claim that retinal design had to be instant. I propose that the different degrees of vision etc. found in different organisms would have developed gradually. 2) Speciation: you claim that your God made all the changes in advance of any need for them (pre-whales were given flippers before they entered the water). I propose that flippers evolved AS A RESULT of them entering the water. Again, it is unreasonable to expect fossils for every single transitional stage.

DAVID: Yes, you reverted.

I have no idea what you mean. I have responded to two different arguments. I have proposed that different degrees of vision etc. evolved gradually (you claim that retinal design had to be instant), and I have proposed that evolutionary changes (legs into flippers) evolved AS A RESULT of new requirements, whereas you claim they were created IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
dhw: I have no idea why you have included this under “Back to theodicy”. But presumably the implication is that humans are left to undo the harm caused by your God’s designs.

DAVID: Exactly.

dhw: This does not explain why the God you believe in (who is all-powerful and has good intentions) designed the bad bacteria in the first place. That is the essence of the theodicy problem.

DAVID: And my answer is the human impression of bad bacteria may be a mistaken human impression of bacteria acting in the wrong place. Bacteria started life and are very important in their current roles.

I don’t deny the latter. Your solution to the mystery of theodicy now seems to be the pious hope that all the terrible diseases caused by bad bacteria are a mistaken human impression. Unless…now, here’s a thought…by “bacteria acting in the wrong place” you mean that your all-powerful, all-knowing, always well-intentioned God actually gave bacteria the freedom to act independently and autonomously in a great free-for-all…

Consciousness and other science mysteries
dhw: I don’t know what the researchers are hoping to prove. If there are no signs of consciousness, it can mean that consciousness dies when the cells die (materialism), or the soul has departed (dualism). If there are signs, either the cells are still producing consciousness, or the soul is still hanging around.

DAVID: Or, the monk's immune systems are controlling the bad GUT bugs from getting out to start decomposition.

dhw: And what do you think would be the purpose of that, since decomposition will take place anyway?

DAVID: Why should there be a purpose, when it may be a byproduct of lifestyle.

Fair comment. I’m just wondering what the researchers are hoping to find in their quest for signs of consciousness. I thought they might be hoping to find some clue as to the nature of consciousness.

Neil Thomas
DAVID: I've found on page 55, I think, a strong objection to Darwin splitting the subject into two parts and ignored the origin of life to concentrate then on only evolution as if they were not obviously fully connected issues. More later.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the mechanisms of evolution without saying how those mechanisms came into being. You can explain how a motor engine works without giving the history of its origins, and in any case, Darwin himself allows for God as the creator of the mechanisms he describes.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, August 09, 2021, 15:04 (962 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please say whether you accept the following theistic theory: your God gave cells the autonomous ability to recognize and respond to new problems by designing their own solutions.

DAVID: They follow chemical algorithms accomplish that task.

Wednesday, 4th August:
dhw: Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?[/b]

DAVID: You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: On 4th August, there were no instructions but your God gave cells the autonomous ability to design their own solutions “de novo”. On August 8th, cells follow algorithms (= instructions). It seems I am discussing these matters with two different people.

You are playing word games. The bold is correct, with ABILITY referring to onboard instructions.>


DAVID: Pure speculation. Adaptation within species results only in slightly changed original species.

dhw: You have changed the subject. Even if your God designed the major changes, their purpose (e.g. turning legs into flippers) was to improve the organism’s chances of survival. These changes ARE speciation, and so….yet again…it is absurd to say that changes made in order to improve chances of survival have no connection with speciation.

Subject not changed. Survival is not proven to lead to speciation!!~!!!


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

DAVID: Yes, you reverted.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean. I have responded to two different arguments. I have proposed that different degrees of vision etc. evolved gradually (you claim that retinal design had to be instant), and I have proposed that evolutionary changes (legs into flippers) evolved AS A RESULT of new requirements, whereas you claim they were created IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

Yes we have different interpretations


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes

DAVID: And my answer is the human impression of bad bacteria may be a mistaken human impression of bacteria acting in the wrong place. Bacteria started life and are very important in their current roles.

dhw: I don’t deny the latter. Your solution to the mystery of theodicy now seems to be the pious hope that all the terrible diseases caused by bad bacteria are a mistaken human impression. Unless…now, here’s a thought…by “bacteria acting in the wrong place” you mean that your all-powerful, all-knowing, always well-intentioned God actually gave bacteria the freedom to act independently and autonomously in a great free-for-all…

Bacteria are not corralled, but are everywhere by design.


Neil Thomas
DAVID: I've found on page 55, I think, a strong objection to Darwin splitting the subject into two parts and ignored the origin of life to concentrate then on only evolution as if they were not obviously fully connected issues. More later.

dhw: I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the mechanisms of evolution without saying how those mechanisms came into being. You can explain how a motor engine works without giving the history of its origins, and in any case, Darwin himself allows for God as the creator of the mechanisms he describes.

The splitting avoids God immediately.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 09:12 (961 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: They [cells] follow chemical algorithms accomplish that task

Wednesday, 4th August:
dhw: Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each individual new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

DAVID: You've got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: On 4th August, there were no instructions but your God gave cells the autonomous ability to design their own solutions “de novo”. On August 8th, cells follow algorithms (= instructions). It seems I am discussing these matters with two different people.

DAVID: You are playing word games. The bold is correct, with ABILITY referring to onboard instructions.

It is you who are playing word games. I gave you alternatives: instructions (the first “portion of my comment”) versus autonomous ability. You chose the ability to recognize new problems and to provide solutions “de novo”, and you therefore rejected instructions.

dhw: Even if your God designed the major changes, their purpose (e.g. turning legs into flippers) was to improve the organism’s chances of survival. These changes ARE speciation, and so….yet again…it is absurd to say that changes made in order to improve chances of survival have no connection with speciation.

DAVID: Survival is not proven to lead to speciation!!~!!!

I keep repeating that it is the QUEST for survival that leads to the changes in anatomy which ARE speciation, no matter how many exclamation marks you use.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I have responded to two different arguments. I have proposed that different degrees of vision etc. evolved gradually (you claim that retinal design had to be instant), and I have proposed that evolutionary changes (legs into flippers) evolved AS A RESULT of new requirements, whereas you claim they were created IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: Yes we have different interpretations.

So do you believe that your God specially and instantly designed every degree of vision, or did degrees of vision appear gradually in different life forms? Thank you for confirming your belief that your God designs all major mutations before they are required (e.g. legs are turned into flippers before pre-whales enter the water). I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: And my answer is the human impression of bad bacteria may be a mistaken human impression of bacteria acting in the wrong place. Bacteria started life and are very important in their current roles.

dhw: I don’t deny the latter. Your solution to the mystery of theodicy now seems to be the pious hope that all the terrible diseases caused by bad bacteria are a mistaken human impression. Unless…now, here’s a thought…by “bacteria acting in the wrong place” you mean that your all-powerful, all-knowing, always well-intentioned God actually gave bacteria the freedom to act independently and autonomously in a great free-for-all…

DAVID: Bacteria are not corralled, but are everywhere by design.

How does that explain your well-intentioned God’s direct design of those which he knew would cause untold harm to other life forms?

Neil Thomas
DAVID: I've found on page 55, I think, a strong objection to Darwin splitting the subject into two parts and ignored the origin of life to concentrate then on only evolution as if they were not obviously fully connected issues. More later.

dhw: I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the mechanisms of evolution without saying how those mechanisms came into being. You can explain how a motor engine works without giving the history of its origins, and in any case, Darwin himself allows for God as the creator of the mechanisms he describes.

DAVID: The splitting avoids God immediately.

Of course it doesn’t. Describing how a motor engine works does not immediately avoid the fact that it was invented by an intelligent mind. As above (and ignored by you), even Darwin, in later editions of Origin, refers to the Creator as the originator of the mechanisms.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 15:39 (961 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are playing word games. The bold is correct, with ABILITY referring to onboard instructions.

dhw: It is you who are playing word games. I gave you alternatives: instructions (the first “portion of my comment”) versus autonomous ability. You chose the ability to recognize new problems and to provide solutions “de novo”, and you therefore rejected instructions.

More confusion. The immune cells have a God-given ability to recognize invaders and a God- given ability to make antibodies to fight them. Thus they can do it autonomously becasue of God's instructions designed into them. I believe we may be saying the same thing.


dhw: Even if your God designed the major changes, their purpose (e.g. turning legs into flippers) was to improve the organism’s chances of survival. These changes ARE speciation, and so….yet again…it is absurd to say that changes made in order to improve chances of survival have no connection with speciation.

DAVID: Survival is not proven to lead to speciation!!~!!!

dhw: I keep repeating that it is the QUEST for survival that leads to the changes in anatomy which ARE speciation, no matter how many exclamation marks you use.

I'm delighted only you know how speciation occurs. When is your breakthrough book coming out?


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I have responded to two different arguments. I have proposed that different degrees of vision etc. evolved gradually (you claim that retinal design had to be instant), and I have proposed that evolutionary changes (legs into flippers) evolved AS A RESULT of new requirements, whereas you claim they were created IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: Yes we have different interpretations.

dhw: So do you believe that your God specially and instantly designed every degree of vision, or did degrees of vision appear gradually in different life forms? Thank you for confirming your belief that your God designs all major mutations before they are required (e.g. legs are turned into flippers before pre-whales enter the water). I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

Irreducible complexity is their confirming theory.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: And my answer is the human impression of bad bacteria may be a mistaken human impression of bacteria acting in the wrong place. Bacteria started life and are very important in their current roles.

dhw: I don’t deny the latter. Your solution to the mystery of theodicy now seems to be the pious hope that all the terrible diseases caused by bad bacteria are a mistaken human impression. Unless…now, here’s a thought…by “bacteria acting in the wrong place” you mean that your all-powerful, all-knowing, always well-intentioned God actually gave bacteria the freedom to act independently and autonomously in a great free-for-all…

DAVID: Bacteria are not corralled, but are everywhere by design.

dhw: How does that explain your well-intentioned God’s direct design of those which he knew would cause untold harm to other life forms?

That is why we have God-given brains to solve those problems. In your statement I would use 'could' for you bolded 'would'.


Neil Thomas
DAVID: I've found on page 55, I think, a strong objection to Darwin splitting the subject into two parts and ignored the origin of life to concentrate then on only evolution as if they were not obviously fully connected issues. More later.

dhw: I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the mechanisms of evolution without saying how those mechanisms came into being. You can explain how a motor engine works without giving the history of its origins, and in any case, Darwin himself allows for God as the creator of the mechanisms he describes.

DAVID: The splitting avoids God immediately.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. Describing how a motor engine works does not immediately avoid the fact that it was invented by an intelligent mind. As above (and ignored by you), even Darwin, in later editions of Origin, refers to the Creator as the originator of the mechanisms.

Funny that Thomas and I reach the same conclusion you would try to avoid. Your rigid mindset is showing. Darwin's modifications show his response to the backlash he experienced, chronicled at great length by Thomas.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, August 12, 2021, 08:21 (959 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I gave you alternatives: instructions (the first “portion of my comment”) versus autonomous ability. You chose the ability to recognize new problems and to provide solutions “de novo”, and you therefore rejected instructions.

DAVID: More confusion. The immune cells have a God-given ability to recognize invaders and a God- given ability to make antibodies to fight them. Thus they can do it autonomously because of God's instructions designed into them. I believe we may be saying the same thing.

I don’t know why you keep inserting “instructions” – which at one time you called algorithms, which are instructions designed to solve particular problems (the exact opposite of an autonomous ability to solve problems). But since you now say that what you mean is your God gave cells the autonomous ability to come up with new solutions to new problems, we are indeed in agreement, and I shall record this for when we discuss the possible role played in evolution by cells’ autonomous ability to produce new solutions in response to new requirements.

dhw: Even if your God designed the major changes, their purpose (e.g. turning legs into flippers) was to improve the organism’s chances of survival. These changes ARE speciation, and so….yet again…it is absurd to say that changes made in order to improve chances of survival have no connection with speciation.

DAVID: Survival is not proven to lead to speciation!!~!!!

dhw: I keep repeating that it is the QUEST for survival that leads to the changes in anatomy which ARE speciation, no matter how many exclamation marks you use.

DAVID: I'm delighted only you know how speciation occurs. When is your breakthrough book coming out?

You keep moaning that the role played by the quest for survival is pure Darwinism, so I really don’t think I am all alone. I would suggest that your rejection of the theory will leave you considerably more isolated than me – an isolation intensified by your insistence that your God makes the changes in advance of their being required.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

DAVID: Irreducible complexity is their confirming theory.

That “confirms” their theory that life forms must have been designed. Now please tell us if they reject the idea that different degrees of vision etc. developed gradually, and if they accept the idea that your God designed all major mutations before they were required.

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Bacteria are not corralled, but are everywhere by design.

dhw: How does that explain your well-intentioned God’s direct design of those which he knew would cause untold harm to other life forms?
[/b]
DAVID: That is why we have God-given brains to solve those problems. In your statement I would use 'could' for you bolded 'would'.

Well, they could and did, and he knew they could. I really can’t see any good intentions behind the idea that your God designed bad bacteria (which caused untold damage to life forms long before humans were around), so that humans could come along and solve some of the problems while others continue to cause untold suffering.

Neil Thomas
DAVID: The splitting avoids God immediately.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. Describing how a motor engine works does not immediately avoid the fact that it was invented by an intelligent mind. As above (and ignored by you), even Darwin, in later editions of Origin, refers to the Creator as the originator of the mechanisms.

DAVID: Funny that Thomas and I reach the same conclusion you would try to avoid. Your rigid mindset is showing. Darwin's modifications show his response to the backlash he experienced, chronicled at great length by Thomas.

Many of Darwin’s arguments were opposed because of religious prejudice. He has been vindicated by the fact that so many religious folk now accept his theory of common descent (as opposed to separate creation) and realize that it does NOT exclude God as the creator. Why do you call agnosticism a “rigid mindset”, when it allows for the possibility of God and of no God, whereas atheists and theists rigidly reject one or other of those possibilities?

Nature’s wonders: a new plant carnivore
DAVID: Venus and others like it need insects to get enough nitrogen, not readily available in the soil it lives on.

First of all, thank you again for this marvellous series of articles – a continuous source of wonderment. And again I am struck by the astonishing variety of ways in which all life forms pursue the quest for survival. Your comment firmly establishes the link between this inventiveness and the conditions which make it necessary.

Smart animals
quote: "Over and over again, she and others are finding evidence not just for a relatively simple, ubiquitous sense of numerosity in animals, but also for a growing inventory of much more abstract and complex forms of numerical cognition."

DAVID: Simple counting is necessary, but these animlas are nowhere near human math.

Of course not. But we should never underestimate the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 12, 2021, 19:32 (959 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t know why you keep inserting “instructions” – which at one time you called algorithms, which are instructions designed to solve particular problems (the exact opposite of an autonomous ability to solve problems). But since you now say that what you mean is your God gave cells the autonomous ability to come up with new solutions to new problems, we are indeed in agreement, and I shall record this for when we discuss the possible role played in evolution by cells’ autonomous ability to produce new solutions in response to new requirements.

We do not agree because you twist my explanations. The only reason the cells seem to act autonomously is because they can, based on the mechanisms God coded/designed into them. As a result they recognize foreign invaders and can produce killing antibodies, all automatically, no thought involved, just God's


dhw: I keep repeating that it is the QUEST for survival that leads to the changes in anatomy which ARE speciation, no matter how many exclamation marks you use.

DAVID: I'm delighted only you know how speciation occurs. When is your breakthrough book coming out?

dhw:You keep moaning that the role played by the quest for survival is pure Darwinism, so I really don’t think I am all alone.

You are in bed with the committed Darwinists, who connive to make it work.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

DAVID: Irreducible complexity (IC) is their confirming theory.

dhw: That “confirms” their theory that life forms must have been designed. Now please tell us if they reject the idea that different degrees of vision etc. developed gradually, and if they accept the idea that your God designed all major mutations before they were required.

IC means all at once!!!


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Bacteria are not corralled, but are everywhere by design.

dhw: How does that explain your well-intentioned God’s direct design of those which he knew would cause untold harm to other life forms?
[> DAVID: That is why we have God-given brains to solve those problems. In your statement I would use 'could' for you bolded 'would'.

dhw: Well, they could and did, and he knew they could. I really can’t see any good intentions behind the idea that your God designed bad bacteria (which caused untold damage to life forms long before humans were around), so that humans could come along and solve some of the problems while others continue to cause untold suffering.

Bacteria are doing good everywhere, remember?! Only in teh wrong places are they bad. I view the good as substantially outweighing the bad


Neil Thomas

DAVID: Funny that Thomas and I reach the same conclusion you would try to avoid. Your rigid mindset is showing. Darwin's modifications show his response to the backlash he experienced, chronicled at great length by Thomas.

dhw: Many of Darwin’s arguments were opposed because of religious prejudice. He has been vindicated by the fact that so many religious folk now accept his theory of common descent (as opposed to separate creation) and realize that it does NOT exclude God as the creator. Why do you call agnosticism a “rigid mindset”, when it allows for the possibility of God and of no God, whereas atheists and theists rigidly reject one or other of those possibilities?

Do you recognize how rigidly you oppose a God of purpose?


Smart animals
quote: "Over and over again, she and others are finding evidence not just for a relatively simple, ubiquitous sense of numerosity in animals, but also for a growing inventory of much more abstract and complex forms of numerical cognition."

DAVID: Simple counting is necessary, but these animals are nowhere near human math.

dhw: Of course not. But we should never underestimate the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

You should not overestimate as a way of reducing our enormous difference.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, August 13, 2021, 10:44 (958 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t know why you keep inserting “instructions” – which at one time you called algorithms, which are instructions designed to solve particular problems (the exact opposite of an autonomous ability to solve problems). But since you now say that what you mean is your God gave cells the autonomous ability to come up with new solutions to new problems, we are indeed in agreement…

DAVID: We do not agree because you twist my explanations. The only reason the cells seem to act autonomously is because they can, based on the mechanisms God coded/designed into them. As a result they recognize foreign invaders and can produce killing antibodies, all automatically, no thought involved, just God's.

The twisting is entirely yours. You wrote: “The immune cells have a God-given ability to recognize invaders and a God-given ability to make antibodies to fight them”. You agreed enthusiastically that “he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”. An ABILITY to do something independently of outside intervention is the opposite of automatically following instructions, “no thought involved”! The autonomous ABILITY to recognize threats, process information, make decisions and produce new ideas to meet new requirements, can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

dhw: I keep repeating that it is the QUEST for survival that leads to the changes in anatomy which ARE speciation, no matter how many exclamation marks you use.

DAVID: I'm delighted only you know how speciation occurs. When is your breakthrough book coming out?

dhw: You keep moaning that the role played by the quest for survival is pure Darwinism, so I really don’t think I am all alone.

DAVID: You are in bed with the committed Darwinists, who connive to make it work.

Then stop pretending that I am alone in my proposal that the quest for survival is the purpose behind the changes that lead to speciation. What on earth is there to “connive” about? Even you admit that when your God changed pre-whale legs into flippers, the purpose was to enable the animals to improve their chances of survival in the water. You simply refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion that if changes take place in order to improve chances of survival, and those changes result in speciation, then speciation (evolution) is a direct result of the quest for survival.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

DAVID: Irreducible complexity (IC) is their confirming theory.

dhw: That “confirms” their theory that life forms must have been designed. Now please tell us if they reject the idea that different degrees of vision etc. developed gradually, and if they accept the idea that your God designed all major mutations before they were required.

DAVID: IC means all at once!!!

So once more: do your ID-ers believe that different degrees of vision etc. were all created at once? And do they believe that your God designed all major mutations before they were required?

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
dhw: I really can’t see any good intentions behind the idea that your God designed bad bacteria (which caused untold damage to life forms long before humans were around), so that humans could come along and solve some of the problems while others continue to cause untold suffering.

DAVID: Bacteria are doing good everywhere, remember?! Only in teh wrong places are they bad. I view the good as substantially outweighing the bad.

The proportion of good to bad does not explain why your God specially designed the bad, and that is the problem of theodicy.

Neil Thomas
DAVID: Your rigid mindset is showing. Darwin's modifications show his response to the backlash he experienced, chronicled at great length by Thomas.

dhw: Many of Darwin’s arguments were opposed because of religious prejudice. He has been vindicated by the fact that so many religious folk now accept his theory of common descent (as opposed to separate creation) and realize that it does NOT exclude God as the creator. Why do you call agnosticism a “rigid mindset”, when it allows for the possibility of God and of no God, whereas atheists and theists rigidly reject one or other of those possibilities?

DAVID: Do you recognize how rigidly you oppose a God of purpose?

I certainly don’t. I have told you over and over again that all my versions of God are just as purposeful as yours – but I do not accept your rigid theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose. And once more, why do you consider open-minded agnosticism to be more rigid than fixed belief in God or no God?

Smart animals
dhw: But we should never underestimate the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

DAVID: You should not overestimate as a way of reducing our enormous difference.

I doubt if anyone on this planet would deny the enormous difference. But that should not blind us to the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, August 13, 2021, 18:09 (958 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We do not agree because you twist my explanations. The only reason the cells seem to act autonomously is because they can, based on the mechanisms God coded/designed into them. As a result they recognize foreign invaders and can produce killing antibodies, all automatically, no thought involved, just God's.

dhw: The twisting is entirely yours....The autonomous ABILITY to recognize threats, process information, make decisions and produce new ideas to meet new requirements, can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

Same 50/50 appearance discussion is back. It is all automatic molecular reactions. Organic molecules have thousands of amino acids with regions of negative and positive electrical charges, hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions, and these electrophysical characteristics influence all the proper foldings, and all orchestrated by giant enzymes. A cell is a churning factory of these reactions, many of which I have shown singly in research design articles of single processes. Try and imagine thousands of these reactions going on in split-seconds constantly in each cell. This is the biochemical view of emergent life. This is what we are usually superficially discussing. At these micro-second speeds it must be automatic or the cell crashes. We have discussed this superficially in theodicy, because of the required speed God knew in advance mistakes would happen and put in editing mechanisms.


DAVID: You are in bed with the committed Darwinists, who connive to make it work.

dhw: You simply refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion that if changes take place in order to improve chances of survival, and those changes result in speciation, then speciation (evolution) is a direct result of the quest for survival.

Pure old Darwinism, undiluted. Survival is simply the onboard desire to stay alive. You don't know how speciation happens. My choice is God does it by design.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

DAVID: Irreducible complexity (IC) is their confirming theory.

dhw: That “confirms” their theory that life forms must have been designed. Now please tell us if they reject the idea that different degrees of vision etc. developed gradually, and if they accept the idea that your God designed all major mutations before they were required.

DAVID: IC means all at once!!!

dhw: So once more: do your ID-ers believe that different degrees of vision etc. were all created at once? And do they believe that your God designed all major mutations before they were required?

In my reading of ID, absolutely.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes

DAVID: Bacteria are doing good everywhere, remember?! Only in teh wrong places are they bad. I view the good as substantially outweighing the bad.

dhw: The proportion of good to bad does not explain why your God specially designed the bad, and that is the problem of theodicy.

Once again, the theodicy theory I follow is so-called (by humans) bad bacteria are simply useful bacteria in the wrong place. Try having your usual E. coli in your colon enter your peritoneum. all hell breaks loose.


Neil Thomas

DAVID: Do you recognize how rigidly you oppose a God of purpose?

dhw: I certainly don’t. I have told you over and over again that all my versions of God are just as purposeful as yours – but I do not accept your rigid theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose. And once more, why do you consider open-minded agnosticism to be more rigid than fixed belief in God or no God?

You have every right to be doubtful and I am totally comfortable in my beliefs.


Smart animals
dhw: But we should never underestimate the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

DAVID: You should not overestimate as a way of reducing our enormous difference.

dhw: I doubt if anyone on this planet would deny the enormous difference. But that should not blind us to the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

Their tiny abilities are recognized. A billion chimps at typewriters will not produce one of your plays or even one sentence.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, August 14, 2021, 07:10 (957 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We do not agree because you twist my explanations. The only reason the cells seem to act autonomously is because they can, based on the mechanisms God coded/designed into them. As a result they recognize foreign invaders and can produce killing antibodies, all automatically, no thought involved, just God's.

dhw: The twisting is entirely yours....The autonomous ABILITY to recognize threats, process information, make decisions and produce new ideas to meet new requirements, can be summed up in one word: intelligence.

DAVID: Same 50/50 appearance discussion is back. It is all automatic molecular reactions. Organic molecules have thousands of amino acids with regions of negative and positive electrical charges, hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions, and these electrophysical characteristics influence all the proper foldings, and all orchestrated by giant enzymes. A cell is a churning factory of these reactions, many of which I have shown singly in research design articles of single processes. Try and imagine thousands of these reactions going on in split-seconds constantly in each cell. This is the biochemical view of emergent life. This is what we are usually superficially discussing. At these micro-second speeds it must be automatic or the cell crashes. We have discussed this superficially in theodicy, because of the required speed God knew in advance mistakes would happen and put in editing mechanisms.

A wonderfully detailed account of how cells function in all organisms including ourselves. But biochemistry does not explain how organisms, including ourselves, recognize new situations, process information, take decisions, and come up with new solutions to new problems. Of course many actions are automatic - it's only when things go wrong or new problems arise that autonomous intelligence is required. The above account of the biochemical manifestations of an ABILITY is simply a gigantic red herring. You have agreed that your God gave cells the ABILITY to perform all the above actions. Now you are trying to backtrack and pretend that this autonomous ABILITY (without outside intervention) means obeying instructions. How can an autonomous (without outside intervention) ABILITY to respond to new problems and create new solutions mean automatically obeying instructions?

The role of survival in evolution
dhw: You simply refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion that if changes take place in order to improve chances of survival, and those changes result in speciation, then speciation (evolution) is a direct result of the quest for survival.

DAVID: Pure old Darwinism, undiluted. Survival is simply the onboard desire to stay alive. You don't know how speciation happens. My choice is God does it by design.

Nobody knows how it happens, but even if your God designs it, there is no escaping the fact that the quest to improve chances of survival leads to the physical changes which in turn lead to speciation. Please explain what other purpose you can see in your God’s transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before he told them to go into the water.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: ..once more: do your ID-ers believe that different degrees of vision etc. were all created at once? And do they believe that your God designed all major mutations before they were required?

DAVID: In my reading of ID, absolutely.

Please can you give us a reference from your reading where it is stated that the differences in degrees of vision, hearing and smell between different species were all designed at once, and that God performed operations on all species to change their bodies in anticipation of new conditions which did not yet exist.

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Bacteria are doing good everywhere, remember?! Only in teh wrong places are they bad. I view the good as substantially outweighing the bad.

dhw: The proportion of good to bad does not explain why your God specially designed the bad, and that is the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Once again, the theodicy theory I follow is so-called (by humans) bad bacteria are simply useful bacteria in the wrong place. Try having your usual E. coli in your colon enter your peritoneum. all hell breaks loose.

So your all-powerful, always-in-control God specially designed them to be good, but he designed them in such a way that he couldn’t stop them from turning bad, though he did his best, and when he failed, he left it to humans to do what he couldn’t do.

Neil Thomas
dhw: […] why do you consider open-minded agnosticism to be more rigid than fixed belief in God or no God?

DAVID: You have every right to be doubtful and I am totally comfortable in my beliefs.

So why are your fixed beliefs less rigid than my open-mindedness?

Smart animals
dhw: But we should never underestimate the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

DAVID: You should not overestimate as a way of reducing our enormous difference.

dhw: I doubt if anyone on this planet would deny the enormous difference. But that should not blind us to the intelligence and sentience of our fellow animals.

DAVID: Their tiny abilities are recognized. A billion chimps at typewriters will not produce one of your plays or even one sentence.

There is no disagreement between us.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 14, 2021, 21:58 (957 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same 50/50 appearance discussion is back. It is all automatic molecular reactions. Organic molecules have thousands of amino acids with regions of negative and positive electrical charges, hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions, and these electrophysical characteristics influence all the proper foldings, and all orchestrated by giant enzymes. A cell is a churning factory of these reactions, many of which I have shown singly in research design articles of single processes. Try and imagine thousands of these reactions going on in split-seconds constantly in each cell. This is the biochemical view of emergent life. This is what we are usually superficially discussing. At these micro-second speeds it must be automatic or the cell crashes. We have discussed this superficially in theodicy, because of the required speed God knew in advance mistakes would happen and put in editing mechanisms.

dhw: A wonderfully detailed account of how cells function in all organisms including ourselves. But biochemistry does not explain how organisms, including ourselves, recognize new situations, process information, take decisions, and come up with new solutions to new problems.

Of course it is explained. All those reactions are automatic. As I said, back to 50/50

dhw: How can an autonomous (without outside intervention) ABILITY to respond to new problems and create new solutions mean automatically obeying instructions?

That is exactly what happens. Do you tell your stomach how to digest your luncheon curry?


The role of survival in evolution
dhw: You simply refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion that if changes take place in order to improve chances of survival, and those changes result in speciation, then speciation (evolution) is a direct result of the quest for survival.

DAVID: Pure old Darwinism, undiluted. Survival is simply the onboard desire to stay alive. You don't know how speciation happens. My choice is God does it by design.

dhw: Nobody knows how it happens, but even if your God designs it, there is no escaping the fact that the quest to improve chances of survival leads to the physical changes which in turn lead to speciation. Please explain what other purpose you can see in your God’s transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before he told them to go into the water.

Exactly what I think happened. He gave them flippers for a water existence


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: ..once more: do your ID-ers believe that different degrees of vision etc. were all created at once? And do they believe that your God designed all major mutations before they were required?

DAVID: In my reading of ID, absolutely.

dhw: Please can you give us a reference from your reading where it is stated that the differences in degrees of vision, hearing and smell between different species were all designed at once, and that God performed operations on all species to change their bodies in anticipation of new conditions which did not yet exist.

All I can respond is the ID tenet, that irreducible complexity means designed all at once. And all us ID folks accept God as designer. It really explains all the huge gaps in the fossil record that bothered Gould so much.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes

DAVID: Once again, the theodicy theory I follow is so-called (by humans) bad bacteria are simply useful bacteria in the wrong place. Try having your usual E. coli in your colon enter your peritoneum. all hell breaks loose.

dhw: So your all-powerful, always-in-control God specially designed them to be good, but he designed them in such a way that he couldn’t stop them from turning bad, though he did his best, and when he failed, he left it to humans to do what he couldn’t do.

You can sneer, but it fits.


Neil Thomas
dhw: […] why do you consider open-minded agnosticism to be more rigid than fixed belief in God or no God?

DAVID: You have every right to be doubtful and I am totally comfortable in my beliefs.

dhw: So why are your fixed beliefs less rigid than my open-mindedness?

I recognize both rigidities.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, August 15, 2021, 09:32 (956 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is all automatic molecular reactions. […]

dhw: A wonderfully detailed account of how cells function in all organisms including ourselves. But biochemistry does not explain how organisms, including ourselves, recognize new situations, process information, take decisions, and come up with new solutions to new problems.

DAVID: Of course it is explained. All those reactions are automatic. As I said, back to 50/50.

dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.[/b]

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did![/b]

You rejected instructions (which imply automatic obedience) and opted emphatically for an autonomous ABILITY (without intervention).

dhw: How can an autonomous (without outside intervention) ABILITY to respond to new problems and create new solutions mean automatically obeying instructions?

DAVID: That is exactly what happens. Do you tell your stomach how to digest your luncheon curry?

I don’t tell my body to produce new antibodies either. We are describing the work of cells which operate independently of our conscious minds. Why have you ignored yesterday’s post, in which I wrote: “Of course many actions are automatic – it’s only when things go wrong or new problems arise that autonomous intelligence is required.” Now please explain how an autonomous ability comes to mean automatically obeying instructions.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival is simply the onboard desire to stay alive. You don't know how speciation happens. My choice is God does it by design.

dhw: Nobody knows how it happens, but even if your God designs it, there is no escaping the fact that the quest to improve chances of survival leads to the physical changes which in turn lead to speciation. Please explain what other purpose you can see in your God’s transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before he told them to go into the water.

DAVID: Exactly what I think happened. He gave them flippers for a water existence.

So how does that come to mean that he did NOT give them flippers in order to improve their chances of survival in the water?

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: Please can you give us a reference from your reading where it is stated that the differences in degrees of vision, hearing and smell between different species were all designed at once, and that God performed operations on all species to change their bodies in anticipation of new conditions which did not yet exist.

DAVID: All I can respond is the ID tenet, that irreducible complexity means designed all at once. And all us ID folks accept God as designer. It really explains all the huge gaps in the fossil record that bothered Gould so much.

I am not disputing the fact that ID means intelligent design, and if that leads to belief in God, so be it. I have asked you specifically whether ID-ers believe that the differences in degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once. Do ID-ers believe that there is no such thing as development? That the human brain was designed from scratch and did not develop out of our ancestors’ brains, or that the dog’s extraordinary sense of smell did not develop from that of its predecessors? And do they all agree with you that your God operated on all the ancestors of every species to change their anatomies before there was any need for change?

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Once again, the theodicy theory I follow is so-called (by humans) bad bacteria are simply useful bacteria in the wrong place. Try having your usual E. coli in your colon enter your peritoneum. all hell breaks loose.

dhw: So your all-powerful, always-in-control God specially designed them to be good, but he designed them in such a way that he couldn’t stop them from turning bad, though he did his best, and when he failed, he left it to humans to do what he couldn’t do.

DAVID: You can sneer, but it fits.

What fits? How can an all-powerful, always-in-control God with good intentions lose control of the organisms he designed, and even fail to find remedies to prevent or cure the appalling suffering caused by his loss of control?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 15, 2021, 15:59 (956 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How can an autonomous (without outside intervention) ABILITY to respond to new problems and create new solutions mean automatically obeying instructions?

DAVID: That is exactly what happens. Do you tell your stomach how to digest your luncheon curry?

dhw: I don’t tell my body to produce new antibodies either. We are describing the work of cells which operate independently of our conscious minds. Why have you ignored yesterday’s post, in which I wrote: “Of course many actions are automatic – it’s only when things go wrong or new problems arise that autonomous intelligence is required.” Now please explain how an autonomous ability comes to mean automatically obeying instructions.

The cell's autonomous ability comes from following the instructions algorithms to recognize foreign protein invasion and neutralize it, just as your stomach handled the curry independently of your consciousness, and autonomously.


The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival is simply the onboard desire to stay alive. You don't know how speciation happens. My choice is God does it by design.

dhw: Nobody knows how it happens, but even if your God designs it, there is no escaping the fact that the quest to improve chances of survival leads to the physical changes which in turn lead to speciation. Please explain what other purpose you can see in your God’s transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before he told them to go into the water.

DAVID: Exactly what I think happened. He gave them flippers for a water existence.

dhw: So how does that come to mean that he did NOT give them flippers in order to improve their chances of survival in the water?

Not my meaning. Flippers are required for water survival and a fruitful life in a new environment


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: Please can you give us a reference from your reading where it is stated that the differences in degrees of vision, hearing and smell between different species were all designed at once, and that God performed operations on all species to change their bodies in anticipation of new conditions which did not yet exist.

DAVID: All I can respond is the ID tenet, that irreducible complexity means designed all at once. And all us ID folks accept God as designer. It really explains all the huge gaps in the fossil record that bothered Gould so much.

dhw: I am not disputing the fact that ID means intelligent design, and if that leads to belief in God, so be it. I have asked you specifically whether ID-ers believe that the differences in degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once. Do ID-ers believe that there is no such thing as development? That the human brain was designed from scratch and did not develop out of our ancestors’ brains, or that the dog’s extraordinary sense of smell did not develop from that of its predecessors? And do they all agree with you that your God operated on all the ancestors of every species to change their anatomies before there was any need for change?

Don't go off on tangents. Irreducible complexity is an underlying basic concept requiring design. To answer your wonder, they believe in stepwise evolution with design covering the huge gaps.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: Once again, the theodicy theory I follow is so-called (by humans) bad bacteria are simply useful bacteria in the wrong place. Try having your usual E. coli in your colon enter your peritoneum. all hell breaks loose.

dhw: So your all-powerful, always-in-control God specially designed them to be good, but he designed them in such a way that he couldn’t stop them from turning bad, though he did his best, and when he failed, he left it to humans to do what he couldn’t do.

DAVID: You can sneer, but it fits.

dhw: What fits? How can an all-powerful, always-in-control God with good intentions lose control of the organisms he designed, and even fail to find remedies to prevent or cure the appalling suffering caused by his loss of control?

God is not a puppeteer. We've discussed high-speed cellular reactions and possible errors and we see God inserted editing mechanisms. The living metabolism must depend on the giant protein molecules behaving properly. 99.9999% correct is a pretty good result. Look at your age and mine, and we made it this far with the errors happening. That is a firmly acceptable result, isn't it?

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, August 16, 2021, 09:11 (955 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How can an autonomous (without outside intervention) ABILITY to respond to new problems and create new solutions mean automatically obeying instructions?

DAVID: The cell's autonomous ability comes from following the instructions algorithms to recognize foreign protein invasion and neutralize it, just as your stomach handled the curry independently of your consciousness, and autonomously.

Why have you ignored what I wrote yesterday? “Of course many actions are automatic – it’s only when things go wrong or new problems arise that autonomous intelligence is required.” There is a world of difference between the established, automatic actions of properly functioning digestive processes and the intelligence needed to recognize new problems, process new information, and create new solutions. You have also omitted your own emphatic statement which I quoted yesterday:

dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did![/b]

dhw: You rejected instructions (which imply automatic obedience) and opted emphatically for an autonomous ABILITY (without intervention).

And now, having rejected the idea that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody, and instead opted for the autonomous ability to solve the new problems without any intervention, you are arguing that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody!

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival is simply the onboard desire to stay alive. You don't know how speciation happens. My choice is God does it by design.

dhw: Nobody knows how it happens, but even if your God designs it, there is no escaping the fact that the quest to improve chances of survival leads to the physical changes which in turn lead to speciation. Please explain what other purpose you can see in your God’s transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before he told them to go into the water.

DAVID: […] Flippers are required for water survival and a fruitful life in a new environment.

So you agree that your God gave them flippers to improve their chances of survival in the water, and yet such anatomical changes which lead to speciation apparently have nothing to do with improving chances of survival!

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I am not disputing the fact that ID means intelligent design, and if that leads to belief in God, so be it. I have asked you specifically whether ID-ers believe that the differences in degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once. […] And do they all agree with you that your God operated on all the ancestors of every species to change their anatomies before there was any need for change?

DAVID: Don't go off on tangents. Irreducible complexity is an underlying basic concept requiring design. To answer your wonder, they believe in stepwise evolution with design covering the huge gaps.

The tangents are yours, since you refuse to answer my questions! Of course irreducible complexity is an underlying basic requiring design. Now tell me if your ID-ers believe that your God designed every degree of vision etc. all at once. And of course they believe in stepwise evolution with gaps. Now tell me if they believe that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled all the individual anatomical changes that constitute speciation BEFORE any of them were required.

Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
dhw: How can an all-powerful, always-in-control God with good intentions lose control of the organisms he designed, and even fail to find remedies to prevent or cure the appalling suffering caused by his loss of control?

DAVID: God is not a puppeteer. We've discussed high-speed cellular reactions and possible errors and we see God inserted editing mechanisms. The living metabolism must depend on the giant protein molecules behaving properly. 99.9999% correct is a pretty good result. Look at your age and mine, and we made it this far with the errors happening. That is a firmly acceptable result, isn't it?

Once again, you are trying to solve the problem of “evil” by telling us how wonderful everything is. Since we are taking “bad” bacteria and viruses and other forms of disease as our examples, I really cannot believe that as a retired doctor you are unaware of the appalling suffering caused by the bacteria and viruses and malfunctioning bodies in humans all over the world, the vast majority of whom do not live to your age or mine. Why, in your eyes, is their suffering a firmly acceptable result of your God’s deliberate designs (“bad” bacteria and viruses) or lack of control (his “editing mechanisms” frequently fail)?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, August 16, 2021, 18:32 (955 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The cell's autonomous ability comes from following the instructions algorithms to recognize foreign protein invasion and neutralize it, just as your stomach handled the curry independently of your consciousness, and autonomously.

dhw: Why have you ignored what I wrote yesterday? “Of course many actions are automatic – it’s only when things go wrong or new problems arise that autonomous intelligence is required.” There is a world of difference between the established, automatic actions of properly functioning digestive processes and the intelligence needed to recognize new problems, process new information, and create new solutions.

The automatic editing mechanisms are automatic to correct mistakes as much as possible. We have had long discussions about their imperfections. I fully reject the idea that cells can think and invent solutions on their own. They have generally effective instructions to follow.


The role of survival in evolution

DAVID: […] Flippers are required for water survival and a fruitful life in a new environment.

dhw: So you agree that your God gave them flippers to improve their chances of survival in the water, and yet such anatomical changes which lead to speciation apparently have nothing to do with improving chances of survival!

Usual distortion: viewing it from God's viewpoint, each stage of evolution must survive until God is ready to prepare the next advanced speciation.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I am not disputing the fact that ID means intelligent design, and if that leads to belief in God, so be it. I have asked you specifically whether ID-ers believe that the differences in degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once. […] And do they all agree with you that your God operated on all the ancestors of every species to change their anatomies before there was any need for change?

DAVID: Don't go off on tangents. Irreducible complexity is an underlying basic concept requiring design. To answer your wonder, they believe in stepwise evolution with design covering the huge gaps.

dhw: The tangents are yours, since you refuse to answer my questions! Of course irreducible complexity is an underlying basic requiring design. Now tell me if your ID-ers believe that your God designed every degree of vision etc. all at once. And of course they believe in stepwise evolution with gaps. Now tell me if they believe that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled all the individual anatomical changes that constitute speciation BEFORE any of them were required.

You force me to repeat the obvious. Irreducible complexity means all-at-once design for all advances. This means God speciates: in the whale series design first, new stage prepared for its new environment.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
dhw: How can an all-powerful, always-in-control God with good intentions lose control of the organisms he designed, and even fail to find remedies to prevent or cure the appalling suffering caused by his loss of control?

DAVID: God is not a puppeteer. We've discussed high-speed cellular reactions and possible errors and we see God inserted editing mechanisms. The living metabolism must depend on the giant protein molecules behaving properly. 99.9999% correct is a pretty good result. Look at your age and mine, and we made it this far with the errors happening. That is a firmly acceptable result, isn't it?

dhw: Once again, you are trying to solve the problem of “evil” by telling us how wonderful everything is. Since we are taking “bad” bacteria and viruses and other forms of disease as our examples, I really cannot believe that as a retired doctor you are unaware of the appalling suffering caused by the bacteria and viruses and malfunctioning bodies in humans all over the world, the vast majority of whom do not live to your age or mine. Why, in your eyes, is their suffering a firmly acceptable result of your God’s deliberate designs (“bad” bacteria and viruses) or lack of control (his “editing mechanisms” frequently fail)?

I've given all the answers you need previously. You look at third world populations and lament their plight. Our old age occurred in more advanced civilizations in our countries created by advanced human thinking and endeavor. Our 'luck' is much more than pure luck, obviously. I remind you where advanced human have dominion (as God intended) we do very well. Unfortunately, not all humans are currently equal, and yes, those of us who are in good circumstances should help improve the others.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 10:28 (954 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The cell's autonomous ability comes from following the instructions algorithms to recognize foreign protein invasion and neutralize it, just as your stomach handled the curry independently of your consciousness, and autonomously.

dhw: Why have you ignored what I wrote yesterday? “Of course many actions are automatic – it’s only when things go wrong or new problems arise that autonomous intelligence is required.” There is a world of difference between the established, automatic actions of properly functioning digestive processes and the intelligence needed to recognize new problems, process new information, and create new solutions.

DAVID: The automatic editing mechanisms are automatic to correct mistakes as much as possible. We have had long discussions about their imperfections. I fully reject the idea that cells can think and invent solutions on their own. They have generally effective instructions to follow.

Then let me repeat the following exchange:
dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

On August 4th you agreed that your God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to recognize, respond and invent new antibodies (de novo) without his intervention. Today you fully reject the idea that they can invent new solutions without your God giving them instructions.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: […] Flippers are required for water survival and a fruitful life in a new environment.

dhw: So you agree that your God gave them flippers to improve their chances of survival in the water, and yet such anatomical changes which lead to speciation apparently have nothing to do with improving chances of survival!

DAVID: Usual distortion: viewing it from God's viewpoint, each stage of evolution must survive until God is ready to prepare the next advanced speciation.

So your God must change the legs into flippers to enable the pre-whale to survive until the next operation, but the change of legs into flippers has nothing to do with survival. And likewise, apparently every species that ever existed first had to be operated on stage by stage so that it could survive till the next stage, but all the operations your God performed on every pre-species in order to enable them to survive till the next stage had nothing to do with survival.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
DAVID: Don't go off on tangents. Irreducible complexity is an underlying basic concept requiring design. To answer your wonder, they believe in stepwise evolution with design covering the huge gaps.

dhw: The tangents are yours, since you refuse to answer my questions! Of course irreducible complexity is an underlying basic requiring design. Now tell me if your ID-ers believe that your God designed every degree of vision etc. all at once. And of course they believe in stepwise evolution with gaps. Now tell me if they believe that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled all the individual anatomical changes that constitute speciation BEFORE any of them were required.

DAVID: You force me to repeat the obvious. Irreducible complexity means all-at-once design for all advances. This means God speciates: in the whale series design first, new stage prepared for its new environment.

You force me to repeat my question: Do ID-ers all support your belief that different degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once, and do ID-ers all support your belief that your God created species by individually designing every single anatomical change BEFORE it was required by changing conditions, and not IN RESPONSE to changing conditions? A simple yes or no will do.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 14:59 (954 days ago) @ dhw

dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: On August 4th you agreed that your God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to recognize, respond and invent new antibodies (de novo) without his intervention. Today you fully reject the idea that they can invent new solutions without your God giving them instructions.

My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean..


The role of survival in evolution

DAVID: Usual distortion: viewing it from God's viewpoint, each stage of evolution must survive until God is ready to prepare the next advanced speciation.

dhw: So your God must change the legs into flippers to enable the pre-whale to survive until the next operation, but the change of legs into flippers has nothing to do with survival. And likewise, apparently every species that ever existed first had to be operated on stage by stage so that it could survive till the next stage, but all the operations your God performed on every pre-species in order to enable them to survive till the next stage had nothing to do with survival.

Woolly take of my position. Of course God wants them to survive until the next stage is designed.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

DAVID: You force me to repeat the obvious. Irreducible complexity means all-at-once design for all advances. This means God speciates: in the whale series design first, new stage prepared for its new environment.

dhw: You force me to repeat my question: Do ID-ers all support your belief that different degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once, and do ID-ers all support your belief that your God created species by individually designing every single anatomical change BEFORE it was required by changing conditions, and not IN RESPONSE to changing conditions? A simple yes or no will do.

How can I be clearer? Irreducible complexity means all designed at once, with the reasonable conclusion, always in advance of function.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 12:49 (953 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? bbbOr do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: On August 4th you agreed that your God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to recognize, respond and invent new antibodies (de novo) without his intervention. Today you fully reject the idea that they can invent new solutions without your God giving them instructions.

DAVID: My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean.

My (bolded) ability – explicitly and enthusiastically endorsed by you - is the exact opposite of the alternative that precedes it, i.e. obeying instructions. You have really entered Alice in Wonderland territory if you expect anyone to believe that an autonomous ability actually means automatically obeying instructions.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Usual distortion: viewing it from God's viewpoint, each stage of evolution must survive until God is ready to prepare the next advanced speciation.

dhw: So your God must change the legs into flippers to enable the pre-whale to survive until the next operation, but the change of legs into flippers has nothing to do with survival. And likewise, apparently every species that ever existed first had to be operated on stage by stage so that it could survive till the next stage, but all the operations your God performed on every pre-species in order to enable them to survive till the next stage had nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: Woolly take of my position. Of course God wants them to survive until the next stage is designed.

And so the reason why he changed their legs into flippers was to enable them to survive, and yet according to you the changes that lead to speciation have nothing to do with survival. Your position could hardly be woollier.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
DAVID: You force me to repeat the obvious. Irreducible complexity means all-at-once design for all advances. This means God speciates: in the whale series design first, new stage prepared for its new environment.

dhw: You force me to repeat my question: Do ID-ers all support your belief that different degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once, and do ID-ers all support your belief that your God created species by individually designing every single anatomical change BEFORE it was required by changing conditions, and not IN RESPONSE to changing conditions? A simple yes or no will do.

DAVID: How can I be clearer? Irreducible complexity means all designed at once, with the reasonable conclusion, always in advance of function.

A yes or a no would have been a lot clearer. I take it then that ID-ers claim that there has been no development involved in, say, the modern dog’s sense of smell as compared to that of its pre-doggy ancestors. And God operated on pre-whales to turn their legs into flippers before they entered the water, as opposed to whales entering the water first, with legs adapting to the new environment by eventually turning into flippers.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 18:17 (953 days ago) @ dhw

dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? bbbOr do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: On August 4th you agreed that your God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to recognize, respond and invent new antibodies (de novo) without his intervention. Today you fully reject the idea that they can invent new solutions without your God giving them instructions.

DAVID: My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean.

dhw: My (bolded) ability – explicitly and enthusiastically endorsed by you - is the exact opposite of the alternative that precedes it, i.e. obeying instructions. You have really entered Alice in Wonderland territory if you expect anyone to believe that an autonomous ability actually means automatically obeying instructions.

You don't agree that cells follow specific instructions as I do. Let's drop the word games.


The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Usual distortion: viewing it from God's viewpoint, each stage of evolution must survive until God is ready to prepare the next advanced speciation.

dhw: So your God must change the legs into flippers to enable the pre-whale to survive until the next operation, but the change of legs into flippers has nothing to do with survival. And likewise, apparently every species that ever existed first had to be operated on stage by stage so that it could survive till the next stage, but all the operations your God performed on every pre-species in order to enable them to survive till the next stage had nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: Woolly take of my position. Of course God wants them to survive until the next stage is designed.

dhw: And so the reason why he changed their legs into flippers was to enable them to survive, and yet according to you the changes that lead to speciation have nothing to do with survival. Your position could hardly be woollier.

I didn't realize you knew how speciation occurred!!! You are back to bit by bit adaptations leading to new species. I'll stick with God speciates and makes sure existing species know how to survive.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
DAVID: You force me to repeat the obvious. Irreducible complexity means all-at-once design for all advances. This means God speciates: in the whale series design first, new stage prepared for its new environment.

dhw: You force me to repeat my question: Do ID-ers all support your belief that different degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once, and do ID-ers all support your belief that your God created species by individually designing every single anatomical change BEFORE it was required by changing conditions, and not IN RESPONSE to changing conditions? A simple yes or no will do.

DAVID: How can I be clearer? Irreducible complexity means all designed at once, with the reasonable conclusion, always in advance of function.

dhw: A yes or a no would have been a lot clearer. I take it then that ID-ers claim that there has been no development involved in, say, the modern dog’s sense of smell as compared to that of its pre-doggy ancestors. And God operated on pre-whales to turn their legs into flippers before they entered the water, as opposed to whales entering the water first, with legs adapting to the new environment by eventually turning into flippers.

The dog's sense of smell comes from their wolf ancestors. Enhanced by human breeders into some advanced types, such as blood hounds. You answers appears to show you understand the concept of irreducible complexity. Flagella are the typical example.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, August 19, 2021, 11:52 (952 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw (4th August): Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did![/b]

dhw: On August 4th you agreed that your God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to recognize, respond and invent new antibodies (de novo) without his intervention. Today you fully reject the idea that they can invent new solutions without your God giving them instructions.

DAVID: My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean.

dhw: My (bolded) ability – explicitly and enthusiastically endorsed by you - is the exact opposite of the alternative that precedes it, i.e. obeying instructions. You have really entered Alice in Wonderland territory if you expect anyone to believe that an autonomous ability actually means automatically obeying instructions.

DAVID: You don't agree that cells follow specific instructions as I do. Let's drop the word games.

It is you who are playing word games. You explicitly endorsed the proposal that your God gave cells the autonomous ability to create new antibodies without his intervention, and now you are pretending that an autonomous ability means obeying instructions.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Usual distortion: viewing it from God's viewpoint, each stage of evolution must survive until God is ready to prepare the next advanced speciation.

dhw: So your God must change the legs into flippers to enable the pre-whale to survive until the next operation, but the change of legs into flippers has nothing to do with survival. And likewise, apparently every species that ever existed first had to be operated on stage by stage so that it could survive till the next stage, but all the operations your God performed on every pre-species in order to enable them to survive till the next stage had nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: Woolly take of my position. Of course God wants them to survive until the next stage is designed.

dhw: And so the reason why he changed their legs into flippers was to enable them to survive, and yet according to you the changes that lead to speciation have nothing to do with survival. Your position could hardly be woollier.

DAVID: I didn't realize you knew how speciation occurred!!! You are back to bit by bit adaptations leading to new species. I'll stick with God speciates and makes sure existing species know how to survive.

Nobody knows how the mechanisms for anatomical change actually work. Nor can we draw a precise borderline between adaptation and innovation. We can’t even pinpoint what constitutes a change from one species to another. But if you consider that a flippered pre-modern whale is a different species from a leggy pre-modern whale, then yes, in some cases I would say that bit by bit adaptations lead to speciation, just as more rapid innovations do. However, this is a digression from the topic of survival. I don’t know why you have switched from speciation to “existing species”. Speciation involves change, and you believe that your God designed the changes to make sure the particular life form survived. It is therefore absurd to argue that the changes your God made to each life form had nothing to do with survival.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement

dhw: Do ID-ers all support your belief that different degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once, and do ID-ers all support your belief that your God created species by individually designing every single anatomical change BEFORE it was required by changing conditions, and not IN RESPONSE to changing conditions? A simple yes or no will do.

DAVID: How can I be clearer? Irreducible complexity means all designed at once, with the reasonable conclusion, always in advance of function.

dhw: A yes or a no would have been a lot clearer. I take it then that ID-ers claim that there has been no development involved in, say, the modern dog’s sense of smell as compared to that of its pre-doggy ancestors. And God operated on pre-whales to turn their legs into flippers before they entered the water, as opposed to whales entering the water first, with legs adapting to the new environment by eventually turning into flippers.

DAVID: The dog's sense of smell comes from their wolf ancestors.

Yes, wolves have an equally acute sense of smell. Do you believe that the wolfie-doggy sense of smell was already present in pre-wolfie-doggies, or do you believe that the earlier sense of smell improved over the thousands and thousands of years?

DAVID: You answers appears to show you understand the concept of irreducible complexity. Flagella are the typical example.

Fine. Do ID-ers believe that your God changed legs to flippers before pre-whales entered the water, as opposed to legs becoming flippers after entry into the water?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 19, 2021, 15:31 (952 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean.

dhw: My (bolded) ability – explicitly and enthusiastically endorsed by you - is the exact opposite of the alternative that precedes it, i.e. obeying instructions. You have really entered Alice in Wonderland territory if you expect anyone to believe that an autonomous ability actually means automatically obeying instructions.

DAVID: You don't agree that cells follow specific instructions as I do. Let's drop the word games.

dhw: It is you who are playing word games. You explicitly endorsed the proposal that your God gave cells the autonomous ability to create new antibodies without his intervention, and now you are pretending that an autonomous ability means obeying instructions.

What I agreed to is with the instructions God gave the cells, they c an/do act autonomously


The role of survival in evolution

DAVID: I didn't realize you knew how speciation occurred!!! You are back to bit by bit adaptations leading to new species. I'll stick with God speciates and makes sure existing species know how to survive.

dhw: Nobody knows how the mechanisms for anatomical change actually work. Nor can we draw a precise borderline between adaptation and innovation. We can’t even pinpoint what constitutes a change from one species to another. But if you consider that a flippered pre-modern whale is a different species from a leggy pre-modern whale, then yes, in some cases I would say that bit by bit adaptations lead to speciation, just as more rapid innovations do. However, this is a digression from the topic of survival. I don’t know why you have switched from speciation to “existing species”. Speciation involves change, and you believe that your God designed the changes to make sure the particular life form survived. It is therefore absurd to argue that the changes your God made to each life form had nothing to do with survival.

Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears. Survival does not create the next stage.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

dhw: Do ID-ers all support your belief that different degrees of vision etc. were all designed at once, and do ID-ers all support your belief that your God created species by individually designing every single anatomical change BEFORE it was required by changing conditions, and not IN RESPONSE to changing conditions? A simple yes or no will do.

DAVID: How can I be clearer? Irreducible complexity means all designed at once, with the reasonable conclusion, always in advance of function.

dhw: A yes or a no would have been a lot clearer. I take it then that ID-ers claim that there has been no development involved in, say, the modern dog’s sense of smell as compared to that of its pre-doggy ancestors. And God operated on pre-whales to turn their legs into flippers before they entered the water, as opposed to whales entering the water first, with legs adapting to the new environment by eventually turning into flippers.

DAVID: The dog's sense of smell comes from their wolf ancestors.

dhw: Yes, wolves have an equally acute sense of smell. Do you believe that the wolfie-doggy sense of smell was already present in pre-wolfie-doggies, or do you believe that the earlier sense of smell improved over the thousands and thousands of years?

The sense of smell is a highly complex system previously described here. I believe as wolves appeared their smell ability was complete with possible minor improvement by adaptation to come over time


DAVID: You answers appears to show you understand the concept of irreducible complexity. Flagella are the typical example.

dhw: Fine. Do ID-ers believe that your God changed legs to flippers before pre-whales entered the water, as opposed to legs becoming flippers after entry into the water?

Must I repeat? Irreducible complexity means designed in advance. Applies to flippers and everything else

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, August 20, 2021, 12:13 (951 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean.

dhw: My (bolded) ability – explicitly and enthusiastically endorsed by you - is the exact opposite of the alternative that precedes it, i.e. obeying instructions. You have really entered Alice in Wonderland territory if you expect anyone to believe that an autonomous ability actually means automatically obeying instructions.[…]

DAVID: What I agreed to is with the instructions God gave the cells, they can/do act autonomously.

What instructions? If they act autonomously, they are not following instructions on how to produce new antibodies. Are you saying that God simply pops in and says to the cells: “I command you to produce new antibodies”? Please specify what these instructions consist of.

The role of survival in evolution
dhw: […] Speciation involves change, and you believe that your God designed the changes to make sure the particular life form survived. It is therefore absurd to argue that the changes your God made to each life form had nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears. Survival does not create the next stage.

Of course survival doesn’t create anything. Survival is the MOTIVE for making the changes – whether your God makes them or the cells make them. And it is absurd to argue that the motive (survival) for making the changes which lead to speciation has nothing to do with speciation.

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
DAVID: The dog's sense of smell comes from their wolf ancestors.

dhw: Yes, wolves have an equally acute sense of smell. Do you believe that the wolfie-doggy sense of smell was already present in pre-wolfie-doggies, or do you believe that the earlier sense of smell improved over the thousands and thousands of years?

DAVID: The sense of smell is a highly complex system previously described here. I believe as wolves appeared their smell ability was complete with possible minor improvement by adaptation to come over time.

Why minor improvement? We have no idea what degree of smell all the different stages of pre-wolfie-doggy had, but the very concept of stages suggests possible improvements, and you yourself constantly emphasize that these stages coincide with increasing complexity. The human brain is a prime example. Do you believe that our ancestors’ brain was complete way back when, and has merely undergone possible minor improvements over time? (But before you answer that, please tell us if you believe all the pre-wolfie-doggies had the same degree of smellability as their descendants.)

DAVID: You answers appears to show you understand the concept of irreducible complexity. Flagella are the typical example.

dhw: Fine. Do ID-ers believe that your God changed legs to flippers before pre-whales entered the water, as opposed to legs becoming flippers after entry into the water?

DAVID: Must I repeat? Irreducible complexity means designed in advance. Applies to flippers and everything else.

So if we go back to beginnings, are you saying that the first legs were complete in themselves with “possible minor improvement by adaptation to come over time”? From the first presumably tiny legs to let’s say the legs of elephants and humans, are we talking of “minor improvements”? Were flippers a brand new design “de novo”? And when you talk of adaptation over time, do you think the adaptation preceded new conditions or took place over time as organisms made the necessary changes after exposure to the new conditions?

Neil Thomas
DAVID: You have beautifully destroyed Dawkins. Thomas' book is a slog I am still performing since it is an exposition of how erudite he is. It appears he is travelling your path to agnosticism recognizing design.

Thank you. I suspected right from the start that we were not going to learn anything new, and I’m sorry I asked you to report on the book. Please feel free to stop.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, August 20, 2021, 18:48 (951 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, August 20, 2021, 18:56

DAVID: My totally unchanged position is the cells use God's instructions to do their work. Your bold above says exactly that, which it seems you didn't mean.

dhw: My (bolded) ability – explicitly and enthusiastically endorsed by you - is the exact opposite of the alternative that precedes it, i.e. obeying instructions. You have really entered Alice in Wonderland territory if you expect anyone to believe that an autonomous ability actually means automatically obeying instructions.[…]

DAVID: What I agreed to is with the instructions God gave the cells, they can/do act autonomously.

dhw: What instructions? If they act autonomously, they are not following instructions on how to produce new antibodies. Are you saying that God simply pops in and says to the cells: “I command you to produce new antibodies”? Please specify what these instructions consist of.

They can act autonomously by following God's instructions to recognize invaders and to produce antibodies specific for their death. With those instructions God need not step in further. We differ in our use of autonomous. Those cells are free to act on their own with the instructions they contain. They do not invent their own instructions.


The role of survival in evolution

DAVID: Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears. Survival does not create the next stage.

dhw: Of course survival doesn’t create anything. Survival is the MOTIVE for making the changes – whether your God makes them or the cells make them. And it is absurd to argue that the motive (survival) for making the changes which lead to speciation has nothing to do with speciation.

That is your unproven assumption. God has his design motives for speciation. Survival is not the driving force for God's evolution.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
DAVID: The dog's sense of smell comes from their wolf ancestors.

dhw: Yes, wolves have an equally acute sense of smell. Do you believe that the wolfie-doggy sense of smell was already present in pre-wolfie-doggies, or do you believe that the earlier sense of smell improved over the thousands and thousands of years?

DAVID: The sense of smell is a highly complex system previously described here. I believe as wolves appeared their smell ability was complete with possible minor improvement by adaptation to come over time.

dhw: Why minor improvement? We have no idea what degree of smell all the different stages of pre-wolfie-doggy had, but the very concept of stages suggests possible improvements, and you yourself constantly emphasize that these stages coincide with increasing complexity. The human brain is a prime example. Do you believe that our ancestors’ brain was complete way back when, and has merely undergone possible minor improvements over time? (But before you answer that, please tell us if you believe all the pre-wolfie-doggies had the same degree of smellability as their descendants.)

We bred bloodhounds for superb smell. Your brain question is totally off point. Stages of brain growth are known.


DAVID: You answers appears to show you understand the concept of irreducible complexity. Flagella are the typical example.

dhw: Fine. Do ID-ers believe that your God changed legs to flippers before pre-whales entered the water, as opposed to legs becoming flippers after entry into the water?

DAVID: Must I repeat? Irreducible complexity means designed in advance. Applies to flippers and everything else.

dhw: So if we go back to beginnings, are you saying that the first legs were complete in themselves with “possible minor improvement by adaptation to come over time”? From the first presumably tiny legs to let’s say the legs of elephants and humans, are we talking of “minor improvements”? Were flippers a brand new design “de novo”? And when you talk of adaptation over time, do you think the adaptation preceded new conditions or took place over time as organisms made the necessary changes after exposure to the new conditions?

It means full flippers at once with minor adaptation later within same species if necessary. Irreducible complexity (IC) means full design at every beginning of a species


Neil Thomas
DAVID: You have beautifully destroyed Dawkins. Thomas' book is a slog I am still performing since it is an exposition of how erudite he is. It appears he is travelling your path to agnosticism recognizing design.

dhw: Thank you. I suspected right from the start that we were not going to learn anything new, and I’m sorry I asked you to report on the book. Please feel free to stop.

I'll finish. I'm close and will give a final summary.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, August 21, 2021, 13:22 (950 days ago) @ David Turell

Transferred from “theodicy
dhw: ...he gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene.

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: So you agree that your God gave cells an autonomous ability to solve problems. Simple.[…]

DAVID: They can act autonomously by following God's instructions to recognize invaders and to produce antibodies specific for their death.

So do you think your God steps in and says: “I instruct you to recognize invaders and produce antibodies.” How are they supposed to do that if they don’t have the autonomous ability to recognize invaders and produce antibodies?

DAVID: With those instructions God need not step in further. We differ in our use of autonomous. Those cells are free to act on their own with the instructions they contain. They do not invent their own instructions.

I wish you would tell us what those instructions consist of. If they are not what I have just proposed, they can only be precise directions as to HOW each new threat can be recognized, what interpretation to put on the new information, and exactly what to do in order to produce the brand new antibodies. But if our cells only have to do what your God tells them to do, they are NOT autonomous.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears. Survival does not create the next stage.

dhw: Of course survival doesn’t create anything. Survival is the MOTIVE for making the changes – whether your God makes them or the cells make them. And it is absurd to argue that the motive (survival) for making the changes which lead to speciation has nothing to do with speciation.

DAVID: That is your unproven assumption. God has his design motives for speciation. Survival is not the driving force for God's evolution.

But you have just said that your God makes the changes so that the organism can SURVIVE for each new stage. Speciation occurs when changes occur, and if your God makes the changes to enable the organisms to survive, then speciation occurs because your God wants the organisms to survive!!!

Retinal design allows prediction of movement
DAVID: I believe as wolves appeared their smell ability was complete with possible minor improvement by adaptation to come over time.

dhw: Why minor improvement? We have no idea what degree of smell all the different stages of pre-wolfie-doggy had, but the very concept of stages suggests possible improvements, and you yourself constantly emphasize that these stages coincide with increasing complexity. The human brain is a prime example. Do you believe that our ancestors’ brain was complete way back when, and has merely undergone possible minor improvements over time? (But before you answer that, please tell us if you believe all the pre-wolfie-doggies had the same degree of smellability as their descendants.)

DAVID: We bred bloodhounds for superb smell. Your brain question is totally off point. Stages of brain growth are known.

You tell us that “Irreducible Complexity (IC) means full design at every beginning of a species.” Of course every pre-wolfie/doggy species had a complete sense of smell, and every pre-sapiens species had a complete brain No problem. But there are vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species, and you keep telling us that complexity increased with every stage. Are you then saying that each different nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or is it possible that noses and brains developed/improved/complexified over the millions of years of speciation? And, to revert to our earlier example, do you really believe that whale flippers were a brand new, complete, irreducibly complex design (“full flippers at once with minor adaptation later”), as opposed to being an adaptation of legs to enable pre-whales to improve their chances of survival in the water?

I would humbly suggest that complexity alone is a powerful argument for design. I really don’t know why it needs to be “irreducible”, since the term requires all kinds of nebulous distinctions.

Cambrian explosion: More early brains found
Quote: "The fossils, belonging to an arthropod known as Leanchoilia, confirm the presence—predicted by earlier studies in genetics and developmental biology of insect and spider embryos—of an extreme frontal domain of the brain that is not segmented and is invisible in modern adult arthropods. Despite being invisible, this frontal domain gives rise to several crucial neural centers in the adult arthropod brain, including stem cells that eventually provide centers involved in decision-making and memory."

It’s nice to read about the decision-making powers of arthropods. Please can you explain how these early brains are classified as irreducibly complex, and the more complex later brains of every different species are also irreducibly complex. Does God have to do a “full design” of every brain of every species, or is it possible that what you call “minor adaptations” may also extend as far as major adaptations, with different life forms complexifying according to different requirements, all the way through to the brain of H. sapiens?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 21, 2021, 16:29 (950 days ago) @ dhw

Transferred from “theodicy

DAVID: With those instructions God need not step in further. We differ in our use of autonomous. Those cells are free to act on their own with the instructions they contain. They do not invent their own instructions.

dhw: I wish you would tell us what those instructions consist of. If they are not what I have just proposed, they can only be precise directions as to HOW each new threat can be recognized, what interpretation to put on the new information, and exactly what to do in order to produce the brand new antibodies. But if our cells only have to do what your God tells them to do, they are NOT autonomous.

God does not 'tell them' each time. They have original instructions to follow every time they are needed. Thus they have autonomous action (by my definition) every time needed.


The role of survival in evolution

DAVID: God has his design motives for speciation. Survival is not the driving force for God's evolution.

dhw: But you have just said that your God makes the changes so that the organism can SURVIVE for each new stage. Speciation occurs when changes occur, and if your God makes the changes to enable the organisms to survive, then speciation occurs because your God wants the organisms to survive!!!

Another non-answer to my point. Survival does not drive evolution.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

DAVID: We bred bloodhounds for superb smell. Your brain question is totally off point. Stages of brain growth are known.

dhw: You tell us that “Irreducible Complexity (IC) means full design at every beginning of a species.” Of course every pre-wolfie/doggy species had a complete sense of smell, and every pre-sapiens species had a complete brain No problem. But there are vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species, and you keep telling us that complexity increased with every stage. Are you then saying that each different nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or is it possible that noses and brains developed/improved/complexified over the millions of years of speciation? And, to revert to our earlier example, do you really believe that whale flippers were a brand new, complete, irreducibly complex design (“full flippers at once with minor adaptation later”), as opposed to being an adaptation of legs to enable pre-whales to improve their chances of survival in the water?

Are you denying the huge gaps between all steps of all species?


dhw: I would humbly suggest that complexity alone is a powerful argument for design. I really don’t know why it needs to be “irreducible”, since the term requires all kinds of nebulous distinctions.

Nebulous because you have never studied it. Irreducible complexity means what is being studied has to have been designed, as it could not have developed stepwise by a series of modifications of exiting parts. You really need to read Darwin's Black Box which has a lengthy explanation. The bacterial flagellum has something like 28 coordinated parts, the source of each unclear. This deeper consideration of the source of the complexity out of its past is a powerful addition to the complexity argument. You need it.


Cambrian explosion: More early brains found
Quote: "The fossils, belonging to an arthropod known as Leanchoilia, confirm the presence—predicted by earlier studies in genetics and developmental biology of insect and spider embryos—of an extreme frontal domain of the brain that is not segmented and is invisible in modern adult arthropods. Despite being invisible, this frontal domain gives rise to several crucial neural centers in the adult arthropod brain, including stem cells that eventually provide centers involved in decision-making and memory."

dhw: It’s nice to read about the decision-making powers of arthropods. Please can you explain how these early brains are classified as irreducibly complex, and the more complex later brains of every different species are also irreducibly complex. Does God have to do a “full design” of every brain of every species, or is it possible that what you call “minor adaptations” may also extend as far as major adaptations, with different life forms complexifying according to different requirements, all the way through to the brain of H. sapiens?

You are back to full Darwinist in the bold with descent by modification

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, August 22, 2021, 09:38 (949 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Those cells are free to act on their own with the instructions they contain. They do not invent their own instructions.

dhw: I wish you would tell us what those instructions consist of. If they are not what I have just proposed, they can only be precise directions as to HOW each new threat can be recognized, what interpretation to put on the new information, and exactly what to do in order to produce the brand new antibodies. But if our cells only have to do what your God tells them to do, they are NOT autonomous.

DAVID: God does not 'tell them' each time. They have original instructions to follow every time they are needed. Thus they have autonomous action (by my definition) every time needed.

Original instructions for what??? Why do you refuse to specify? You agreed that your God gave cells the ABILITY “to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo.” Are you now saying the first cells were provided with instructions to be passed on to all their descendants, telling them exactly what to do when each new problem arose throughout the future of life on Earth, and so they just have to “read” the particular instruction when the new problem arises? What is the autonomous action? Going through the millions of instructions and picking the one that’s flashing “PICK ME”?

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival does not drive evolution.

Survival does not drive anything. Survival is the result of changes made to the organism to enable it to adapt to new conditions. These changes, whether designed by your God or by the cells themselves, lead to speciation. Therefore speciation happens because of changes made for the purpose of survival. How does this come to mean that there is no connection between speciation and the quest for survival?

Retinal design
dhw: You tell us that “Irreducible Complexity (IC) means full design at every beginning of a species.” Of course every pre-wolfie/doggy species had a complete sense of smell, and every pre-sapiens species had a complete brain No problem. But there are vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species, and you keep telling us that complexity increased with every stage. Are you then saying that each different nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or is it possible that noses and brains developed/improved/complexified over the millions of years of speciation? […]

DAVID: Are you denying the huge gaps between all steps of all species?

Your question does not answer my questions! There are huge gaps between some species. I have just said there are “vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species”! And I’ve asked you if you think each individual nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or if the differences developed over millions of years. Why don’t you answer?

dhw: I would humbly suggest that complexity alone is a powerful argument for design. I really don’t know why it needs to be “irreducible”, since the term requires all kinds of nebulous distinctions.

DAVID: Nebulous because you have never studied it. Irreducible complexity means what is being studied has to have been designed, as it could not have developed stepwise by a series of modifications of exiting parts.

I’m not arguing against design. I’m asking whether every individual nose and brain is irreducibly complex, or noses and brains might have changed and complexified over the course of time.

DAVID: You really need to read Darwin's Black Box which has a lengthy explanation. The bacterial flagellum has something like 28 coordinated parts, the source of each unclear. This deeper consideration of the source of the complexity out of its past is a powerful addition to the complexity argument. You need it.

I rely on you to present the case. I’m not talking about the flagellum but about noses and brains. I’m questioning whether every complexity in every new species demands a completely new design (irreducible complexity), or might be the result of minor and major adaptations over millions of years, as organisms adapt to or exploit new conditions.

Cambrian explosion: More early brains found
dhw:[…] Please can you explain how these early brains are classified as irreducibly complex, and the more complex later brains of every different species are also irreducibly complex. Does God have to do a “full design” of every brain of every species, or is it possible that what you call “minor adaptations” may also extend as far as major adaptations, with different life forms complexifying according to different requirements, all the way through to the brain of H. sapiens?

DAVID: You are back to full Darwinist in the bold with descent by modification.

You seem to think that the very mention of Darwin automatically invalidates an argument. Please grant my request for an explanation, and answer my question (explaining if necessary why you reject the second possibility).

Evolution can work in reverse
DAVID: In Darwinist terms, it is obvious advanced complexification through natural selection isn't required. Animals can get by with less complexity than previously present.

In Darwinist terms, then, natural selection discards any complexity which, under new conditions, is no longer required. Simple.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 22, 2021, 15:40 (949 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God does not 'tell them' each time. They have original instructions to follow every time they are needed. Thus they have autonomous action (by my definition) every time needed.

dhw: Original instructions for what??? Why do you refuse to specify? You agreed that your God gave cells the ABILITY “to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo.” Are you now saying the first cells were provided with instructions to be passed on to all their descendants, telling them exactly what to do when each new problem arose throughout the future of life on Earth, and so they just have to “read” the particular instruction when the new problem arises?

Exactly correct as a description of what I believe. From the beginning all immune cells know what to do since they have instructions to follow.


The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: Survival does not drive anything... How does this come to mean that there is no connection between speciation and the quest for survival?

You have explained my point. Something drives evolution to more complexity, the only explanation for our appearance. God.


Retinal design
dhw: You tell us that “Irreducible Complexity (IC) means full design at every beginning of a species.” Of course every pre-wolfie/doggy species had a complete sense of smell, and every pre-sapiens species had a complete brain No problem. But there are vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species, and you keep telling us that complexity increased with every stage. Are you then saying that each different nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or is it possible that noses and brains developed/improved/complexified over the millions of years of speciation? […]

DAVID: Are you denying the huge gaps between all steps of all species?

dhw: Your question does not answer my questions! There are huge gaps between some species. I have just said there are “vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species”! And I’ve asked you if you think each individual nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or if the differences developed over millions of years. Why don’t you answer?

You have the answer: Irreducible complexity means fully designed from its beginning.


dhw: I would humbly suggest that complexity alone is a powerful argument for design. I really don’t know why it needs to be “irreducible”, since the term requires all kinds of nebulous distinctions.

DAVID: Nebulous because you have never studied it. Irreducible complexity means what is being studied has to have been designed, as it could not have developed stepwise by a series of modifications of exiting parts.

dhw: I’m not arguing against design. I’m asking whether every individual nose and brain is irreducibly complex, or noses and brains might have changed and complexified over the course of time.

Yes, from completely designed forms, epigenetic modifications do occur as we both know.


DAVID: You really need to read Darwin's Black Box which has a lengthy explanation. The bacterial flagellum has something like 28 coordinated parts, the source of each unclear. This deeper consideration of the source of the complexity out of its past is a powerful addition to the complexity argument. You need it.

dhw: I rely on you to present the case. I’m not talking about the flagellum but about noses and brains. I’m questioning whether every complexity in every new species demands a completely new design (irreducible complexity), or might be the result of minor and major adaptations over millions of years, as organisms adapt to or exploit new conditions.

Re-questioned and answered above.


Cambrian explosion: More early brains found
dhw:[…] Please can you explain how these early brains are classified as irreducibly complex, and the more complex later brains of every different species are also irreducibly complex. Does God have to do a “full design” of every brain of every species, or is it possible that what you call “minor adaptations” may also extend as far as major adaptations, with different life forms complexifying according to different requirements, all the way through to the brain of H. sapiens?

DAVID: You are back to full Darwinist in the bold with descent by modification.

dhw: You seem to think that the very mention of Darwin automatically invalidates an argument. Please grant my request for an explanation, and answer my question (explaining if necessary why you reject the second possibility).

Same answer: once an irreducibly complex mechanism is designed, minor epigenetic modifications happen as necessary.


Evolution can work in reverse
DAVID: In Darwinist terms, it is obvious advanced complexification through natural selection isn't required. Animals can get by with less complexity than previously present.

dhw: In Darwinist terms, then, natural selection discards any complexity which, under new conditions, is no longer required. Simple.

You simply agreed. Happens now and then.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, August 23, 2021, 13:20 (948 days ago) @ David Turell

Cells and antibodies
DAVID: God does not 'tell them' each time. They have original instructions to follow every time they are needed. Thus they have autonomous action (by my definition) every time needed.

dhw: Original instructions for what??? Why do you refuse to specify? You agreed that your God gave cells the ABILITY “to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo.” Are you now saying the first cells were provided with instructions to be passed on to all their descendants, telling them exactly what to do when each new problem arose throughout the future of life on Earth, and so they just have to “read” the particular instruction when the new problem arises?

DAVID: Exactly correct as a description of what I believe. From the beginning all immune cells know what to do since they have instructions to follow.

In other words, you have gone back 3.8 billion years, when your God provided the first cells with details of every solution to every problem in a programme to be passed down to every cell in every species for the rest of life’s history. Apparently that is what you meant when you agreed that your God had provided immune cells with the autonomous ability (without intervention) to respond to new problems by creating new antibodies “de novo”. Autonomy apparently means obeying instructions.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: Survival does not drive anything. Survival is the result of changes made to the organism to enable it to adapt to new conditions. These changes, whether designed by your God or by the cells themselves, lead to speciation. […] [I have restored my reference to God, which you left out and have ignored in your response.]

DAVID: You have explained my point. Something drives evolution to more complexity, the only explanation for our appearance. God.

And so I repeat: the changes that lead to speciation (and to more complexity), even if they have been designed by your God, have been made for the purpose of improving the organism’s chances of survival. You have agreed: "Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears.” If survival is required, then the need for survival is the reason why your God designed the changes that have led to speciation. This remains true even if he only wanted the species to survive so that he could finally design humans.

Retinal design
DAVID: Are you denying the huge gaps between all steps of all species?

dhw: Your question does not answer my questions! There are huge gaps between some species. I have just said there are “vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species”! And I’ve asked you if you think each individual nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or if the differences developed over millions of years. Why don’t you answer?

DAVID: You have the answer: Irreducible complexity means fully designed from its beginning.

I know what the expression means. I take it then that your God designed every single type of nose and brain “de novo”. So now we have the following history of evolution. God, who only wanted to design humans and their food, programmed the first cells with solutions to all the immunity problems (human and otherwise) that might arise for the rest of life’s history, but he also popped in whenever he wanted to design new types of nose and brain. He couldn’t use existing noses and brains, because each design is fully designed from its beginning.

DAVID: ….epigenetic modifications do occur as we both know. [Repeated under “Cambrian Explosion”, so we can skip that section.)

We were discussing noses and brains, and your answer above suggests that each type was an example of irreducible complexity. Every new nose and brain newly designed from the beginning. I still think that if you want to put the case for design, you’d find it much easier to stick to complexity rather than trying to decide what is and isn’t “irreducible”.

Evolution can work in reverse
DAVID: In Darwinist terms, it is obvious advanced complexification through natural selection isn't required. Animals can get by with less complexity than previously present.

dhw: In Darwinist terms, then, natural selection discards any complexity which, under new conditions, is no longer required. Simple.

DAVID: You simply agreed. Happens now and then.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to denigrate Darwin again instead of supporting him.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, August 23, 2021, 15:32 (948 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Exactly correct as a description of what I believe. From the beginning all immune cells know what to do since they have instructions to follow.

dhw: In other words, you have gone back 3.8 billion years, when your God provided the first cells with details of every solution to every problem in a programme to be passed down to every cell in every species for the rest of life’s history. Apparently that is what you meant when you agreed that your God had provided immune cells with the autonomous ability (without intervention) to respond to new problems by creating new antibodies “de novo”. Autonomy apparently means obeying instructions.

Final sentence is exactly my meaning. Proviso, either instructions in the first bacterial genome, or more likely dabbled instructions added all along the way..


The role of survival in evolution

DAVID: You have explained my point. Something drives evolution to more complexity, the only explanation for our appearance. God.

dhw: And so I repeat: the changes that lead to speciation (and to more complexity), even if they have been designed by your God, have been made for the purpose of improving the organism’s chances of survival. You have agreed: "Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears.” If survival is required, then the need for survival is the reason why your God designed the changes that have led to speciation. This remains true even if he only wanted the species to survive so that he could finally design humans.

As long as you don't try to have survival driving evolution I agree.


Retinal design

DAVID: You have the answer: Irreducible complexity means fully designed from its beginning.

dhw: I know what the expression means. I take it then that your God designed every single type of nose and brain “de novo”. So now we have the following history of evolution. God, who only wanted to design humans and their food, programmed the first cells with solutions to all the immunity problems (human and otherwise) that might arise for the rest of life’s history, but he also popped in whenever he wanted to design new types of nose and brain. He couldn’t use existing noses and brains, because each design is fully designed from its beginning.

Each fully new species involved redesign at that new stage. Think of whale series.


Evolution can work in reverse
DAVID: In Darwinist terms, it is obvious advanced complexification through natural selection isn't required. Animals can get by with less complexity than previously present.

dhw: In Darwinist terms, then, natural selection discards any complexity which, under new conditions, is no longer required. Simple.

DAVID: You simply agreed. Happens now and then.

dhw: Sorry, I thought you were trying to denigrate Darwin again instead of supporting him.

No, I'm really nice to the original Darwin. The current sycophants are who upset me as they cling to a distorted Darwinism.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 14:26 (942 days ago) @ David Turell

Part One

Antibodies
dhw: […] Autonomy apparently means obeying instructions.

DAVID: Final sentence is exactly my meaning. Proviso, either instructions in the first bacterial genome, or more likely dabbled instructions added all along the way.

Here is one definition of autonomy: “the ability or opportunity to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman). Your definition of autonomy: “Obeying God’s instructions”. You are making a mockery of language.

The role of survival in evolution
dhw: If survival is required, then the need for survival is the reason why your God designed the changes that have led to speciation. This remains true even if he only wanted the species to survive so that he could finally design humans.

DAVID: As long as you don't try to have survival driving evolution I agree.

Survival doesn’t drive anything. Survival is the result of the changes which lead to speciation. Thank you for at last agreeing that the reason for the changes that lead to speciation is the need for organisms to survive.

Retinal design
dhw: So now we have the following history of evolution. God, who only wanted to design humans and their food, programmed the first cells with solutions to all the immunity problems (human and otherwise) that might arise for the rest of life’s history, but he also popped in whenever he wanted to design new types of nose and brain. He couldn’t use existing noses and brains, because each design is fully designed from its beginning.

DAVID: Each fully new species involved redesign at that new stage. Think of whale series.

I think of whale series as each species adapting its organs to the new environment, as opposed to your God creating each one from scratch. This is admirably illustrated by the latest discovery:

New amphibious whale
QUOTE: "They found that all parts of the tetrapod skeleton were under strong directional selection to evolve new adaptive features, but that the skull and jaws were evolving faster than the rest of the body, including the limbs.

These were not brand new skulls and jaws – all parts were adapting to the new surroundings. However, part of the adaptive process entailed innovations, which is why I keep emphasizing the difficulty of drawing a borderline between adaptation and innovation, since these innovations were part of the adaptive process:

QUOTE: "'We see several anatomical innovations in their skull related to feeding and food procurement, enabling a transition from a fish-like suction-based mode of prey capture to tetrapod-like biting, and an increase in orbit size and location" said Simões. "These changes prepared tetrapods to look for food on land and to explore new food resources not available to their fish relatives." (David’s bold)

DAVID: There are two ways to view this study, especially using my bolded comments. The Darwinist view describes a speedier selection process with no explanation of how that happens. In their view it just 'is' naturally.

Nobody knows how it happens, but the (comparative) speed is highly significant. I would suggest that it fits in perfectly with Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence (possibly God-given) both adapting and innovating in order to equip the organisms with improvements to its methods of survival.

DAVID: But note the rapid jaw changes in advance of actually hunting on land. Doesn't that suggest purposeful planning from a theistic viewpoint?

I think that is highly misleading. The transitional period would have entailed an initial combination of eating in the water and on land, but once the tetrapod started spending more of its time on land, the evolution of its jaws would have accelerated very quickly in order to improve the new method of survival. Surely if your God had done it, there would have been no need for jaws to evolve “faster than the rest of the body” – he would have simply performed the whole "redesigning" operation in one go. Or do you think he kept popping in to make improvements?

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 14:32 (942 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two

Current science: overenthusiasic interpretations
DAVID: His main point, discussed here many times is that breeding for improvement reaches endpoints beyond which only deterioration occurs. Secondly, more bad mutations occur naturally than good ones. So how did evolution go, naturally, from bacteria to humans? The implied answer is not naturally.

Substitute “by chance” for “naturally”, and we are simply back to the same dismissal of the random mutations theory that you and I agreed on 13 years ago.

How children pick up a language
QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work."

All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth?

Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: As a living organ the neurons of a specific area can recruit any and all of the brain as required when the neurons recognize the current task at hand. That has to be seen as superb design.

Yes, it’s just like a colony of ants recognizing new tasks and responding by taking on different roles. Yet more evidence of the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of cells.

New oxygen research
"It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 18:50 (942 days ago) @ dhw

How children pick up a language
QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work."

dhw: All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth?

The studies she did produced her conclusions with normal humans not wolf-raised children


Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: As a living organ the neurons of a specific area can recruit any and all of the brain as required when the neurons recognize the current task at hand. That has to be seen as superb design.

dhw: Yes, it’s just like a colony of ants recognizing new tasks and responding by taking on different roles. Yet more evidence of the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of cells.

Our brain neurons have marvelous instructions in their genomes to produce this result.


New oxygen research
"It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

dhw: It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

Yes, if everything evolves naturally.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, August 30, 2021, 11:25 (941 days ago) @ David Turell

Part Two

How children pick up a language
QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work."

dhw: All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth?

DAVID: The studies she did produced her conclusions with normal humans not wolf-raised children.

Of course, and that is a major problem for her theories. Feral children also have human brains, but quite clearly their human brains COPY the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed - i.e. they LEARN them from infancy, just as they may learn a human form of language later on, but then less efficiently. This contradicts the theory that the structures of language are “hard-wired into the brain from birth”.

New oxygen research
"It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

dhw: It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

DAVID: Yes, if everything evolves naturally.

By “naturally” I presume you are referring to the theory that intelligent cells naturally adapt to or exploit new conditions. Thank you for agreeing that this is possible. The same argument would of course apply to your God’s programming or dabbling: these still rely on responses to new conditions. The only difference is that in your theory, God looks into his crystal ball and preprogrammes or dabbles the anatomical changes BEFORE they are required – i.e. because he knows conditions are going to change.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, August 30, 2021, 15:00 (941 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two

How children pick up a language
QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work."

dhw: All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth?

DAVID: The studies she did produced her conclusions with normal humans not wolf-raised children.

dhw: Of course, and that is a major problem for her theories. Feral children also have human brains, but quite clearly their human brains COPY the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed - i.e. they LEARN them from infancy, just as they may learn a human form of language later on, but then less efficiently. This contradicts the theory that the structures of language are “hard-wired into the brain from birth”.

How do you know feral children have trouble learning human languages? Teenage immigrants have an accent but understand the syntax of their second language.


New oxygen research
"It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

dhw: It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

DAVID: Yes, if everything evolves naturally.

dhw: By “naturally” I presume you are referring to the theory that intelligent cells naturally adapt to or exploit new conditions. Thank you for agreeing that this is possible. The same argument would of course apply to your God’s programming or dabbling: these still rely on responses to new conditions. The only difference is that in your theory, God looks into his crystal ball and preprogrammes or dabbles the anatomical changes BEFORE they are required – i.e. because he knows conditions are going to change.

Exactly. My non-human God understands future needs and plans new designs for them.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 14:59 (940 days ago) @ David Turell

Part Two

How children pick up a language

QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work."

dhw: All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth?

DAVID: The studies she did produced her conclusions with normal humans not wolf-raised children.

dhw: Of course, and that is a major problem for her theories. Feral children also have human brains, but quite clearly their human brains COPY the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed - i.e. they LEARN them from infancy, just as they may learn a human form of language later on, but then less efficiently. This contradicts the theory that the structures of language are “hard-wired into the brain from birth”.

DAVID: How do you know feral children have trouble learning human languages? Teenage immigrants have an accent but understand the syntax of their second language.

Firstly, you have obviously never tried to teach your language to mature foreign students. Syntax is every bit as difficult as accent. Secondly, the problems with feral children have been well documented:

Introduction: The Ape Man and Other Feral Children
www.erbzine.com/mag18/1801.html

"Occasionally throughout our history, civilized society has come across a "wild child" who has grown up in isolation with virtually no human contact. Many researchers believe that we're born with the principles of language, but if a first language isn't acquired by puberty it may be too late -- we just don't have the neurological development. It also appears that there's a particular period in the life of humans when they're ripe for learning languages. Studies of feral children who have had little contact with humans during the critical ages of one through four years show that they've had tremendous difficulty mastering language and reintegrating with humans."


New oxygen research
"It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

dhw: It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

DAVID: Yes, if everything evolves naturally.

dhw: By “naturally” I presume you are referring to the theory that intelligent cells naturally adapt to or exploit new conditions. Thank you for agreeing that this is possible. The same argument would of course apply to your God’s programming or dabbling: these still rely on responses to new conditions. The only difference is that in your theory, God looks into his crystal ball and preprogrammes or dabbles the anatomical changes BEFORE they are required – i.e. because he knows conditions are going to change.

DAVID: Exactly. My non-human God understands future needs and plans new designs for them.

For example, he pops in to operate on the legs of a group of pre-whales, turns them into flippers, and then sends them flapping into the water. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 16:47 (940 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two

How children pick up a language

QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, most linguists believed that the structure of language existed out in the world, and that the human brain then learned it from infancy. Building on the work of her friend Noam Chomsky, Dr. Gleitman argued the opposite: that the structures, or syntax, of language were hard-wired into the brain from birth, and that children already had a sophisticated grasp of how they work."

dhw: All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth?

DAVID: The studies she did produced her conclusions with normal humans not wolf-raised children.

dhw: Of course, and that is a major problem for her theories. Feral children also have human brains, but quite clearly their human brains COPY the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed - i.e. they LEARN them from infancy, just as they may learn a human form of language later on, but then less efficiently. This contradicts the theory that the structures of language are “hard-wired into the brain from birth”.

DAVID: How do you know feral children have trouble learning human languages? Teenage immigrants have an accent but understand the syntax of their second language.

dhw: Firstly, you have obviously never tried to teach your language to mature foreign students. Syntax is every bit as difficult as accent. Secondly, the problems with feral children have been well documented:

Introduction: The Ape Man and Other Feral Children
www.erbzine.com/mag18/1801.html

"Occasionally throughout our history, civilized society has come across a "wild child" who has grown up in isolation with virtually no human contact. Many researchers believe that we're born with the principles of language, but if a first language isn't acquired by puberty it may be too late -- we just don't have the neurological development. It also appears that there's a particular period in the life of humans when they're ripe for learning languages. Studies of feral children who have had little contact with humans during the critical ages of one through four years show that they've had tremendous difficulty mastering language and reintegrating with humans."

Thank you for this fascinating material. I knew you taught English. The bold is the key. Infant brains are special and fit the theories about built-in syntax, etc. Feral children lose this mechanism if not used is the resultant theory I see.>


New oxygen research
"It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

dhw: It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

DAVID: Yes, if everything evolves naturally.

dhw: By “naturally” I presume you are referring to the theory that intelligent cells naturally adapt to or exploit new conditions. Thank you for agreeing that this is possible. The same argument would of course apply to your God’s programming or dabbling: these still rely on responses to new conditions. The only difference is that in your theory, God looks into his crystal ball and preprogrammes or dabbles the anatomical changes BEFORE they are required – i.e. because he knows conditions are going to change.

DAVID: Exactly. My non-human God understands future needs and plans new designs for them.

dhw: For example, he pops in to operate on the legs of a group of pre-whales, turns them into flippers, and then sends them flapping into the water. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

You are always allowed to believe whatever you wish.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 10:36 (939 days ago) @ David Turell

Part Two

How children pick up a language

dhw: All animals – including ourselves – learn by imitating whatever forms of behaviour and communication are practised by their own kind in the world around them. Feral children for example, may speak wolf language. If then brought into human society, they can learn to use human language, but the older they are, the less proficient they are at learning it. How does this illustrate that human syntax is “hard-wired” into the brain from birth? […]

DAVID: How do you know feral children have trouble learning human languages? Teenage immigrants have an accent but understand the syntax of their second language.

dhw: Firstly, you have obviously never tried to teach your language to mature foreign students. Syntax is every bit as difficult as accent. Secondly, the problems with feral children have been well documented:

Introduction: The Ape Man and Other Feral Children
www.erbzine.com/mag18/1801.html

"Occasionally throughout our history, civilized society has come across a "wild child" who has grown up in isolation with virtually no human contact. Many researchers believe that we're born with the principles of language, but if a first language isn't acquired by puberty it may be too late -- we just don't have the neurological development. It also appears that there's a particular period in the life of humans when they're ripe for learning languages. Studies of feral children who have had little contact with humans during the critical ages of one through four years show that they've had tremendous difficulty mastering language and reintegrating with humans."

DAVID: Thank you for this fascinating material. I knew you taught English. The bold is the key. Infant brains are special and fit the theories about built-in syntax, etc. Feral children lose this mechanism if not used is the resultant theory I see.

All animals have a “mechanism” that enables them to copy the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed. It is clear from the cases of feral children that once this mechanism has been used in one way, it becomes increasingly difficult for the child to adapt to another way. Are you suggesting, then, that the feral child’s brain is “hard-wired” for wolf language? Of course you’re not. The child copies, and once the brain has adjusted to what it copies, it becomes increasingly difficult to copy something else. Good, solid evidence that the brain is NOT hard-wired for syntax.

New oxygen research
QUOTE: "It's important because the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is fundamental -- it's the biggest driver for the evolution of large, complex life.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. I don't think oxygen as a driver of evolution. Lots of oxygen allows evolution to advance but the driver is up for debate here.

dhw: It fits in perfectly with the theory that evolution is triggered by new conditions which require adaptation but may also offer new opportunities in the great quest for survival.

DAVID: Yes, if everything evolves naturally.

dhw: By “naturally” I presume you are referring to the theory that intelligent cells naturally adapt to or exploit new conditions. Thank you for agreeing that this is possible. The same argument would of course apply to your God’s programming or dabbling: these still rely on responses to new conditions. The only difference is that in your theory, God looks into his crystal ball and preprogrammes or dabbles the anatomical changes BEFORE they are required – i.e. because he knows conditions are going to change.

DAVID: Exactly. My non-human God understands future needs and plans new designs for them.

dhw: For example, he pops in to operate on the legs of a group of pre-whales, turns them into flippers, and then sends them flapping into the water. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: You are always allowed to believe whatever you wish.

Of course, and so are you. That is why we discuss our beliefs (and non-beliefs) to test which ones we find more feasible.

COCKATOOS

QUOTES: "Some wild cockatoos whittle tree branches into utensils that they use to open and dig into the seed-laden pits, or stones, of tropical fruit.” “
“They definitely knew the fruit, and they knew what to do with it,” says O’Hara.

Thank you yet again for another natural wonder. It’s always fascinating to learn just how intelligent our fellow creatures are as they seek or even invent different means of survival. And it’s easy to see how we humans once followed in their footsteps, although of course we have now raced infinitely far ahead of them.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 20:52 (939 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two

How children pick up a language
dhw: Firstly, you have obviously never tried to teach your language to mature foreign students. Syntax is every bit as difficult as accent. Secondly, the problems with feral children have been well documented:

Introduction: The Ape Man and Other Feral Children
www.erbzine.com/mag18/1801.html

"Occasionally throughout our history, civilized society has come across a "wild child" who has grown up in isolation with virtually no human contact. Many researchers believe that we're born with the principles of language, but if a first language isn't acquired by puberty it may be too late -- we just don't have the neurological development. It also appears that there's a particular period in the life of humans when they're ripe for learning languages. Studies of feral children who have had little contact with humans during the critical ages of one through four years show that they've had tremendous difficulty mastering language and reintegrating with humans."

DAVID: Thank you for this fascinating material. I knew you taught English. The bold is the key. Infant brains are special and fit the theories about built-in syntax, etc. Feral children lose this mechanism if not used is the resultant theory I see.

dhw: All animals have a “mechanism” that enables them to copy the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed. It is clear from the cases of feral children that once this mechanism has been used in one way, it becomes increasingly difficult for the child to adapt to another way. Are you suggesting, then, that the feral child’s brain is “hard-wired” for wolf language? Of course you’re not. The child copies, and once the brain has adjusted to what it copies, it becomes increasingly difficult to copy something else. Good, solid evidence that the brain is NOT hard-wired for syntax.

If you are correct, it is counter to today's linguist theories. I can only read the opinions along with yours


COCKATOOS

QUOTES: "Some wild cockatoos whittle tree branches into utensils that they use to open and dig into the seed-laden pits, or stones, of tropical fruit.” “
“They definitely knew the fruit, and they knew what to do with it,” says O’Hara.

dhw: Thank you yet again for another natural wonder. It’s always fascinating to learn just how intelligent our fellow creatures are as they seek or even invent different means of survival. And it’s easy to see how we humans once followed in their footsteps, although of course we have now raced infinitely far ahead of them.

Because our amazing brains appeared fo n o good natural reason. Cockatoos are like corvids and why not?

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 12:25 (938 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: All animals have a “mechanism” that enables them to copy the forms of behaviour and communication to which they are exposed. It is clear from the cases of feral children that once this mechanism has been used in one way, it becomes increasingly difficult for the child to adapt to another way. Are you suggesting, then, that the feral child’s brain is “hard-wired” for wolf language? Of course you’re not. The child copies, and once the brain has adjusted to what it copies, it becomes increasingly difficult to copy something else. Good, solid evidence that the brain is NOT hard-wired for syntax.

DAVID: If you are correct, it is counter to today's linguist theories. I can only read the opinions along with yours.

It is obvious from the article I quoted that there are different theories. I do wish you would tell us why you disagree with the above observations instead of suggesting that today’s linguists are all Chomsky fans. Have you done a survey?

COCKATOOS
QUOTES: "Some wild cockatoos whittle tree branches into utensils that they use to open and dig into the seed-laden pits, or stones, of tropical fruit.” “
“They definitely knew the fruit, and they knew what to do with it,” says O’Hara.

dhw: Thank you yet again for another natural wonder. It’s always fascinating to learn just how intelligent our fellow creatures are as they seek or even invent different means of survival. And it’s easy to see how we humans once followed in their footsteps, although of course we have now raced infinitely far ahead of them.

DAVID: Because our amazing brains appeared for no good natural reason. Cockatoos are like corvids and why not?

I don’t know why you began with “because”. Are you really saying that our brains have raced infinitely far ahead of all other brains because you can’t think of any reason why they should? How about the idea that our greater intelligence initially gave us better chances of survival? And are you suggesting that our brains “appeared” out of nowhere, or do you accept the theory of common descent, i.e. that our brains developed from earlier brains?

Junk DNA
DAVID: The argument about the importance Of 'junk' is that chance mutations in evolution should produce lots of junk. That is not true from this evidence, so that suggests DNA may be designed as I believe.

I don’t have a problem with the argument that DNA may be designed. But every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 18:38 (938 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If you are correct, it is counter to today's linguist theories. I can only read the opinions along with yours.

dhw: It is obvious from the article I quoted that there are different theories. I do wish you would tell us why you disagree with the above observations instead of suggesting that today’s linguists are all Chomsky fans. Have you done a survey?

We've covered the arguments about the importance of recursion, and the one language without it..


COCKATOOS
QUOTES: "Some wild cockatoos whittle tree branches into utensils that they use to open and dig into the seed-laden pits, or stones, of tropical fruit.” “
“They definitely knew the fruit, and they knew what to do with it,” says O’Hara.

dhw: Thank you yet again for another natural wonder. It’s always fascinating to learn just how intelligent our fellow creatures are as they seek or even invent different means of survival. And it’s easy to see how we humans once followed in their footsteps, although of course we have now raced infinitely far ahead of them.

DAVID: Because our amazing brains appeared for no good natural reason. Cockatoos are like corvids and why not?

dhw: I don’t know why you began with “because”. Are you really saying that our brains have raced infinitely far ahead of all other brains because you can’t think of any reason why they should? How about the idea that our greater intelligence initially gave us better chances of survival? And are you suggesting that our brains “appeared” out of nowhere, or do you accept the theory of common descent, i.e. that our brains developed from earlier brains?

Same old problem. Our ape ancestors prove our brain was not needed or necessary naturally to drive evolution.


Junk DNA
DAVID: The argument about the importance Of 'junk' is that chance mutations in evolution should produce lots of junk. That is not true from this evidence, so that suggests DNA may be designed as I believe.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with the argument that DNA may be designed. But every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

We still have about 20% junk, not removed.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 18:41 (942 days ago) @ dhw

Part One

Antibodies
dhw: […] Autonomy apparently means obeying instructions.

DAVID: Final sentence is exactly my meaning. Proviso, either instructions in the first bacterial genome, or more likely dabbled instructions added all along the way.

dhw: Here is one definition of autonomy: “the ability or opportunity to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman). Your definition of autonomy: “Obeying God’s instructions”. You are making a mockery of language.

So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous


DAVID: Each fully new species involved redesign at that new stage. Think of whale series.

I think of whale series as each species adapting its organs to the new environment, as opposed to your God creating each one from scratch. This is admirably illustrated by the latest discovery:

New amphibious whale
QUOTE: "They found that all parts of the tetrapod skeleton were under strong directional selection to evolve new adaptive features, but that the skull and jaws were evolving faster than the rest of the body, including the limbs.

These were not brand new skulls and jaws – all parts were adapting to the new surroundings. However, part of the adaptive process entailed innovations, which is why I keep emphasizing the difficulty of drawing a borderline between adaptation and innovation, since these innovations were part of the adaptive process:

QUOTE: "'We see several anatomical innovations in their skull related to feeding and food procurement, enabling a transition from a fish-like suction-based mode of prey capture to tetrapod-like biting, and an increase in orbit size and location" said Simões. "These changes prepared tetrapods to look for food on land and to explore new food resources not available to their fish relatives." (David’s bold)

DAVID: There are two ways to view this study, especially using my bolded comments. The Darwinist view describes a speedier selection process with no explanation of how that happens. In their view it just 'is' naturally.

dhw: Nobody knows how it happens, but the (comparative) speed is highly significant. I would suggest that it fits in perfectly with Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence (possibly God-given) both adapting and innovating in order to equip the organisms with improvements to its methods of survival.

DAVID: But note the rapid jaw changes in advance of actually hunting on land. Doesn't that suggest purposeful planning from a theistic viewpoint?

dhw: I think that is highly misleading. The transitional period would have entailed an initial combination of eating in the water and on land, but once the tetrapod started spending more of its time on land, the evolution of its jaws would have accelerated very quickly in order to improve the new method of survival. Surely if your God had done it, there would have been no need for jaws to evolve “faster than the rest of the body” – he would have simply performed the whole "redesigning" operation in one go. Or do you think he kept popping in to make improvements?

What made your bolded statement work naturally quickly? We don't have any intermediates to show us how, just an existing fossil of a transitional form with the usual gaps in form. I turn to God as the driver of change and you to nature. Since intense design is required, I'll stick with God.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, August 30, 2021, 11:21 (941 days ago) @ David Turell

Part One

Antibodies
dhw: […] Autonomy apparently means obeying instructions.

DAVID: Final sentence is exactly my meaning. Proviso, either instructions in the first bacterial genome, or more likely dabbled instructions added all along the way.

dhw: Here is one definition of autonomy: “the ability or opportunity to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else” (Longman). Your definition of autonomy: “Obeying God’s instructions”. You are making a mockery of language.

DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous.

On 4th August I wrote: “Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he [God] gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”?
You replied: “You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

And so now you are saying, no, that is not what he did. He planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat (the first “portion”, which you had emphatically rejected). You are making a mockery not only of language but also of your own arguments, as you have done in the sections on time and on evolution.

Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: As a living organ the neurons of a specific area can recruit any and all of the brain as required when the neurons recognize the current task at hand. That has to be seen as superb design.

dhw: Yes, it’s just like a colony of ants recognizing new tasks and responding by taking on different roles. Yet more evidence of the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of cells.

DAVID: Our brain neurons have marvelous instructions in their genomes to produce this result.

Marvellous indeed if the way to deal with every single new task was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or entailed God having to pop in every time to issue new instructions. How about considering the possibility that he gave cells the ability/intelligence to tackle each task autonomously – as you agreed so emphatically a few weeks ago?

Retinal design
DAVID: Each fully new species involved redesign at that new stage. Think of whale series.

dhw: I think of whale series as each species adapting its organs to the new environment, as opposed to your God creating each one from scratch. This is admirably illustrated by the latest discovery:

New amphibious whale

DAVID: But note the rapid jaw changes in advance of actually hunting on land. Doesn't that suggest purposeful planning from a theistic viewpoint?

dhw: I think that is highly misleading. The transitional period would have entailed an initial combination of eating in the water and on land, but once the tetrapod started spending more of its time on land, the evolution of its jaws would have accelerated very quickly in order to improve the new method of survival. Surely if your God had done it, there would have been no need for jaws to evolve “faster than the rest of the body” – he would have simply performed the whole "redesigning" operation in one go. Or do you think he kept popping in to make improvements?

DAVID: What made your bolded statement work naturally quickly? We don't have any intermediates to show us how, just an existing fossil of a transitional form with the usual gaps in form. I turn to God as the driver of change and you to nature. Since intense design is required, I'll stick with God.

It’s a miracle that even this transitional form has been found, but you seem to think that there should be a fossil for every single change in every single organ in every single organism! The alternatives you have given – God versus nature – are misleading. You know perfectly well that my alternative to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for whale changes, or his regular visits to perform one operation after another, is intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) responding to the needs of the moment. Once the animal had settled on land, of course the relevant cells would have made the relevant and rapid adjustments to its eating mechanisms. These were essential for its survival.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, August 30, 2021, 14:52 (941 days ago) @ dhw

Part One

Antibodies

DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous.

dhw: And so now you are saying, no, that is not what he did. He planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat (the first “portion”, which you had emphatically rejected). You are making a mockery not only of language but also of your own arguments, as you have done in the sections on time and on evolution.

You always twist my statements. You know full well I believe God game cells the instructions of how tov take action.


Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: As a living organ the neurons of a specific area can recruit any and all of the brain as required when the neurons recognize the current task at hand. That has to be seen as superb design.

dhw: Yes, it’s just like a colony of ants recognizing new tasks and responding by taking on different roles. Yet more evidence of the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of cells.

DAVID: Our brain neurons have marvelous instructions in their genomes to produce this result.

dhw: Marvellous indeed if the way to deal with every single new task was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or entailed God having to pop in every time to issue new instructions. How about considering the possibility that he gave cells the ability/intelligence to tackle each task autonomously – as you agreed so emphatically a few weeks ago?

Cleared up above: "DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous."


Retinal design
DAVID: Each fully new species involved redesign at that new stage. Think of whale series.

dhw: I think of whale series as each species adapting its organs to the new environment, as opposed to your God creating each one from scratch. This is admirably illustrated by the latest discovery:

New amphibious whale

DAVID: But note the rapid jaw changes in advance of actually hunting on land. Doesn't that suggest purposeful planning from a theistic viewpoint?

dhw: I think that is highly misleading. The transitional period would have entailed an initial combination of eating in the water and on land, but once the tetrapod started spending more of its time on land, the evolution of its jaws would have accelerated very quickly in order to improve the new method of survival. Surely if your God had done it, there would have been no need for jaws to evolve “faster than the rest of the body” – he would have simply performed the whole "redesigning" operation in one go. Or do you think he kept popping in to make improvements?

DAVID: What made your bolded statement work naturally quickly? We don't have any intermediates to show us how, just an existing fossil of a transitional form with the usual gaps in form. I turn to God as the driver of change and you to nature. Since intense design is required, I'll stick with God.

dhw: It’s a miracle that even this transitional form has been found, but you seem to think that there should be a fossil for every single change in every single organ in every single organism! The alternatives you have given – God versus nature – are misleading. You know perfectly well that my alternative to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for whale changes, or his regular visits to perform one operation after another, is intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) responding to the needs of the moment. Once the animal had settled on land, of course the relevant cells would have made the relevant and rapid adjustments to its eating mechanisms. These were essential for its survival.

The problem is the gaps in form in our fossil series. I agree. But I see the marked reasons for intense design for each major stage, which keeps you agnostic. I've made a decision, you haven't is our only real difference.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 14:47 (940 days ago) @ David Turell

Part One

Antibodies

On 4th August David rejected instructions and emphatically agreed to autonomy.

DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous.

dhw: And so now you are saying, no, that is not what he did. He planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat (the first “portion”, which you had emphatically rejected). You are making a mockery not only of language but also of your own arguments, as you have done in the sections on time and on evolution.

DAVID: You always twist my statements. You know full well I believe God game cells the instructions of how to take action.

I am not twisting your statements! You are simply contradicting your own statements, as you frequently do when you realize that they run counter to your earlier beliefs, e.g all the quotes about us mimicking God, God having human attributes, and God enjoying creation and being interested in watching his creations. Now we have your agreement that God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to make their own decisions and form new antibodies without his intervention – but 4 weeks later he planted instructions.

Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: As a living organ the neurons of a specific area can recruit any and all of the brain as required when the neurons recognize the current task at hand. That has to be seen as superb design.

dhw: Yes, it’s just like a colony of ants recognizing new tasks and responding by taking on different roles. Yet more evidence of the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of cells.

DAVID: Our brain neurons have marvelous instructions in their genomes to produce this result.

dhw: Marvellous indeed if the way to deal with every single new task was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or entailed God having to pop in every time to issue new instructions. How about considering the possibility that he gave cells the ability/intelligence to tackle each task autonomously – as you agreed so emphatically a few weeks ago?

DAVID: Cleared up above: "DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous."

Why do you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that they ARE autonomous, as you agreed, so emphatically four weeks ago?

New amphibious whale
DAVID: But note the rapid jaw changes in advance of actually hunting on land. Doesn't that suggest purposeful planning from a theistic viewpoint?

dhw: I think that is highly misleading. The transitional period would have entailed an initial combination of eating in the water and on land, but once the tetrapod started spending more of its time on land, the evolution of its jaws would have accelerated very quickly in order to improve the new method of survival. Surely if your God had done it, there would have been no need for jaws to evolve “faster than the rest of the body” – he would have simply performed the whole "redesigning" operation in one go. Or do you think he kept popping in to make improvements?

DAVID: What made your bolded statement work naturally quickly? We don't have any intermediates to show us how, just an existing fossil of a transitional form with the usual gaps in form. I turn to God as the driver of change and you to nature. Since intense design is required, I'll stick with God.

dhw: It’s a miracle that even this transitional form has been found, but you seem to think that there should be a fossil for every single change in every single organ in every single organism! The alternatives you have given – God versus nature – are misleading. You know perfectly well that my alternative to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for whale changes, or his regular visits to perform one operation after another, is intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) responding to the needs of the moment. Once the animal had settled on land, of course the relevant cells would have made the relevant and rapid adjustments to its eating mechanisms. These were essential for its survival.

DAVID: The problem is the gaps in form in our fossil series. I agree. But I see the marked reasons for intense design for each major stage, which keeps you agnostic. I've made a decision, you haven't is our only real difference.

You are conflating two completely different discussions. It is the complexities of life that help to keep me agnostic, but not the process of evolution. You do not need to add the words “marked” and “intense” to the word “design”: I propose that both minor stages and major stages of development require design, but I dispute the argument that every single one of them, plus every single natural wonder and econiche and lifestyle requires a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme or a personal dabble by your God, especially in view of your theory that every single change was geared to the design of humans and their food. The design could have been carried out by intelligent cells, whose complexities are such that they may well have been designed by your God. This is one of the alternative theistic theories you find perfectly logical but reject because they are different from yours.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 16:39 (940 days ago) @ dhw

Part One

Antibodies

DAVID: You always twist my statements. You know full well I believe God game cells the instructions of how to take action.

dhw: Now we have your agreement that God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to make their own decisions and form new antibodies without his intervention – but 4 weeks later he planted instructions.

How can you twist my statement above? Cells act thru/follow God's genome instructions!!!


Rethinking brain organization

DAVID: Cleared up above: "DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous."

dhw: Why do you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that they ARE autonomous, as you agreed, so emphatically four weeks ago?

Do you deliberately misinterpret my positions? Cells run on God's designed instructions.


New amphibious whale

dhw: It’s a miracle that even this transitional form has been found, but you seem to think that there should be a fossil for every single change in every single organ in every single organism! The alternatives you have given – God versus nature – are misleading. You know perfectly well that my alternative to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for whale changes, or his regular visits to perform one operation after another, is intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) responding to the needs of the moment. Once the animal had settled on land, of course the relevant cells would have made the relevant and rapid adjustments to its eating mechanisms. These were essential for its survival.

DAVID: The problem is the gaps in form in our fossil series. I agree. But I see the marked reasons for intense design for each major stage, which keeps you agnostic. I've made a decision, you haven't is our only real difference.

dhw: You are conflating two completely different discussions. It is the complexities of life that help to keep me agnostic, but not the process of evolution. You do not need to add the words “marked” and “intense” to the word “design”: I propose that both minor stages and major stages of development require design, but I dispute the argument that every single one of them, plus every single natural wonder and econiche and lifestyle requires a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme or a personal dabble by your God, especially in view of your theory that every single change was geared to the design of humans and their food. The design could have been carried out by intelligent cells, whose complexities are such that they may well have been designed by your God. This is one of the alternative theistic theories you find perfectly logical but reject because they are different from yours.

What I agree to in the past involved your general view of evolution from the standpoint of a very humanized God who had no clear view of any specific goal and preferred free-for-alls and experimenting, nothing more. Not logical with my view of God. As for brilliant cells doing required design, it is a fantastic extrapolation of cells/bacterial known abilities to make small required adjustments, but always remaining the same species, as in Lenski's E. coli.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 10:29 (939 days ago) @ David Turell

Part One

Antibodies

DAVID: You always twist my statements. You know full well I believe God gave cells the instructions of how to take action.

dhw: Now we have your agreement that God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to make their own decisions and form new antibodies without his intervention – but 4 weeks later he planted instructions.

DAVID: How can you twist my statement above? Cells act thru/follow God's genome instructions!!!

I am not twisting your statement above. I am pointing out that it is a complete reversal of your statement four weeks ago, as follows:

dhw: “Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he [God] gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”?

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

Not the first option, which was following instructions, but the second option, which was an autonomous ability. As I mentioned earlier, this form of "volte face" has become a regular feature of our discussions, as in the threads on time and evolution.

Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: Cleared up above: "DAVID: So I'll change it to they [the cells] act as if autonomous."

dhw: Why do you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that they ARE autonomous, as you agreed, so emphatically four weeks ago?

DAVID: Do you deliberately misinterpret my positions? Cells run on God's designed instructions.

I know that is your position, despite your statement to the contrary four weeks ago. And I have just asked why you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that you were right four weeks ago.

New amphibious whale
DAVID: […] I see the marked reasons for intense design for each major stage, which keeps you agnostic. I've made a decision, you haven't is our only real difference.

dhw: You are conflating two completely different discussions. It is the complexities of life that help to keep me agnostic, but not the process of evolution. You do not need to add the words “marked” and “intense” to the word “design”: I propose that both minor stages and major stages of development require design, but I dispute the argument that every single one of them, plus every single natural wonder and econiche and lifestyle requires a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme or a personal dabble by your God, especially in view of your theory that every single change was geared to the design of humans and their food. The design could have been carried out by intelligent cells, whose complexities are such that they may well have been designed by your God. This is one of the alternative theistic theories you find perfectly logical but reject because they are different from yours.

DAVID: What I agree to in the past involved your general view of evolution from the standpoint of a very humanized God who had no clear view of any specific goal and preferred free-for-alls and experimenting, nothing more.

You often accuse me of twisting your statements. I have repeatedly told you that in all my alternative theistic theories, my God has a specific goal: the free-for-all is to create an unpredictable and ever changing world which he can watch with interest; experimenting allows for your own goal of producing a life form that will in some ways “mimic” him.

DAVID: Not logical with my view of God. As for brilliant cells doing required design, it is a fantastic extrapolation of cells/bacterial known abilities to make small required adjustments, but always remaining the same species, as in Lenski's E. coli.

And I would suggest that if your God exists, he is perfectly capable of giving cells the autonomous ability to change their own structures in order to adapt to or exploit new conditions. This is no less “fantastic” than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single evolutionary change, or the theory that your God pops in to perform all the necessary operations for every single evolutionary change, and to issue instructions for every single problem.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 20:40 (939 days ago) @ dhw

Part One

Antibodies

DAVID: You always twist my statements. You know full well I believe God gave cells the instructions of how to take action.

dhw: I am not twisting your statement above. I am pointing out that it is a complete reversal of your statement four weeks ago, as follows:

dhw: “Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he [God] gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene”?

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: Not the first option, which was following instructions, but the second option, which was an autonomous ability. As I mentioned earlier, this form of "volte face" has become a regular feature of our discussions, as in the threads on time and evolution.

You know full well my constant position is cells follow God's instructions to do their work. The 'ability' you cited and I praised includes the understanding of the instructions. Cells don't think. And with the instructions to be followed God does not have to intervene any further.


Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: Cleared up above: "DAVID: So I'll change it to they [the cells] act as if autonomous."

dhw: Why do you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that they ARE autonomous, as you agreed, so emphatically four weeks ago?

DAVID: Do you deliberately misinterpret my positions? Cells run on God's designed instructions.

dhw: I know that is your position, despite your statement to the contrary four weeks ago. And I have just asked why you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that you were right four weeks ago.

I did not concede the point four weeks ago. God gave the 'ability' with His instructions, and therefore did not have to intervene further. A perfect interpretation of your statement.


New amphibious whale

DAVID: What I agree to in the past involved your general view of evolution from the standpoint of a very humanized God who had no clear view of any specific goal and preferred free-for-alls and experimenting, nothing more.

dhw: You often accuse me of twisting your statements. I have repeatedly told you that in all my alternative theistic theories, my God has a specific goal: the free-for-all is to create an unpredictable and ever changing world which he can watch with interest; experimenting allows for your own goal of producing a life form that will in some ways “mimic” him.

No change from your very humanized form of a God.


DAVID: Not logical with my view of God. As for brilliant cells doing required design, it is a fantastic extrapolation of cells/bacterial known abilities to make small required adjustments, but always remaining the same species, as in Lenski's E. coli.

dhw: And I would suggest that if your God exists, he is perfectly capable of giving cells the autonomous ability to change their own structures in order to adapt to or exploit new conditions. This is no less “fantastic” than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single evolutionary change, or the theory that your God pops in to perform all the necessary operations for every single evolutionary change, and to issue instructions for every single problem.

Your theory of God-given cell intelligence involves much more complex design than straight design by the designer himself, especially if a desired endpoint (humans) is present. But I know you have no idea why we are here. You just accept it without reason.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 12:18 (938 days ago) @ David Turell

Part One

dhw: “Do you mean that your God planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat? Or do you mean that he [God] gave our cells the ABILITY to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo without him having to intervene?

DAVID: You’ve got it!!! The latter portion of your comment is exactly what God did!

dhw: Not the first option, which was following instructions, but the second option, which was an autonomous ability. As I mentioned earlier, this form of "volte face" has become a regular feature of our discussions, as in the threads on time and evolution.

DAVID: You know full well my constant position is cells follow God's instructions to do their work. The 'ability' you cited and I praised includes the understanding of the instructions. Cells don't think. And with the instructions to be followed God does not have to intervene any further.

And so you accepted the first “portion” after all (God gave instructions), and the ABILITY to recognize and respond without your God’s intervention actually meant the ability to follow God’s instructions, which apparently do not count as an intervention. Your use of language really takes some getting used to. We can drop the subject for the time being. I have now understood that when you say autonomy, you mean following instructions.

New amphibious whale
DAVID: What I agree to in the past involved your general view of evolution from the standpoint of a very humanized God who had no clear view of any specific goal and preferred free-for-alls and experimenting, nothing more.

dhw: You often accuse me of twisting your statements. I have repeatedly told you that in all my alternative theistic theories, my God has a specific goal: the free-for-all is to create an unpredictable and ever changing world which he can watch with interest; experimenting allows for your own goal of producing a life form that will in some ways “mimic” him.

DAVID: No change from your very humanized form of a God.

For the non-argument of “humanization”, see “Theodicy”. You told me that my alternative theories presented a God with no specific goal. That was a misrepresentation of my views. I trust you will now withdraw it.

dhw: I would suggest that if your God exists, he is perfectly capable of giving cells the autonomous ability to change their own structures in order to adapt to or exploit new conditions. This is no less “fantastic” than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single evolutionary change, or the theory that your God pops in to perform all the necessary operations for every single evolutionary change, and to issue instructions for every single problem.

DAVID: Your theory of God-given cell intelligence involves much more complex design than straight design by the designer himself, especially if a desired endpoint (humans) is present. But I know you have no idea why we are here. You just accept it without reason.

I have no idea what your first sentence means. Why could your God not have “straightly” designed the intelligence of cells? And why do you think he was incapable of making them intelligent enough to form all the combinations that have resulted in all the different life forms, including humans? Why are you trying to limit the powers of your all-powerful God? As for “you have no idea why we are here”, do please tell us. In the past you have suggested that he wanted us to recognize and admire his work, and perhaps to have a relationship with us. Nice and human. I’ve suggested that maybe he created all life forms because he enjoys creating and watching his creations, and a free-for-all is more interesting than a puppet show, and the human free-for-all is the most interesting one to watch. But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 18:33 (938 days ago) @ dhw

Part One

DAVID: You know full well my constant position is cells follow God's instructions to do their work. The 'ability' you cited and I praised includes the understanding of the instructions. Cells don't think. And with the instructions to be followed God does not have to intervene any further.

dhw: And so you accepted the first “portion” after all (God gave instructions), and the ABILITY to recognize and respond without your God’s intervention actually meant the ability to follow God’s instructions, which apparently do not count as an intervention. Your use of language really takes some getting used to. We can drop the subject for the time being. I have now understood that when you say autonomy, you mean following instructions.

Exactly.


New amphibious whale

dhw: I would suggest that if your God exists, he is perfectly capable of giving cells the autonomous ability to change their own structures in order to adapt to or exploit new conditions. This is no less “fantastic” than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single evolutionary change, or the theory that your God pops in to perform all the necessary operations for every single evolutionary change, and to issue instructions for every single problem.

DAVID: Your theory of God-given cell intelligence involves much more complex design than straight design by the designer himself, especially if a desired endpoint (humans) is present. But I know you have no idea why we are here. You just accept it without reason.

dhw: I have no idea what your first sentence means. Why could your God not have “straightly” designed the intelligence of cells? And why do you think he was incapable of making them intelligent enough to form all the combinations that have resulted in all the different life forms, including humans? Why are you trying to limit the powers of your all-powerful God?

The first sentence we have covered before: A designer directly using His mental powers to design is much easier to accomplish than teaching cells how to design a required design to cover future needs for the next species.

dhw: As for “you have no idea why we are here”, do please tell us. In the past you have suggested that he wanted us to recognize and admire his work, and perhaps to have a relationship with us. Nice and human. I’ve suggested that maybe he created all life forms because he enjoys creating and watching his creations, and a free-for-all is more interesting than a puppet show, and the human free-for-all is the most interesting one to watch. But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.

It all revolves about our unique exceptional mental powers, which mirror His in some way and for His own reasons He created us. And then we guess at His reasons as you describe. I see His obvious purposeful activity, and try to go no further.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, September 03, 2021, 10:49 (937 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have now understood that when you say autonomy, you mean following instructions.

DAVID: Exactly.

I hope you will understand why it is difficult to hold discussions with someone who uses terms that mean the exact opposite of their normal definitions. But perhaps this explains why some of your other arguments about one goal and individual design and good intentions and time seem so illogical.

New amphibious whale
dhw: […] Why could your God not have “straightly” designed the intelligence of cells? And why do you think he was incapable of making them intelligent enough to form all the combinations that have resulted in all the different life forms, including humans?

DAVID: A designer directly using His mental powers to design is much easier to accomplish than teaching cells how to design a required design to cover future needs for the next species.

Who said anything about teaching cells how to design a required design? That means giving them instructions!!! Intelligent cells would work out their own designs – not to cover future needs, but to respond to current needs! Why do you think your God is incapable of designing such cells?

Introducing the brain
QUOTES: Both kinds of neurons receive incoming signals and, based on that information, decide whether to send their own signal to other neurons.
In most of the networks, that equated to about 1,000 artificial neurons for just one biological neuron.

DAVID: This study from AI shows how very complex a single neuron is in its potential activities. Not by chance.

I’d say that with all these potential activities, the neuron needs a fair degree of intelligence to decide what signals to send to the other members of the cell community. Wouldn’t you?

Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: As for “you have no idea why we are here”, do please tell us. In the past you have suggested that he wanted us to recognize and admire his work, and perhaps to have a relationship with us. Nice and human. I’ve suggested that maybe he created all life forms because he enjoys creating and watching his creations, and a free-for-all is more interesting than a puppet show, and the human free-for-all is the most interesting one to watch. But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.

DAVID: It all revolves about our unique exceptional mental powers, which mirror His in some way and for His own reasons He created us. And then we guess at His reasons as you describe. I see His obvious purposeful activity, and try to go no further.

Nice to hear that our powers “mirror” his in some way. I’ll add that to my collection. You told me I had no idea why we are here, and so I asked you for his purpose, and you tell me he’s purposeful! The question is WHAT is the purpose, so what was the point of you telling me I have no idea, when I keep offering you ideas and you refuse to do so?

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
DAVID: If you are correct, it is counter to today's linguist theories. I can only read the opinions along with yours.

dhw: It is obvious from the article I quoted that there are different theories. I do wish you would tell us why you disagree with the above observations instead of suggesting that today’s linguists are all Chomsky fans. Have you done a survey?

DAVID: We've covered the arguments about the importance of recursion, and the one language without it.

No we haven’t, and what on earth has that got to do with your claim that today’s linguists agree with Chomsky that the brain is “hard-wired for syntax”? Some do and some don’t. Now please tell us why you disagree with the “copying” theory so vividly demonstrated by feral children.

COCKATOOS
dhw: Are you really saying that our brains have raced infinitely far ahead of all other brains because you can’t think of any reason why they should? How about the idea that our greater intelligence initially gave us better chances of survival? And are you suggesting that our brains “appeared” out of nowhere, or do you accept the theory of common descent, i.e. that our brains developed from earlier brains?

DAVID: Same old problem. Our ape ancestors prove our brain was not needed or necessary naturally to drive evolution.

Since bacteria have survived so successfully, there was no necessity for any other life form, but since we both believe in common descent, may I suggest that all subsequent life forms evolved by improving their chances of survival through different combinations of their cells? That would also have been the “good natural reason” for our amazing brains: some apes found new ways of surviving while others went on happily surviving with what they had.

Junk DNA
dhw: [..] every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

DAVID: We still have about 20% junk, not removed.

So what does that prove?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 00:42 (936 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale

DAVID: A designer directly using His mental powers to design is much easier to accomplish than teaching cells how to design a required design to cover future needs for the next species.

dhw: Who said anything about teaching cells how to design a required design? That means giving them instructions!!! Intelligent cells would work out their own designs – not to cover future needs, but to respond to current needs! Why do you think your God is incapable of designing such cells?

You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.


Introducing the brain
QUOTES: Both kinds of neurons receive incoming signals and, based on that information, decide whether to send their own signal to other neurons.
In most of the networks, that equated to about 1,000 artificial neurons for just one biological neuron.

DAVID: This study from AI shows how very complex a single neuron is in its potential activities. Not by chance.

dhw: I’d say that with all these potential activities, the neuron needs a fair degree of intelligence to decide what signals to send to the other members of the cell community. Wouldn’t you?

Just lots of intelligent instructions for the neuron to act on.


Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.[/i]

DAVID: It all revolves about our unique exceptional mental powers, which mirror His in some way and for His own reasons He created us. And then we guess at His reasons as you describe. I see His obvious purposeful activity, and try to go no further.

dhw: Nice to hear that our powers “mirror” his in some way. I’ll add that to my collection. You told me I had no idea why we are here, and so I asked you for his purpose, and you tell me he’s purposeful! The question is WHAT is the purpose, so what was the point of you telling me I have no idea, when I keep offering you ideas and you refuse to do so?

Well, we extremely exceptional ones are here and He did lots of creating to get us here. Remember our battle is over why he wanted us as His goal.


LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
DAVID: If you are correct, it is counter to today's linguist theories. I can only read the opinions along with yours.

dhw: It is obvious from the article I quoted that there are different theories. I do wish you would tell us why you disagree with the above observations instead of suggesting that today’s linguists are all Chomsky fans. Have you done a survey?

DAVID: We've covered the arguments about the importance of recursion, and the one language without it.

dhw: No we haven’t, and what on earth has that got to do with your claim that today’s linguists agree with Chomsky that the brain is “hard-wired for syntax”? Some do and some don’t. Now please tell us why you disagree with the “copying” theory so vividly demonstrated by feral children.

I didn't disagree. I thought it was an interesting point. And we did cover the argument about recursion


Junk DNA
dhw: [..] every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

DAVID: We still have about 20% junk, not removed.

dhw: So what does that prove?

The atheist Darwinists use 80% junk as a direct argument for chance mutations being kept!!! They still rave about it and fight current research and majority opinion. You are unaware of the continuing battle. I've named names in the past, not worth it now.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 09:33 (936 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
DAVID: A designer directly using His mental powers to design is much easier to accomplish than teaching cells how to design a required design to cover future needs for the next species.

dhw: Who said anything about teaching cells how to design a required design? That means giving them instructions!!! Intelligent cells would work out their own designs – not to cover future needs, but to respond to current needs! Why do you think your God is incapable of designing such cells?

DAVID: You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.

Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

Introducing the brain
QUOTES: Both kinds of neurons receive incoming signals and, based on that information, decide whether to send their own signal to other neurons.
In most of the networks, that equated to about 1,000 artificial neurons for just one biological neuron.

DAVID: This study from AI shows how very complex a single neuron is in its potential activities. Not by chance.

dhw: I’d say that with all these potential activities, the neuron needs a fair degree of intelligence to decide what signals to send to the other members of the cell community. Wouldn’t you?

DAVID: Just lots of intelligent instructions for the neuron to act on.

So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.[/i]

DAVID: Well, we extremely exceptional ones are here and He did lots of creating to get us here. Remember our battle is over why he wanted us as His goal.

I remember all too well that you believe we were his one and only goal (which apparently is why he created all those life forms that had no connection with us), and I remember all too well asking WHY he wanted us as his goal, so why don’t you answer?

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
DAVID: If you are correct, it is counter to today's linguist theories. I can only read the opinions along with yours.

dhw: It is obvious from the article I quoted that there are different theories. I do wish you would tell us why you disagree with the above observations instead of suggesting that today’s linguists are all Chomsky fans. Have you done a survey?

DAVID: We've covered the arguments about the importance of recursion, and the one language without it.

dhw: No we haven’t, and what on earth has that got to do with your claim that today’s linguists agree with Chomsky that the brain is “hard-wired for syntax”? Some do and some don’t. Now please tell us why you disagree with the “copying” theory so vividly demonstrated by feral children.

DAVID: I didn't disagree. I thought it was an interesting point. And we did cover the argument about recursion.

As regards recursion, that must have been in an earlier discussion, and has no relevance here. You claimed that today’s linguists accepted Chomsky, whereas many do not, and I asked you for your objections to the “copying theory”. I’m pleased to hear that you don’t disagree with it, so we can shake hands on that and end the discussion.

Junk DNA
dhw: [..] every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

DAVID: We still have about 20% junk, not removed.

dhw: So what does that prove?

DAVID: The atheist Darwinists use 80% junk as a direct argument for chance mutations being kept!!! They still rave about it and fight current research and majority opinion. You are unaware of the continuing battle. I've named names in the past, not worth it now.

I am aware of the battle, and am simply pointing out that if there is no junk, it supports Darwinian natural selection (which is neither atheistic nor theistic). You then said there was 20% junk. And so I asked what that proves – i.e. that there is a God? That there isn’t a God?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 18:37 (936 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale

DAVID: You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.

dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.


Introducing the brain

DAVID: This study from AI shows how very complex a single neuron is in its potential activities. Not by chance.

dhw: I’d say that with all these potential activities, the neuron needs a fair degree of intelligence to decide what signals to send to the other members of the cell community. Wouldn’t you?

DAVID: Just lots of intelligent instructions for the neuron to act on.

dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs


Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.[/i]
DAVID: Well, we extremely exceptional ones are here and He did lots of creating to get us here. Remember our battle is over why he wanted us as His goal.

dhw: I remember all too well that you believe we were his one and only goal (which apparently is why he created all those life forms that had no connection with us), and I remember all too well asking WHY he wanted us as his goal, so why don’t you answer?

I've given lots of possible reasons in the past, to which you always give positive meanings I don't intend to convey. It is all guesswork about a non-human person , God.


Junk DNA
dhw: [..] every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

DAVID: We still have about 20% junk, not removed.

dhw: So what does that prove?

DAVID: The atheist Darwinists use 80% junk as a direct argument for chance mutations being kept!!! They still rave about it and fight current research and majority opinion. You are unaware of the continuing battle. I've named names in the past, not worth it now.

dhw: I am aware of the battle, and am simply pointing out that if there is no junk, it supports Darwinian natural selection (which is neither atheistic nor theistic). You then said there was 20% junk. And so I asked what that proves – i.e. that there is a God? That there isn’t a God?

For my point of view, the less junk indicates more design work. The increasing discoveries about the complexity of DNA controls strongly implies a designer at work.

Miscellany: defining 'species' is difficult

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 18:54 (936 days ago) @ David Turell

A review essay:

https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-species/21803917

"An individual which belongs to a given species will always belong to that species, come what may. And assigning an individual to a species is for the most part pretty straightforward. But finding something which defines a species, as the number of protons defines an element, is impossible.

"The practical identification process depends on a sample, known as a type specimen, which is typically held in a specialised collection and described in a published paper. That specimen defines the species. Subsequent discoveries either belong to the same species as the type, or they don’t. Various international bureaucracies keep track of this process, providing ever evolving lists of the constituents of the living world. At the moment, about 1.2m species have been given recognised scientific names by this process. Most are multicellular eukaryotes (animals, plants, algae and fungi).

***

"Darwinism explains a huge amount about life, and about species. But it still does not say where, on the journey from twig-tip to trunk, the juncture is which marks a species-defining common ancestor. One answer was provided in 1942 by a German-American zoologist called Ernst Mayr. He suggested that a species is a group of individuals which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring only among themselves. In other words, they are part of an exclusive gene pool. If they try to breed outside that group, their offspring, if any, will be either sterile or unviable. A new species arises when that inter-fertile group is divided in such a way that some can no longer breed with each other.

***

"Mayr’s idea provides a useful way of thinking about how far back you need to go to find the common ancestor of a species. As long as all of a creature’s descendants can interbreed, you can go back further. Once its descendants form two groups which cannot, you have gone too far. But in practical terms, there are problems.

***

"There is also a problem of differential attention. Animals in which people are particularly interested tend to become ever more finely split up. Once-unitary species are divided either into multiple species or subspecies, a way for taxonomists to hedge their bets when they are not sure how different two populations are.

***

"There was a time when textbooks said, on the basis of fossils, that Homo heidelbergensis evolved from Homo erectus, and that Homo neanderthalensis and, later, Homo sapiens both evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, with the former going extinct. But more fossil finds and the advent of genome sequencing have muddied that all up considerably. It is now clear that modern humans and Neanderthals could and did interbreed with each other. They also both interbred with another group, Homo denisova. Hardly any fossils of these Denisovans have been found, but Europeans and Asians carry their genes. And the genomes of some Africans suggest that their ancestors crossbred with another population at least as distinct as the Denisovans, but which is not seen in the fossil record at all.

"Species, then, may look like natural categories. But their definition depends as much on what you are interested in saying about them as on the biology behind the answer. The results may be coherent biological entities. But you certainly should not bet on it."

Comment: the answer has to lie in sequential genetic studies, which are currently clarifying human evolution as noted in the article.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, September 05, 2021, 09:35 (935 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
DAVID: You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.

dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

Introducing the brain
dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: I remember all too well that you believe we were his one and only goal (which apparently is why he created all those life forms that had no connection with us), and I remember all too well asking WHY he wanted us as his goal, so why don’t you answer?

DAVID: I've given lots of possible reasons in the past, to which you always give positive meanings I don't intend to convey. It is all guesswork about a non-human person, God.

You wrote: “You have no idea why we are here”, so I asked you why you thought we were here. When you "humanized" him by guessing that his goal was to have us recognize and admire his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, what meaning did you intend to convey? Yes, it’s guesswork, as is belief in his existence, but that is what our discussions are about! You seem to think it’s OK for you to "humanize" him in your guesses, but I mustn’t link other guesses of yours - e.g. he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest – to a possible reason why we are here (we are EXTREMELY interesting to watch), because that is “humanizing”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 05, 2021, 15:30 (935 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale
DAVID: You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.

dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

The instructions make the design secondhand. What if there are mistakes as we see in current existing living biochemistry?

Please note today's entry about the 'legged' whale!!!


Introducing the brain
dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions


Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: I remember all too well that you believe we were his one and only goal (which apparently is why he created all those life forms that had no connection with us), and I remember all too well asking WHY he wanted us as his goal, so why don’t you answer?

DAVID: I've given lots of possible reasons in the past, to which you always give positive meanings I don't intend to convey. It is all guesswork about a non-human person, God.

dhw: You wrote: “You have no idea why we are here”, so I asked you why you thought we were here. When you "humanized" him by guessing that his goal was to have us recognize and admire his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, what meaning did you intend to convey? Yes, it’s guesswork, as is belief in his existence, but that is what our discussions are about! You seem to think it’s OK for you to "humanize" him in your guesses, but I mustn’t link other guesses of yours - e.g. he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest – to a possible reason why we are here (we are EXTREMELY interesting to watch), because that is “humanizing”.

I'm afraid my impression of your humanizing is unchanged. Despite my pronouncements that I deliberately do not humanize, you twist what I write to sound like humanizing. That doesn't solve your problem about my view of your imagined God. He is nothing like my God and you know it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, September 06, 2021, 09:10 (934 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

DAVID: The instructions make the design secondhand. What if there are mistakes as we see in current existing living biochemistry?

The whole point of the theory is that there ARE no instructions. If he exists, the proposal is that your God gave cells the AUTONOMOUS ability to do their own designing. And of course things could and did and do go wrong. That is how you can solve the theodicy problem, and that is how we can explain the vast variety of life forms that have been and gone.

dhw: You wrote: “You have no idea why we are here”, so I asked you why you thought we were here. When you "humanized" him by guessing that his goal was to have us recognize and admire his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, what meaning did you intend to convey? Yes, it’s guesswork, as is belief in his existence, but that is what our discussions are about! You seem to think it’s OK for you to "humanize" him in your guesses, but I mustn’t link other guesses of yours - e.g. he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest – to a possible reason why we are here (we are EXTREMELY interesting to watch), because that is “humanizing”.

DAVID: I'm afraid my impression of your humanizing is unchanged. Despite my pronouncements that I deliberately do not humanize, you twist what I write to sound like humanizing.

Why is it not “humanizing” when you say that he wants us to recognize and admire his work and maybe have a relationship with us, but it is humanizing when you say you are sure he enjoys creating and watches us with interest, and I am “twisting” what you write?

DAVID: That doesn't solve your problem about my view of your imagined God. He is nothing like my God and you know it.

You said I had no idea why we were here. I repeated your own guesses as to why we were here, and I have no objection to any of them. In fact, I like all of them. And I especially like the one about him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations, and I propose that this might explain why he created life in the first place, but for some reason, all of a sudden you object that your own guesses concerning why we are here must be rejected because they “humanize” your God.

New amphibious whale found or not
QUOTE: "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.'”

DAVID: And we should trust Darwinist "findings"?

Why limit your scepticism to “Darwinist”? Practically every theory concerning every unanswered question we discuss on this website is full of untrustworthy “findings”. Just look at the thread on time for an example.

Introducing the brain
dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

DAVID: I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions.

So every time there is a new problem he pops in to increase the neurons’ ability to follow the instructions he laid down 3.8 billion years ago? This is getting just a little confusing. How about a different, much simpler theory: 3.8 billion years ago, he provided cells with the ability/intelligence to solve problems all by themselves?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, September 06, 2021, 16:21 (934 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

DAVID: The instructions make the design secondhand. What if there are mistakes as we see in current existing living biochemistry?

dhw: The whole point of the theory is that there ARE no instructions. If he exists, the proposal is that your God gave cells the AUTONOMOUS ability to do their own designing. And of course things could and did and do go wrong. That is how you can solve the theodicy problem, and that is how we can explain the vast variety of life forms that have been and gone.

And my view is organisms don't have God's designing capacities, just His instructions.


dhw: Why is it not “humanizing” when you say that he wants us to recognize and admire his work and maybe have a relationship with us, but it is humanizing when you say you are sure he enjoys creating and watches us with interest, and I am “twisting” what you write?

DAVID: That doesn't solve your problem about my view of your imagined God. He is nothing like my God and you know it.

dhw: You said I had no idea why we were here. I repeated your own guesses as to why we were here, and I have no objection to any of them. In fact, I like all of them. And I especially like the one about him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations, and I propose that this might explain why he created life in the first place, but for some reason, all of a sudden you object that your own guesses concerning why we are here must be rejected because they “humanize” your God.

I haven't changed from an analyzing your God's "works" as indicating a human-style imagined God.


New amphibious whale found or not
QUOTE: "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.'”

DAVID: And we should trust Darwinist "findings"?

dhw: Why limit your scepticism to “Darwinist”? Practically every theory concerning every unanswered question we discuss on this website is full of untrustworthy “findings”. Just look at the thread on time for an example.

The biochemical studies are always open to my interpretive views


Introducing the brain
dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

DAVID: I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions.

dhw: So every time there is a new problem he pops in to increase the neurons’ ability to follow the instructions he laid down 3.8 billion years ago? This is getting just a little confusing. How about a different, much simpler theory: 3.8 billion years ago, he provided cells with the ability/intelligence to solve problems all by themselves?

You wish!!! I believe in evolution by selective design or descent by common design. When humans arrived those neurons had their necessary design.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, September 07, 2021, 11:30 (933 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

DAVID: And my view is organisms don't have God's designing capacities, just His instructions.

I know your view. Now how about answering the bolded question above?

dhw: You said I had no idea why we were here. I repeated your own guesses as to why we were here, and I have no objection to any of them. In fact, I like all of them. And I especially like the one about him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations, and I propose that this might explain why he created life in the first place, but for some reason, all of a sudden you object that your own guesses concerning why we are here must be rejected because they “humanize” your God.

DAVID: I haven't changed from an analyzing your God's "works" as indicating a human-style imagined God.

I was quoting your own guesses as to why we are here. I find them very feasible. Why are you now dismissing your own ideas as “human-style”? And what’s wrong with your own supportive theory that we “mimic him in many ways”?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

DAVID: I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions.

How can they work on their own if they follow instructions?

dhw: So every time there is a new problem he pops in to increase the neurons’ ability to follow the instructions he laid down 3.8 billion years ago? This is getting just a little confusing. How about a different, much simpler theory: 3.8 billion years ago, he provided cells with the ability/intelligence to solve problems all by themselves?

DAVID: You wish!!! I believe in evolution by selective design or descent by common design. When humans arrived those neurons had their necessary design.

Necessary for what? My proposal agrees that when humans arrived, neurons already had the design (the ability/intelligence) necessary for them to be able to solve their problems by themselves, without divine instructions and dabbling. But you propose that your God dabbled the current abilities of neurons (i.e.they weren’t already there), and instructions simply tell neurons what to do, so what exactly was already “designed” when humans arrived if it was not the autonomous ability/intelligence to solve problems?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 07, 2021, 15:59 (933 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

DAVID: And my view is organisms don't have God's designing capacities, just His instructions.

dhw: I know your view. Now how about answering the bolded question above?

Repeat: "DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described. Applies to the way I view God and His relationship to instruction-giving. He instructs cells in how to do their work, nothing more.
[quote]
DAVID: I haven't changed from an analyzing your God's "works" as indicating a human-style imagined God.

dhw: I was quoting your own guesses as to why we are here. I find them very feasible. Why are you now dismissing your own ideas as “human-style”? And what’s wrong with your own supportive theory that we “mimic him in many ways”?[/quote]

Old ground. I've told you I've made guesses at your behest. Just guesses.
[quote]
Introducing the brain
DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

DAVID: I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions.

dhw: How can they work on their own if they follow instructions?[/quote]

By following instructions, as discussed before. They cannot invent new ways of acting beyond the instructions.
[quote]
dhw: So every time there is a new problem he pops in to increase the neurons’ ability to follow the instructions he laid down 3.8 billion years ago? This is getting just a little confusing. How about a different, much simpler theory: 3.8 billion years ago, he provided cells with the ability/intelligence to solve problems all by themselves?

DAVID: You wish!!! I believe in evolution by selective design or descent by common design. When humans arrived those neurons had their necessary design.

dhw: Necessary for what? My proposal agrees that when humans arrived, neurons already had the design (the ability/intelligence) necessary for them to be able to solve their problems by themselves, without divine instructions and dabbling. But you propose that your God dabbled the current abilities of neurons (i.e.they weren’t already there), and instructions simply tell neurons what to do, so what exactly was already “designed” when humans arrived if it was not the autonomous ability/intelligence to solve problems?[/quote]

Covered above. The neurons were designed with full instructions to cover the abilities we are now discovering they have in the previously study entry.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 12:59 (932 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

You have repeated your irrelevant comment about telling people what to do, so please just answer the bolded question.

DAVID: I haven't changed from an analyzing your God's "works" as indicating a human-style imagined God.

dhw: I was quoting your own guesses as to why we are here. I find them very feasible. Why are you now dismissing your own ideas as “human-style”? And what’s wrong with your own supportive theory that we “mimic him in many ways”?

DAVID: Old ground. I've told you I've made guesses at your behest. Just guesses.

And why is it OK for you to make humanizing guesses, but it’s not OK for me to say I find them feasible, just as I agree with you that if he exists, we are likely to mimic him in many ways. This is a strange discussion, as with the theme of time. We agree, but you don’t agree that we agree.

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs.

dhw: So does that mean he gave them the ability to make their own decisions, or that he preprogrammed all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or that he pops in to give them instructions for every single decision?

DAVID: I said dabble the neurons' current abilities, so they can work on their own. I'd better add, following God's implanted instructions.

dhw: How can they work on their own if they follow instructions?

DAVID: By following instructions, as discussed before. They cannot invent new ways of acting beyond the instructions.

dhw: So every time there is a new problem he pops in to increase the neurons’ ability to follow the instructions he laid down 3.8 billion years ago? This is getting just a little confusing. […]

DAVID: The neurons were designed with full instructions to cover the abilities we are now discovering they have in the previously study entry.

What do you mean by "instructions to cover" the abilities? Either they have the autonomous ability to solve problems, or they are given instructions on how to solve them. We are back in your Wonderland, where your definition of AUTONOMY was obeying instructions.

Feser on dualism
QUOTE: “… in our moods and feelings we are not often sure what part is physical and what not. There is no sharp dividing line between. The life of flesh and blood is particularly focused about the feelings and emotions. So long as there is no adequate conception of the concrete or lived body, our theories of mind cannot deal adequately with the life of feeling."

I have read the article twice, and this is the only section that makes any kind of coherent sense to me in the context of materialism versus dualism. In brief, we do not know the source of our emotions, because we do not know how physical cells can produce consciousness, emotion etc., and we do not know if there is some kind of immaterial being within us that does the thinking etc. for us. This is hardly new. The article is headed “make-believe matter”, which only adds to my confusion. For the record, I am convinced that the apple, my house, my family and my arms and legs are all truly existing matter, even if my perception of them is subjective. I truly believe that animals have a degree of consciousness, but I also truly believe that my desk and chair do not. And I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to teach me about the possibility of there being an immaterial me, or of my various cell communities producing all my thoughts and feelings.

DAVID: Pure materialism tries to tell us the way our sensations are converted into charged ions interpreted by our brain, they are not really what we feel. But Feder argues common sense has to play a role in our theories.

I agree that common sense should play a role in our theories. And common sense tells me my emotions are as real as my leg, but it doesn’t tell me whether my emotions are produced by parts of my body/brain and relayed through to (other parts of) my brain, or by some immaterial form of “me” which also relays them through to my brain. I fear I am none the wiser for reading this article, but thank you for editing it!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 15:49 (932 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

You have repeated your irrelevant comment about telling people what to do, so please just answer the bolded question.

It is answered from my experience in design. You don't like the answer applied to God.

Introducing the brain

DAVID: The neurons were designed with full instructions to cover the abilities we are now discovering they have in the previously study entry.

dhw: What do you mean by "instructions to cover" the abilities? Either they have the autonomous ability to solve problems, or they are given instructions on how to solve them. We are back in your Wonderland, where your definition of AUTONOMY was obeying instructions.

Exactly defined as before. Autonomy in your sense involves actual thought. Neuron s don't do that except in your imagination.


Feser on dualism
QUOTE: “… in our moods and feelings we are not often sure what part is physical and what not. There is no sharp dividing line between. The life of flesh and blood is particularly focused about the feelings and emotions. So long as there is no adequate conception of the concrete or lived body, our theories of mind cannot deal adequately with the life of feeling."

dhw: I have read the article twice, and this is the only section that makes any kind of coherent sense to me in the context of materialism versus dualism. In brief, we do not know the source of our emotions, because we do not know how physical cells can produce consciousness, emotion etc., and we do not know if there is some kind of immaterial being within us that does the thinking etc. for us. This is hardly new. The article is headed “make-believe matter”, which only adds to my confusion. For the record, I am convinced that the apple, my house, my family and my arms and legs are all truly existing matter, even if my perception of them is subjective. I truly believe that animals have a degree of consciousness, but I also truly believe that my desk and chair do not. And I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to teach me about the possibility of there being an immaterial me, or of my various cell communities producing all my thoughts and feelings.

The bold, I hope does not mean our degree of consciousness. Animals are conscious, but not aware they are aware.


DAVID: Pure materialism tries to tell us the way our sensations are converted into charged ions interpreted by our brain, they are not really what we feel. But Feder argues common sense has to play a role in our theories.

dhw: I agree that common sense should play a role in our theories. And common sense tells me my emotions are as real as my leg, but it doesn’t tell me whether my emotions are produced by parts of my body/brain and relayed through to (other parts of) my brain, or by some immaterial form of “me” which also relays them through to my brain. I fear I am none the wiser for reading this article, but thank you for editing it!

We both agree about our common senses. The article explains in part how I feel about my immaterial me.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, September 09, 2021, 12:01 (931 days ago) @ David Turell

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

You then repeated your irrelevant comment about telling people what to do. Please just answer the bolded question.

DAVID: It is answered from my experience in design. You don't like the answer applied to God.

In your experience, it is easier to do things yourself than to tell someone else how to do it. And in your theory, your God spends all his time issuing instructions or teaching cells how to do it. Wouldn’t it be less difficult and cumbersome if the cells did it themselves, just as you do?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: The neurons were designed with full instructions to cover the abilities we are now discovering they have in the previously study entry.

dhw: What do you mean by "instructions to cover" the abilities? Either they have the autonomous ability to solve problems, or they are given instructions on how to solve them. We are back in your Wonderland, where your definition of AUTONOMY was obeying instructions.

DAVID: Exactly defined as before. Autonomy in your sense involves actual thought. Neuron s don't do that except in your imagination.

Yes, autonomy involves actual thought – though that is not to be compared to our own thinking. It is limited to what cells/cell communities can do in order to adapt to or exploit conditions. Autonomy does not mean obeying instructions.

Feser on dualism
QUOTE: “… in our moods and feelings we are not often sure what part is physical and what not. There is no sharp dividing line between. The life of flesh and blood is particularly focused about the feelings and emotions. So long as there is no adequate conception of the concrete or lived body, our theories of mind cannot deal adequately with the life of feeling."

dhw: I truly believe that animals have a degree of consciousness, but I also truly believe that my desk and chair do not. And I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to teach me about the possibility of there being an immaterial me, or of my various cell communities producing all my thoughts and feelings. [David's bold]

DAVID: The bold, I hope does not mean our degree of consciousness. Animals are conscious, but not aware they are aware.

“A" degree of consciousness does not mean “our” degree of consciousness. Ah well, at least we agree on something! :-)

Universal iconic language sounds
DAVID: Perhaps, like common syntax imbedded in us, certain vocalizations have a broad meaning.

I wish you wouldn’t refer to the common syntax theory as if it were a fact.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 09, 2021, 16:37 (931 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale
dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

DAVID: In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.

dhw: Telling someone else means giving them instructions! I agree with you completely. In the theistic theory of cellular intelligence, your God has given cells the ABILITY to do the designing all by themselves, i.e. first-hand! “Much easier” for him than having to pop in and give them lessons on how to deal with every single new situation and on how to invent every innovation. Thank you for this excellent argument.

dhw: You then repeated your irrelevant comment about telling people what to do. Please just answer the bolded question.

DAVID: It is answered from my experience in design. You don't like the answer applied to God.

dhw: In your experience, it is easier to do things yourself than to tell someone else how to do it. And in your theory, your God spends all his time issuing instructions or teaching cells how to do it. Wouldn’t it be less difficult and cumbersome if the cells did it themselves, just as you do?

But I can think, cells can't. Cells run on the information they are given.


Introducing the brain
DAVID: The neurons were designed with full instructions to cover the abilities we are now discovering they have in the previously study entry.

dhw: What do you mean by "instructions to cover" the abilities? Either they have the autonomous ability to solve problems, or they are given instructions on how to solve them. We are back in your Wonderland, where your definition of AUTONOMY was obeying instructions.

DAVID: Exactly defined as before. Autonomy in your sense involves actual thought. Neuron s don't do that except in your imagination.

dhw: Yes, autonomy involves actual thought – though that is not to be compared to our own thinking. It is limited to what cells/cell communities can do in order to adapt to or exploit conditions. Autonomy does not mean obeying instructions.

When you cannot think you follow instructions. The autonomy is in accepting and translating the instructions, not ignoring them. we use the word differently as previously noted.


Feser on dualism
QUOTE: “… in our moods and feelings we are not often sure what part is physical and what not. There is no sharp dividing line between. The life of flesh and blood is particularly focused about the feelings and emotions. So long as there is no adequate conception of the concrete or lived body, our theories of mind cannot deal adequately with the life of feeling."

dhw: I truly believe that animals have a degree of consciousness, but I also truly believe that my desk and chair do not. And I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to teach me about the possibility of there being an immaterial me, or of my various cell communities producing all my thoughts and feelings. [David's bold]

DAVID: The bold, I hope does not mean our degree of consciousness. Animals are conscious, but not aware they are aware.

dhw: “A" degree of consciousness does not mean “our” degree of consciousness. Ah well, at least we agree on something! :-)

Seems so. All in the definition.


Universal iconic language sounds
DAVID: Perhaps, like common syntax imbedded in us, certain vocalizations have a broad meaning.

dhw: I wish you wouldn’t refer to the common syntax theory as if it were a fact.

It seems to be best theory we have

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, September 10, 2021, 12:32 (930 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In your experience, it is easier to do things yourself than to tell someone else how to do it. And in your theory, your God spends all his time issuing instructions or teaching cells how to do it. Wouldn’t it be less difficult and cumbersome if the cells did it themselves, just as you do?

DAVID: But I can think, cells can't. Cells run on the information they are given.

You claimed that it was easier to do things yourself than tell others how to do it. You forgot that in your scenario, your God tells others how to do it. If he gave cells a D-I-Y mechanism, all he’d have to do would be sit back and watch. Wouldn’t that be “easier”, “less difficult” and “less cumbersome” than designing millions of programmes, giving millions of lessons, and issuing millions of instructions? Your fixed beliefs have nothing to do with the question of what would be easier.

Introducing the brain
DAVID: Autonomy in your sense involves actual thought. Neuron s don't do that except in your imagination.

dhw: Yes, autonomy involves actual thought – though that is not to be compared to our own thinking. It is limited to what cells/cell communities can do in order to adapt to or exploit conditions. Autonomy does not mean obeying instructions.

DAVID: When you cannot think you follow instructions. The autonomy is in accepting and translating the instructions, not ignoring them. we use the word differently as previously noted.

Following instructions is the opposite of autonomy. The whole point of the cellular intelligence theory is that cells CAN think – not like humans, but in a manner that enables them to solve problems, take decisions, change their structures all by themselves. I challenge you to find any speaker of the English language who would define “autonomy” as the ability to follow instructions - together with an inability to act without instructions!

Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.”

DAVID: These proteins change shape at high speeds, making them difficult to study. Such processes must be designed all at once to work as in the bold above. Stepwise evolution can't do this.

I need your help on this. It seems to suggest that cells can accomplish a swift transformation from one shape and function to another. If so, the implications for the evolutionary process are massive. But maybe I’ve misunderstood it.

A new monster
QUOTES: "Titanokorys belongs to a diverse group of arthropods called radiodonts that split from the ancestors of spiders, insects, and horseshoe crabs by 520 million years ago, soon after the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity.
"Finding Titanokorys at the same site as Cambroraster underscores the diversity of Cambrian ecosystems, Caron adds—and the remarkable abundance of predators. Earth’s early seas must have had enough prey to feed a large range of hunters coexisting in the same space, including some animals that have so far eluded paleontologists
."

DAVID: The Cambrian still has new organisms to find. Same old Darwinian specter, no predecessor like it.

Thank you for telling us about yet another amazing find.
If Titanokorys is descended from spiders etc. and belongs to a group called radiodonts, there must be similarities. Along with the “diversity of Cambrian ecosystems”, doesn’t this simply confirm the principle that different environments trigger new developments in existing organisms, thereby leading to different varieties of life forms?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, September 10, 2021, 18:15 (930 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In your experience, it is easier to do things yourself than to tell someone else how to do it. And in your theory, your God spends all his time issuing instructions or teaching cells how to do it. Wouldn’t it be less difficult and cumbersome if the cells did it themselves, just as you do?

DAVID: But I can think, cells can't. Cells run on the information they are given.

dhw: You claimed that it was easier to do things yourself than tell others how to do it. You forgot that in your scenario, your God tells others how to do it. If he gave cells a D-I-Y mechanism, all he’d have to do would be sit back and watch. Wouldn’t that be “easier”, “less difficult” and “less cumbersome” than designing millions of programmes, giving millions of lessons, and issuing millions of instructions? Your fixed beliefs have nothing to do with the question of what would be easier.

There are two parts to design for God: first a basic living biochemical system for cells to run on, which began at life's origin; second stage, designing successive stages with thoughtful anticipation of future needs. Living cell communities in organisms are incapable of the second stage and so it is easier for God to do the design rather than instructing them how to do it. It doesn't require your implied enormous number of dabbles with a basic system in place.


Introducing the brain
DAVID: Autonomy in your sense involves actual thought. Neuron s don't do that except in your imagination.

dhw: Yes, autonomy involves actual thought – though that is not to be compared to our own thinking. It is limited to what cells/cell communities can do in order to adapt to or exploit conditions. Autonomy does not mean obeying instructions.

DAVID: When you cannot think you follow instructions. The autonomy is in accepting and translating the instructions, not ignoring them. we use the word differently as previously noted.

dhw: Following instructions is the opposite of autonomy. The whole point of the cellular intelligence theory is that cells CAN think – not like humans, but in a manner that enables them to solve problems, take decisions, change their structures all by themselves. I challenge you to find any speaker of the English language who would define “autonomy” as the ability to follow instructions - together with an inability to act without instructions!

Having researched the point, you are correct about the proper definition of autonomy, and I've been sloppy as applied to biology. But I'll stick to my thought, cells follow God's instructions but can make minor epigenetic adaptations.


Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.”

DAVID: These proteins change shape at high speeds, making them difficult to study. Such processes must be designed all at once to work as in the bold above. Stepwise evolution can't do this.

dhw: I need your help on this. It seems to suggest that cells can accomplish a swift transformation from one shape and function to another. If so, the implications for the evolutionary process are massive. But maybe I’ve misunderstood it.

Misunderstood. The discussion is about molecular shape changes precisely controlled within cells, not cell shape changes.


A new monster
QUOTES: "Titanokorys belongs to a diverse group of arthropods called radiodonts that split from the ancestors of spiders, insects, and horseshoe crabs by 520 million years ago, soon after the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity.
"Finding Titanokorys at the same site as Cambroraster underscores the diversity of Cambrian ecosystems, Caron adds—and the remarkable abundance of predators. Earth’s early seas must have had enough prey to feed a large range of hunters coexisting in the same space, including some animals that have so far eluded paleontologists
."

DAVID: The Cambrian still has new organisms to find. Same old Darwinian specter, no predecessor like it.

Thank you for telling us about yet another amazing find.
dhw: If Titanokorys is descended from spiders etc. and belongs to a group called radiodonts, there must be similarities. Along with the “diversity of Cambrian ecosystems”, doesn’t this simply confirm the principle that different environments trigger new developments in existing organisms, thereby leading to different varieties of life forms?

Titanokorys precedes spiders. What Cambrians are compared to is what develops from them later on. Cambrians are the starting ancestors of all future existent phyla.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, September 11, 2021, 13:30 (929 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In your experience, it is easier to do things yourself than to tell someone else how to do it. And in your theory, your God spends all his time issuing instructions or teaching cells how to do it. Wouldn’t it be less difficult and cumbersome if the cells did it themselves, just as you do?

DAVID: But I can think, cells can't. Cells run on the information they are given.

dhw: You claimed that it was easier to do things yourself than tell others how to do it. You forgot that in your scenario, your God tells others how to do it. If he gave cells a
D-I-Y mechanism, all he’d have to do would be sit back and watch. Wouldn’t that be “easier”, “less difficult” and “less cumbersome” than designing millions of programmes, giving millions of lessons, and issuing millions of instructions? Your fixed beliefs have nothing to do with the question of what would be easier.

DAVID: There are two parts to design for God: first a basic living biochemical system for cells to run on, which began at life's origin; second stage, designing successive stages with thoughtful anticipation of future needs.

First stage, agreed. Second stage, do you mean a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every evolutionary innovation, or do you mean ad hoc dabbling when he looks into his crystal ball?

DAVID: Living cell communities in organisms are incapable of the second stage...

I agree that cell communities don’t have a crystal ball. My proposal is that they react to new conditions, not that they foresee them. It is not a fact but simply your belief that cell communities are incapable of autonomous reactions to new conditions.

DAVID: ...and so it is easier for God to do the design rather than instructing them how to do it. It doesn't require your implied enormous number of dabbles with a basic system in place.

But you keep telling us that the cells obey instructions! Now they don’t even do that! God comes in and makes all the decisions and does all the twiddles for them! And how can this possibly be easier for God than coming up with ONE mechanism which will enable him to sit back and do nothing while all the cell communities use their God-given intelligence to work out their own designs?

Introducing the brain
dhw: I challenge you to find any speaker of the English language who would define “autonomy” as the ability to follow instructions - together with an inability to act without instructions!

DAVID: Having researched the point, you are correct about the proper definition of autonomy, and I've been sloppy as applied to biology. But I'll stick to my thought, cells follow God's instructions but can make minor epigenetic adaptations.

Thank you for your first comment. As for the second, I am fully aware of your fixed beliefs.

Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.

DAVID: These proteins change shape at high speeds, making them difficult to study. Such processes must be designed all at once to work as in the bold above. Stepwise evolution can't do this.

dhw: I need your help on this. It seems to suggest that cells can accomplish a swift transformation from one shape and function to another. If so, the implications for the evolutionary process are massive. But maybe I’ve misunderstood it.

DAVID: Misunderstood. The discussion is about molecular shape changes precisely controlled within cells, not cell shape changes.

I’ll continue to ask for help. In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 11, 2021, 16:17 (929 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There are two parts to design for God: first a basic living biochemical system for cells to run on, which began at life's origin; second stage, designing successive stages with thoughtful anticipation of future needs.

dhw: First stage, agreed. Second stage, do you mean a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every evolutionary innovation, or do you mean ad hoc dabbling when he looks into his crystal ball?

I don't know from the evidence. There is co-evolution occurring with the Earth changing from 3.8 bya and evolutionary forms changing, all under His control. Did He follow a plan or set up an overall plan? I can't 'know' the answer.


DAVID: Living cell communities in organisms are incapable of the second stage...

dhw: I agree that cell communities don’t have a crystal ball. My proposal is that they react to new conditions, not that they foresee them. It is not a fact but simply your belief that cell communities are incapable of autonomous reactions to new conditions.

Whoa!!! Organisms make small epigenetic adaptations.


DAVID: ...and so it is easier for God to do the design rather than instructing them how to do it. It doesn't require your implied enormous number of dabbles with a basic system in place.

dhw: But you keep telling us that the cells obey instructions! Now they don’t even do that! God comes in and makes all the decisions and does all the twiddles for them! And how can this possibly be easier for God than coming up with ONE mechanism which will enable him to sit back and do nothing while all the cell communities use their God-given intelligence to work out their own designs?

I repeat from my experience. It is easier to do it yourself than to tell others how to do it.


Introducing the brain
dhw: I challenge you to find any speaker of the English language who would define “autonomy” as the ability to follow instructions - together with an inability to act without instructions!

DAVID: Having researched the point, you are correct about the proper definition of autonomy, and I've been sloppy as applied to biology. But I'll stick to my thought, cells follow God's instructions but can make minor epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: Thank you for your first comment. As for the second, I am fully aware of your fixed beliefs.

As I am aware of yours.


Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.

DAVID: These proteins change shape at high speeds, making them difficult to study. Such processes must be designed all at once to work as in the bold above. Stepwise evolution can't do this.

dhw: I need your help on this. It seems to suggest that cells can accomplish a swift transformation from one shape and function to another. If so, the implications for the evolutionary process are massive. But maybe I’ve misunderstood it.

DAVID: Misunderstood. The discussion is about molecular shape changes precisely controlled within cells, not cell shape changes.

dhw: I’ll continue to ask for help. In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

This is within single cells. 'Fate determination' involves how embryology works with cells following signals to arrive at given places and function. It can also involve apoptosis, timed cell death. The requirement that molecular shape changes must be specific and split- second is why molecular mistakes happen. Living biology is a free-flowing very high speed process. If each molecule was somehow confined or controlled mistakes would not happen, but living biology couldn't work either as too cumbersome

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, September 12, 2021, 11:28 (928 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There are two parts to design for God: first a basic living biochemical system for cells to run on, which began at life's origin; second stage, designing successive stages with thoughtful anticipation of future needs.

dhw: First stage, agreed. Second stage, do you mean a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every evolutionary innovation, or do you mean ad hoc dabbling when he looks into his crystal ball?

DAVID: I don't know from the evidence. There is co-evolution occurring with the Earth changing from 3.8 bya and evolutionary forms changing, all under His control. Did He follow a plan or set up an overall plan? I can't 'know' the answer.

You don’t ‘know’ if it was a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all changes, or ad hoc dabbling, and although you won’t admit it, you don’t know if it was all under his control, and you don’t know that his ‘plan’ was not to give free rein to his invention. Nor, in passing, do you know that he designed every life form, or that every life form was part of a plan to produce humans, even though the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Living cell communities in organisms are incapable of the second stage...

dhw: I agree that cell communities don’t have a crystal ball. My proposal is that they react to new conditions, not that they foresee them. It is not a fact but simply your belief that cell communities are incapable of autonomous reactions to new conditions.

DAVID: Whoa!!! Organisms make small epigenetic adaptations.

Yes, we know that. And there is a theory that they may also be capable of large adaptations and even innovations, but you just happen to know that they can’t – hence your authoritative statements, even though you sometimes offer odds of 50/50.

DAVID: ...and so it is easier for God to do the design rather than instructing them how to do it. It doesn't require your implied enormous number of dabbles with a basic system in place.

dhw: But you keep telling us that the cells obey instructions! Now they don’t even do that! God comes in and makes all the decisions and does all the twiddles for them! And how can this possibly be easier for God than coming up with ONE mechanism which will enable him to sit back and do nothing while all the cell communities use their God-given intelligence to work out their own designs?

DAVID: I repeat from my experience. It is easier to do it yourself than to tell others how to do it.

And I repeat that until now you have had your God preprogramming changes or issuing instructions. Suddenly you have him popping in to make every decision, solve every problem, perform every operation. So much easier, apparently, than inventing a single mechanism that will accomplish all those tasks without him having to lift a metaphorical finger.

Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.”

dhw: In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

DAVID: This is within single cells.

But single cells form combinations.

DAVID: 'Fate determination' involves how embryology works with cells following signals to arrive at given places and function.

But still using the same processes, some cells can change their function. That would surely be highly relevant to our understanding of how evolution works.
The rest of your post changes the subject to “mistakes”, which we are discussing on the theodicy thread.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 12, 2021, 16:02 (928 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't know from the evidence. There is co-evolution occurring with the Earth changing from 3.8 bya and evolutionary forms changing, all under His control. Did He follow a plan or set up an overall plan? I can't 'know' the answer.

dhw: You don’t ‘know’ if it was a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all changes, or ad hoc dabbling, and although you won’t admit it, you don’t know if it was all under his control, and you don’t know that his ‘plan’ was not to give free rein to his invention. Nor, in passing, do you know that he designed every life form, or that every life form was part of a plan to produce humans, even though the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with humans.

I know what I believe. I know your views are amorphous.


dhw: I agree that cell communities don’t have a crystal ball. My proposal is that they react to new conditions, not that they foresee them. It is not a fact but simply your belief that cell communities are incapable of autonomous reactions to new conditions.

DAVID: Whoa!!! Organisms make small epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: Yes, we know that. And there is a theory that they may also be capable of large adaptations and even innovations, but you just happen to know that they can’t – hence your authoritative statements, even though you sometimes offer odds of 50/50.

The 50/50 only applies to the probability of cells functioning by following instructions


DAVID: I repeat from my experience. It is easier to do it yourself than to tell others how to do it.

dhw: And I repeat that until now you have had your God preprogramming changes or issuing instructions. Suddenly you have him popping in to make every decision, solve every problem, perform every operation. So much easier, apparently, than inventing a single mechanism that will accomplish all those tasks without him having to lift a metaphorical finger.

No change. I don't know if the process of evolution is all preprogrammed or God steps in to dabble. Instructing cells as to how to dabble to get exact results is way more complex than doing it yourself.


Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.”

dhw: In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

DAVID: This is within single cells.

dhw: But single cells form combinations.

Not covered in this paper.


DAVID: 'Fate determination' involves how embryology works with cells following signals to arrive at given places and function.

dhw: But still using the same processes, some cells can change their function. That would surely be highly relevant to our understanding of how evolution works.

Cells are fixed in their functions, but second by second processes vary to slight degrees as in kidney cells altering function to change sodium levels slightly. Living biochemistry produces homeostasis by constant slight changes in cell function.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, September 13, 2021, 12:39 (927 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't know from the evidence. There is co-evolution occurring with the Earth changing from 3.8 bya and evolutionary forms changing, all under His control. Did He follow a plan or set up an overall plan? I can't 'know' the answer.

dhw: You don’t ‘know’ if it was a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all changes, or ad hoc dabbling, and although you won’t admit it, you don’t know if it was all under his control, and you don’t know that his ‘plan’ was not to give free rein to his invention. Nor, in passing, do you know that he designed every life form, or that every life form was part of a plan to produce humans, even though the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I know what I believe. I know your views are amorphous.

Congratulations on your knowledge of what you believe, even though you’re not sure what was planned 3.8 billion years ago, and what was dabbled. The alternative views that I present are absolutely not amorphous – they are very precise and, as you agree, totally logical. But I don’t believe or disbelieve any of them, just as I don’t believe or disbelieve in God.


Cellular intelligence
DAVID: Whoa!!! Organisms make small epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: Yes, we know that. And there is a theory that they may also be capable of large adaptations and even innovations, but you just happen to know that they can’t – hence your authoritative statements, even though you sometimes offer odds of 50/50.

DAVID: The 50/50 only applies to the probability of cells functioning by following instructions.

So it’s 50 in favour of instructions. What’s the other 50 in favour of?

Function in cells
QUOTE: “...the same protein can exert distinct functions depending on the effector it binds to. At the molecular level, protein functions thus translate into protein dynamics, which is key for the development of all cellular processes, from cell division to energy provision and cell fate determination.

dhw: In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

DAVID: This is within single cells.

dhw: But single cells form combinations.

DAVID: Not covered in this paper.

Worth exploring, then?

DAVID: 'Fate determination' involves how embryology works with cells following signals to arrive at given places and function.

dhw: But still using the same processes, some cells can change their function. That would surely be highly relevant to our understanding of how evolution works.

DAVID: Cells are fixed in their functions, but second by second processes vary to slight degrees as in kidney cells altering function to change sodium levels slightly. Living biochemistry produces homeostasis by constant slight changes in cell function.

But stem cells are not fixed. They can develop into different types and different organs. That is why I am suggesting that the process described above may be highly relevant to the manner in which evolution works.

Covid and politics
FESER: Each side is, in my view, largely reacting in kneejerk fashion to the other. This is no more rational or defensible when right-wingers do it than when left-wingers do. However, it is the Left that dominates the commanding heights in academia, journalism, and popular culture. When the left politicizes science, as it manifestly has done through the course of the pandemic, it has itself to blame for sparking a reaction and generating the skepticism about science that it decries.

DAVID: The politicization of climate science is just the same.

I’ve struggled through the whole article, but as is so often the case with Feser, I have difficulty putting all the bits and pieces together. There is no fixed knowledge on the best way to tackle Covid. Scientists themselves are divided. Whatever methods are used will create problems for some members of the community. It’s politicians that have to take the decisions, so of course the issues are politicized, and if scientists and politicians disagree among themselves as well as with one another, of course there is scepticism towards all of them. And that’s without even considering the rival but perfectly legitimate concerns of the economists, sociologists, educationalists and health services. It’s the usual problem: your left-wingers and your right-wingers, your believers and your unbelievers, all think they know best, and they just cannot see that there is more than one point of view on any issue that has not been definitively settled by a known truth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, September 13, 2021, 16:24 (927 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I know what I believe. I know your views are amorphous.

dhw: Congratulations on your knowledge of what you believe, even though you’re not sure what was planned 3.8 billion years ago, and what was dabbled. The alternative views that I present are absolutely not amorphous – they are very precise and, as you agree, totally logical. But I don’t believe or disbelieve any of them, just as I don’t believe or disbelieve in God.

I know and your view of God describes several types.>


Function in cells
dhw: In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

DAVID: This is within single cells.

dhw: But single cells form combinations.

DAVID: Not covered in this paper.

dhw: Worth exploring, then?

How, in theory?


DAVID: 'Fate determination' involves how embryology works with cells following signals to arrive at given places and function.

dhw: But still using the same processes, some cells can change their function. That would surely be highly relevant to our understanding of how evolution works.

DAVID: Cells are fixed in their functions, but second by second processes vary to slight degrees as in kidney cells altering function to change sodium levels slightly. Living biochemistry produces homeostasis by constant slight changes in cell function.

dhw: But stem cells are not fixed. They can develop into different types and different organs. That is why I am suggesting that the process described above may be highly relevant to the manner in which evolution works.

But in embryology certain stem cells are programmed to become different parts of the body or receive differing stimuli to guide their change


Covid and politics
FESER: Each side is, in my view, largely reacting in kneejerk fashion to the other. This is no more rational or defensible when right-wingers do it than when left-wingers do. However, it is the Left that dominates the commanding heights in academia, journalism, and popular culture. When the left politicizes science, as it manifestly has done through the course of the pandemic, it has itself to blame for sparking a reaction and generating the skepticism about science that it decries.

DAVID: The politicization of climate science is just the same.

dhw: I’ve struggled through the whole article, but as is so often the case with Feser, I have difficulty putting all the bits and pieces together. There is no fixed knowledge on the best way to tackle Covid. Scientists themselves are divided. Whatever methods are used will create problems for some members of the community. It’s politicians that have to take the decisions, so of course the issues are politicized, and if scientists and politicians disagree among themselves as well as with one another, of course there is scepticism towards all of them. And that’s without even considering the rival but perfectly legitimate concerns of the economists, sociologists, educationalists and health services. It’s the usual problem: your left-wingers and your right-wingers, your believers and your unbelievers, all think they know best, and they just cannot see that there is more than one point of view on any issue that has not been definitively settled by a known truth.

The best advice must follow age. Kids are much safer than the elderly like us. Get your booster when available. The problem is that liberal or conservative is in the brain of every scientist, so factual thought is constantly distorted

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 10:59 (926 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I know what I believe. I know your views are amorphous.

dhw: Congratulations on your knowledge of what you believe, even though you’re not sure what was planned 3.8 billion years ago, and what was dabbled. The alternative views that I present are absolutely not amorphous – they are very precise and, as you agree, totally logical. But I don’t believe or disbelieve any of them, just as I don’t believe or disbelieve in God.

DAVID: I know and your view of God describes several types.

Correct. And none of them are amorphous, and you accept that they are all logical.

Function in cells
dhw: In the quote, they say that the molecular changes are key to all cellular processes, including cell “fate determination”, which I take to mean “function”. If the article does describe how cells change their function, that would surely help us enormously in our efforts to understand how evolution happens.

DAVID: This is within single cells.

dhw: But single cells form combinations.

DAVID: Not covered in this paper.

dhw: Worth exploring, then?

DAVID: How, in theory?

If cells can change their function, it is worth considering the possibility that cell communities can autonomously change their function in response to new conditions. This is already apparent from the changes by which some organisms adapt to conditions that kill others. And so theoretically, it is possible that the cell communities not only adapt, but can also invent (i.e. change their function).

DAVID: Cells are fixed in their functions […]

dhw: But stem cells are not fixed. They can develop into different types and different organs. That is why I am suggesting that the process described above may be highly relevant to the manner in which evolution works.

DAVID: But in embryology certain stem cells are programmed to become different parts of the body or receive differing stimuli to guide their change.

Differing stimuli would be the key: changing conditions might demand or allow major changes of function.

Covid and politics
dhw: I’ve struggled through the whole article, but as is so often the case with Feser, I have difficulty putting all the bits and pieces together. There is no fixed knowledge on the best way to tackle Covid. Scientists themselves are divided. Whatever methods are used will create problems for some members of the community. It’s politicians that have to take the decisions, so of course the issues are politicized, and if scientists and politicians disagree among themselves as well as with one another, of course there is scepticism towards all of them. And that’s without even considering the rival but perfectly legitimate concerns of the economists, sociologists, educationalists and health services. It’s the usual problem: your left-wingers and your right-wingers, your believers and your unbelievers, all think they know best, and they just cannot see that there is more than one point of view on any issue that has not been definitively settled by a known truth.

DAVID: […] The problem is that liberal or conservative is in the brain of every scientist, so factual thought is constantly distorted.

If the solution to a problem, or the answer to a question, is unknown, you will get different solutions or answers – not just from liberals or conservatives, theists and atheists, but also from many other perspectives, as listed above. Until there is actual proof, it takes a good pair of blinkers for anyone to assume that theirs is the right solution/answer.

Consciousness: a universal mind?
DAVID: And my approach is we receive the mechanism of consciousness from the universal consciousness for our brains to use. There is an article that the brain does this as a transducer, an interesting comment.

Dualists believe that the brain “transduces” messages from the soul, which is part of the universal consciousness, and materialists believe that the brain is both the source of the message and of its “transduction”. I’m afraid the article hasn’t enlightened me!

Dragonfly
DAVID: The most efficient flying predator known:
https://youtu.be/iJi61NAIsjs

Different wing muscle controls allows flying backward 360 degree compound eyes and many other wonderful engineering.

DAVID: about 15 minutes is worth it.

It certainly is! Thank you, as always, for these wonderful wonders!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 16:53 (926 days ago) @ dhw

Function in cells

dhw: If cells can change their function, it is worth considering the possibility that cell communities can autonomously change their function in response to new conditions. This is already apparent from the changes by which some organisms adapt to conditions that kill others. And so theoretically, it is possible that the cell communities not only adapt, but can also invent (i.e. change their function).

See below, but cells normal function is to change within required limits for equilibrium requirements.


DAVID: Cells are fixed in their functions […]

dhw: But stem cells are not fixed. They can develop into different types and different organs. That is why I am suggesting that the process described above may be highly relevant to the manner in which evolution works.

DAVID: But in embryology certain stem cells are programmed to become different parts of the body or receive differing stimuli to guide their change.

dhw: Differing stimuli would be the key: changing conditions might demand or allow major changes of function.

All we know in this are is epigenetic minor adaptation s


Covid and politics
dhw: I’ve struggled through the whole article, but as is so often the case with Feser, I have difficulty putting all the bits and pieces together. There is no fixed knowledge on the best way to tackle Covid. Scientists themselves are divided. Whatever methods are used will create problems for some members of the community. It’s politicians that have to take the decisions, so of course the issues are politicized, and if scientists and politicians disagree among themselves as well as with one another, of course there is scepticism towards all of them. And that’s without even considering the rival but perfectly legitimate concerns of the economists, sociologists, educationalists and health services. It’s the usual problem: your left-wingers and your right-wingers, your believers and your unbelievers, all think they know best, and they just cannot see that there is more than one point of view on any issue that has not been definitively settled by a known truth.

DAVID: […] The problem is that liberal or conservative is in the brain of every scientist, so factual thought is constantly distorted.

dhw: If the solution to a problem, or the answer to a question, is unknown, you will get different solutions or answers – not just from liberals or conservatives, theists and atheists, but also from many other perspectives, as listed above. Until there is actual proof, it takes a good pair of blinkers for anyone to assume that theirs is the right solution/answer.

We all can agree, get vaccinated.


Consciousness: a universal mind?
DAVID: And my approach is we receive the mechanism of consciousness from the universal consciousness for our brains to use. There is an article that the brain does this as a transducer, an interesting comment.

dhw: Dualists believe that the brain “transduces” messages from the soul, which is part of the universal consciousness, and materialists believe that the brain is both the source of the message and of its “transduction”. I’m afraid the article hasn’t enlightened me!

Just another stab in the dark to think about.


Dragonfly
DAVID: The most efficient flying predator known:
https://youtu.be/iJi61NAIsjs

Different wing muscle controls allows flying backward 360 degree compound eyes and many other wonderful engineering.

DAVID: about 15 minutes is worth it.

dhw: It certainly is! Thank you, as always, for these wonderful wonders!

Thank God, not me.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, September 15, 2021, 12:34 (925 days ago) @ David Turell

Function in cells
dhw: If cells can change their function, it is worth considering the possibility that cell communities can autonomously change their function in response to new conditions. This is already apparent from the changes by which some organisms adapt to conditions that kill others. And so theoretically, it is possible that the cell communities not only adapt, but can also invent (i.e. change their function).

DAVID: See below, but cells normal function is to change within required limits for equilibrium requirements.

Yes of course. Once the species is formed, it stays true to itself, i.e. stable, until conditions change, and then the cell communities may also respond by changing and forming new species. Just a theory.

DAVID: Cells are fixed in their functions […]

dhw: But stem cells are not fixed. They can develop into different types and different organs. That is why I am suggesting that the process described above may be highly relevant to the manner in which evolution works.

DAVID: But in embryology certain stem cells are programmed to become different parts of the body or receive differing stimuli to guide their change.

dhw: Differing stimuli would be the key: changing conditions might demand or allow major changes of function.

DAVID: All we know in this are is epigenetic minor adaptations

You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating my agreement, but nobody knows how speciation works, and so the proposal is that the mechanism which causes minor adaptations (i.e. cellular intelligence) may also have caused the major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in speciation. We now know that certain cells can change their functions. That fits in with the proposal.

Dragonfly
DAVID: The most efficient flying predator known:
https://youtu.be/iJi61NAIsjs
Different wing muscle controls allows flying backward 360 degree compound eyes and many other wonderful engineering.

DAVID: about 15 minutes is worth it.

dhw: It certainly is! Thank you, as always, for these wonderful wonders!

DAVID: Thank God, not me.

A lovely reply! I thank you for directing us to all these wonders, and if God exists, I thank him too for either designing them or for giving cells the intelligence to design them.

Opossums
QUOTE: This does not mean that opossums themselves necessarily have a concept of death, or that they behave this way with the intention of being mistaken for a corpse. On the contrary, it appears to be a genetically inherited behaviour that does not require any learning and that is triggered automatically upon the detection of certain stimuli.

We’ve discussed all this before. All animals, like ourselves, obviously know the difference between surviving and not surviving, and they have developed countless strategies to help themselves to survive. All strategies must have started at some time. You can’t inherit something that never existed! So did the first opossum have an inspired idea, or faint with fright and then realise afterwards that it was still alive and tell its mates? Your guess is as good as mine. But once a strategy is known to work, then of course it’s passed on.

DAVID: The Darwin-laced article assumes these mechanisms appeared under selection pressure because it works!!!

What do you mean by “selection pressure”? The pressure comes from the urge to survive!

DAVID: No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it.

True. I’ve offered you two possibilities. What’s your theory?

QUOTE: We humans like to think of ourselves as a unique species. However, little by little, all those traits that we have been relying on to ground this uniqueness have been falling, as the science advances and reveals the staggering diversity and complexity of animal minds and behaviour. We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication. The concept of death should also be counted among those characteristics to which we can no longer resort to convince us of how very special we are. It is time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it._

DAVID: The final paragraph is the standard Darwinian attack on our exceptionalism.

The usual polarization, with absolutely no thought of the possibility that BOTH views are perfectly reasonable. Every detail listed above is a trait we have in common (= we are not exceptional), but we ARE exceptional in so far as we have developed them all in ways that reach way, way beyond the limitations of our fellow animals. Our language is infinitely more complex than their language, our culture extends to different forms of music etc. which are infinitely more complex than their simple songs, our rationality reaches into philosophy, science, technology, ethics that are infinitely more complex than their simple tools and strategies for survival.
I agree with the article, but the authors and you should recognize that the word “exceptionalism” can be used to denote different aspects of the subject: it IS time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it. We have all these traits in common with our fellow animals, and we should not assume that our exceptional development of them entitles us to disrespect them.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 15, 2021, 16:07 (925 days ago) @ dhw

Function in cells

DAVID: But in embryology certain stem cells are programmed to become different parts of the body or receive differing stimuli to guide their change.

dhw: Differing stimuli would be the key: changing conditions might demand or allow major changes of function.

DAVID: All we know in this are is epigenetic minor adaptations

dhw: You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating my agreement, but nobody knows how speciation works, and so the proposal is that the mechanism which causes minor adaptations (i.e. cellular intelligence) may also have caused the major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in speciation. We now know that certain cells can change their functions. That fits in with the proposal.

Your answer is like mine.


Opossums

DAVID: The Darwin-laced article assumes these mechanisms appeared under selection pressure because it works!!!

dhw: What do you mean by “selection pressure”? The pressure comes from the urge to survive!

Aren't you aware of of specious concepts Darwinists constantly employ as 'selection pressure'? Natural selection becomes magical pressure.


DAVID: No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it.

dhw: True. I’ve offered you two possibilities. What’s your theory?

God's actions


QUOTE: We humans like to think of ourselves as a unique species. However, little by little, all those traits that we have been relying on to ground this uniqueness have been falling, as the science advances and reveals the staggering diversity and complexity of animal minds and behaviour. We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication. The concept of death should also be counted among those characteristics to which we can no longer resort to convince us of how very special we are. It is time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it._

DAVID: The final paragraph is the standard Darwinian attack on our exceptionalism.

dhw: The usual polarization, with absolutely no thought of the possibility that BOTH views are perfectly reasonable. Every detail listed above is a trait we have in common (= we are not exceptional), but we ARE exceptional in so far as we have developed them all in ways that reach way, way beyond the limitations of our fellow animals. Our language is infinitely more complex than their language, our culture extends to different forms of music etc. which are infinitely more complex than their simple songs, our rationality reaches into philosophy, science, technology, ethics that are infinitely more complex than their simple tools and strategies for survival.
I agree with the article, but the authors and you should recognize that the word “exceptionalism” can be used to denote different aspects of the subject: it IS time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it. We have all these traits in common with our fellow animals, and we should not assume that our exceptional development of them entitles us to disrespect them.

Except for our body form with its athletic abilities and our brain, we are animals in our physiology. Both our body form and our brain are exceptional extensions from past roots. Teh difference is huge and cannot be diminished by the obvious comparisons that exist.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, September 16, 2021, 12:07 (924 days ago) @ David Turell

Function in cells
dhw: Differing stimuli would be the key: changing conditions might demand or allow major changes of function.

DAVID: All we know in this are is epigenetic minor adaptations

dhw: You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating my agreement, but nobody knows how speciation works, and so the proposal is that the mechanism which causes minor adaptations (i.e. cellular intelligence) may also have caused the major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in speciation. We now know that certain cells can change their functions. That fits in with the proposal.

DAVID: Your answer is like mine.

That’s good news. So you agree that cells which can change their functions might cause the major adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation. Thank you.

Opossums
DAVID: The Darwin-laced article assumes these mechanisms appeared under selection pressure because it works!!!

dhw: What do you mean by “selection pressure”? The pressure comes from the urge to survive!

DAVID: Aren't you aware of of specious concepts Darwinists constantly employ as 'selection pressure'? Natural selection becomes magical pressure.

Don’t you agree with me that the opossum’s feigned death is a strategy for survival, and aren’t you aware that the urge to survive is a key feature of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

DAVID: No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it.

dhw: I’ve offered you two possibilities. What’s your theory?

DAVID: God's actions

What sort of actions would these be: a 3.8-billion-year programme for feigning death, or did your God pop in and teach the first death-feigning opossum how to do it?

QUOTE: We humans like to think of ourselves as a unique species. However, little by little, all those traits that we have been relying on to ground this uniqueness have been falling, as the science advances and reveals the staggering diversity and complexity of animal minds and behaviour. The concept of death should also be counted among those characteristics to which we can no longer resort to convince us of how very special we are. It is time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it._

DAVID: The final paragraph is the standard Darwinian attack on our exceptionalism.

dhw: The usual polarization, with absolutely no thought of the possibility that BOTH views are perfectly reasonable. Every detail listed above is a trait we have in common (= we are not exceptional), but we ARE exceptional in so far as we have developed them all in ways that reach way, way beyond the limitations of our fellow animals. Our language is infinitely more complex than their language, our culture extends to different forms of music etc. which are infinitely more complex than their simple songs, our rationality reaches into philosophy, science, technology, ethics that are infinitely more complex than their simple tools and strategies for survival.
I agree with the article, but the authors and you should recognize that the word “exceptionalism” can be used to denote different aspects of the subject: it IS time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it. We have all these traits in common with our fellow animals, and we should not assume that our exceptional development of them entitles us to disrespect them.

DAVID: Except for our body form with its athletic abilities and our brain, we are animals in our physiology. Both our body form and our brain are exceptional extensions from past roots. Teh difference is huge and cannot be diminished by the obvious comparisons that exist.

I am not trying to diminish the difference. The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional. Why do so many people only see things in terms of left or right, black or white, right or wrong? This blinkered approach is, of course, what leads to the worst forms of extremism. NB: I know you well enough to be certain that you show respect and even love for your animals, and you are no extremist. I am simply pointing out the dangers of the blinkered approach.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 16, 2021, 18:00 (924 days ago) @ dhw

Function in cells

dhw: You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating my agreement, but nobody knows how speciation works, and so the proposal is that the mechanism which causes minor adaptations (i.e. cellular intelligence) may also have caused the major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in speciation. We now know that certain cells can change their functions. That fits in with the proposal.

DAVID: Your answer is like mine.

dhw: That’s good news. So you agree that cells which can change their functions might cause the major adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation. Thank you.

What I said above is cells modify functions, nothing more. Stop putting words in my mouth.


Opossums

dhw: What do you mean by “selection pressure”? The pressure comes from the urge to survive!

DAVID: Aren't you aware of of specious concepts Darwinists constantly employ as 'selection pressure'? Natural selection becomes magical pressure.

dhw: Don’t you agree with me that the opossum’s feigned death is a strategy for survival, and aren’t you aware that the urge to survive is a key feature of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Yes.


DAVID: No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it.

dhw: I’ve offered you two possibilities. What’s your theory?

DAVID: God's actions

dhw: What sort of actions would these be: a 3.8-billion-year programme for feigning death, or did your God pop in and teach the first death-feigning opossum how to do it?

Either or.


QUOTE: We humans like to think of ourselves as a unique species. However, little by little, all those traits that we have been relying on to ground this uniqueness have been falling, as the science advances and reveals the staggering diversity and complexity of animal minds and behaviour. The concept of death should also be counted among those characteristics to which we can no longer resort to convince us of how very special we are. It is time to rethink human exceptionalism, and the disrespect for the natural world that comes with it._

DAVID: Except for our body form with its athletic abilities and our brain, we are animals in our physiology. Both our body form and our brain are exceptional extensions from past roots. The difference is huge and cannot be diminished by the obvious comparisons that exist.

dhw: I am not trying to diminish the difference. The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional. Why do so many people only see things in terms of left or right, black or white, right or wrong? This blinkered approach is, of course, what leads to the worst forms of extremism. NB: I know you well enough to be certain that you show respect and even love for your animals, and you are no extremist. I am simply pointing out the dangers of the blinkered approach.

So you agree we are exceptional.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, September 17, 2021, 13:52 (923 days ago) @ David Turell

Function in cells
dhw: [...] nobody knows how speciation works, and so the proposal is that the mechanism which causes minor adaptations (i.e. cellular intelligence) may also have caused the major adaptations and innovations that have resulted in speciation. We now know that certain cells can change their functions. That fits in with the proposal.

DAVID: Your answer is like mine.

dhw: That’s good news. So you agree that cells which can change their functions might cause the major adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation. Thank you.

DAVID: What I said above is cells modify functions, nothing more. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You said your answer was like mine. My point was that cells changing functions fitted in with the proposal. You appeared to agree.

Opossums
dhw: What do you mean by “selection pressure”? The pressure comes from the urge to survive!

DAVID: Aren't you aware of of specious concepts Darwinists constantly employ as 'selection pressure'? Natural selection becomes magical pressure.

dhw: Don’t you agree with me that the opossum’s feigned death is a strategy for survival, and aren’t you aware that the urge to survive is a key feature of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

DAVID: Yes.

So why are you talking about “selection pressure”? The opossum’s pretence is a strategy for survival.

DAVID: No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it.

dhw: I’ve offered you two possibilities. What’s your theory?

DAVID: God's actions

dhw: What sort of actions would these be: a 3.8-billion-year programme for feigning death, or did your God pop in and teach the first death-feigning opossum how to do it?

DAVID: Either or.

I can only gasp in disbelief at the idea of your God providing the very first cells with a programme not only for the evolution of the opossum but also for its strategy of feigning death. Ditto the idea of him giving a death-feigning lesson to that first opossum – and all for the sake of us humans. Oh good heavens, how would humans survive if the opossum didn’t know how to feign death?

dhw: The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional. Why do so many people only see things in terms of left or right, black or white, right or wrong? This blinkered approach is, of course, what leads to the worst forms of extremism. NB: I know you well enough to be certain that you show respect and even love for your animals, and you are no extremist. I am simply pointing out the dangers of the blinkered approach.

DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

I’ve just said so. I’ve pointed out that in one way we are NOT exceptional, because our bodies, culture, morality, rationality and language have their origins in those of our animal ancestors, but we ARE exceptional because we have developed all of these to a degree which is vastly greater than theirs. I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, September 17, 2021, 15:43 (923 days ago) @ dhw

Opossums
dhw: What do you mean by “selection pressure”? The pressure comes from the urge to survive!

DAVID: Aren't you aware of of specious concepts Darwinists constantly employ as 'selection pressure'? Natural selection becomes magical pressure.

dhw: Don’t you agree with me that the opossum’s feigned death is a strategy for survival, and aren’t you aware that the urge to survive is a key feature of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

DAVID: Yes.

So why are you talking about “selection pressure”? The opossum’s pretence is a strategy for survival.

DAVID: No idea of how any animal using this trick decided upon it.

dhw: I’ve offered you two possibilities. What’s your theory?

DAVID: God's actions

dhw: What sort of actions would these be: a 3.8-billion-year programme for feigning death, or did your God pop in and teach the first death-feigning opossum how to do it?

DAVID: Either or.

dhw: I can only gasp in disbelief at the idea of your God providing the very first cells with a programme not only for the evolution of the opossum but also for its strategy of feigning death. Ditto the idea of him giving a death-feigning lesson to that first opossum – and all for the sake of us humans. Oh good heavens, how would humans survive if the opossum didn’t know how to feign death?

As usual you forget the importance of organized ecosystems. The possum has a role in its system .


dhw: The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional. Why do so many people only see things in terms of left or right, black or white, right or wrong? This blinkered approach is, of course, what leads to the worst forms of extremism. NB: I know you well enough to be certain that you show respect and even love for your animals, and you are no extremist. I am simply pointing out the dangers of the blinkered approach.

DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. I’ve pointed out that in one way we are NOT exceptional, because our bodies, culture, morality, rationality and language have their origins in those of our animal ancestors, but we ARE exceptional because we have developed all of these to a degree which is vastly greater than theirs. I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

Our bodies are animal, but the ability of our brains is exceptional. Are animals moral? Some act that way by our interpretation/ standards. As for language, they make noises some of which have meanings. So?

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, September 18, 2021, 08:19 (922 days ago) @ David Turell

Opossums
dhw: […] Oh good heavens, how would humans survive if the opossum didn’t know how to feign death?

DAVID: As usual you forget the importance of organized ecosystems. The possum has a role in its system.

Every organism has a role in every ecosystem, and according to you, every ecosystem is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. I’m simply amazed at the idea of your God planning the opossum’s strategy 3.8 billion years ago and putting the programme into the first cells – along with programmes for every other life form and strategy for the rest of life’s history. And I find it equally gob-smacking to think of him popping in to give courses or to plant instructions for every innovation and strategy the moment his crystal ball tells him what’s coming. And I remain utterly bemused by the idea that every life form and strategy throughout the whole history of life, right from the start, including opossums feigning death, was geared to the production and feeding of humans.

dhw: The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional. Why do so many people only see things in terms of left or right, black or white, right or wrong? This blinkered approach is, of course, what leads to the worst forms of extremism. NB: I know you well enough to be certain that you show respect and even love for your animals, and you are no extremist. I am simply pointing out the dangers of the blinkered approach.

DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. […] I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

DAVID: Our bodies are animal, but the ability of our brains is exceptional. Are animals moral? Some act that way by our interpretation/ standards. As for language, they make noises some of which have meanings. So?

I’ve just explained that we have inherited x, y and z from our animal ancestors, and in that respect we are NOT exceptional, but the way we have developed them does make us exceptional. I simply appealed for a balanced view. What are we arguing about?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 18, 2021, 15:54 (922 days ago) @ dhw

Opossums
dhw: […] Oh good heavens, how would humans survive if the opossum didn’t know how to feign death?

DAVID: As usual you forget the importance of organized ecosystems. The possum has a role in its system.

dhw: Every organism has a role in every ecosystem, and according to you, every ecosystem is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. I’m simply amazed at the idea of your God planning the opossum’s strategy 3.8 billion years ago and putting the programme into the first cells – along with programmes for every other life form and strategy for the rest of life’s history. And I find it equally gob-smacking to think of him popping in to give courses or to plant instructions for every innovation and strategy the moment his crystal ball tells him what’s coming. And I remain utterly bemused by the idea that every life form and strategy throughout the whole history of life, right from the start, including opossums feigning death, was geared to the production and feeding of humans.

You have covered my theories quite well. I have God as designer and try to understand how He did it. Your attempts in no way fit mine.


dhw: The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional. Why do so many people only see things in terms of left or right, black or white, right or wrong? This blinkered approach is, of course, what leads to the worst forms of extremism. NB: I know you well enough to be certain that you show respect and even love for your animals, and you are no extremist. I am simply pointing out the dangers of the blinkered approach.

DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. […] I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

DAVID: Our bodies are animal, but the ability of our brains is exceptional. Are animals moral? Some act that way by our interpretation/ standards. As for language, they make noises some of which have meanings. So?

dhw: I’ve just explained that we have inherited x, y and z from our animal ancestors, and in that respect we are NOT exceptional, but the way we have developed them does make us exceptional. I simply appealed for a balanced view. What are we arguing about?

Not balanced. Yes we have animal bodies, but our bodies can make exceptional moves (gymnastics) and our brains are extraordinary. Stop diminishing the differences.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, September 19, 2021, 10:31 (921 days ago) @ David Turell

Opossums
dhw: […] Oh good heavens, how would humans survive if the opossum didn’t know how to feign death?

DAVID: As usual you forget the importance of organized ecosystems. The possum has a role in its system.

dhw: Every organism has a role in every ecosystem, and according to you, every ecosystem is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food. I’m simply amazed at the idea of your God planning the opossum’s strategy 3.8 billion years ago and putting the programme into the first cells – along with programmes for every other life form and strategy for the rest of life’s history. And I find it equally gob-smacking to think of him popping in to give courses or to plant instructions for every innovation and strategy the moment his crystal ball tells him what’s coming. And I remain utterly bemused by the idea that every life form and strategy throughout the whole history of life, right from the start, including opossums feigning death, was geared to the production and feeding of humans.

DAVID: You have covered my theories quite well. I have God as designer and try to understand how He did it. Your attempts in no way fit mine.

I’m glad you accept my coverage of your theories. And I agree that my own proposal (the first opossum to use the strategy was either very clever, or discovered it by accident, and then passed it on to others who passed it on….) in no way fits yours. But I have to admit, I actually find it more believable than your theories!

dhw: The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional.

DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. […] I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

DAVID: Not balanced. Yes we have animal bodies, but our bodies can make exceptional moves (gymnastics) and our brains are extraordinary. Stop diminishing the differences.

How can I be diminishing the differences when I say that the degree of development etc. makes us exceptional? You only want to point out the differences, while I point out the similarities and the differences. You need two things to balance, and you only want to focus on one.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 19, 2021, 16:14 (921 days ago) @ dhw

Opossums

dhw: The authors wrote: “We now have solid evidence of culture, morality, rationality, and even rudimentary forms of linguistic communication.” Our body form and our brains can also be traced back to our animal ancestors. In that sense we are NOT exceptional. But the degree to which we have developed our brains, our culture, our morality, our rationality and our language do make us exceptional.

DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. […] I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

DAVID: Not balanced. Yes we have animal bodies, but our bodies can make exceptional moves (gymnastics) and our brains are extraordinary. Stop diminishing the differences.

dhw: How can I be diminishing the differences when I say that the degree of development etc. makes us exceptional? You only want to point out the differences, while I point out the similarities and the differences. You need two things to balance, and you only want to focus on one.

Your comparisons tend to diminish the differences.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, September 20, 2021, 08:07 (920 days ago) @ David Turell

Opossum

dhw: I agree that my own proposal (the first opossum to use the strategy was either very clever, or discovered it by accident, and then passed it on to others who passed it on...) in no way fits yours [preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or the result of your God giving personal tuition to that first opossum]. But I have to admit, I actually find it more believable than your theories!

This is a constant thread throughout our discussions on evolution. I can't help wondering if you have dropped the subject because you have realized how much more convincing my proposal is.


DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. […] I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

DAVID: Not balanced. Yes we have animal bodies, but our bodies can make exceptional moves (gymnastics) and our brains are extraordinary. Stop diminishing the differences.

dhw: How can I be diminishing the differences when I say that the degree of development etc. makes us exceptional? You only want to point out the differences, while I point out the similarities and the differences. You need two things to balance, and you only want to focus on one.

DAVID: Your comparisons tend to diminish the differences.

I’ve answered above, so here are two further questions. Do you or do you not agree that in one way we are NOT exceptional, because our bodies, culture, morality, rationality and language have their origins in those of our animal ancestors? Do you or do you not agree that we ARE exceptional because we have developed all of these to a degree which is vastly greater than theirs? If you do not agree, please tell us why.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, September 20, 2021, 15:06 (920 days ago) @ dhw

Opossum

dhw: I agree that my own proposal (the first opossum to use the strategy was either very clever, or discovered it by accident, and then passed it on to others who passed it on...) in no way fits yours [preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or the result of your God giving personal tuition to that first opossum]. But I have to admit, I actually find it more believable than your theories!

This is a constant thread throughout our discussions on evolution. I can't help wondering if you have dropped the subject because you have realized how much more convincing my proposal is.


DAVID: So you agree we are exceptional.

dhw: I’ve just said so. […] I am calling for a balanced view, so why have you picked on only one part of the balance?

DAVID: Not balanced. Yes we have animal bodies, but our bodies can make exceptional moves (gymnastics) and our brains are extraordinary. Stop diminishing the differences.

dhw: How can I be diminishing the differences when I say that the degree of development etc. makes us exceptional? You only want to point out the differences, while I point out the similarities and the differences. You need two things to balance, and you only want to focus on one.

DAVID: Your comparisons tend to diminish the differences.

dhw: I’ve answered above, so here are two further questions. Do you or do you not agree that in one way we are NOT exceptional, because our bodies, culture, morality, rationality and language have their origins in those of our animal ancestors? Do you or do you not agree that we ARE exceptional because we have developed all of these to a degree which is vastly greater than theirs? If you do not agree, please tell us why.

The bold is astonishingly wrong. Each characteristic listed is vastly different at the human level. We did evolve from them so there is some thin relationship, nothing more. Itb is all God's fault since He evolved us from lesser forms.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 09:15 (919 days ago) @ David Turell

Opossum
dhw: I agree that my own proposal (the first opossum to use the strategy was either very clever, or discovered it by accident, and then passed it on to others who passed it on...) in no way fits yours [preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or the result of your God giving personal tuition to that first opossum]. But I have to admit, I actually find it more believable than your theories!

dhw: This is a constant thread throughout our discussions on evolution. I can't help wondering if you have dropped the subject because you have realized how much more convincing my proposal is.

Ah well, I’ll keep the opossum in mind for the next time we discuss the origin of survival strategies.

DAVID: Yes we have animal bodies, but our bodies can make exceptional moves (gymnastics) and our brains are extraordinary. Stop diminishing the differences.

dhw: How can I be diminishing the differences when I say that the degree of development etc. makes us exceptional? You only want to point out the differences, while I point out the similarities and the differences. You need two things to balance, and you only want to focus on one.

DAVID: Your comparisons tend to diminish the differences.

dhw: I’ve answered above, so here are two further questions. Do you or do you not agree that in one way we are NOT exceptional, because our bodies, culture, morality, rationality and language have their origins in those of our animal ancestors? Do you or do you not agree that we ARE exceptional because we have developed all of these to a degree which is vastly greater than theirs? If you do not agree, please tell us why.

DAVID: The bold is astonishingly wrong. Each characteristic listed is vastly different at the human level. We did evolve from them so there is some thin relationship, nothing more. It is all God's fault since He evolved us from lesser forms.

I asked if you agree that we are exceptional because we have developed each of these characteristics to a degree that is vastly greater than those from which they have evolved. And you now tell me that this is totally wrong because although these characteristics evolved from those of our ancestors, they are vastly different. So your “vastly” is greater than my “vastly”, is it? This is becoming a new form of argument, as also demonstrated on the time thread. You disagree with me completely although you agree with me.

Panpsychism:
QUOTE: Future non-local quantum gravity theories and deeper understanding of what consciousness is may allow new forms of mind to emerge from networks of biological consciousnesses or that do not require matter in the first place. The upper limit of energy in the universe that can self-organize into conscious systems and networked systems of conscious systems is 100% of the energy. (David’s bold)

I am applying for a grant to investigate the future possibilities of biological and non-biological consciousnesses, and the exact proportions of the universe’s energy that may be used in these future self-organizing conscious systems, and networked systems of conscious systems, and networked networks of systems of conscious systems, and consciously networked and systematized networked consciousnesses. I hope you will support my application.

Genome complexity: does variation in species drive evolution?
QUOTE: On one hand, despite dramatic mutations in individuals’ genes and diverse environments in which they grow, members of a species develop into strikingly similar creatures.

DAVID: variation in fruit fly's wings is tiny. Darwin theory demands enough variation to allow evolution to advance to more complex forms. If the variations are this tiny, Darwin's theory is constrained. Small species adaptations are changes in degree. A completely new species is a change in kind. That possibility requires new design, not offered by the small variations seen in this study.

I’m only quoting you in order to agree with you. As the quote states explicitly, such tiny variations clearly DON’T drive evolution. But you won’t agree with my next proposal! What does drive it is the quest for survival, triggered by major changes in conditions which require or allow for major changes in the anatomy: for instance, life on land switching to life in the water, or vice versa.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 15:50 (919 days ago) @ dhw

Panpsychism:
QUOTE: Future non-local quantum gravity theories and deeper understanding of what consciousness is may allow new forms of mind to emerge from networks of biological consciousnesses or that do not require matter in the first place. The upper limit of energy in the universe that can self-organize into conscious systems and networked systems of conscious systems is 100% of the energy. (David’s bold)

dhw: I am applying for a grant to investigate the future possibilities of biological and non-biological consciousnesses, and the exact proportions of the universe’s energy that may be used in these future self-organizing conscious systems, and networked systems of conscious systems, and networked networks of systems of conscious systems, and consciously networked and systematized networked consciousnesses. I hope you will support my application.

Since we cannot explain the source of our consciousness, it will be difficult to find consciousness anywhere else. Good luck.


Genome complexity: does variation in species drive evolution?
QUOTE: On one hand, despite dramatic mutations in individuals’ genes and diverse environments in which they grow, members of a species develop into strikingly similar creatures.

DAVID: variation in fruit fly's wings is tiny. Darwin theory demands enough variation to allow evolution to advance to more complex forms. If the variations are this tiny, Darwin's theory is constrained. Small species adaptations are changes in degree. A completely new species is a change in kind. That possibility requires new design, not offered by the small variations seen in this study.

dhw: I’m only quoting you in order to agree with you. As the quote states explicitly, such tiny variations clearly DON’T drive evolution. But you won’t agree with my next proposal! What does drive it is the quest for survival, triggered by major changes in conditions which require or allow for major changes in the anatomy: for instance, life on land switching to life in the water, or vice versa.

I don't accept it. Survival is necessary as God engineers each next species from the last. You are back to the old abandoned tautology. Are you next going to drag in natural selection?

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 12:04 (918 days ago) @ David Turell

Genome complexity: does variation in species drive evolution?

QUOTE: On one hand, despite dramatic mutations in individuals’ genes and diverse environments in which they grow, members of a species develop into strikingly similar creatures.

DAVID: variation in fruit fly's wings is tiny. Darwin theory demands enough variation to allow evolution to advance to more complex forms. If the variations are this tiny, Darwin's theory is constrained. Small species adaptations are changes in degree. A completely new species is a change in kind. That possibility requires new design, not offered by the small variations seen in this study.

dhw: I’m only quoting you in order to agree with you. As the quote states explicitly, such tiny variations clearly DON’T drive evolution. But you won’t agree with my next proposal! What does drive it is the quest for survival, triggered by major changes in conditions which require or allow for major changes in the anatomy: for instance, life on land switching to life in the water, or vice versa.

DAVID: I don't accept it. Survival is necessary as God engineers each next species from the last.

So when your God operated on the legs of pre-whales to change them into flippers, he was only thinking of creating a new species to live in the water, and the need for flippers had nothing to do with helping the new species to survive in the water.

DAVID: You are back to the old abandoned tautology. Are you next going to drag in natural selection?

What “abandoned tautology”? Whether you believe your God did a dabble or the cells organized their own flipper adaptation, you still have anatomical change created in order to aid survival. Natural selection has nothing to do with why the changes are made, since it only explains why some changes survive and some don’t.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 16:07 (918 days ago) @ dhw

Genome complexity: does variation in species drive evolution?

QUOTE: On one hand, despite dramatic mutations in individuals’ genes and diverse environments in which they grow, members of a species develop into strikingly similar creatures.

DAVID: variation in fruit fly's wings is tiny. Darwin theory demands enough variation to allow evolution to advance to more complex forms. If the variations are this tiny, Darwin's theory is constrained. Small species adaptations are changes in degree. A completely new species is a change in kind. That possibility requires new design, not offered by the small variations seen in this study.

dhw: I’m only quoting you in order to agree with you. As the quote states explicitly, such tiny variations clearly DON’T drive evolution. But you won’t agree with my next proposal! What does drive it is the quest for survival, triggered by major changes in conditions which require or allow for major changes in the anatomy: for instance, life on land switching to life in the water, or vice versa.

DAVID: I don't accept it. Survival is necessary as God engineers each next species from the last.

dhw: So when your God operated on the legs of pre-whales to change them into flippers, he was only thinking of creating a new species to live in the water, and the need for flippers had nothing to do with helping the new species to survive in the water.

Of course He prepared then for survival in their new environment. That is what I wrote above. Your Darwin training persists: my view survival does not drive evolution


DAVID: You are back to the old abandoned tautology. Are you next going to drag in natural selection?

dhw: What “abandoned tautology”? Whether you believe your God did a dabble or the cells organized their own flipper adaptation, you still have anatomical change created in order to aid survival. Natural selection has nothing to do with why the changes are made, since it only explains why some changes survive and some don’t.

Fine. The quest for survival does not drive evolution

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 09:32 (917 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I’m only quoting you in order to agree with you. As the quote states explicitly, such tiny variations clearly DON’T drive evolution. But you won’t agree with my next proposal! What does drive it is the quest for survival, triggered by major changes in conditions which require or allow for major changes in the anatomy: for instance, life on land switching to life in the water, or vice versa.

DAVID: I don't accept it. Survival is necessary as God engineers each next species from the last.

dhw: So when your God operated on the legs of pre-whales to change them into flippers [...] the need for flippers had nothing to do with helping the new species to survive in the water.

DAVID: Of course He prepared then for survival in their new environment. That is what I wrote above. Your Darwin training persists: my view survival does not drive evolution.

It is not survival but the quest for survival. In your theory, this means that instead of organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions, your God looks into his crystal ball, sees the new environment coming, and so fulfils the quest for survival by dabbling the changes he hasn’t already preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (e.g. changing legs into flippers). These are the changes that cause speciation. So how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 15:24 (917 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I’m only quoting you in order to agree with you. As the quote states explicitly, such tiny variations clearly DON’T drive evolution. But you won’t agree with my next proposal! What does drive it is the quest for survival, triggered by major changes in conditions which require or allow for major changes in the anatomy: for instance, life on land switching to life in the water, or vice versa.

DAVID: I don't accept it. Survival is necessary as God engineers each next species from the last.

dhw: So when your God operated on the legs of pre-whales to change them into flippers [...] the need for flippers had nothing to do with helping the new species to survive in the water.

DAVID: Of course He prepared then for survival in their new environment. That is what I wrote above. Your Darwin training persists: my view survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not survival but the quest for survival. In your theory, this means that instead of organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions, your God looks into his crystal ball, sees the new environment coming, and so fulfils the quest for survival by dabbling the changes he hasn’t already preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (e.g. changing legs into flippers). These are the changes that cause speciation. So how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

We know organisms have the epigenetic resources to make minor adaptations. You stretch that somehow into speciation. For me design for future use is required and God does that in His designing. God drives evolution, not survival

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, September 24, 2021, 11:30 (916 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: … survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not survival but the quest for survival. In your theory, this means that instead of organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions, your God looks into his crystal ball, sees the new environment coming, and so fulfils the quest for survival by dabbling the changes he hasn’t already preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (e.g. changing legs into flippers). BBThese are the changes that cause speciation.BB So how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

DAVID: We know organisms have the epigenetic resources to make minor adaptations. You stretch that somehow into speciation.

That is irrelevant to the question of why, according to you, preparations for survival somehow mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival.

DAVID: For me design for future use is required and God does that in His designing. God drives evolution, not survival.

And for me, design for future use is NOT required, since I believe evolutionary changes take place IN RESPONSE to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them. As regards the "drive", I have just pointed out that the two concepts are not incompatible. Your God’s purpose in changing the anatomies of his creatures was, according to you, to prepare them for survival, which means that the purpose of the changes that lead to speciation is to prepare the creatures for survival. The purpose of something is usually the force that drives the doer into action. So for you, your God drives evolution by fulfilling his purpose of preparing life forms to survive under new conditions.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, September 24, 2021, 16:01 (916 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: … survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not survival but the quest for survival. In your theory, this means that instead of organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions, your God looks into his crystal ball, sees the new environment coming, and so fulfils the quest for survival by dabbling the changes he hasn’t already preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (e.g. changing legs into flippers). BBThese are the changes that cause speciation.BB So how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

DAVID: We know organisms have the epigenetic resources to make minor adaptations. You stretch that somehow into speciation.

dhw: That is irrelevant to the question of why, according to you, preparations for survival somehow mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival.

Repeat: species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them


DAVID: For me design for future use is required and God does that in His designing. God drives evolution, not survival.

dhw: And for me, design for future use is NOT required, since I believe evolutionary changes take place IN RESPONSE to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them. As regards the "drive", I have just pointed out that the two concepts are not incompatible. Your God’s purpose in changing the anatomies of his creatures was, according to you, to prepare them for survival, which means that the purpose of the changes that lead to speciation is to prepare the creatures for survival. The purpose of something is usually the force that drives the doer into action. So for you, your God drives evolution by fulfilling his purpose of preparing life forms to survive under new conditions.

Yes, but He also makes them more advanced and complex in succeeding stages on His way to producing us.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, September 25, 2021, 07:53 (915 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: … survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: It is not survival but the quest for survival. In your theory, this means that instead of organisms adapting to or exploiting new conditions, your God looks into his crystal ball, sees the new environment coming, and so fulfils the quest for survival by dabbling the changes he hasn’t already preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (e.g. changing legs into flippers). These are the changes that cause speciation. So how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

DAVID: We know organisms have the epigenetic resources to make minor adaptations. You stretch that somehow into speciation.

dhw: That is irrelevant to the question of why, according to you, preparations for survival somehow mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival.

DAVID: Repeat: species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them.

And the next form will also contain changes that allow it to cope with or exploit new conditions. Repeat: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

DAVID: For me design for future use is required and God does that in His designing. God drives evolution, not survival.

dhw: And for me, design for future use is NOT required, since I believe evolutionary changes take place IN RESPONSE to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them.
Look at your own entry under "Immunity system":

dhw: the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

Precisely: even in your theory, you inadvertently find yourself agreeing that organisms change in response to new challenges, not in anticipation of them. As regards the "drive", I have just pointed out that the two concepts are not incompatible. Your God’s purpose in changing the anatomies of his creatures was, according to you, to prepare them for survival, which means that the purpose of the changes that lead to speciation is to prepare the creatures for survival. The purpose of something is usually the force that drives the doer into action. So for you, your God drives evolution by fulfilling his purpose of preparing life forms to survive under new conditions.

DAVID: Yes, but He also makes them more advanced and complex in succeeding stages on His way to producing us.

I don’t know why you’ve shoved that in. Didn't the advanced complexities serve the purpose of improving chances and methods of survival?

Leaving atheism:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/atheists-need-faith-christianity-science-reason-physics-ma...

I shan’t repeat a lot of quotes, as I have written similar things myself. Of course atheism depends on faith in chance (see my home page), and science is limited to the material world (see limitations of science), and nobody can prove anything (see the last 13 years of this website). One quote I do take issue with:

"Third, deity. Without exception, every worldview is ruled over by a god or gods.

He’s just been moaning about atheists. Does he think atheist humanists have a world view ruled over by a god or gods?

DAVID: So where does this place agnosticism? […]I accept, as he does that science has found more puzzles in the reality of the universe than answers, but also amazing complexity in living biochemistry that he does not address. That is where I find God must exist.

I agree with you about design – one of the most potent arguments for faith in the existence of a designer. As regards agnosticism, clearly it debunks his statement that every worldview is ruled over by a god or gods, and it leaves us with the obvious fact that since all definitive views are based on faith, not fact, all definitive views are highly suspect, and the only logical choice is to keep an open mind. If death is the end, we shall never know, but if there is life after death, we shall learn more. Either way, I strongly advise everyone to enjoy life while you’ve got it - but not at other people's expense. Do as you would be done by, and the world will be a better place for you and for others. Trust me, you don't need a god or gods to view the world in that light.:-)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 25, 2021, 16:24 (915 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We know organisms have the epigenetic resources to make minor adaptations. You stretch that somehow into speciation.

dhw: That is irrelevant to the question of why, according to you, preparations for survival somehow mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival.

DAVID: Repeat: species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them.

dhw: And the next form will also contain changes that allow it to cope with or exploit new conditions. Repeat: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

Of course species must survive until the next step in evolution. My point you are talking around is God designs evolution.

DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

dhw: Precisely: even in your theory, you inadvertently find yourself agreeing that organisms change in response to new challenges, not in anticipation of them. As regards the "drive", I have just pointed out that the two concepts are not incompatible. Your God’s purpose in changing the anatomies of his creatures was, according to you, to prepare them for survival, which means that the purpose of the changes that lead to speciation is to prepare the creatures for survival. The purpose of something is usually the force that drives the doer into action. So for you, your God drives evolution by fulfilling his purpose of preparing life forms to survive under new conditions.

Yes, as one part of just advancing forms into more complex forms until He arrives at humans.


DAVID: Yes, but He also makes them more advanced and complex in succeeding stages on His way to producing us.

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve shoved that in. Didn't the advanced complexities serve the purpose of improving chances and methods of survival?

God's job is to advance all forms to design evolution from bacteria to humans.


Leaving atheism:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/atheists-need-faith-christianity-science-reason-physics-ma...

dhw: I shan’t repeat a lot of quotes, as I have written similar things myself. Of course atheism depends on faith in chance (see my home page), and science is limited to the material world (see limitations of science), and nobody can prove anything (see the last 13 years of this website). One quote I do take issue with:

"Third, deity. Without exception, every worldview is ruled over by a god or gods.

dhw: He’s just been moaning about atheists. Does he think atheist humanists have a world view ruled over by a god or gods?

DAVID: So where does this place agnosticism? […]I accept, as he does that science has found more puzzles in the reality of the universe than answers, but also amazing complexity in living biochemistry that he does not address. That is where I find God must exist.

dhw: I agree with you about design – one of the most potent arguments for faith in the existence of a designer. As regards agnosticism, clearly it debunks his statement that every worldview is ruled over by a god or gods, and it leaves us with the obvious fact that since all definitive views are based on faith, not fact, all definitive views are highly suspect, and the only logical choice is to keep an open mind. If death is the end, we shall never know, but if there is life after death, we shall learn more. Either way, I strongly advise everyone to enjoy life while you’ve got it - but not at other people's expense. Do as you would be done by, and the world will be a better place for you and for others. Trust me, you don't need a god or gods to view the world in that light.:-)

Full agreement: :-) ;-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, September 26, 2021, 11:26 (914 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Repeat: species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them.

dhw: And the next form will also contain changes that allow it to cope with or exploit new conditions. Repeat: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival? And how come "purpose" is not the driving force behind an action?

DAVID: Of course species must survive until the next step in evolution. My point you are talking around is God designs evolution.

I have just been discussing the implications of your belief that your God designed every phase of evolution! You have told us that “species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them”. And so the process goes from species to species, with each one being prepared in advance for survival. And so I ask: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival?

DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

dhw: Precisely: even in your theory, you inadvertently find yourself agreeing that organisms change in response to new challenges, not in anticipation of them. As regards the "drive", I have just pointed out that the two concepts are not incompatible. Your God’s purpose in changing the anatomies of his creatures was, according to you, to prepare them for survival, which means that the purpose of the changes that lead to speciation is to prepare the creatures for survival. The purpose of something is usually the force that drives the doer into action. So for you, your God drives evolution by fulfilling his purpose of preparing life forms to survive under new conditions.

AVID: Yes, as one part of just advancing forms into more complex forms until He arrives at humans.

Back we go to your belief that ALL speciation is “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans" and their food, but you are still left with your theory that your God made all the increasingly complex changes to enable each new species to survive until he performed his next round of operations. (In passing, I really don’t know why you think sparrows are more complex than, say, tyrannosaurus rex – one of their possible ancestors.)

DAVID: God's job is to advance all forms to design evolution from bacteria to humans.

I didn’t know he had a job. I thought he had a goal, and once again you confine that goal to humans, and conveniently forget all the life forms that had no connection to humans.

Reductionism
DAVID: Reductionism will not explain life:
https://bigthink.com/13-8/mystery-of-life/

QUOTE: If the question is, “Can science explain life?” then the answer I think someday will be “mostly, yes”.

By which he means the physical processes that enable us to breathe, digest, reproduce etc.

QUOTE: "But the deeper question remains: will this ongoing process of explanatory refinement exhaust the weirdness of being alive or the mystery of life that I described in the opening? I think not.

A lovely article, which I think will find echoes in many minds, whether theistic, atheistic or agnostic.

DAVID: the writer is struggling with the concept of our consciousness without saying the word. But his key point is reductionism cannot give us an explanation of it. I would like to note my presentation of reductionist science discoveries won't get that explanation. What they do show is the need for a brilliant designer behind the underpinnings of life itself that produce consciousness. Briefly, consciousness cannot exist without being designed.

It’s very refreshing to read an article which refrains from pushing a particular agenda. Your final remark, of course, puts a bullet into the atheist’s gun: If consciousness cannot exist without being designed, who designed the consciousness which you believe designed our consciousness? The usual pathetic answer is “first cause”, which explains absolutely nothing, since ‘first cause’ could just as well be non-conscious matter chancing to form the first rudiments of consciousness, which then evolves. Just as difficult to believe as a supreme consciousness without a cause!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 26, 2021, 16:10 (914 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course species must survive until the next step in evolution. My point you are talking around is God designs evolution.

dhw: I have just been discussing the implications of your belief that your God designed every phase of evolution! You have told us that “species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them”. And so the process goes from species to species, with each one being prepared in advance for survival. And so I ask: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival?

Of course it is, for reasons I stated above.


DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

dhw: ... The purpose of something is usually the force that drives the doer into action. So for you, your God drives evolution by fulfilling his purpose of preparing life forms to survive under new conditions.

DAVID: Yes, as one part of just advancing forms into more complex forms until He arrives at humans.

dhw: Back we go to your belief that ALL speciation is “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans" and their food, but you are still left with your theory that your God made all the increasingly complex changes to enable each new species to survive until he performed his next round of operations.

DAVID: God's job is to advance all forms to design evolution from bacteria to humans.

dhw: I didn’t know he had a job. I thought he had a goal, and once again you confine that goal to humans, and conveniently forget all the life forms that had no connection to humans.

Same illogical reasoning which demands God should have directly created us. But He chose to evolve us, didn't He?


Reductionism
DAVID: Reductionism will not explain life:
https://bigthink.com/13-8/mystery-of-life/

QUOTE: If the question is, “Can science explain life?” then the answer I think someday will be “mostly, yes”.

dhw: By which he means the physical processes that enable us to breathe, digest, reproduce etc.

QUOTE: "But the deeper question remains: will this ongoing process of explanatory refinement exhaust the weirdness of being alive or the mystery of life that I described in the opening? I think not.

dhw: A lovely article, which I think will find echoes in many minds, whether theistic, atheistic or agnostic.

DAVID: the writer is struggling with the concept of our consciousness without saying the word. But his key point is reductionism cannot give us an explanation of it. I would like to note my presentation of reductionist science discoveries won't get that explanation. What they do show is the need for a brilliant designer behind the underpinnings of life itself that produce consciousness. Briefly, consciousness cannot exist without being designed.

dhw: It’s very refreshing to read an article which refrains from pushing a particular agenda. Your final remark, of course, puts a bullet into the atheist’s gun: If consciousness cannot exist without being designed, who designed the consciousness which you believe designed our consciousness? The usual pathetic answer is “first cause”, which explains absolutely nothing, since ‘first cause’ could just as well be non-conscious matter chancing to form the first rudiments of consciousness, which then evolves. Just as difficult to believe as a supreme consciousness without a cause!

Yes, your agnosticism recognizes design without a designer. Sorry you can't find as way to bridge the gap in your thinking.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, September 27, 2021, 14:58 (913 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course species must survive until the next step in evolution. My point you are talking around is God designs evolution.

dhw: I have just been discussing the implications of your belief that your God designed every phase of evolution! You have told us that “species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them”. And so the process goes from species to species, with each one being prepared in advance for survival. And so I ask: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival?

DAVID: Of course it is, for reasons I stated above.

So if the purpose of preparations for survival is survival, are you saying that the changes made for the purpose of survival are NOT the changes that lead to speciation?

The rest of this section is covered by the “Theodicy” thread.

Reductionism
DAVID: Reductionism will not explain life:
https://bigthink.com/13-8/mystery-of-life/

dhw: A lovely article, which I think will find echoes in many minds, whether theistic, atheistic or agnostic.

DAVID: the writer is struggling with the concept of our consciousness without saying the word. But his key point is reductionism cannot give us an explanation of it. I would like to note my presentation of reductionist science discoveries won't get that explanation. What they do show is the need for a brilliant designer behind the underpinnings of life itself that produce consciousness. Briefly, consciousness cannot exist without being designed.

dhw: It’s very refreshing to read an article which refrains from pushing a particular agenda. Your final remark, of course, puts a bullet into the atheist’s gun: If consciousness cannot exist without being designed, who designed the consciousness which you believe designed our consciousness? The usual pathetic answer is “first cause”, which explains absolutely nothing, since ‘first cause’ could just as well be non-conscious matter chancing to form the first rudiments of consciousness, which then evolves. Just as difficult to believe as a supreme consciousness without a cause!

DAVID: Yes, your agnosticism recognizes design without a designer. Sorry you can't find as way to bridge the gap in your thinking.

After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. I do not “recognize” design without a designer. The gap is exactly the same as your own in relation to consciousness: you say consciousness cannot exist without being designed, but at the same time you believe in consciousness that has not been designed (your God’s). Likewise, you believe that design must be the product of a designer, but the designer was not designed. I find that just as difficult to believe as the theory that life and consciousness evolved from unconscious non-life and that design evolved from non-design. What I "recognize" is that I cannot choose between the two equally mysterious options, even though one must be nearer the truth than the other.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, September 27, 2021, 15:45 (913 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have just been discussing the implications of your belief that your God designed every phase of evolution! You have told us that “species must survive until God is ready to produce the next new form from them”. And so the process goes from species to species, with each one being prepared in advance for survival. And so I ask: how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival?

DAVID: Of course it is, for reasons I stated above.

dhw: So if the purpose of preparations for survival is survival, are you saying that the changes made for the purpose of survival are NOT the changes that lead to speciation?

The survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.


Reductionism
DAVID: Reductionism will not explain life:
https://bigthink.com/13-8/mystery-of-life/

dhw: A lovely article, which I think will find echoes in many minds, whether theistic, atheistic or agnostic.

DAVID: the writer is struggling with the concept of our consciousness without saying the word. But his key point is reductionism cannot give us an explanation of it. I would like to note my presentation of reductionist science discoveries won't get that explanation. What they do show is the need for a brilliant designer behind the underpinnings of life itself that produce consciousness. Briefly, consciousness cannot exist without being designed.

dhw: It’s very refreshing to read an article which refrains from pushing a particular agenda. Your final remark, of course, puts a bullet into the atheist’s gun: If consciousness cannot exist without being designed, who designed the consciousness which you believe designed our consciousness? The usual pathetic answer is “first cause”, which explains absolutely nothing, since ‘first cause’ could just as well be non-conscious matter chancing to form the first rudiments of consciousness, which then evolves. Just as difficult to believe as a supreme consciousness without a cause!

DAVID: Yes, your agnosticism recognizes design without a designer. Sorry you can't find as way to bridge the gap in your thinking.

dhw: After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. I do not “recognize” design without a designer. The gap is exactly the same as your own in relation to consciousness: you say consciousness cannot exist without being designed, but at the same time you believe in consciousness that has not been designed (your God’s). Likewise, you believe that design must be the product of a designer, but the designer was not designed. I find that just as difficult to believe as the theory that life and consciousness evolved from unconscious non-life and that design evolved from non-design. What I "recognize" is that I cannot choose between the two equally mysterious options, even though one must be nearer the truth than the other.

What does 'nearer to the truth mean' to you? For me it is a cut and dried choice, a designer must exist to produce the designs we see, or chance did it. And I view chance as beyond illogical.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 11:35 (912 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] how can preparations for survival come to mean that survival is not the purpose of preparations for survival?

DAVID: Of course it is, for reasons I stated above.

dhw: So if the purpose of preparations for survival is survival, are you saying that the changes made for the purpose of survival are NOT the changes that lead to speciation?

DAVID: The survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.

Speciation demands major changes to existing structures. Let’s use our favourite example, the whale: do you believe your God performed operations to change legs into flippers, put in a blowhole, reorganize how the whale gives birth etc. so that the whale would become a different species from the pre-whale, or do you believe that these operations were designed to enable the whale to survive more comfortably in a watery habitat?

Reductionism

dhw: […]I cannot choose between the two equally mysterious options, even though one must be nearer the truth than the other.

DAVID: What does 'nearer to the truth mean' to you? For me it is a cut and dried choice, a designer must exist to produce the designs we see, or chance did it. And I view chance as beyond illogical.

But you still can’t see the illogicality of your belief that consciousness (ours) has to be designed, and yet consciousness (God’s) does not have to be designed. Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness. “Nearer to the truth” because of some form of panpsychism that avoids the concept of a single conscious being, while at the same time avoiding the concept of chance finding the magic formula.

Newborn brains
QUOTES: "Humans are born with a part of the brain that is prewired to be receptive to seeing words and letters, setting the stage at birth for people to learn how to read, a new study suggests. Analyzing brain scans of newborns, researchers found that this part of the brain -- called the 'visual word form area' (VWFA) -- is connected to the language network of the brain.

"The VWFA is specialized for reading only in literate individuals.

"'Our study really emphasized the role of already having brain connections at birth to help develop functional specialization, even for an experience-dependent category like reading.'"

DAVID: Was this wiring arrangement present 70,000 years ago when it is thought complex language developed or did the brain circuits evolve quickly since then? I think God had the brains pre-wired and therefore ready to accommodate the new skill.

Here’s a sensational suggestion. We know that the brain changes with new experiences. (Illiterate women’s brains changed when they learned to read.) So maybe the changes to the brain began with the first readers, i.e. resulting from a new activity, not anticipating it. And now the changes are passed on to the babies of literate people through a process called “heredity”. Too simple?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 15:30 (912 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.

dhw: Speciation demands major changes to existing structures.

The Cambrian does not show that. Entirely new organ systems appear with no precursors. Only after that does your observation apply. The whale series omitted is previously discussed.


Reductionism

dhw: […]I cannot choose between the two equally mysterious options, even though one must be nearer the truth than the other.

DAVID: What does 'nearer to the truth mean' to you? For me it is a cut and dried choice, a designer must exist to produce the designs we see, or chance did it. And I view chance as beyond illogical.

dhw: But you still can’t see the illogicality of your belief that consciousness (ours) has to be designed, and yet consciousness (God’s) does not have to be designed. Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness. “Nearer to the truth” because of some form of panpsychism that avoids the concept of a single conscious being, while at the same time avoiding the concept of chance finding the magic formula.

Does obvious design require a designer? Panpsychism requires the same explanation you are lacking, What made panpsychism from inert inorganic matter which was on the scene first?


Newborn brains
QUOTES: "Humans are born with a part of the brain that is prewired to be receptive to seeing words and letters, setting the stage at birth for people to learn how to read, a new study suggests. Analyzing brain scans of newborns, researchers found that this part of the brain -- called the 'visual word form area' (VWFA) -- is connected to the language network of the brain.

"The VWFA is specialized for reading only in literate individuals.

"'Our study really emphasized the role of already having brain connections at birth to help develop functional specialization, even for an experience-dependent category like reading.'"

DAVID: Was this wiring arrangement present 70,000 years ago when it is thought complex language developed or did the brain circuits evolve quickly since then? I think God had the brains pre-wired and therefore ready to accommodate the new skill.

dhw: Here’s a sensational suggestion. We know that the brain changes with new experiences. (Illiterate women’s brains changed when they learned to read.) So maybe the changes to the brain began with the first readers, i.e. resulting from a new activity, not anticipating it. And now the changes are passed on to the babies of literate people through a process called “heredity”. Too simple?

But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 09:21 (911 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species.

dhw: Speciation demands major changes to existing structures.

DAVID: The Cambrian does not show that. Entirely new organ systems appear with no precursors. Only after that does your observation apply. The whale series omitted is previously discussed.

See “giraffe plumbing”. Besides, why are you confining speciation to the Cambrian? Are you now telling us you’ve rejected common descent altogether?

Reductionism
dhw: […]I cannot choose between the two equally mysterious options, even though one must be nearer the truth than the other.

DAVID: What does 'nearer to the truth mean' to you? For me it is a cut and dried choice, a designer must exist to produce the designs we see, or chance did it. And I view chance as beyond illogical.

dhw: But you still can’t see the illogicality of your belief that consciousness (ours) has to be designed, and yet consciousness (God’s) does not have to be designed. Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness. “Nearer to the truth” because of some form of panpsychism that avoids the concept of a single conscious being, while at the same time avoiding the concept of chance finding the magic formula.

DAVID: Does obvious design require a designer? Panpsychism requires the same explanation you are lacking, What made panpsychism from inert inorganic matter which was on the scene first?

You still haven’t understood that I find it equally impossible to have faith in ANY of the explanations, and that is why I remain agnostic! Why don’t you explain the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer? And please note my comment on “first cause” before you answer.

Newborn brains
QUOTES: "Humans are born with a part of the brain that is prewired to be receptive to seeing words and letters, setting the stage at birth for people to learn how to read […]
"The VWFA is specialized for reading only in literate individuals.”

DAVID: Was this wiring arrangement present 70,000 years ago when it is thought complex language developed or did the brain circuits evolve quickly since then? I think God had the brains pre-wired and therefore ready to accommodate the new skill.

dhw: Here’s a sensational suggestion. We know that the brain changes with new experiences. (Illiterate women’s brains changed when they learned to read.) So maybe the changes to the brain began with the first readers, i.e. resulting from a new activity, not anticipating it. And now the changes are passed on to the babies of literate people through a process called “heredity”. Too simple?

DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 16:34 (911 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Speciation demands major changes to existing structures.

DAVID: The Cambrian does not show that. Entirely new organ systems appear with no precursors. Only after that does your observation apply. The whale series omitted is previously discussed.

dhw: why are you confining speciation to the Cambrian? Are you now telling us you’ve rejected common descent altogether?

Read your own thought above!!! What I pointed out is the Cambrian is an exception. New complex species from no precursors, not from 'existing structures'.


Reductionism

DAVID: Does obvious design require a designer? Panpsychism requires the same explanation you are lacking, What made panpsychism from inert inorganic matter which was on the scene first?

dhw: You still haven’t understood that I find it equally impossible to have faith in ANY of the explanations, and that is why I remain agnostic! Why don’t you explain the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer? And please note my comment on “first cause” before you answer.

There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.


Newborn brains
QUOTES: "Humans are born with a part of the brain that is prewired to be receptive to seeing words and letters, setting the stage at birth for people to learn how to read […]
"The VWFA is specialized for reading only in literate individuals.”

DAVID: Was this wiring arrangement present 70,000 years ago when it is thought complex language developed or did the brain circuits evolve quickly since then? I think God had the brains pre-wired and therefore ready to accommodate the new skill.

dhw: Here’s a sensational suggestion. We know that the brain changes with new experiences. (Illiterate women’s brains changed when they learned to read.) So maybe the changes to the brain began with the first readers, i.e. resulting from a new activity, not anticipating it. And now the changes are passed on to the babies of literate people through a process called “heredity”. Too simple?

DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

dhw: How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

I agree brain plasticity played a role. But necessarily receptive areas were already present to receive new wiring connections.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, September 30, 2021, 11:08 (910 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Speciation demands major changes to existing structures.

DAVID: The Cambrian does not show that. Entirely new organ systems appear with no precursors. Only after that does your observation apply. The whale series omitted is previously discussed.

dhw: why are you confining speciation to the Cambrian? Are you now telling us you’ve rejected common descent altogether?

DAVID: Read your own thought above!!! What I pointed out is the Cambrian is an exception. New complex species from no precursors, not from 'existing structures'.

See “giraffe plumbing” re the Cambrian. My point was in answer to your comment that “survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. I am arguing that major changes, even in your own theory, are made in order to allow organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions in their quest for survival.

Reductionism
DAVID: Does obvious design require a designer? Panpsychism requires the same explanation you are lacking, What made panpsychism from inert inorganic matter which was on the scene first?

dhw: You still haven’t understood that I find it equally impossible to have faith in ANY of the explanations, and that is why I remain agnostic! Why don’t you explain the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer? And please note my comment on “first cause” before you answer.

DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

Newborn brains
QUOTES: "Humans are born with a part of the brain that is prewired to be receptive to seeing words and letters, setting the stage at birth for people to learn how to read […]
"The VWFA is specialized for reading only in literate individuals
.”

DAVID: Was this wiring arrangement present 70,000 years ago when it is thought complex language developed or did the brain circuits evolve quickly since then? I think God had the brains pre-wired and therefore ready to accommodate the new skill.

dhw: Here’s a sensational suggestion. We know that the brain changes with new experiences. (Illiterate women’s brains changed when they learned to read.) So maybe the changes to the brain began with the first readers, i.e. resulting from a new activity, not anticipating it. And now the changes are passed on to the babies of literate people through a process called “heredity”. Too simple?

DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

dhw: How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

DAVID: I agree brain plasticity played a role. But necessarily receptive areas were already present to receive new wiring connections.

That would apply to the whole history of the brain’s evolution. It would have expanded (with new “areas”) when plasticity was not sufficient to meet with new requirements. But my point was that the homo brain would not have come with “the proper wiring built in”. The new wiring would have been the result of spoken language evolving, just as rewiring was the result of illiterate women learning to read.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 30, 2021, 16:23 (910 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Speciation demands major changes to existing structures.

DAVID: The Cambrian does not show that. Entirely new organ systems appear with no precursors. Only after that does your observation apply. The whale series omitted is previously discussed.

dhw: why are you confining speciation to the Cambrian? Are you now telling us you’ve rejected common descent altogether?

DAVID: Read your own thought above!!! What I pointed out is the Cambrian is an exception. New complex species from no precursors, not from 'existing structures'.

dhw: See “giraffe plumbing” re the Cambrian. My point was in answer to your comment that “survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. I am arguing that major changes, even in your own theory, are made in order to allow organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions in their quest for survival.

Evolution does not come from a 'quest for survival'. New species are designed by God to insure future survival following their appearance.


Reductionism
DAVID: Does obvious design require a designer? Panpsychism requires the same explanation you are lacking, What made panpsychism from inert inorganic matter which was on the scene first?

dhw: You still haven’t understood that I find it equally impossible to have faith in ANY of the explanations, and that is why I remain agnostic! Why don’t you explain the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer? And please note my comment on “first cause” before you answer.

DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

dhw: I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

I didn't ignore your first cause. You know my belief is in an eternal God designer. I know your disbelief, which to me defies logic.


Newborn brains
QUOTES: "Humans are born with a part of the brain that is prewired to be receptive to seeing words and letters, setting the stage at birth for people to learn how to read […]
"The VWFA is specialized for reading only in literate individuals
.”

DAVID: Was this wiring arrangement present 70,000 years ago when it is thought complex language developed or did the brain circuits evolve quickly since then? I think God had the brains pre-wired and therefore ready to accommodate the new skill.

dhw: Here’s a sensational suggestion. We know that the brain changes with new experiences. (Illiterate women’s brains changed when they learned to read.) So maybe the changes to the brain began with the first readers, i.e. resulting from a new activity, not anticipating it. And now the changes are passed on to the babies of literate people through a process called “heredity”. Too simple?

DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

dhw: How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

DAVID: I agree brain plasticity played a role. But necessarily receptive areas were already present to receive new wiring connections.

dhw: That would apply to the whole history of the brain’s evolution. It would have expanded (with new “areas”) when plasticity was not sufficient to meet with new requirements. But my point was that the homo brain would not have come with “the proper wiring built in”. The new wiring would have been the result of spoken language evolving, just as rewiring was the result of illiterate women learning to read.

The pre-homo brain had existing areas that eventually acquired specific uses. Lots of neurons had to be present to accept new functions. Hominin brains were much larger than ape brains and hominins learned how to use them as hominins arrived on the scene.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, October 01, 2021, 12:32 (909 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: My point was in answer to your comment that “survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. I am arguing that major changes, even in your own theory, are made in order to allow organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions in their quest for survival.

DAVID: Evolution does not come from a 'quest for survival'. New species are designed by God to insure future survival following their appearance.

So your God designs all the changes that lead to speciation in order to ensure the survival of the respective life forms, but evolution does not come about because of your God’s efforts to ensure that the respective life forms will survive.

Reductionism
DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

dhw: I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

DAVID: I didn't ignore your first cause. You know my belief is in an eternal God designer. I know your disbelief, which to me defies logic.

Not “disbelief”, which means rejection. I am an agnostic. Now please explain to me the logic behind your belief that consciousness requires a designer, but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

Newborn brains
DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

dhw: How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

DAVID: I agree brain plasticity played a role. But necessarily receptive areas were already present to receive new wiring connections.

dhw: That would apply to the whole history of the brain’s evolution. It would have expanded (with new “areas”) when plasticity was not sufficient to meet with new requirements. But my point was that the homo brain would not have come with “the proper wiring built in”. The new wiring would have been the result of spoken language evolving, just as rewiring was the result of illiterate women learning to read.

DAVID: The pre-homo brain had existing areas that eventually acquired specific uses.

The pre-sapiens brain was smaller than the sapiens brain, and required more and more cells once there were new skills to be mastered. Eventually, when the brain reached optimum size, complexification took over from expansion, and so such advances as spoken language entailed additional complexification (rewiring). Yes, the areas were there by then, but the rewiring was not “built in”, as bolded above.

Female wrasse cheat
QUOTES: "This sensitivity suggests that cleaner wrasse have evolved cognitive abilities that allow them to find solutions to their problems on a par with other animals, such as corvids and primates.
The greatest message of this paper is that there is no ladder which humans sit at the top of and then there’s primates and then there’s something else.'”

DAVID: I know dhw will enjoy this. I ignore the final obligatory comment that humans aren't worth any more than anyone else. The last rung on the animal ladder is huge.

You’re right, I enjoy the evidence that our fellow creatures all the way down to bacteria and single cells have far more intelligence than some humans like to believe. However, I have always agreed with you that our own intelligence is vastly in excess of theirs.

Guth and David on “time”

DAVID: I am unchanged. Your bolded comment makes the point. We do not know of any prior BB's. Our BB may be the only one ever!!!

dhw: And it may not be, as you have acknowledged: “I hadn’t considered the possibility of prior BB’s seventeen years ago. With that point made, it is obvious there was prior time within prior possible BB’s.

DAVID: Yes, possible time in possible previous BB's doesn't change past statements or make them untrue at the time they are made.

It certainly doesn’t change your July statement that: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.” However, I can’t follow your logic in maintaining that in July your statement was NOT untrue, whereas in August/September/October it WAS/IS untrue. May I humbly suggest that you have now changed your mind, realize that your July statement was untrue, and therefore – perish the thought – back in July you made a mistake and your statement was wrong. I suggest you drop the subject.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, October 01, 2021, 15:08 (909 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: So your God designs all the changes that lead to speciation in order to ensure the survival of the respective life forms, but evolution does not come about because of your God’s efforts to ensure that the respective life forms will survive.

My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver


Reductionism
DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

dhw: I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

DAVID: I didn't ignore your first cause. You know my belief is in an eternal God designer. I know your disbelief, which to me defies logic.

dhw: Not “disbelief”, which means rejection. I am an agnostic. Now please explain to me the logic behind your belief that consciousness requires a designer, but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. Since there was a start to reality in our BB from nothing it requires a cause, and therefore an eternal mind


Newborn brains

DAVID: The pre-homo brain had existing areas that eventually acquired specific uses.

dhw: The pre-sapiens brain was smaller than the sapiens brain, and required more and more cells once there were new skills to be mastered. Eventually, when the brain reached optimum size, complexification took over from expansion, and so such advances as spoken language entailed additional complexification (rewiring). Yes, the areas were there by then, but the rewiring was not “built in”, as bolded above.

Agreed areas used more were interconnected by more rewiring.


Guth and David on “time”

DAVID: I am unchanged. Your bolded comment makes the point. We do not know of any prior BB's. Our BB may be the only one ever!!!

dhw: And it may not be, as you have acknowledged: “I hadn’t considered the possibility of prior BB’s seventeen years ago. With that point made, it is obvious there was prior time within prior possible BB’s.

DAVID: Yes, possible time in possible previous BB's doesn't change past statements or make them untrue at the time they are made.

dhw: It certainly doesn’t change your July statement that: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.” However, I can’t follow your logic in maintaining that in July your statement was NOT untrue, whereas in August/September/October it WAS/IS untrue. May I humbly suggest that you have now changed your mind, realize that your July statement was untrue, and therefore – perish the thought – back in July you made a mistake and your statement was wrong. I suggest you drop the subject.

The context at each time was correct so the statements in the context of their times were correct. An example is Darwin. At his time he was fully correct for the knowledge available. Research now shows his deficiencies.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, October 02, 2021, 10:57 (908 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: So your God designs all the changes that lead to speciation in order to ensure the survival of the respective life forms, but evolution does not come about because of your God’s efforts to ensure that the respective life forms will survive.

DAVID: My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver.

And my point is that even if this were true, you yourself keep telling us that “new species are designed by God to ensure future survival following their appearance”. If that is his purpose, I suggest that the changes that lead to speciation and hence to evolution are driven by his desire to ensure their survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

Reductionism
DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

dhw: I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

DAVID: I didn't ignore your first cause. You know my belief is in an eternal God designer. I know your disbelief, which to me defies logic.

dhw: Not “disbelief”, which means rejection. I am an agnostic. Now please explain to me the logic behind your belief that consciousness requires a designer, but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

DAVID: Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. Since there was a start to reality in our BB from nothing it requires a cause, and therefore an eternal mind.

But that is not the problem, as you well know. An even greater mystery than biological design is that of an “eternal mind” that is simply “there”, had no origin, and yet is capable of creating a universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves. Unimaginable.

Newborn brains
DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo rain came with the proper wiring built in […]

dhw: How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

DAVID: The pre-homo brain had existing areas that eventually acquired specific uses.

dhw: The pre-sapiens brain was smaller than the sapiens brain, and required more and more cells once there were new skills to be mastered. Eventually, when the brain reached optimum size, complexification took over from expansion, and so such advances as spoken language entailed additional complexification (rewiring). Yes, the areas were there by then, but the rewiring was not “built in”, as bolded above.

DAVID: Agreed areas used more were interconnected by more rewiring.

I’ll take that as your agreement with my comment. Thank you.

Your gut has a big brain
DAVID: We eat, we defecate, all without having to think about it. The proper nutrients are absorbed. This developed in evolution without interspecies or intraspecies conflict, which Darwinism favors as causing evolution. Why is it there? By design.

I have no idea why you have brought Darwin into this, but since you have, let me remind you that Lynn Margulis proposed that cooperation was at least as important to evolution as conflict, and she believed in cellular intelligence. The brainy gut is a prime example of how intelligent cells cooperate in order to design functioning communities. (It is possible that your God gave them their intelligence.)


Guth and David on “time”
DAVID: I am unchanged. Your bolded comment makes the point. We do not know of any prior BB's. Our BB may be the only one ever!!!

dhw: And it may not be, as you have acknowledged: “I hadn’t considered the possibility of prior BB’s seventeen years ago. With that point made, it is obvious there was prior time within prior possible BB’s.

DAVID: Yes, possible time in possible previous BB's doesn't change past statements or make them untrue at the time they are made.

dhw: It certainly doesn’t change your July statement that: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.” However, I can’t follow your logic in maintaining that in July your statement was NOT untrue, whereas in August/September/October it WAS/IS untrue. May I humbly suggest that you have now changed your mind, realize that your July statement was untrue, and therefore – perish the thought – back in July you made a mistake and your statement was wrong. I suggest you drop the subject.

DAVID: The context at each time was correct so the statements in the context of their times were correct. An example is Darwin. At his time he was fully correct for the knowledge available. Research now shows his deficiencies.

Firstly, the statements were not correct, but many people thought they were. Secondly, in July you thought your bolded statement was correct and I didn’t. You now agree with me. So please don’t tell me now that your bolded statement was correct in July! And please drop this subject as your arguments are getting sillier and sillier.:-(

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 02, 2021, 15:41 (908 days ago) @ dhw

Survival
dhw: So your God designs all the changes that lead to speciation in order to ensure the survival of the respective life forms, but evolution does not come about because of your God’s efforts to ensure that the respective life forms will survive.

DAVID: My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver.

dhw: And my point is that even if this were true, you yourself keep telling us that “new species are designed by God to ensure future survival following their appearance”. If that is his purpose, I suggest that the changes that lead to speciation and hence to evolution are driven by his desire to ensure their survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

That still makes God the driver.


Reductionism

DAVID: Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. Since there was a start to reality in our BB from nothing it requires a cause, and therefore an eternal mind.

dhw: But that is not the problem, as you well know. An even greater mystery than biological design is that of an “eternal mind” that is simply “there”, had no origin, and yet is capable of creating a universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves. Unimaginable.

I guess that agnosticism requires a lack of imagination.


Your gut has a big brain
DAVID: We eat, we defecate, all without having to think about it. The proper nutrients are absorbed. This developed in evolution without interspecies or intraspecies conflict, which Darwinism favors as causing evolution. Why is it there? By design.

dhw: I have no idea why you have brought Darwin into this, but since you have, let me remind you that Lynn Margulis proposed that cooperation was at least as important to evolution as conflict, and she believed in cellular intelligence. The brainy gut is a prime example of how intelligent cells cooperate in order to design functioning communities. (It is possible that your God gave them their intelligence.)

I'll accept your possibility about God.

Guth and David on “time”
DAVID: I am unchanged. Your bolded comment makes the point. We do not know of any prior BB's. Our BB may be the only one ever!!!

dhw: And it may not be, as you have acknowledged: “I hadn’t considered the possibility of prior BB’s seventeen years ago. With that point made, it is obvious there was prior time within prior possible BB’s.

DAVID: Yes, possible time in possible previous BB's doesn't change past statements or make them untrue at the time they are made.

dhw: It certainly doesn’t change your July statement that: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.” However, I can’t follow your logic in maintaining that in July your statement was NOT untrue, whereas in August/September/October it WAS/IS untrue. May I humbly suggest that you have now changed your mind, realize that your July statement was untrue, and therefore – perish the thought – back in July you made a mistake and your statement was wrong. I suggest you drop the subject.

DAVID: The context at each time was correct so the statements in the context of their times were correct. An example is Darwin. At his time he was fully correct for the knowledge available. Research now shows his deficiencies.

dhw: Firstly, the statements were not correct, but many people thought they were. Secondly, in July you thought your bolded statement was correct and I didn’t. You now agree with me. So please don’t tell me now that your bolded statement was correct in July! And please drop this subject as your arguments are getting sillier and sillier.:-(

We'll stop. Both positions are well outlined.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, October 03, 2021, 08:52 (907 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver.

dhw: And my point is that even if this were true, you yourself keep telling us that “new species are designed by God to ensure future survival following their appearance”. If that is his purpose, I suggest that the changes that lead to speciation and hence to evolution are driven by his desire to ensure their survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

DAVID: That still makes God the driver.

And the motive that drives him is to ensure future survival. So how does that come to mean that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”?

Reductionism
DAVID: Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. Since there was a start to reality in our BB from nothing it requires a cause, and therefore an eternal mind.

dhw: But that is not the problem, as you well know. An even greater mystery than biological design is that of an “eternal mind” that is simply “there”, had no origin, and yet is capable of creating a universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves. Unimaginable.

DAVID: I guess that agnosticism requires a lack of imagination.

If you can imagine an eternal, unknown, sourceless, undesigned mind capable of creating a whole universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves, although consciousness requires a designer, why shouldn’t someone else imagine an eternal, sourceless, undesigned universe of materials and energy that produces an infinite number of combinations, one of which eventually leads to conditions suitable for life, and eventually to life and to consciousness?

Your gut has a big brain
DAVID: We eat, we defecate, all without having to think about it. The proper nutrients are absorbed. This developed in evolution without interspecies or intraspecies conflict, which Darwinism favors as causing evolution. Why is it there? By design.

dhw: I have no idea why you have brought Darwin into this, but since you have, let me remind you that Lynn Margulis proposed that cooperation was at least as important to evolution as conflict, and she believed in cellular intelligence. The brainy gut is a prime example of how intelligent cells cooperate in order to design functioning communities. (It is possible that your God gave them their intelligence.)

DAVID: I'll accept your possibility about God.

Good. You can hardly accept the possibility that your God gave them their intelligence without accepting the possibility that they are intelligent.;-)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 03, 2021, 16:40 (907 days ago) @ dhw

Survival
DAVID: My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver.

dhw: And my point is that even if this were true, you yourself keep telling us that “new species are designed by God to ensure future survival following their appearance”. If that is his purpose, I suggest that the changes that lead to speciation and hence to evolution are driven by his desire to ensure their survival. It is therefore absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

DAVID: That still makes God the driver.

dhw: And the motive that drives him is to ensure future survival. So how does that come to mean that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”?

Stop twisting meanings. I've said survival is required prior to each new species.


Reductionism
DAVID: Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. Since there was a start to reality in our BB from nothing it requires a cause, and therefore an eternal mind.

dhw: But that is not the problem, as you well know. An even greater mystery than biological design is that of an “eternal mind” that is simply “there”, had no origin, and yet is capable of creating a universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves. Unimaginable.

DAVID: I guess that agnosticism requires a lack of imagination.

dhw: If you can imagine an eternal, unknown, sourceless, undesigned mind capable of creating a whole universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves, although consciousness requires a designer, why shouldn’t someone else imagine an eternal, sourceless, undesigned universe of materials and energy that produces an infinite number of combinations, one of which eventually leads to conditions suitable for life, and eventually to life and to consciousness?

So you imagine our reality arising totally by chance in your purposeless theory.


Your gut has a big brain
DAVID: We eat, we defecate, all without having to think about it. The proper nutrients are absorbed. This developed in evolution without interspecies or intraspecies conflict, which Darwinism favors as causing evolution. Why is it there? By design.

dhw: I have no idea why you have brought Darwin into this, but since you have, let me remind you that Lynn Margulis proposed that cooperation was at least as important to evolution as conflict, and she believed in cellular intelligence. The brainy gut is a prime example of how intelligent cells cooperate in order to design functioning communities. (It is possible that your God gave them their intelligence.)

DAVID: I'll accept your possibility about God.

dhw: Good. You can hardly accept the possibility that your God gave them their intelligence without accepting the possibility that they are intelligent.;-)

God invented them so of course they act intelligently to fulfill His purposes for them;-) ;-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, October 04, 2021, 11:37 (906 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: My point is God designs evolution stage by stage. He is the driver.

dhw: And my point is that even if this were true, you yourself keep telling us that “new species are designed by God to ensure future survival following their appearance”. If that is his purpose, I suggest that the changes that lead to speciation and hence to evolution are driven by his desire to ensure their survival. […]

DAVID: That still makes God the driver.

dhw: And the motive that drives him is to ensure future survival. […]

DAVID: Stop twisting meanings. I've said survival is required prior to each new species.

And you’ve also said “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. How can that be true if your God’s motive for changing anatomies was to ensure the survival of the respective organisms?

Reductionism
DAVID: Since biological design is so intricate it requires a designer. […]

dhw: But that is not the problem, as you well know. An even greater mystery than biological design is that of an “eternal mind” that is simply “there”, had no origin, and yet is capable of creating a universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves. Unimaginable.

DAVID: I guess that agnosticism requires a lack of imagination.

dhw: If you can imagine an eternal, unknown, sourceless, undesigned mind capable of creating a whole universe and life and conscious beings like ourselves, although consciousness requires a designer, why shouldn’t someone else imagine an eternal, sourceless, undesigned universe of materials and energy that produces an infinite number of combinations, one of which eventually leads to conditions suitable for life, and eventually to life and to consciousness?

DAVID: So you imagine our reality arising totally by chance in your purposeless theory.

No, I don’t! I’m an agnostic! I’m pointing out that if you can imagine God, then atheists can imagine an impersonal universe chancing on the right formula. I can’t imagine either!

Your gut has a big brain
dhw: [..] The brainy gut is a prime example of how intelligent cells cooperate in order to design functioning communities. (It is possible that your God gave them their intelligence.)

DAVID: I'll accept your possibility about God.

dhw: Good. You can hardly accept the possibility that your God gave them their intelligence without accepting the possibility that they are intelligent.

DAVID: God invented them so of course they act intelligently to fulfill His purposes for them.

We agree that cells cooperate intelligently. But you say they are not intelligent and God tells/has told them what to do. Margulis, McClintock and Shapiro (among others) said/say they are intelligent, and they work out what to do. I guess that’s the end of that discussion, till we discuss it again! :-)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, October 04, 2021, 19:14 (906 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: Stop twisting meanings. I've said survival is required prior to each new species.

dhw: And you’ve also said “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. How can that be true if your God’s motive for changing anatomies was to ensure the survival of the respective organisms?

The bold emphasizes my point, God speciates from surviving species, whose survival is guaranteed by His designs of them

Your gut has a big brain
dhw: [..] The brainy gut is a prime example of how intelligent cells cooperate in order to design functioning communities. (It is possible that your God gave them their intelligence.)

DAVID: I'll accept your possibility about God.

dhw: Good. You can hardly accept the possibility that your God gave them their intelligence without accepting the possibility that they are intelligent.

DAVID: God invented them so of course they act intelligently to fulfill His purposes for them.

dhw: We agree that cells cooperate intelligently. But you say they are not intelligent and God tells/has told them what to do. Margulis, McClintock and Shapiro (among others) said/say they are intelligent, and they work out what to do. I guess that’s the end of that discussion, till we discuss it again! :-)

Round and around, to this stop.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 11:11 (905 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: Stop twisting meanings. I've said survival is required prior to each new species.

dhw: And you’ve also said “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. How can that be true if your God’s motive for changing anatomies was to ensure the survival of the respective organisms?

DAVID: The bold emphasizes my point, God speciates from surviving species, whose survival is guaranteed by His designs of them.

So in your theory does he or does he not design innovations to improve organisms’ chances of survival? For example, when – according to you – he popped in to operate on pre-whale legs and turn them into flippers, did he or did he not do so to enable them to improve their chances of survival in the water? Please answer directly.

Trilobite eyes
QUOTE: An international research team has found an eye system in trilobites of the suborder Phacopina from the Devonian (390 million years B.P.) that is unique in the animal kingdom.
Most trilobites had compound eyes similar to those that are still found in insects today: […] However, in the trilobite suborder Phacopinae, the externally visible lenses of the compound eyes are much larger, up to 1 mm in diameter and more. In addition, they are set farther apart.

DAVID: highly designed compound eyes, in a form now used today by insects. Illustrates the design gap in physical forms from Edicaran to Cambrian. From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps and able to demonstrate the nerve fibers. The gap cannot be denied.

Hold on! This exceptional deviation from the norm apparently originated in the Devonian, not the Cambrian, and must therefore have descended from those earlier forms. It is not the form used today by insects, and obviously did not come from nothing with no intermediate steps, since trilobites had already been in existence for approx. 150 million years.

Trilobite - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record defines the base of the Atdabanian stage of the Early Cambrian period (521 million years ago), and they flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic before slipping into a long decline, when, during the Devonian, all trilobite orders except the Proetida died out. […] Trilobites were among the most successful of all early animals, existing in oceans for almost 270 million years, with over 20,000 species having been described.

20,000 species, and you pick on one later variation to tell us there’s a gap which we cannot deny. And while you contemplate your response, do please tell us why this particular extinct species of trilobite was necessary for the design of humans and our food.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 16:13 (905 days ago) @ dhw

Survival
DAVID: Stop twisting meanings. I've said survival is required prior to each new species.

dhw: And you’ve also said “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. How can that be true if your God’s motive for changing anatomies was to ensure the survival of the respective organisms?

DAVID: The bold emphasizes my point, God speciates from surviving species, whose survival is guaranteed by His designs of them.

dhw: So in your theory does he or does he not design innovations to improve organisms’ chances of survival? For example, when – according to you – he popped in to operate on pre-whale legs and turn them into flippers, did he or did he not do so to enable them to improve their chances of survival in the water? Please answer directly.

Answered over and over: God has animals fit for survival. If they die out before He adds the next modification to form a new species, evolution doesn't work in progressive stages.


Trilobite eyes
QUOTE: An international research team has found an eye system in trilobites of the suborder Phacopina from the Devonian (390 million years B.P.) that is unique in the animal kingdom.
Most trilobites had compound eyes similar to those that are still found in insects today: […] However, in the trilobite suborder Phacopinae, the externally visible lenses of the compound eyes are much larger, up to 1 mm in diameter and more. In addition, they are set farther apart.

DAVID: highly designed compound eyes, in a form now used today by insects. Illustrates the design gap in physical forms from Edicaran to Cambrian. From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps and able to demonstrate the nerve fibers. The gap cannot be denied.

dhw: Hold on! This exceptional deviation from the norm apparently originated in the Devonian, not the Cambrian, and must therefore have descended from those earlier forms. It is not the form used today by insects, and obviously did not come from nothing with no intermediate steps, since trilobites had already been in existence for approx. 150 million years.

Still descended from the Cambrian Explosion.


Trilobite - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record defines the base of the Atdabanian stage of the Early Cambrian period (521 million years ago), and they flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic before slipping into a long decline, when, during the Devonian, all trilobite orders except the Proetida died out. […] Trilobites were among the most successful of all early animals, existing in oceans for almost 270 million years, with over 20,000 species having been described.

dhw: 20,000 species, and you pick on one later variation to tell us there’s a gap which we cannot deny. And while you contemplate your response, do please tell us why this particular extinct species of trilobite was necessary for the design of humans and our food.

You cannot deny the gap. It is still there, not gone with your theoretical suppositions of excuses. And trilobites ended up as evolved forms which we eat today. The whole bush is food to feed our huge population.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, October 06, 2021, 09:09 (904 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

DAVID: I've said survival is required prior to each new species.

dhw: And you’ve also said “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. How can that be true if your God’s motive for changing anatomies was to ensure the survival of the respective organisms?

DAVID: The bold emphasizes my point, God speciates from surviving species, whose survival is guaranteed by His designs of them.

dhw: So in your theory does he or does he not design innovations to improve organisms’ chances of survival? For example, when – according to you – he popped in to operate on pre-whale legs and turn them into flippers, did he or did he not do so to enable them to improve their chances of survival in the water? Please answer directly.

DAVID: Answered over and over: God has animals fit for survival. If they die out before He adds the next modification to form a new species, evolution doesn't work in progressive stages.

And so did your God change pre-whale legs into flippers in order to improve their chances of survival, or not?

Trilobite eyes
QUOTE: An international research team has found an eye system in trilobites of the suborder Phacopina from the Devonian (390 million years B.P.) that is unique in the animal kingdom.
Most trilobites had compound eyes similar to those that are still found in insects today:
[…]

DAVID: highly designed compound eyes, in a form now used today by insects. Illustrates the design gap in physical forms from Edicaran to Cambrian. From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps and able to demonstrate the nerve fibers. The gap cannot be denied.

dhw: Hold on! This exceptional deviation from the norm apparently originated in the Devonian, not the Cambrian, and must therefore have descended from those earlier forms. It is not the form used today by insects, and obviously did not come from nothing with no intermediate steps, since trilobites had already been in existence for approx. 150 million years.

DAVID: Still descended from the Cambrian Explosion.

So what was all that about “From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps”?

dhw: 20,000 species, and you pick on one later variation to tell us there’s a gap which we cannot deny. And while you contemplate your response, do please tell us why this particular extinct species of trilobite was necessary for the design of humans and our food.

DAVID: You cannot deny the gap.

I’m not denying the gap in general. I’m simply pointing out that this trilobite was one very late variation out of 20,000 forms of trilobite.

DAVID: It [the gap]is still there, not gone with your theoretical suppositions of excuses.

Of course the gap is still there. But this is not a good example. Why do you use the word “excuse”? Your theory concerning the gap is no more proven than my own proposals (see “Giraffe plumbing”).

DAVID: And trilobites ended up as evolved forms which we eat today. The whole bush is food to feed our huge population.

Your usual self-contradiction. How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 06, 2021, 23:13 (904 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: So in your theory does he or does he not design innovations to improve organisms’ chances of survival? For example, when – according to you – he popped in to operate on pre-whale legs and turn them into flippers, did he or did he not do so to enable them to improve their chances of survival in the water? Please answer directly.

DAVID: Answered over and over: God has animals fit for survival. If they die out before He adds the next modification to form a new species, evolution doesn't work in progressive stages.

dhw: And so did your God change pre-whale legs into flippers in order to improve their chances of survival, or not?

of course. Your point? Survival happens but does not drive evolution. God does


Trilobite eyes

years.[/i]


DAVID: Still descended from the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: So what was all that about “From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps”?

Any eyes in the Ediacaran? Ediacaran to Cambrian, no intermediate


dhw: 20,000 species, and you pick on one later variation to tell us there’s a gap which we cannot deny. And while you contemplate your response, do please tell us why this particular extinct species of trilobite was necessary for the design of humans and our food.

DAVID: You cannot deny the gap.

dhw: I’m not denying the gap in general. I’m simply pointing out that this trilobite was one very late variation out of 20,000 forms of trilobite.

The early ones arrived as totally new


DAVID: It [the gap]is still there, not gone with your theoretical suppositions of excuses.

dhw: Of course the gap is still there. But this is not a good example. Why do you use the word “excuse”? Your theory concerning the gap is no more proven than my own proposals

The gap exists. Your excuses are pure unproven theory.


DAVID: And trilobites ended up as evolved forms which we eat today. The whole bush is food to feed our huge population.

dhw: Your usual self-contradiction. How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

All true obvious statements, but not in your topsy-turvy Alice looking-glass view. We are observing different times during 3.8 billion year's of evolution of life, all connected by the process of evolution.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, October 07, 2021, 09:13 (903 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: […] did your God change pre-whale legs into flippers in order to improve their chances of survival, or not?

DAVID: of course. Your point? Survival happens but does not drive evolution. God does.

We are going round in circles. There is no contradiction. In your theory, God drives evolution (i.e. the appearance of new species) by making changes that improve chances of survival, and so it is absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

Trilobite eyes
DAVID: Still descended from the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: So what was all that about “From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps”?

DAVID: Any eyes in the Ediacaran? Ediacaran to Cambrian, no intermediate.

You used the example of this newly discovered Devonian species and its special eyes to illustrate your point about no precursors. A totally inappropriate example, since clearly it was descended from earlier trilobite species.

dhw: 20,000 species, and you pick on one later variation to tell us there’s a gap which we cannot deny. And while you contemplate your response, do please tell us why this particular extinct species of trilobite was necessary for the design of humans and our food.

DAVID: You cannot deny the gap.

dhw: I’m not denying the gap in general. I’m simply pointing out that this trilobite was one very late variation out of 20,000 forms of trilobite.
And I asked why you thought this particular species was necessary for the design of humans and our food.

DAVID: The early ones arrived as totally new.

So this species is irrelevant, and we still don’t know why your God specially designed it.

DAVID: It [the gap]is still there, not gone with your theoretical suppositions of excuses.

dhw: Of course the gap is still there. But this is not a good example. Why do you use the word “excuse”? Your theory concerning the gap is no more proven than my own proposals.

DAVID: The gap exists. Your excuses are pure unproven theory.

Again, what “excuses”? Your theory is no more proven than any other theory.

DAVID: And trilobites ended up as evolved forms which we eat today. The whole bush is food to feed our huge population.

dhw: Your usual self-contradiction. How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: All true obvious statements, but not in your topsy-turvy Alice looking-glass view. We are observing different times during 3.8 billion year's of evolution of life, all connected by the process of evolution.

Yes, we are observing different times, different species, and different foods. Yes, they all evolved (except for those which you think did not evolve – see your Cambrian theory), but no, we do not eat them all. Most of them had no connection with humans, and so the whole bush was not “food to feed our huge population”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 07, 2021, 19:05 (903 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: of course. Your point? Survival happens but does not drive evolution. God does.

dhw: We are going round in circles. There is no contradiction. In your theory, God drives evolution (i.e. the appearance of new species) by making changes that improve chances of survival, and so it is absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

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


Trilobite eyes
DAVID: Still descended from the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: So what was all that about “From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps”?

DAVID: Any eyes in the Ediacaran? Ediacaran to Cambrian, no intermediate.

You used the example of this newly discovered Devonian species and its special eyes to illustrate your point about no precursors. A totally inappropriate example, since clearly it was descended from earlier trilobite species.

Who had no precursors.


DAVID: It [the gap]is still there, not gone with your theoretical suppositions of excuses.

dhw: Of course the gap is still there. But this is not a good example. Why do you use the word “excuse”? Your theory concerning the gap is no more proven than my own proposals.

DAVID: The gap exists. Your excuses are pure unproven theory.

dhw: Again, what “excuses”? Your theory is no more proven than any other theory.

The gap isn't gone!!!


DAVID: And trilobites ended up as evolved forms which we eat today. The whole bush is food to feed our huge population.

dhw: Your usual self-contradiction. How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: All true obvious statements, but not in your topsy-turvy Alice looking-glass view. We are observing different times during 3.8 billion year's of evolution of life, all connected by the process of evolution.

dhw: Yes, we are observing different times, different species, and different foods. Yes, they all evolved (except for those which you think did not evolve – see your Cambrian theory), but no, we do not eat them all. Most of them had no connection with humans, and so the whole bush was not “food to feed our huge population”.

You constantly forget the complex intricacies of ecosystems, all interdependent that feed humans and everyone else.

Miscellany: more plant process complexity

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 07, 2021, 19:55 (903 days ago) @ David Turell

A complex plant process:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/the-molecular-machine-behind-carbon-balance/

"What rubisco actually does is complicated. Rubisco grabs a CO2 molecule (most of the time) and attaches it to a sugar chain. (Bathellier et al. 2018) Rubisco then takes the lengthened carbon chain and clips it, thus producing two identical phosphoglycerate molecules. (PDB-101 Molecule of the Month) Making identical molecules is advantageous because then only a single set of enzymes is required for the remainder of the pathway. Additionally, phosphoglycerate is a highly familiar molecule to the cell. Most of the molecules will be fed back into the carbon fixation cycle, but some of them will also be siphoned off to produce sugars. Every bite of food you have ever taken is directly or indirectly the result of this amazing enzyme.

***

"rubisco is nothing short of an incredible design, as validated by its abundance in the ecosystem, engineers’ inability to drastically improve it after fifty+ years of study, and its ability to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, balancing the atmosphere.

"As I’ve indicated, plants are icons of sustainability. They create critical products for other living organisms while utilizing waste products — every environmental engineer’s dream design. Are these ecosystem-level designs mere coincidences of Darwinism? Can consideration of ecosystem constraints really occur without foresight? "

Comment: The article is a complex discussion of why this enzyme works so slowly. The purpose is not clear, as enzymes usually speed up reactions. Just offered as another example of complex design not possible by chance.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, October 08, 2021, 09:06 (902 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: Your point? Survival happens but does not drive evolution. God does.

dhw: We are going round in circles. There is no contradiction. In your theory, God drives evolution (i.e. the appearance of new species) by making changes that improve chances of survival, and so it is absurd to claim that “survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”.

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

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

Trilobite eyes
DAVID: Still descended from the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: So what was all that about “From nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps”?

DAVID: Any eyes in the Ediacaran? Ediacaran to Cambrian, no intermediate.

dhw: You used the example of this newly discovered Devonian species and its special eyes to illustrate your point about no precursors. A totally inappropriate example, since clearly it was descended from earlier trilobite species.

DAVID: Who had no precursors.

I was simply pointing out that “from nothing to these eyes with no intermediate steps” could hardly apply to a Devonian variation of the trilobite.


DAVID: It [the gap]is still there, not gone with your theoretical suppositions of excuses.

dhw: Of course the gap is still there. But this is not a good example. Why do you use the word “excuse”? Your theory concerning the gap is no more proven than my own proposals.

DAVID: The gap exists. Your excuses are pure unproven theory.

dhw: Again, what “excuses”? Your theory is no more proven than any other theory.

DAVID: The gap isn't gone!!!

So how does that make your theory any more “proven” than mine?

DAVID: And trilobites ended up as evolved forms which we eat today. The whole bush is food to feed our huge population.

dhw: Your usual self-contradiction. How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: You constantly forget the complex intricacies of ecosystems, all interdependent that feed humans and everyone else.

But the whole bush, including every life form and food that ever existed, was not “food to feed our huge population”!

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, October 08, 2021, 23:52 (902 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, October 09, 2021, 08:56 (901 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 09, 2021, 16:42 (901 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Apoptosis and death is built in.


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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, October 10, 2021, 09:42 (900 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAVID: Apoptosis and death is built in.

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 10, 2021, 16:42 (900 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

DAVID: Apoptosis and death is built in.

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

Of course.


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

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

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

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

Mine is straight biochemistry, which requires a designer.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, October 11, 2021, 11:18 (899 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, October 11, 2021, 16:11 (899 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 11:15 (898 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 15:44 (898 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, October 13, 2021, 10:21 (897 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 13, 2021, 15:39 (897 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

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


Crocodiles change skull forms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, October 14, 2021, 08:34 (896 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 14, 2021, 19:20 (896 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, October 15, 2021, 12:06 (895 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: inflation, no Big Bang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, October 15, 2021, 16:35 (895 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: inflation, no Big Bang

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Miscellany: (no Big Bang)

by dhw, Saturday, October 16, 2021, 13:16 (894 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellany: (no Big Bang)

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 16, 2021, 17:46 (894 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

Miscellany: Neil Thomas quote from his book on Darwin

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 22, 2021, 14:29 (949 days ago) @ dhw

Darwin's ways of persuading:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rationalist-skeptic-comments-on-the-mani...

"When Darwin makes the attempt to explain the crucial point of The Descent of Man, humankind’s supposed descent from ape-like ancestors, he speculates somewhat vaguely on the question of whence we as a species got our superior brains: “The mental powers of some earlier progenitor of man must have been more highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind itself, by enabling and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought.”

A Just-So Story

"The passage has the disconcerting tone of a just-so story. How, one might legitimately ask, did one ape “happen” to get its superior cognitive capacities? What was the vera causa of its braininess? And how did this cognitive superiority trigger correlated changes in the brain? In the light of present-day scientific advances, these seem like shallow assertions, inadequate to account for what we know about those labyrinthine co-adaptive changes necessary for the process he describes to function effectively.

"On another point, this passage and many others like it would be a gift to linguistic specialists in discourse analysis or to those whose specialty is in the deconstruction of advertising propaganda. Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes, which is finally little better than a guess. This mode of assertion is uncomfortably reminiscent of the wearisomely repeated phrase of the ex-PR-man turned Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron: “Let us be clear” — which you just knew was going to be the rhetorical prelude to his making a partisan point vulnerable to all those objections he was trying to head off.

Nothing New for Darwin

"Such rhetorical legerdemain was nothing new for Darwin. He had recourse to it more than a few times in the Origin. We find it in evidence, for example, where he seeks to persuade us that the eye was not designed but somehow fell into place as the result of a myriad of chance selections over time:"

Comment: His whole book is like this section now that he has been persuaded design is present. What follows in the book is step-by-step speculations about how eyes might have developed.

Miscellany: Neil Thomas quote from his book on Darwin

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 22, 2021, 18:43 (949 days ago) @ David Turell

Darwin's ways of persuading:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rationalist-skeptic-comments-on-the-mani...

"When Darwin makes the attempt to explain the crucial point of The Descent of Man, humankind’s supposed descent from ape-like ancestors, he speculates somewhat vaguely on the question of whence we as a species got our superior brains: “The mental powers of some earlier progenitor of man must have been more highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind itself, by enabling and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought.”

A Just-So Story

"The passage has the disconcerting tone of a just-so story. How, one might legitimately ask, did one ape “happen” to get its superior cognitive capacities? What was the vera causa of its braininess? And how did this cognitive superiority trigger correlated changes in the brain? In the light of present-day scientific advances, these seem like shallow assertions, inadequate to account for what we know about those labyrinthine co-adaptive changes necessary for the process he describes to function effectively.

"On another point, this passage and many others like it would be a gift to linguistic specialists in discourse analysis or to those whose specialty is in the deconstruction of advertising propaganda. Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes, which is finally little better than a guess. This mode of assertion is uncomfortably reminiscent of the wearisomely repeated phrase of the ex-PR-man turned Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron: “Let us be clear” — which you just knew was going to be the rhetorical prelude to his making a partisan point vulnerable to all those objections he was trying to head off.

Nothing New for Darwin

"Such rhetorical legerdemain was nothing new for Darwin. He had recourse to it more than a few times in the Origin. We find it in evidence, for example, where he seeks to persuade us that the eye was not designed but somehow fell into place as the result of a myriad of chance selections over time:"

Comment: His whole book is like this section now that he has been persuaded design is present. What follows in the book is step-by-step speculations about how eyes might have developed.

Further followup: the book ends and he is still a humanist and now an agnostic and a fan of Michael Denton whose 1985 book Evolution, A theory in Crisis should have everyone wakeup to the obvious, there is an intelligent agency at work. His conclusion in the end is: "The attempt to solve the mystery of speciation by positing a selection process initiated and implemented by unaided nature fails at every hurdle. It lacks explanatory force, empirical foundation, and logical coherence. It postulates the contradiction-in-terms of a metamorphosizing, species-creating dynamic issuing from a process lacking in any discernible dynamic. It is ultimately a pseudo-explanation, a way of concealing an underlying ignorance.

Right on!!!

Miscellany: Neil Thomas quote from his book on Darwin

by dhw, Monday, August 23, 2021, 12:49 (948 days ago) @ David Turell

NEIL THOMAS: "When Darwin makes the attempt to explain the crucial point of The Descent of Man, humankind’s supposed descent from ape-like ancestors, he speculates somewhat vaguely on the question of whence we as a species got our superior brains: “The mental powers of some earlier progenitor of man must have been more highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind itself, by enabling and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought.”
A Just-So Story
"The passage has the disconcerting tone of a just-so story. How, one might legitimately ask, did one ape “happen” to get its superior cognitive capacities? What was the vera causa of its braininess? And how did this cognitive superiority trigger correlated changes in the brain? In the light of present-day scientific advances, these seem like shallow assertions, inadequate to account for what we know about those labyrinthine co-adaptive changes necessary for the process he describes to function effectively.

I can see absolutely nothing wrong with Darwin’s speculation. If you accept common descent, the rest follows on with impeccable logic. Thomas is merely complaining that Darwin doesn’t answer the questions that nobody on this planet has ever been able to answer: how did our mental powers first develop (indeed how did any mental powers first develop?), and how does thought cause changes to the brain. However, in the light of present-day scientific advances, we do know that new usages result in complexification of the brain, even though we don’t know how, so Darwin was right.

DAVID: the book ends and he is still a humanist and now an agnostic and a fan of Michael Denton whose 1985 book Evolution, A theory in Crisis should have everyone wakeup to the obvious, there is an intelligent agency at work. His conclusion in the end is: "The attempt to solve the mystery of speciation by positing a selection process initiated and implemented by unaided nature fails at every hurdle. It lacks explanatory force, empirical foundation, and logical coherence. It postulates the contradiction-in-terms of a metamorphosizing, species-creating dynamic issuing from a process lacking in any discernible dynamic. It is ultimately a pseudo-explanation, a way of concealing an underlying ignorance.

Of course the mystery of speciation is not solved by natural selection, which can only work on what already exists, and you and I have long since rejected the theory that random mutations are the creators of innovations. Your own books provide as strong a case for design as one could possibly wish for. It’s good to hear that Neil Thomas is now an agnostic. Between us, however, we could have saved him and his readers a lot of time and effort if only he had joined this website 13 years ago. Thank you for nobly sacrificing your time. I for one truly appreciate the thoroughness with which you continue your research and summarize your findings to keep us up-to-date with all the latest contributions to humanity’s search for truth.

Miscellany: Neil Thomas quote from his book on Darwin

by David Turell @, Monday, August 23, 2021, 14:40 (948 days ago) @ dhw

NEIL THOMAS: "When Darwin makes the attempt to explain the crucial point of The Descent of Man, humankind’s supposed descent from ape-like ancestors, he speculates somewhat vaguely on the question of whence we as a species got our superior brains: “The mental powers of some earlier progenitor of man must have been more highly developed than in any existing ape, before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; but we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind itself, by enabling and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought.”
A Just-So Story
"The passage has the disconcerting tone of a just-so story. How, one might legitimately ask, did one ape “happen” to get its superior cognitive capacities? What was the vera causa of its braininess? And how did this cognitive superiority trigger correlated changes in the brain? In the light of present-day scientific advances, these seem like shallow assertions, inadequate to account for what we know about those labyrinthine co-adaptive changes necessary for the process he describes to function effectively.

dhw: I can see absolutely nothing wrong with Darwin’s speculation. If you accept common descent, the rest follows on with impeccable logic. Thomas is merely complaining that Darwin doesn’t answer the questions that nobody on this planet has ever been able to answer: how did our mental powers first develop (indeed how did any mental powers first develop?), and how does thought cause changes to the brain. However, in the light of present-day scientific advances, we do know that new usages result in complexification of the brain, even though we don’t know how, so Darwin was right.

Darwin' speculation fits the facts known at his time. Present research continuous to destroy those speculations.


DAVID: the book ends and he is still a humanist and now an agnostic and a fan of Michael Denton whose 1985 book Evolution, A theory in Crisis should have everyone wakeup to the obvious, there is an intelligent agency at work. His conclusion in the end is: "The attempt to solve the mystery of speciation by positing a selection process initiated and implemented by unaided nature fails at every hurdle. It lacks explanatory force, empirical foundation, and logical coherence. It postulates the contradiction-in-terms of a metamorphosizing, species-creating dynamic issuing from a process lacking in any discernible dynamic. It is ultimately a pseudo-explanation, a way of concealing an underlying ignorance.

dhw: Of course the mystery of speciation is not solved by natural selection, which can only work on what already exists, and you and I have long since rejected the theory that random mutations are the creators of innovations. Your own books provide as strong a case for design as one could possibly wish for. It’s good to hear that Neil Thomas is now an agnostic. Between us, however, we could have saved him and his readers a lot of time and effort if only he had joined this website 13 years ago. Thank you for nobly sacrificing your time. I for one truly appreciate the thoroughness with which you continue your research and summarize your findings to keep us up-to-date with all the latest contributions to humanity’s search for truth.

Thank you for the kind comments

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 07, 2021, 16:43 (964 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All you have to make it correct above is agree that the cells abilities were programmed by God.

dhw: If by this you mean that your God designed the ability of cells to respond to new conditions by autonomously designing their own solutions to the new problems, then I will happily agree to this possibility, as the theory has always allowed for God as the designer of this ability. You have already agreed that your God did not provide explicit instructions for every new solution to every new problem, and so there is no alternative anyway.

Hopefully we agree. I view God's standardized instructions as allowing the immune cells to respond as necessary to each new invasion/infection.


DAVID: Pure unadulterated Darwinism again. Modifications by existing organisms leading to speciation is pure unproven theory.

dhw: Speciation by definition means that one life form changes into another life form. What is “pure unproven theory” is how it happens. As for improving chances of survival, what other purpose could there be for land-based legs to change or be changed into flippers? Once more, it is absurd to argue that the changes which result in speciation are made for the purpose of improving chances of survival, but improving chances of survival has no connection with speciation.

You are still basing the arguments upon pure speculative Darwinism. That organisms survive does not create speciation.


Retinal design allows prediction of movement

dhw: According to you, your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every step in the evolution of all species. How does this come to mean “a complex plan cannot be stepwise”? The point of your original comment was that if retinal design “required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process”. Hence my reply at the top of this entry on retinal design, and my now bolded question concerning degrees of vision etc. –[ do you think your God stepped in to adjust the different degrees of vision, hearing and smell?] Do please answer it.

DAVID: Your bold asks how God did the designs, and I have constantly instructed you in understanding how designers look at future uses and needs and do complete designs to fit those requirements. Not Darwinism 'bit by bit' but the opposite approach of all at once.

dhw: You have constantly dodged from all at once to step by step. Your “instruction” concerning future design boiled down to the fact that when you designed your house, you took into consideration what changes might be made to it later. Hardly comparable to the question of why and how speciation takes place. You argue that your God changes organisms in advance of the need for change. I argue that changes take place in response to current needs. Example: your God changes legs to flippers in before pre-whales enter the water. My theory is that legs change into flippers after pre-whales enter the water, i.e. in response to the new requirements. (Your God may have given them the ability to make such changes – (see the ID thread).

Same old view I don't accept, which implies a gradualism in adaptation. The fossil record of giant gaps in form offers you no support. So you'll revert to the wish for missing fossil forms.

Miscellany: universal iconic language sounds

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 09, 2021, 01:45 (931 days ago) @ David Turell

Some sounds convey meaning across various languages:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/made-up-sounds-convey-meaning-across-culture...

"New research shows that certain vocalizations can also be iconic and recognizable to people around the world—even when a speaker is not simply imitating a well-known sound. These findings, published in Scientific Reports, may help explain the rise of modern spoken language.

"In 2015 language researchers challenged some English speakers to make up sounds representing various basic concepts (“sleep,” “child,” “meat,” “rock,” and more). When other English speakers listened to these sounds and tried matching them to concepts, they were largely successful. But “we wanted to be able to show that these vocalizations are understandable across cultures,” says study co-author and University of Birmingham cognitive scientist Marcus Perlman.

"So Perlman and his colleagues conducted online and in-person experiments in seven countries, from Morocco to Brazil. They recruited more than 900 participants, who spoke a total of 28 languages, to listen to the best-understood vocalizations from the 2015 investigation and select matching concepts from a set of words or images. Vocalizations that evoked well-known sounds—for example, dripping water—performed best. But many others were also understood at rates significantly above chance across all languages tested, the team found. “There is a notable degree of success outside of just onomatopoeia,” Perlman says.

"This is likely because certain acoustic patterns are universal, the team suggests. For example, short and basic sounds often convey the concept of “one,” and repeated sounds are typically associated with “many.” Likewise, low-pitched sounds accompany something big, and high-pitched sounds convey small size. These findings of “iconic” sounds could help scientists understand how human ancestors started using rich acoustic communication, says co-author Aleksandra Ćwiek, a linguist at the Leibniz-Center General Linguistics in Berlin. The human voice, she says, might “afford enough iconicity to get language off the ground.”

"University of Tübingen linguist Matthias Urban, who was not involved in the research, agrees. “It’s unclear how words came into being in the first place,” he says. Iconic vocalizations are “potentially one pathway that could have been involved.'”

Comment: Perhaps, like common syntax imbedded in us, certain vocalizations have a broad meaning.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum