AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134008.htm-Lived with the dinosaurs

2371 views

A mammal, a bird, and a lizard walk into a bar... -Ok, so we have a mammal with a whole ton of mammal like qualities developed long before mammals are supposed to have developed. Of course, the most obviously solution is that it was a reptile in a past life that decided to wear a toupee, but barring, that, it is just another chink in the Dwarinist's pet theory.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2352 views

Tony: A mammal, a bird, and a lizard walk into a bar... 
> 
> Ok, so we have a mammal with a whole ton of mammal like qualities developed long before mammals are supposed to have developed. Of course, the most obviously solution is that it was a reptile in a past life that decided to wear a toupee, but barring, that, it is just another chink in the Dwarinist's pet theory.-In any joke, it is all in the timing. Fossils, fossils everywhere, and none of them carry copyright or patent dates.

2354 views

A mole-like early mammal from 150 million years ago:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130815145142.htm

2356 views

More fossil findings. They coexisted with dinosaurs:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26669-giant-fossil-hints-at-the-diversity-of-early-primates.html#.VIR5-2AtC1s-"Scott's new find, comprising teeth and jaw fragments, reveals a new species with teeth twice the size and width of those from Purgatorius. He named it Ursolestus perpetior, the genus name meaning plunderer of the Bear Formation, where it was discovered.-"Its body mass was some 4 to 10 times that of a typical Purgatorius, making Ursolestus a giant among early primates, but not exceptionally large among post-impact mammals.-"This find demonstrates that there is more variation in the size of the earliest primates than has been previously documented," says Chester. Their diets are likely to have consisted of a combination of insects and non-leafy plant products such as fruit, he says."

2273 views

It appears from new research that mammals were well diversified when dinosaurs went extinct, and had been around 10-20 million years:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607220628.htm-"New research reports that, contrary to popular belief, mammals began their massive diversification 10 to 20 million years before the extinction of the dinosaurs. -***-"The researchers analysed the molars of hundreds of early mammal specimens in museum fossil collections. They found that the mammals that lived during the years leading up to the dinosaurs' demise had widely varied tooth shapes, meaning that they had widely varied diets. These different diets proved key to an unexpected finding regarding mammal species going extinct along with the dinosaurs.-"Not only did mammals begin diversifying earlier than previously expected, but the mass extinction wasn't the perfect opportunity for mammal evolution that it's traditionally been painted as. Early mammals were hit by a selective extinction at the same time the dinosaurs died out -- generalists that could live off of a wide variety of foods seemed more apt to survive, but many mammals with specialised diets went extinct.-"The scientists involved with the study were surprised to see that mammals were initially negatively impacted by the mass extinction event. "I fully expected to see more diverse mammals immediately after the extinction," said lead author David Grossnickle, a Field Museum Fellow and PhD candidate at the University of Chicago. "I wasn't expecting to see any sort of drop. It didn't match the traditional view that after the extinction, mammals hit the ground running. It's part of the reason why I went back to study it further -- it seemed wrong."-"The reason behind the mammals' pre-extinction diversification remains a mystery. Grossnickle suggests a possible link between the rise of mammals and the rise of flowering plants, which diversified around the same time. "We can't know for sure, but flowering plants might have offered new seeds and fruits for the mammals. And, if the plants co-evolved with new insects to pollinate them, the insects could have also been a food source for early mammals," he said."-Comment: The old theory that mammals had to wait until dinosaurs were gone to do much development is not correct. Advancing from egg-laying reptiles to mammals is as giant step, but the duckbilled platypus is a definite intermediate form. Hard to deny common descent from this evidence.

2290 views

A great article showing new fossils from China of early mammal like ancestors. Great illustrations of how the hyoid bone was formed and the ear bones developed. The hyoid allowed suckling and the ear bones gave great hearing. Look at the illustrations. The article cannot be condensed. These bony changes reek of design:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

1190 views

DAVID: A great article showing new fossils from China of early mammal like ancestors. Great illustrations of how the hyoid bone was formed and the ear bones developed. The hyoid allowed suckling and the ear bones gave great hearing. Look at the illustrations. The article cannot be condensed. These bony changes reek of design:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

Very many thanks for this, David. It really is a massive eye-opener, and what struck me most is the variety and the emphasis on transitional forms. Here are some quotes:

“These forms really show a very transitional progression from things that are typically non-mammalian, to things that pretty much have all the features of early mammals.”

“The rat-sized fossil revealed three middle-ear bones, but they were still attached to the jaw by cartilage. “The hearing function and the chewing function were still not completely separated,” he explains. This was hard evidence of the evolutionary transition from jaw to ear.”

“These new discoveries document a huge, hitherto-undreamed-of ecological diversity,” says Richard Cifelli, a palaeontologist at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

"Much of the constellation of features we think of as defining mammals — complex teeth, excellent senses, lactation, small litter size — might actually have evolved before true mammals, and quite quickly.“More and more it looks like it all came out in a very short burst of evolutionary experimentation,” Luo says. By the time mammal-like creatures were roaming around in the Mesozoic, he says, “the lineage has already acquired its modern look and modern biological adaptations”. (dhw’s bold)

"If the flurry of discoveries has taught researchers anything, it’s that every fossil find has the potential to add a chapter to evolutionary history or even flip the prevailing narrative on its head."

I agree with you that it all “reeks of design”, but it also reeks of experimentation (see my bold). The one thing it doesn’t reek of is a designer who has just one goal in mind (H. sapiens), is in full control and knows exactly how to fulfil that goal. If he exists, your God may have been enjoying his own creativity, like a painter enjoying his paintings (your image), or he may have had a goal in mind and didn’t know how to reach it (hence all the experiments), or of course he may have given organisms (which consist of cell communities) the intelligence to conduct their own experiments. That is also design. What does emerge from all these discoveries is that transitional forms exist, and are clear evidence for the theory of common descent. I think Darwin would have cried “Yeehah!” or words to that effect.

1191 views

DAVID: A great article showing new fossils from China of early mammal like ancestors. Great illustrations of how the hyoid bone was formed and the ear bones developed. The hyoid allowed suckling and the ear bones gave great hearing. Look at the illustrations. The article cannot be condensed. These bony changes reek of design:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

dhw: Very many thanks for this, David. It really is a massive eye-opener, and what struck me most is the variety and the emphasis on transitional forms. Here are some quotes:

“These forms really show a very transitional progression from things that are typically non-mammalian, to things that pretty much have all the features of early mammals.”

“The rat-sized fossil revealed three middle-ear bones, but they were still attached to the jaw by cartilage. “The hearing function and the chewing function were still not completely separated,” he explains. This was hard evidence of the evolutionary transition from jaw to ear.”

“These new discoveries document a huge, hitherto-undreamed-of ecological diversity,” says Richard Cifelli, a palaeontologist at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

"Much of the constellation of features we think of as defining mammals — complex teeth, excellent senses, lactation, small litter size — might actually have evolved before true mammals, and quite quickly.“More and more it looks like it all came out in a very short burst of evolutionary experimentation,” Luo says. By the time mammal-like creatures were roaming around in the Mesozoic, he says, “the lineage has already acquired its modern look and modern biological adaptations”. (dhw’s bold)

"If the flurry of discoveries has taught researchers anything, it’s that every fossil find has the potential to add a chapter to evolutionary history or even flip the prevailing narrative on its head."

dhw: I agree with you that it all “reeks of design”, but it also reeks of experimentation (see my bold). The one thing it doesn’t reek of is a designer who has just one goal in mind (H. sapiens), is in full control and knows exactly how to fulfil that goal. If he exists, your God may have been enjoying his own creativity, like a painter enjoying his paintings (your image), or he may have had a goal in mind and didn’t know how to reach it (hence all the experiments), or of course he may have given organisms (which consist of cell communities) the intelligence to conduct their own experiments. That is also design. What does emerge from all these discoveries is that transitional forms exist, and are clear evidence for the theory of common descent. I think Darwin would have cried “Yeehah!” or words to that effect.

What this tells me is that the rate of evolution is not a steady progression, as shown especially by the Cambrian, but also by this discovery. Of course there will be transitional forms. A steady rate of chance mutations will not do this.

1187 views

DAVID: These bony changes reek of design:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

dhw: Very many thanks for this, David. It really is a massive eye-opener, and what struck me most is the variety and the emphasis on transitional forms. Here are some quotes:

I have bolded the salient bits:

“These forms really show a very transitional progression from things that are typically non-mammalian, to things that pretty much have all the features of early mammals.”

“These new discoveries document a huge, hitherto-undreamed-of ecological diversity,” says Richard Cifelli, a palaeontologist at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

“More and more it looks like it all came out in a very short burst of evolutionary experimentation,” Luo says.”.

"If the flurry of discoveries has taught researchers anything, it’s that every fossil find has the potential to add a chapter to evolutionary history or even flip the prevailing narrative on its head."

dhw: I agree with you that it all “reeks of design”, but it also reeks of experimentation . The one thing it doesn’t reek of is a designer who has just one goal in mind (H. sapiens), is in full control and knows exactly how to fulfil that goal. If he exists, your God may have been enjoying his own creativity, like a painter enjoying his paintings (your image), or he may have had a goal in mind and didn’t know how to reach it (hence all the experiments), or of course he may have given organisms (which consist of cell communities) the intelligence to conduct their own experiments. That is also design. What does emerge from all these discoveries is that transitional forms exist, and are clear evidence for the theory of common descent. I think Darwin would have cried “Yeehah!” or words to that effect.

DAVID: What this tells me is that the rate of evolution is not a steady progression, as shown especially by the Cambrian, but also by this discovery. Of course there will be transitional forms. A steady rate of chance mutations will not do this.

I note that you have ignored the whole of my comment. We have long since agreed to discount chance mutations.

1169 views

DAVID: These bony changes reek of design:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03170-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

dhw: Very many thanks for this, David. It really is a massive eye-opener, and what struck me most is the variety and the emphasis on transitional forms. Here are some quotes:

I have bolded the salient bits:

“These forms really show a very transitional progression from things that are typically non-mammalian, to things that pretty much have all the features of early mammals.”

“These new discoveries document a huge, hitherto-undreamed-of ecological diversity,” says Richard Cifelli, a palaeontologist at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.

“More and more it looks like it all came out in a very short burst of evolutionary experimentation,” Luo says.”.

"If the flurry of discoveries has taught researchers anything, it’s that every fossil find has the potential to add a chapter to evolutionary history or even flip the prevailing narrative on its head."

dhw: I agree with you that it all “reeks of design”, but it also reeks of experimentation . The one thing it doesn’t reek of is a designer who has just one goal in mind (H. sapiens), is in full control and knows exactly how to fulfil that goal. If he exists, your God may have been enjoying his own creativity, like a painter enjoying his paintings (your image), or he may have had a goal in mind and didn’t know how to reach it (hence all the experiments), or of course he may have given organisms (which consist of cell communities) the intelligence to conduct their own experiments. That is also design. What does emerge from all these discoveries is that transitional forms exist, and are clear evidence for the theory of common descent. I think Darwin would have cried “Yeehah!” or words to that effect.

DAVID: What this tells me is that the rate of evolution is not a steady progression, as shown especially by the Cambrian, but also by this discovery. Of course there will be transitional forms. A steady rate of chance mutations will not do this.

dhw: I note that you have ignored the whole of my comment. We have long since agreed to discount chance mutations.

It was your usual restated comment. 'Reeking of experimentation' by whom? God didn't need to and cell committees don't have the ability, based on known biology. Looks very purposeful to me.

1177 views

dhw: I agree with you that it all “reeks of design”, but it also reeks of experimentation . The one thing it doesn’t reek of is a designer who has just one goal in mind (H. sapiens), is in full control and knows exactly how to fulfil that goal. If he exists, your God may have been enjoying his own creativity, like a painter enjoying his paintings (your image), or he may have had a goal in mind and didn’t know how to reach it (hence all the experiments), or of course he may have given organisms (which consist of cell communities) the intelligence to conduct their own experiments. That is also design. What does emerge from all these discoveries is that transitional forms exist, and are clear evidence for the theory of common descent. I think Darwin would have cried “Yeehah!” or words to that effect.

DAVID: What this tells me is that the rate of evolution is not a steady progression, as shown especially by the Cambrian, but also by this discovery. Of course there will be transitional forms. A steady rate of chance mutations will not do this.

dhw: I note that you have ignored the whole of my comment. We have long since agreed to discount chance mutations.

DAVID: It was your usual restated comment. 'Reeking of experimentation' by whom? God didn't need to and cell committees don't have the ability, based on known biology. Looks very purposeful to me.

Of course it’s all purposeful. Every single new life form has the purpose of increasing its chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting its environment. “God didn’t need to” reflects your fixed belief that you know God’s nature and his thinking. It is perfectly possible that he enjoyed experimenting with different life forms (this would fit in with your fixed belief that he personally designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution), or alternatively that he had one particular goal in mind (to design a creature that could think like himself) but didn’t know how to do it (experimentation). “Cell committees don’t have the ability” (I call them “communities” to avoid your ironic humanization) refers to a theory which, I agree, is unproven - as are the theories that there is a God, and that this God’s only purpose was to design humans, and that this God decided not to fulfil his purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” design everything else in order to “cover” the time he had decided to take before doing what he wanted to do.

1179 views

dhw: I agree with you that it all “reeks of design”, but it also reeks of experimentation . The one thing it doesn’t reek of is a designer who has just one goal in mind (H. sapiens), is in full control and knows exactly how to fulfil that goal. If he exists, your God may have been enjoying his own creativity, like a painter enjoying his paintings (your image), or he may have had a goal in mind and didn’t know how to reach it (hence all the experiments), or of course he may have given organisms (which consist of cell communities) the intelligence to conduct their own experiments. That is also design. What does emerge from all these discoveries is that transitional forms exist, and are clear evidence for the theory of common descent. I think Darwin would have cried “Yeehah!” or words to that effect.

DAVID: What this tells me is that the rate of evolution is not a steady progression, as shown especially by the Cambrian, but also by this discovery. Of course there will be transitional forms. A steady rate of chance mutations will not do this.

dhw: I note that you have ignored the whole of my comment. We have long since agreed to discount chance mutations.

DAVID: It was your usual restated comment. 'Reeking of experimentation' by whom? God didn't need to and cell committees don't have the ability, based on known biology. Looks very purposeful to me.

dhw: Of course it’s all purposeful. Every single new life form has the purpose of increasing its chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting its environment. “God didn’t need to” reflects your fixed belief that you know God’s nature and his thinking. It is perfectly possible that he enjoyed experimenting with different life forms (this would fit in with your fixed belief that he personally designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution), or alternatively that he had one particular goal in mind (to design a creature that could think like himself) but didn’t know how to do it (experimentation). “Cell committees don’t have the ability” (I call them “communities” to avoid your ironic humanization) refers to a theory which, I agree, is unproven - as are the theories that there is a God, and that this God’s only purpose was to design humans, and that this God decided not to fulfil his purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” design everything else in order to “cover” the time he had decided to take before doing what he wanted to do.

Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe. The God you describe in these theories is simply a human version of non-God-like humanized God. Every attribute is what an exploring experimenting human might do. As for your cellular theory, which has to have the ability for creating new complex biochemicals and their complex biochemical reactions with a useful product, it can only be the result of complex instructions. Read James Tour and recognize the extreme difficulty of creating something new in organic chemistry, a job cells do easily all the time. A designer is required.

1177 views

DAVID: It was your usual restated comment. 'Reeking of experimentation' by whom? God didn't need to and cell committees don't have the ability, based on known biology. Looks very purposeful to me.

dhw: Of course it’s all purposeful. Every single new life form has the purpose of increasing its chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting its environment. “God didn’t need to” reflects your fixed belief that you know God’s nature and his thinking. It is perfectly possible that he enjoyed experimenting with different life forms (this would fit in with your fixed belief that he personally designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution), or alternatively that he had one particular goal in mind (to design a creature that could think like himself) but didn’t know how to do it (experimentation). “Cell committees don’t have the ability” (I call them “communities” to avoid your ironic humanization) refers to a theory which, I agree, is unproven - as are the theories that there is a God, and that this God’s only purpose was to design humans, and that this God decided not to fulfil his purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” design everything else in order to “cover” the time he had decided to take before doing what he wanted to do.

DAVID: Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe.

I gave you alternatives. The first was that he knew exactly what he was doing, and enjoyed experimenting with different life forms, i.e. if he exists, he created the universe and life for his own enjoyment, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings (your very own image). What is wrong with that as a purpose? “Didn’t know what he was doing” is a negative view of my suggestion that if his purpose really was to create a creature that could think like himself, he had to experiment in order to get it. Why is this such anathema to you?

DAVID: The God you describe in these theories is simply a human version of non-God-like humanized God. Every attribute is what an exploring experimenting human might do.

And according to you, your God “very well could think like us.” That doesn’t mean he’s human, of course. I don’t know of any human who could create a universe.

DAVID: As for your cellular theory, which has to have the ability for creating new complex biochemicals and their complex biochemical reactions with a useful product, it can only be the result of complex instructions. Read James Tour and recognize the extreme difficulty of creating something new in organic chemistry, a job cells do easily all the time. A designer is required.

Thank you for at last acknowledging that cells can create something new. This is real progress. How they acquired such intelligence is of course a mystery, as are the origin of life and consciousness, but I have always agreed that the intelligent cell may have been designed by your God. I am an agnostic, remember?

I’ve googled James Tour, and have found an interesting discussion on both sides of the controversy, and it mentions him: clearly he believes in God as the supreme designer, but of course that does not preclude cellular intelligence.
Are Cells Intelligent? - evo2.org
https://evo2.org/cells-intelligent

It also mentions the Nobel prizewinner Barbara McClintock: “The critical factor in evolution was the moment of instantiation of the self-referential cell. How that occurred is unknown, but the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”

1169 views

DAVID: Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe.

dhw: I gave you alternatives. The first was that he knew exactly what he was doing, and enjoyed experimenting with different life forms, i.e. if he exists, he created the universe and life for his own enjoyment, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings (your very own image). What is wrong with that as a purpose? “Didn’t know what he was doing” is a negative view of my suggestion that if his purpose really was to create a creature that could think like himself, he had to experiment in order to get it. Why is this such anathema to you?

How do you definitely know God thinks like we do? I simply look at what He created with His purpose in mind. The only purpose I see is creation of humans with consciousness, sine we are so different from any other living creation. You reject this by viewing Him with human eyes and mentation. We will never agree on this point as below:

DAVID: The God you describe in these theories is simply a human version of non-God-like humanized God. Every attribute is what an exploring experimenting human might do.

dhw: And according to you, your God “very well could think like us.” That doesn’t mean he’s human, of course. I don’t know of any human who could create a universe.

DAVID: As for your cellular theory, which has to have the ability for creating new complex biochemicals and their complex biochemical reactions with a useful product, it can only be the result of complex instructions. Read James Tour and recognize the extreme difficulty of creating something new in organic chemistry, a job cells do easily all the time. A designer is required.

dhw: Thank you for at last acknowledging that cells can create something new. This is real progress. How they acquired such intelligence is of course a mystery, as are the origin of life and consciousness, but I have always agreed that the intelligent cell may have been designed by your God. I am an agnostic, remember?

I remember. I didn't say cells produce something new. I was describing how cells constantly produce automatically very complex molecules.

dhw: I’ve googled James Tour, and have found an interesting discussion on both sides of the controversy, and it mentions him: clearly he believes in God as the supreme designer, but of course that does not preclude cellular intelligence.
Are Cells Intelligent? - evo2.org
https://evo2.org/cells-intelligent

It also mentions the Nobel prizewinner Barbara McClintock: “The critical factor in evolution was the moment of instantiation of the self-referential cell. How that occurred is unknown, but the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”

I'm glad you are researching. Remember my 50/50 possibilities. Cells know what they are doing through feedback loops which are automatic.

1185 views

DAVID: Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe.

dhw: I gave you alternatives. The first was that he knew exactly what he was doing, and enjoyed experimenting with different life forms, i.e. if he exists, he created the universe and life for his own enjoyment, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings (your very own image). What is wrong with that as a purpose? “Didn’t know what he was doing” is a negative view of my suggestion that if his purpose really was to create a creature that could think like himself, he had to experiment in order to get it. Why is this such anathema to you?

DAVID: How do you definitely know God thinks like we do?

I don’t even “definitely know” that God exists, let alone how he thinks – and nor do you! That is why I offer alternative explanations, whereas you stick rigidly to the only one that requires the abandonment of human logic.

DAVID: I simply look at what He created with His purpose in mind. The only purpose I see is creation of humans with consciousness, sine we are so different from any other living creation. You reject this by viewing Him with human eyes and mentation.

And one of my hypothetical explanations for the evolutionary bush even allows for this one and only purpose – namely, experimentation. Perfectly logical, but you insist that your God knows everything, and that he simply decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose. You have no idea why and we must therefore abandon human logic because your reading of his mind, purpose and method must be right, and any other explanation must be wrong, even though you agree that your God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: As for your cellular theory, which has to have the ability for creating new complex biochemicals and their complex biochemical reactions with a useful product, it can only be the result of complex instructions. Read James Tour and recognize the extreme difficulty of creating something new in organic chemistry, a job cells do easily all the time. A designer is required.

dhw: Thank you for at last acknowledging that cells can create something new. This is real progress. How they acquired such intelligence is of course a mystery, as are the origin of life and consciousness, but I have always agreed that the intelligent cell may have been designed by your God. I am an agnostic, remember?

DAVID: I remember. I didn't say cells produce something new. I was describing how cells constantly produce automatically very complex molecules.

You told me to read James Tour. See the bold for "something new".

dhw: I’ve googled James Tour, and have found an interesting discussion on both sides of the controversy, and it mentions him: clearly he believes in God as the supreme designer, but of course that does not preclude cellular intelligence.
Are Cells Intelligent? - evo2.org
https://evo2.org/cells-intelligent
It also mentions the Nobel prizewinner Barbara McClintock: “The critical factor in evolution was the moment of instantiation of the self-referential cell. How that occurred is unknown, but the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”

DAVID: I'm glad you are researching. Remember my 50/50 possibilities. Cells know what they are doing through feedback loops which are automatic.

Remember your 50/50 possibilities: no one can tell from the outside whether the intelligent behaviour of cells is due to autonomous intelligence or to a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single action. The Nobel prizewinner Barbara M. was just as convinced about her half of the argument as you are about yours.

1179 views

DAVID: Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe.

dhw: I gave you alternatives. The first was that he knew exactly what he was doing, and enjoyed experimenting with different life forms, i.e. if he exists, he created the universe and life for his own enjoyment, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings (your very own image). What is wrong with that as a purpose? “Didn’t know what he was doing” is a negative view of my suggestion that if his purpose really was to create a creature that could think like himself, he had to experiment in order to get it. Why is this such anathema to you?

DAVID: How do you definitely know God thinks like we do?

dhw: I don’t even “definitely know” that God exists, let alone how he thinks – and nor do you! That is why I offer alternative explanations, whereas you stick rigidly to the only one that requires the abandonment of human logic.

DAVID: I simply look at what He created with His purpose in mind. The only purpose I see is creation of humans with consciousness, sine we are so different from any other living creation. You reject this by viewing Him with human eyes and mentation.

And one of my hypothetical explanations for the evolutionary bush even allows for this one and only purpose – namely, experimentation. Perfectly logical, but you insist that your God knows everything, and that he simply decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose. You have no idea why and we must therefore abandon human logic because your reading of his mind, purpose and method must be right, and any other explanation must be wrong, even though you agree that your God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: As for your cellular theory, which has to have the ability for creating new complex biochemicals and their complex biochemical reactions with a useful product, it can only be the result of complex instructions. Read James Tour and recognize the extreme difficulty of creating something new in organic chemistry, a job cells do easily all the time. A designer is required.

dhw: Thank you for at last acknowledging that cells can create something new. This is real progress. How they acquired such intelligence is of course a mystery, as are the origin of life and consciousness, but I have always agreed that the intelligent cell may have been designed by your God. I am an agnostic, remember?

DAVID: I remember. I didn't say cells produce something new. I was describing how cells constantly produce automatically very complex molecules.

You told me to read James Tour. See the bold for "something new".

dhw: I’ve googled James Tour, and have found an interesting discussion on both sides of the controversy, and it mentions him: clearly he believes in God as the supreme designer, but of course that does not preclude cellular intelligence.
Are Cells Intelligent? - evo2.org
https://evo2.org/cells-intelligent
It also mentions the Nobel prizewinner Barbara McClintock: “The critical factor in evolution was the moment of instantiation of the self-referential cell. How that occurred is unknown, but the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”

DAVID: I'm glad you are researching. Remember my 50/50 possibilities. Cells know what they are doing through feedback loops which are automatic.

dhw: Remember your 50/50 possibilities: no one can tell from the outside whether the intelligent behaviour of cells is due to autonomous intelligence or to a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single action. The Nobel prizewinner Barbara M. was just as convinced about her half of the argument as you are about yours.

It can only be one or the other. i've picked my one.

1170 views

A newly found fossil:

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=dHVyZWxsQGF0dC5uZXQ%3D&s=5e7261a3fe1ff6038...

"Found: A fossilized fish with fingerlike appendages.

"The five-foot-long fish, named Elpistostege watsoni, was discovered in Canada. It lived during the Late Devonian period, 393 million to 359 million years ago, when fish like this one began wading out of shallow water onto land.

"This Elpistostege specimen, described Wednesday in the journal Nature, is remarkably well-preserved for its age. Buried in the skeletal pattern of its fore-fin are what anatomy experts see as precursors to fingers: A fan of slender bones, two that convincingly appear to be digits and three more that could also fit the definition.

“'This is the first time that we have unequivocally discovered fingers locked in a fin with fin-rays in any known fish. The articulating digits in the fin are like the finger bones found in the hands of most animals,” said study author John Long, a paleontologist at Flinders University, in a statement.

“'This finding pushes back the origin of digits in vertebrates to the fish level,” Long said, “and tells us that the patterning for the vertebrate hand was first developed deep in evolution, just before fishes left the water.'”

Comment: This form had to exist if we accept common descent. But why this advanced skeletal state when not needed? God's advanced planning is my answer.

1057 views

Look at the picture. The femur looks very like ours:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160815134827.htm-" cache of exquisitely preserved bones, found in a coal mine in the state of Gujarat, India, appear to be the most primitive primate bones yet discovered, according to a new analysis. Their assessment of the bones, belonging to ancient, rat-sized, tree-dwelling primates, bolsters the controversial idea that primates native to what is now India played an important role in the very early evolution of primates. -***-"Their assessment of the bones, belonging to ancient, rat-sized, tree-dwelling primates, bolsters the controversial idea that primates native to what is now India played an important role in the very early evolution of primates, mammals that include humans, apes and monkeys.-***-"The newly discovered group of 25 tiny bones, all from somewhere below the neck of the animals, are younger -- some 54.5 million years old -- but considerably more primitive than the oldest known primate fossil, Teilhardina, which first appears in deposits at the beginning of the Eocene, almost 56 million years old. They are also more primitive than a relatively complete skeleton of the primate Archicebus, found recently in China and dated to about 55 million years ago.-***-"Rose says there are several possible scenarios to explain what they've suggested, but all his team can say with high confidence now is that the tiny primates occupied equatorial India prior to its collision with Asia.-"Even though the researchers don't have enough bones to reconstruct a whole skeleton, the bones weren't embedded in rock so they could be thoroughly examined from every angle, providing insights into the evolution of primate anatomy.-"Their analysis is that the Gujarat primates were adapted for climbing the tall dipterocarp trees of ancient rainforests but were less specialized than present-day leaping lemurs or slow-climbing lorises. Their limbs and joints suggest more generalized climbing, as in present-day mouse lemurs and dwarf lemurs.-***-"Previously discovered teeth and jaws of these tiny animals suggest that these primates were also close to mouse lemurs and dwarf lemurs in size, about 150 to 300 grams in weight, or 0.5 pounds. Considered together with their generalized anatomy, the small size of the Gujarat primates is likely another primitive trait, with future primates tending to increase in size."-Comment: What I find fascinating is how alike those bones are to current anatomy. Looks like pre-planning

2173 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum