Evolution v Creationism (Evolution)
PART ONE-TONY under "An Inventive mechanism"): The evolutionary version of Punctuated equilibrium you refer to, as an idea, only has value if evolution is true in the commonly accept form. (i.e. we all crawled out of the slime) -This is an emotive simplification. Punctuated equilibrium fits in with any hypothesis except that of God creating every species separately at the same time. It simply means there are periods of stasis between creative bursts. As for your parenthesis, apart from the tone I don't see much difference between that and “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground”. The materials for all hypotheses are the same, and the argument is over how they came together. You have assembled an interesting list of arguments for Creationism, and ideally we would have an expert evolutionist and an atheist commenting on it. I am neither. I can only tell you why, as an agnostic, I'm unconvinced by your arguments. I would say the same to an atheist. -TONY: If separate creation were true: We would observe no definitive transition between species in the fossil record. (Observed)-“Definitive” is open to definition. We need an expert to list the possible transitions that help give credence to the theory, though Darwin himself saw this as a weak link in the theory. A problem that I have as a layman in this respect is that if innovations don't work, they won't survive, and the chances of a failed innovation being preserved as a fossil and being recognized as a failed experiment must be infinitesimal. But I don't accept Darwin's gradualism. I do believe that functioning organs may become more complex over time (the brain, for example), but new organs must work straight away in one form or another. A non-functioning kidney won't help anyone.-We would observe that extreme environmental changes wiped out the majority of existing life because it lacked enough freedom and flexibility in its code to adapt. (Observed)-You did not answer my question about your God deliberately changing the environment as he went along, preplanning the changes, or creating each species to fit in with unplanned changes. The lack of freedom and flexibility doesn't say a great deal for God's foresight, unless he deliberately created the majority of species with a view to them being wiped out. On the other hand, evolution can only function according to existing conditions. Therefore it is very much a point in favour of evolution that when conditions change, many life forms will be wiped out, whereas surviving forms may profit from the changes.-We would observe no new species spontaneously cropping up. (Observed)-By definition, if God created species, they would not crop up “spontaneously”. It might be argued that if separate creation were true, we WOULD observe new species cropping up. The currently observed non-popping-up of new species may simply suggest that evolution (whether guided by God or not) is going through a period of stasis. -We would observe species remaining remarkably unchanged over time. (Observed)-It might be argued that death and extinction mark a significant change. Once an organism functions well enough to survive, however, it does not need to evolve any further. If new species do evolve from existing organisms, it may be that your God is experimenting with them, or that some existing organs experiment on their own initiative, or even that David's 3.7-billion-year divine evolutionary computer programme is in operation. See above for the possible significance of extinctions. When new species DID crop up, we would observe them coming into existence fully formed and fully functional.(Observed)-Who has observed this? The fossil record is not likely to have preserved unformed and non-functional organisms. Nobody has ever observed a fully formed and fully functional new species crop up. Humans have only observed the remains. For transitional forms, see above. We would observe some mechanism that prevented creatures from deviating too far, a self-correcting function to ensure their stability.(Observed)-You can make exactly the same observation about God-programmed evolution, or about evolution guided by cells which take their own decisions thanks to a form of “intelligence” which God may or may not have implanted in them. Why does God have to keep creating the mechanism separately for each new species? We would be able to discern designed patterns and commonalities for all creatures of a given environment.[Observed]-There are vast numbers of different species in given environments, and what they have in common is their ability to cope with that environment. How does this prove that God created them all separately? If all organisms are derived from earlier organisms (= evolution), it's only logical that they should have “commonalities”, although atheistic evolutionists (unlike theistic evolutionists) might fight shy of the word “designed”. We would likely see highly efficient patterns repeatedly used for the same purpose.[Observed]-If all organisms are derived from earlier organisms (= evolution), the same applies in spades. Why would God have to keep repeating himself if he was starting from scratch every time?-Contd. in Part Two
Evolution v Creationism
Part Two-TONY: The observed elements of life, once understood, would make logical sense and lack random messiness of random chance evolution.[observed] -If by "random chance evolution" you mean innovation through random mutations, I agree, and so does David. However,evolution as a process makes perfect sense: Life forms have changed as environments have changed, and different organisms have evolved different methods of dealing with those changes. Every “element of life” that we observe now has survived because it enables organisms to cope with their environment (= natural selection). Isn't that logical? Might it not be said that the separate creation of species that come and go for no apparent reason constitutes messiness? Later in your post you write: “One of the key points of being a theist is trusting that God knows what he is doing.” A theist, just like an atheist, can make reality fit his beliefs or non-beliefs any time. It's all open to interpretation.-TONY: Now, you tell me which one has less evidence from observations, evolution or creation. -There is no evidence here for either theory. Most of what you have written - beautifully put together as always - applies to creationism, evolution programmed by your God, and evolution driven by the inventive intelligence (possibly God-given) of cell communities. The three of us have rejected random mutations as an explanation for all the different mechanisms involved, but I can't find anything in your list that runs counter to the evolutionary hypotheses 4-6. DHW: In the name of Occam, wouldn't it be simpler for God to create a mechanism that can devise its own programmes as and when they're needed throughout 3.7.billion years so far of changing environments (see below)? -TONY: As David has repeatedly said, life, even the so-called 'simple' forms of life, are still incredibly complex. How much latitude and freedom to deviate could be given if that life were going to remain stable? If your inventive mechanisms were true, why did ANYTHING remain virtually unchanged for billions of years? Logically, there wouldn't be any simple life left on earth. All we would observe would be cell communities constantly growing in complexity. Yet, in every domain we see creatures that are virtually identical to their far ancient ancestors.-We all agree that there was no NEED for life to evolve beyond bacteria (and if life is ever found elsewhere, it may well not have evolved any further than that). Evolution suggests that once some single-cell organisms combined into multicellular organisms (while others remained as they were), the potential for complexity was almost endless. We are not talking here about a single mass of cells. Every combination, every community is different, just as every human is different. So some WILL develop further if the environment allows, and others will remain unchanged. Evolution depends on interaction between the organism and the environment. What works survives. And in some cases branches off in different directions. At the moment, we have stasis. Who knows what may happen in the next hundred/thousand/ million years?-TONY: When you stop treating god like Houdini or a Djinn that snaps his fingers or twitches his nose to make galaxies *poof* into existence, then what he has done makes perfect sense.-Wearing my theist's hat, I would object very strongly to the finger-snapping image. I would see God as a scientist, not a magician. We might, however, disagree on what constitutes perfect sense. For example, you see extinctions as part of a great plan with an ultimate purpose connected with humans. An alternative would be that the ultimate purpose is to relieve God's boredom with an ongoing entertainment. That too constitutes perfect sense. If I put on my atheist's hat, I can see that the comings and goings within an impersonal universe leave us to find our own purpose in life, because there is no overall purpose. That too makes perfect sense. In my agnostic's hat I can see that all these interpretations make perfect sense. And I can see that all the hypotheses concerning Evolution v Creationism make sense up to a certain point, but none of them provide what you might call a “definitive” answer. Allow me to repeat your important comment: “One of the key points of being a theist is trusting that God knows what he is doing.” David, with his theory of evolutionary preprogramming, will probably agree. Apparently the Catholic Church also accepts theistic evolution, and presumably the Pope & Co share some of your Christian views. That doesn't mean they're right, of course, but it does mean that you can believe in evolution and still trust that God knows what he's doing. My apologies for the length of this post, but I felt I should try to answer all your points rather than make general comments.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Saturday, September 13, 2014, 00:46 (3723 days ago) @ dhw
Part Two > > TONY: The observed elements of life, once understood, would make logical sense > and lack random messiness of random chance evolution.[observed] > > DHW: Evolution as a process makes perfect sense.- Why it DOESN'T make sense:-
- No mechanism for adding new information to the genome of the necessary complexity to innovate/invent new long term biological elements. Evidence shows the exact opposite, that mechanisms are in place to PREVENT long term changes to biological elements.
- Species appear de novo fully formed with no evidence of trial and error at all.
- Survival because they are fit to survive is a tautology, not logic.
- No one has ever come up with a criteria for what 'fittest' actually is, so it can literally mean anything. What survives, survives.
- Evolutionist claim that it is unlikely that any transient forms were preserved as fossils, yet accept the gross statistical unlikeliness that evolution ever happened to begin with. (Double Standards)
- How would a creature know what is a best fit for the environment? Which is more fit, the shark or the whale? "Fittest" implies that there is an ideal. Shouldn't everything then cluster around that ideal, or show some continuous movement towards that ideal? If fittest is the criteria, why would we have lambs when it is so much more beneficial to be the lion?
--> > TONY: Now, you tell me which one has less evidence from observations, evolution or creation. > >DHW: There is no evidence here for either theory. Most of what you have written applies to [all of them].-I disagree. See elsewhere for specific reasons for the various elements.- > > DHW: In the name of Occam, wouldn't it be simpler for God to create a mechanism that can devise its own programmes as and when they're needed? > >DHW: We all agree that there was no NEED for life to evolve beyond bacteria ..So some WILL develop further if the environment allows, and others will remain unchanged. -This is contradictory. If there were no NEED, then no innovation/adaptation would have taken place, making evolution false. If there is no NEED, then evolution would be a worst case scenario, not a best case. Innovation takes work. Work consumes energy. High energy consumption is an evolutionary pit fall.--> > TONY: When you stop treating god like Houdini or a Djinn that snaps his fingers or twitches his nose to make galaxies *poof* into existence, then what he has done makes perfect sense. > >DHW: Wearing my theist's hat, I would object very strongly to the finger-snapping image. I would see God as a scientist, not a magician. We might, however, disagree on what constitutes perfect sense. For example, you see extinctions as part of a great plan with an ultimate purpose connected with humans. -Because the evidence leads me to that conclusion. All life has purpose. I have, in the past, commented on the specific purposes for a variety of life forms. Even humans have a purpose as stewards of the earth. Not that we have done such a great job fulfilling that purpose. - >DHW: An alternative would be that the ultimate purpose is to relieve God's boredom with an ongoing entertainment. That too constitutes perfect sense.-This only makes sense if you view god as the bully that pulls the wings off flies or puts ants under the magnifying glass. Assuming that entertainment was part of the purpose (which I do not agree with, at least not as you state it here), why would god take such pains to make sure everything was so perfectly balanced, so harmonious, only to destroy it? If that were all he was interested in, why not simply make temporary planets and temporary creatures and then invent new ways to kill them off?->DHW: If I put on my atheist's hat, I can see that the comings and goings within an impersonal universe leave us to find our own purpose in life, because there is no overall purpose. That too makes perfect sense. -Except that all of the laws, all of creation forms a cohesive, unified structure that works together harmoniously. We saw this anywhere else, we would acknowledge without hesitation that it was designed, and as such, we would spend more thought on the purpose of its creation than we do.->DHW: I can see that all the hypotheses concerning Evolution v Creationism make sense up to a certain point, but none of them provide what you might call a “definitive” answer. > -God driven creation DOES give a definitive answer, it is just not one that you want to hear. That is not meant as an insult, by the way, just a simple observation. God driven creation implies a purpose. Recognizing that there is a purposes imposes an obligation to learn and understand that purpose, and then to fulfill our part in it. Evolution, inventive cells, alien seeding, these all appeal to people because they do not obligate us to anything excepting what we want to do. They allow action without consequence (beyond this life) and a certain strange fatalism. Peoples lives become cheap things that can be used and thrown away. The harm people cause to themselves and each other becomes trivial. Want proof of that? Watch the news...-(And no, I am not saying that YOU are lazy or that you think peoples lives are cheap.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by David Turell , Saturday, September 13, 2014, 03:15 (3723 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: God driven creation DOES give a definitive answer, it is just not one that you want to hear. That is not meant as an insult, by the way, just a simple observation. God driven creation implies a purpose. Recognizing that there is a purposes imposes an obligation to learn and understand that purpose, and then to fulfill our part in it. -Excellent set of posts. You and I are not too far apart. You prefer what I call dabbling, and my impression of God is that He is too powerful to need to do too much of that.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 13, 2014, 03:56 (3723 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: God driven creation DOES give a definitive answer, it is just not one that you want to hear. That is not meant as an insult, by the way, just a simple observation. God driven creation implies a purpose. Recognizing that there is a purposes imposes an obligation to learn and understand that purpose, and then to fulfill our part in it. > >David: Excellent set of posts. You and I are not too far apart. You prefer what I call dabbling, and my impression of God is that He is too powerful to need to do too much of that.-In your opinion, how much is too much for your conception of God?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
These posts are getting very long, so I'll try to answer what seem to me the most salient points. First, though, I think it's important to recognize that evolution is not an atheistic theory. Stephen Jay Gould, like Darwin himself, was an agnostic, and successive Popes have accepted evolution provided God is seen as its creator. The Rev Charles Kingsley, who captured the essence of morality with his Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby in The Water Babies, summed up evolution as follows: “...it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.” I like the phrase “capable of self-development”, but Creationists might dislike “voids caused by the action of his laws”. My point is that the theory has been hijacked by atheists, just as Intelligent Design has been hijacked by Creationists, and neither theory should be dismissed because of its distortion by extremists. (For the same reason, we should not judge God by the actions of his followers. See also my post on "Religion: pros and cons".)-Your main objection seems to be that there's no evidence of failed experiments. I don't know how we would even recognize evidence of a failed experiment. Fossilized organs are pretty rare, and in any case something went wrong with every fossil that's ever been found, because they all died of something! You say punctuated equilibrium is “needed to explain away how the facts don't fit the theory”, but all theories are an attempt to explain the facts as we know them, and they change when the facts appear to change. Even the Catholic Church has jettisoned the theory that God created all species separately 6000 years ago. Gould believes the bursts of creation are governed by random environmental changes. Your version is: “When they had fulfilled their purpose they were allowed to die off and the creatures needed for the next stage of development were created.” "Allow" is ambiguous. Does your God control environmental changes or not? If he does, and his purpose was to create humans to be “stewards of the earth”, why didn't he just fiddle around with the environment and with those creatures he deemed necessary for humans? Why have dinosaurs rule the earth for 160 million years and then kill them off? If, however, he has no control, and had to wait for the environment to be right, then clearly this would put his plans at the mercy of Gouldian chance. A problem for your teleology. You say definitely purpose. I say maybe God was happy to leave his inventive, evolutionary process to chance and see what would come of it. You have taken similar patterns as evidence for Creationism. I see similar patterns as evidence for evolution. If all organisms descended from earlier organisms, of course they would inherit similar patterns. As for complexity, I have no idea which organism first came up with a brain, but I believe the human brain is more complex than that of, say, an ant, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that the first brain was less complex than ours. You seem sceptical about convergent evolution: “These creatures are NOT closely related, NOT from the same phylogenetic branch. So how could they come up with virtually identical solutions via random chance? Even intelligent cell communities can not explain this one.”-If there are similar conditions, it's perfectly feasible that organisms supplied by your God with a mechanism capable of intelligent responses will find the same solutions to cope with the same conditions. It's not random chance - it's great minds thinking alike. David would presumably say they were all preprogrammed to evolve that way. You criticize the concept of the “survival of the fittest”. Fair enough. Natural selection creates nothing, and the survival of the fittest is indeed a tautology: “what survives, survives”. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether (theistic version) God created life with single cells which could evolve to what we now know, or he created all the different species separately. DHW: We all agree that there was no NEED for life to evolve beyond bacteria. -TONY: If there were no NEED, then no innovation/adaptation would have taken place, making evolution false. -A theistic answer: your God wanted more than bacteria. He wanted more complex life. And so he preprogrammed cells to evolve into different species (David's theistic evolution), or he created a mechanism enabling cell communities to invent new forms. In both cases, we see that a vast evolutionary bush expanded in accordance with God's wishes. DHW: I can see that all the hypotheses concerning Evolution v Creationism make sense up to a certain point, but none of them provide what you might call a “definitive” answer. TONY: God driven creation DOES give a definitive answer, it is just not one that you want to hear. That is not meant as an insult, by the way, just a simple observation. -That was a misunderstanding. I meant a definitive answer as to whether Evolution or Creation is the correct theory. The rest of your post is your own version of God's intentions, and I would prefer to put that on a separate thread.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by David Turell , Sunday, September 14, 2014, 16:16 (3721 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: As for complexity, I have no idea which organism first came up with a brain, but I believe the human brain is more complex than that of, say, an ant, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that the first brain was less complex than ours.-I posted an article recently re the first fossil brain found in the Cambrian:-Cambrian Explosion: early brains (Introduction) by David Turell , Thursday, July 17, 2014, 15:35 (59 days ago) @ David Turell A jump from no brains in the Ediacarans to simple brains is a massive leap for evolution: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140716131628.htm "An international team of paleontologists has identified the exquisitely preserved brain in the fossil of one of the world's first known predators that lived in the Lower Cambrian, about 520 million years ago. The discovery revealed a brain that is surprisingly simple and less complex than those known from fossils of some of the animal's prey. "The find for the first time identifies the fossilized brain of what are considered the top predators of their time, a group of animals known as anomalocaridids, which translates to "abnormal shrimp." Long extinct, these fierce-looking arthropods were first discovered as fossils in the late 19th century but not properly identified until the early 1980s. They still have scientists arguing over where they belong in the tree of life." Darwin cannot explain its appearance. What nest of "cell community" invented it, when it appears from no precursor?
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 14, 2014, 21:58 (3721 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I think it's important to recognize that evolution is not an atheistic theory... the theory has been hijacked by atheists, just as Intelligent Design has been hijacked by Creationists, and neither theory should be dismissed because of its distortion by extremists. > -I don't dismiss it because of its advocates. I dismiss it because of the evidence against it. I dismiss it because of the weaknesses in the theory, the "just so" fairy tales spun of random chance. - >DHW: Your main objection seems to be that there's no evidence of failed experiments. I don't know how we would even recognize evidence of a failed experiment. Fossilized organs are pretty rare, and in any case something went wrong with every fossil that's ever been found, because they all died of something! -Far be it for me to require evidence for a scientific hypothesis to be accepted as fact! I don't know what I was thinking. Still, that being said, what has been found, over and over, is that the fossils that are claimed as transitional are often found to be genetically unrelated, or turn out to simple a separate and distinct species that fits neatly into a single classification without serving as an intermediary.->DHW: You say punctuated equilibrium is “needed to explain away how the facts don't fit the theory”, but all theories are an attempt to explain the facts as we know them, and they change when the facts appear to change. Even the Catholic Church has jettisoned the theory that God created all species separately 6000 years ago.-Yes, but in science, when the facts don't fit the hypothesis, you are supposed to alter the hypothesis in order to explain the facts, discarding the old hypothesis, or at least the parts that don't fit. Hypothesis - Observation - Testing - Adjustment - repeat. Punctuated Equilibrium can not be tested. Evolution says change happens over millions and billions of years. When the facts did not support this, they said, oh, Evolution happens quite rapidly....just not all the time. When challenged on the time frame, they fall back to the long time periods. When challenged on the fossils, they switch to punctuated equilibrium. It is a bait and switch. - > > DHW:Your version is: “When they had fulfilled their purpose they were allowed to die off and the creatures needed for the next stage of development were created.” "Allow" is ambiguous. Does your God control environmental changes or not? If he does, and his purpose was to create humans to be “stewards of the earth”, why didn't he just fiddle around with the environment and with those creatures he deemed necessary for humans? If, however, he has no control, and had to wait for the environment to be right, then clearly this would put his plans at the mercy of Gouldian chance.- You are falling back into the Houdinni Djinn line of reasoning. Physical matter obeys physical laws. What would happen to the Earth if we instantaneously raised the temperature 20°? What if we instantaneously changed the atmospheric composition to .01% Oxygen? Don't just think in terms of killing off all life, but what about the chemical composition of the Earth itself? What about other issues such as energy absorption from solar radiation? Or dangerously high levels of ambient radiation? -If it is too much to consider, then consider the simpler analogy of a cook in the kitchen. Could a cook expect to take all the ingredients for a dish and throw them directly into the oven and expect them to come out as a rich, tasty bread? Could a Master Chef do that? Or is it the case that even the master chef must prepare the oven, prepare the pan, prepare the ingredients, mix them up in proper proportions and occasionally even let them sit for a while without touching them, allowing the ingredients to do their work, before adding them to the oven? Doesn't the act of putting some ingredients, such as yeast, in the oven kill them? Doesn't the master chef KNOW how each of his ingredients behaves, what it needs, and how it will impact the overall dish? Don't they account for that when planning their meal? - > > DHW: You seem sceptical about convergent evolution: “These creatures are NOT closely related, NOT from the same phylogenetic branch. So how could they come up with virtually identical solutions via random chance? Even intelligent cell communities can not explain this one.” > > If there are similar conditions, it's perfectly feasible that organisms supplied by your God with a mechanism capable of intelligent responses will find the same solutions to cope with the same conditions...The issue is whether (theistic version) God created life with single cells which could evolve to what we now know, or he created all the different species separately. > -I can't argue this. You can't provide a mechanism to support your claim and I can't prove it doesn't exist. All of the rational arguments against such a mechanism due to the limited functionality and mechanical nature of cells have been waved off, repeatedly, without supporting evidence.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
TONY: Yes, but in science, when the facts don't fit the hypothesis, you are supposed to alter the hypothesis in order to explain the facts, discarding the old hypothesis, or at least the parts that don't fit.-An excellent summary of how the theory of evolution keeps getting modified. And also of why the Church discards those parts of its hypothesis that don't fit the facts (or what we now think are the facts). The sun does not go round the Earth, the Earth is not 6000 years old, and oops, evolution is a more logical explanation of life's history than separate creation. TONY: Far be it for me to require evidence for a scientific hypothesis to be accepted as fact! I don't know what I was thinking. -You're right to complain if the evolutionary hypothesis is described as fact. I was reprimanded for doing so early on in the life of this website, and have avoided doing so ever since. What is the evidence supporting the hypothesis of separate creation? Nothing definitive, or it would be called fact. We believe in the theories we find convincing, or we remain open-minded. I find the theory that all organisms, except the very first, descended from earlier organisms irresistibly logical, but remain open-minded as to how its mechanisms came into being and how they work. However, I can easily resist the logic behind your non-response to my question whether God controls the environment or not
HW: If he does, and his purpose was to create humans to be “stewards of the earth”, why didn't he just fiddle around with the environment and with those creatures he deemed necessary for humans? If, however, he has no control, and had to wait for the environment to be right, then clearly this would put his plans at the mercy of Gouldian chance. TONY: You are falling back into the Houdinni Djinn line of reasoning. Physical matter obeys physical laws. What would happen to the Earth if we instantaneously raised the temperature 20°? What if we instantaneously changed the atmospheric composition to .01% Oxygen?... [etc.]-You won't find this line of reasoning in any of my posts. On 12 September I wrote: “Wearing my theist's hat, I would object very strongly to the finger-snapping image. I would see God as a scientist, not a magician.” For God to create a mechanism (David prefers a programme or a system) enabling organisms to evolve requires science, not magic. We agree that the environment (local and universal) is a crucial factor in what forms of life can be supported. So does God control that environment? We're not talking about instantaneous this and that. If you believe he created the natural laws that govern matter, do you believe he was incapable of manipulating that matter scientifically for his “purpose” without first creating and killing off billions of species? You seem to think his purpose was to make way for humans. (“When they had fulfilled their purpose they were allowed to die off and the creatures needed for the next stage of development were created”). So could he not have prepared the planet for human habitation without separately creating the masses of species now extinct? At least an evolutionist can argue that without earlier forms of life, there could not have been humans, but according to you, God made us separately anyway, so we didn't need all those billions of antecedents. (None of this is a criticism of God, by the way. I'm questioning your interpretation of your God's actions.)-You say, with characteristic honesty, “One of the key points of being a theist is trusting that God knows what he is doing”, but then you gear the rest of your argument to what you think he was doing. So tell me straight, why do you think it was impossible for God to produce humans without first specially creating and killing off, let's say, the trilobites? Here's a different theistic explanation: God scientifically created the mechanisms for life and evolution to see what they would lead to, and he also created various unpredictable environmental factors that would result in an unpredictable variety of life forms. The trilobites and dinosaurs were unlucky, but there you go, guys, that's life. No magic. Just a different interpretation of God's motives. As I see it, some theists regard evolution as a threat, not to their belief in God, but to their anthropocentric interpretation of life's history and to their particular image of God. That is perhaps why David, who believes evolution did happen, is forced to invent a 3.7-billion-year computer programme for every innovation and wonder, hiding somewhere in the genome. Your master chef analogy is ingenious and is fun, but your master chef did not create the ingredients. His actions are dictated by all the restrictions and properties already present in them. And so if God is your master chef, he has to fit his recipes to what is already available, as opposed to creating the ingredients for what he wants to cook. To put it more bluntly: in your analogy God is not master of the universe, and so the arrival of man depended on chance to provide the environmental ingredients. Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 16, 2014, 16:12 (3719 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: and oops, evolution is a more logical explanation of life's history than separate creation.-If I may step in, i do not see a free-flowing Darwinian evolution as at all logical.-> > dhw: As I see it, some theists regard evolution as a threat, not to their belief in God, but to their anthropocentric interpretation of life's history and to their particular image of God. That is perhaps why David, who believes evolution did happen, is forced to invent a 3.7-billion-year computer programme for every innovation and wonder, hiding somewhere in the genome.-I do not see evolution as a threat, which makes me different from other theists. Which is why I am confounded by the puzzle of how God arranged it. I do accept that humans were the goal, and God is extremely powerful.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
dhw: ...and oops, evolution is a more logical explanation of life's history than separate creation.-DAVID: If I may step in, I do not see a free-flowing Darwinian evolution as at all logical.-If by free-flowing you mean Darwin's step-by-step gradualism, we have long, long, long since agreed that it doesn't fit the fossil record, and so we have both accepted punctuated equilibrium. The logic refers to common descent as opposed to separate creation. dhw: As I see it, some theists regard evolution as a threat, not to their belief in God, but to their anthropocentric interpretation of life's history and to their particular image of God. That is perhaps why David, who believes evolution did happen, is forced to invent a 3.7-billion-year computer programme for every innovation and wonder, hiding somewhere in the genome.-DAVID: I do not see evolution as a threat, which makes me different from other theists. Which is why I am confounded by the puzzle of how God arranged it. I do accept that humans were the goal, and God is extremely powerful.-I think you are puzzled because you can see for yourself that the evolutionary bush does not fit in with your idea of God knowing right from the beginning exactly what he wanted and how to get it. I see a glimmer of light in your belief that your "God is extremely powerful", because you are not saying he is "all-powerful" or, more to the point, "all-knowing". If only you would give your God the capacity to learn, I suspect the puzzlement would disappear. But heck, whaddoIknow?
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 22:09 (3718 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I think you are puzzled because you can see for yourself that the evolutionary bush does not fit in with your idea of God knowing right from the beginning exactly what he wanted and how to get it. I see a glimmer of light in your belief that your "God is extremely powerful", because you are not saying he is "all-powerful" or, more to the point, "all-knowing". If only you would give your God the capacity to learn, I suspect the puzzlement would disappear. But heck, whaddoIknow?-I just keep guessing because I think the Bible expresses human wishes about how God should be, and I'm not exactly sure how much power He lacks in any sphere.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 16, 2014, 21:59 (3719 days ago) @ dhw
Even though you use the word "scientifically" to refer to how God could have manipulated the environment, you completely ignore science when talking about it and fall back on a Djinn nose twitching type scenario. -Yes, God can manipulate the environment, and there are numerous examples of him doing so. The question is not whether he COULD, but rather whether or not it was the correct thing to do. Something is strange here, though. Why should god NOT use living creatures to do the work? Perhaps a better question is, why should he create creatures that serve no purpose? This is what you seem to be suggesting. Just that he should let things go, will-he nil-he, for no purpose whatsoever, randomly living and dying for no other reason than his amusement. That he should 'scientifically' twiddle his nose and !*Poof*! things into perfect existence with no regard to what came before or what comes after. If this is the way people see God then it is no wonder they have a hard time believing. That is about as unrealistic as Hollywood romance.---> > DHW:As I see it, some theists regard evolution as a threat, not to their belief in God, but to their anthropocentric interpretation of life's history and to their particular image of God. That is perhaps why David, who believes evolution did happen, is forced to invent a 3.7-billion-year computer programme for every innovation and wonder, hiding somewhere in the genome. >- Evolution is not a threat to my interpretation of lifes history. It is an unsubstantiated speculation that has many, many, many evidentiary problems both in terms of missing evidence AND contrary evidence.- > DHW: Your master chef analogy is ingenious and is fun, but your master chef did not create the ingredients. His actions are dictated by all the restrictions and properties already present in them. And so if God is your master chef, he has to fit his recipes to what is already available, as opposed to creating the ingredients for what he wants to cook. To put it more bluntly: in your analogy God is not master of the universe, and so the arrival of man depended on chance to provide the environmental ingredients. Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.-If God created a perfect system, why would he NOT work within that system in order to influence. Sure, the computer programmer could fabricate some new hardware to do what he wants, but why not just write a new computer program that runs within the existing framework?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
TONY: Yes, God can manipulate the environment, and there are numerous examples of him doing so. The question is not whether he COULD, but rather whether or not it was the correct thing to do. Something is strange here, though. Why should god NOT use living creatures to do the work? Perhaps a better question is, why should he create creatures that serve no purpose? This is what you seem to be suggesting. Just that he should let things go, will-he nil-he, for no purpose whatsoever, randomly living and dying for no other reason than his amusement. That he should 'scientifically' twiddle his nose and !*Poof*! things into perfect existence with no regard to what came before or what comes after. If this is the way people see God then it is no wonder they have a hard time believing. That is about as unrealistic as Hollywood romance.-In the section I've marked in bold, your use of "should" changes meanings as it goes along, from a possible "would" (why should he create creatures that serve no purpose?) to "ought to"! I didn't suggest that he “should” let things go, and I didn't suggest he “should” use magic instead of science. So let's start again. Correct me if I'm wrong: you advocate separate creation, and argue that life's history is geared to the purpose of creating humans to be “stewards” of the earth. The millions of species that he created separately and then killed off were necessary for him to achieve this purpose. As an example, I have asked why you personally believe that God could not have created humans without first creating and killing off trilobites (as one example among millions). What's unrealistic or unscientific about such a question? If I am to follow your logic, I need an answer to it. My current thinking is that it makes no sense for your God to have had to specially create and kill off vast numbers of species in order to make humans, especially if he made humans separately and so they have no antecedents. (No problem with useful live creatures such as bacteria, which clearly played and play a vital role and have of course survived.) Since I can't see any logical reason for the separate creation and subsequent extinction of, say, the trilobites, I look for other explanations as to why things are as they are (not for how I think God “should” have done it.) Since the entertainment hypothesis offends you, let's forget it, because it's irrelevant to the evolution debate. Let's just say God created the universe and life, and millions of species have come and gone. We don't know why. If God created them separately (e.g. trilobites), he must have had a reason for doing so, but we can't think of one. And there is actually no evidence that he did create them separately. So maybe he didn't. Maybe he devised a mechanism or a system or a programme to set life moving in lots of different directions. And maybe he also devised a mechanism or a system or a programme to vary the environment in which organisms exist, so that they could evolve into lots of different forms according to the needs and possibilities created by the changing environment. We don't know why, but that would explain the vast variety and the extinctions, which are not explained by separate creation geared to the production of humans. -This does not ask God to say "Poof!". And even now we see evolution at work on a micro-level, as organisms interact with their environment. You can certainly argue that there is no direct evidence for macro-evolution, just as there is no direct evidence for separate creation. But many theists do find it more convincing, and at least what I've outlined above doesn't force us to impose any particular interpretation onto the unknowable mind of your God. The theory of evolution itself is just a possible explanation of how things came to be the way they are. It does not attempt to explain why God did it that way (if he did).-********************-I'll return to the interesting religious thread tomorrow.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 21, 2014, 14:53 (3714 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Correct me if I'm wrong: you advocate separate creation, and argue that life's history is geared to the purpose of creating humans to be “stewards” of the earth. The millions of species that he created separately and then killed off were necessary for him to achieve this purpose. -Yes, you are mistaken. I never claimed that everything was created towards the purpose of creating humans. Humanity was created for a purpose, that of being stewards of the Earth. Everything else also has a purpose. Most of the time it is simply maintaining homeostasis by serving as an resource source/drain/converter/preserver, but other times it is as an active participant in the development of the world. Humanity was seen as the crowning achievement, not the end goal. That type of racial narcissism is a frustrating side effect of humanities inability to see beyond their own narrow existence. - >DHW: As an example, I have asked why you personally believe that God could not have created humans without first creating and killing off trilobites (as one example among millions). What's unrealistic or unscientific about such a question? If I am to follow your logic, I need an answer to it. >-Could have? Yes. The creation of humanity likely would not have required the Trilobite. However, I should point out that even the human body is not purely human. Other life forms were required to create even the most multi-cellular organism, much less humanity. All of that being said, the rebuttal of your extremely narrow question is, "What happens after a human is created without all the precursor world building event?" Creating a human with no air to breath, food to eat, ground to stand on, water to drink, or any of the millions of other things that we need to live would have been foolish. That is why your question is unscientific. It is no different than asking could CD's (Compact Discs) have been created without the precursor of a a speaker. Sure, it could happen, but to what end? - >DHW: My current thinking is that it makes no sense for your God to have had to specially create and kill off vast numbers of species in order to make humans, especially if he made humans separately and so they have no antecedents. (No problem with useful live creatures such as bacteria, which clearly played and play a vital role and have of course survived.) Since I can't see any logical reason for the separate creation and subsequent extinction of, say, the trilobites, I look for other explanations as to why things are as they are (not for how I think God “should” have done it.) Since the entertainment hypothesis offends you, let's forget it, because it's irrelevant to the evolution debate. Let's just say God created the universe and life, and millions of species have come and gone. We don't know why. If God created them separately (e.g. trilobites), he must have had a reason for doing so, but we can't think of one. And there is actually no evidence that he did create them separately. So maybe he didn't. Maybe he devised a mechanism or a system or a programme to set life moving in lots of different directions. And maybe he also devised a mechanism or a system or a programme to vary the environment in which organisms exist, so that they could evolve into lots of different forms according to the needs and possibilities created by the changing environment. We don't know why, but that would explain the vast variety and the extinctions, which are not explained by separate creation geared to the production of humans. >-Trilobites are suspected scavengers/filter feeders, which would have made them ideal for helping to keep the early ocean waters clean. The oceans being critical to life on this planet, a clean ocean sounds pretty darn useful. So, perhaps you can't think of a reason, but I certainly can, and without much heavy thinking involved at that. When you stop looking at humans as a separate end goal, things are much easier to reason on. We are caretakers, or at least that is what we are supposed to be, not the final goal, a point made especially clear throughout the bible.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses)
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 23, 2014, 01:42 (3713 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: We are caretakers, or at least that is what we are supposed to be, not the final goal, a point made especially clear throughout the bible.-If I may ask, where in the OT Bible does it say there is a further goal? Could be in the NT but I don't know it. Yes, we are appointed the caretakers.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution?
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 14:34 (3537 days ago) @ David Turell
Read this essay to see the odds against unguided evolution: nature's library of possible useful proteins;-http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/natures-library-of-platonic-forms/-"The library is a giant space of the possible, encoding all the proteins that could be useful to life. But here's the thing: evolution can't simply look up the chemicals it needs in a giant catalogue. No, it has to inch its way painstakingly along the stacks. Imagine a crowd of browsers - each one representing an entire familial line - who must blindly explore the library, step by random step. This sounds like a party game, but there's a grisly twist. A mutation that compromises an essential protein such as haemoglobin is punishable by death. On that ill-fated volume, the bloodline ends.-"The challenge, then, is to land on texts that work. Nature has already discovered millions of them. Human engineers have discovered many more, and the pace of discovery shows no signs of slowing. To appreciate the innovative wonders hidden in these libraries, you need to go no further than the bewildering diversity of organisms all around us. Evolution's giant epic unfolds while its populations scour these libraries.-"If you had to find a text on a specific subject in such a library - without a catalogue - you would get utterly lost. Worse than that, if missteps can be fatal, you would quickly die. Yet life not only survived, it found countless new meaningful texts in these libraries. Understanding how it did that requires us to build the catalogue that evolution lacks. It demands that we work out how these libraries are organised to comprehend how innovation through blind search is possible."-As a scientist she wants a blind search un-blinded by some mechanism. How about 'guided by God'? Why I believe
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution?
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 14:45 (3536 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Read this essay to see the odds against unguided evolution: nature's library of possible useful proteins; > > http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/natures-library-of-platonic-forms/-Here is an example of the type of vital enzyme evolution had to come up with starting with nothing from the Darwin viewpoint:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41867/title/Mitochondrial-Enzyme-Detailed/-Just look at the detailed structure of the enzyme that exchanges protons to see my point. All by chance? Impossible.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, March 20, 2015, 04:24 (3535 days ago) @ David Turell
Read this essay to see the odds against unguided evolution: nature's library of possible useful proteins; > > http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/natures-library-of-platonic-forms/ ... > "The library is a giant space of the possible, encoding all the proteins that could be useful to life. But here's the thing: evolution can't simply look up the chemicals it needs in a giant catalogue. No, it has to inch its way painstakingly along the stacks. Imagine a crowd of browsers - each one representing an entire familial line - who must blindly explore the library, step by random step. This sounds like a party game, but there's a grisly twist. A mutation that compromises an essential protein such as haemoglobin is punishable by death. On that ill-fated volume, the bloodline ends. > > "The challenge, then, is to land on texts that work. Nature has already discovered millions of them. Human engineers have discovered many more, and the pace of discovery shows no signs of slowing. To appreciate the innovative wonders hidden in these libraries, you need to go no further than the bewildering diversity of organisms all around us. Evolution's giant epic unfolds while its populations scour these libraries. > > "If you had to find a text on a specific subject in such a library - without a catalogue - you would get utterly lost. Worse than that, if missteps can be fatal, you would quickly die. Yet life not only survived, it found countless new meaningful texts in these libraries. Understanding how it did that requires us to build the catalogue that evolution lacks. It demands that we work out how these libraries are organised to comprehend how innovation through blind search is possible." > > As a scientist she wants a blind search un-blinded by some mechanism. How about 'guided by God'? Why I believe-Why hasn't dhw commented on this? This is the key to understanding the argument for design.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: Read this essay to see the odds against unguided evolution: nature's library of possible useful proteins;-http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/natures-library-of-platonic-forms/-Why hasn't dhw commented on this? This is the key to understanding the argument for design-You have naturally selected the paragraphs relating to complexity. Fair enough. But Wagner is asking how this complexity is possible in the evolutionary process, and his big question is : “How do random DNA changes lead to innovation?” The essay develops his answer very clearly:-“Random DNA changes in some members of a population could disable an essential protein such as haemoglobin and lead to death, but because genotype networks exist, other mutations can create a synonymous text that preserves the protein's function and saves the organism. This cycle of mutation and natural selection repeats in the survivors' descendants. Some of them die, but others live and get to take one step further. Step by step, the population of survivors spreads out through the library in a process that unfolds over many generations.”-“Relatives of the lizard's oxygen transport protein illustrate how far this exploration can go. They are all descendants of a single long-forgotten ancestral protein that existed more than a billion years ago. By now, they occur not only all over the animal kingdom but even in plants.” “Just as the word GOLD emerges from a single letter change in MOLD, some neighbours of a text express new meanings. And as the browsers work their way through each synonym for some original text, different innovations become accessible. By creating safe paths through the library, genotype networks create the very possibility of innovation.”-“Let me put this point as strongly as I can. [Without these pathways of synonymous texts, these sets of genes that express precisely the same function in ever-shifting sequences of letters, it would not be possible to keep finding new innovations via random mutation. Evolution would not work.” (My bold.)-As evolutionists we agree that every innovation must take place within existing organisms. Wagner does not even reject random mutations, but he concludes that there is an inventive mechanism which can accelerate the process of innovation, and he calls it “genotype networks”. Is there anything here that you and I have not discussed ad nauseam? There are two stages to the argument: 1) How does evolution work? Even you accept the possibility of organisms having an inventive mechanism. Now you can call it “genotype networks” if you like. That is as far as the article goes. 2) How did the intelligent inventive mechanism get there? You say God, I say I don't know, but maybe God or maybe some sort of panpsychist evolution, and Wagner doesn't say anything at all here. No key, then. Just a theory as to what drives the innovations that have powered evolution to its current complexity.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 00:58 (3534 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Read this essay to see the odds against unguided evolution: nature's library of possible useful proteins; > > http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/natures-library-of-platonic-forms/ ... > Why hasn't dhw commented on this? This is the key to understanding the argument for design-> dhw: Wagner does not even reject random mutations, but he concludes that there is an inventive mechanism which can accelerate the process of innovation, and he calls it “genotype networks”. ... 1) How does evolution work? Even you accept the possibility of organisms having an inventive mechanism. Now you can call it “genotype networks” if you like. That is as far as the article goes. -You have missed the fact that Wagner talks around the problem of finding new proteins but offers no solution. Note the way he puts it:-"Imagine a giant library of books containing all possible sequences of letters in the alphabet. Such a library would be huge beyond imagination, and most of its texts would of course be pure gibberish. But some would contain islands of intelligibility - a word here, a Haiku there - in a sea of random letters. Still others would tell all stories real and imagined: not only Dickens's Oliver Twist or Goethe's Faust, but all possible novels and dramas, the biography of every single human, true and false histories of the world, of other worlds as yet unseen, and so on. Some texts would include descriptions of countless technological innovations, from the wheel to the steam engine to the transistor - including countless innovations yet to be imagined.But the chances of choosing such a valuable tome by chance are minuscule -"Evolution can't look up the chemicals it needs in a giant catalogue. No, it has to inch its way along the stacks [by chance].-"A protein is a volume in a library just like this, written in a 20-letter alphabet of amino acids. And while protein texts might not be as long as Tolstoy's War and Peace, their total number is still astonishing. For example, a library of every possible amino acid string that is 500 letters long would contain more than 10^600 texts - a one with 600 trailing zeros. That vastly outnumbers the atoms in the visible universe. "The library is a giant space of the possible, encoding all the proteins that could be useful to life. But here's the thing: evolution can't simply look up the chemicals it needs in a giant catalogue. No, it has to inch its way painstakingly along the stacks. Imagine a crowd of browsers - each one representing an entire familial line - who must blindly explore the library, step by random step. This sounds like a party game, but there's a grisly twist. A mutation that compromises an essential protein such as haemoglobin is punishable by death. On that ill-fated volume, the bloodline ends.-"The challenge, then, is to land on texts that work. Nature has already discovered millions of them.-"The library is a giant space of the possible, encoding all the proteins that could be useful to life. But here's the thing: evolution can't simply look up the chemicals it needs in a giant catalogue. No, it has to inch its way painstakingly along the stacks. Imagine a crowd of browsers - each one representing an entire familial line - who must blindly explore the library, step by random step. This sounds like a party game, "-Wagner is describing exactly the problem I always see. How does the proper protein turn up when necessary for the next step in complexity. He is describing hunt and peck as a traditional Darwinist. There are millions of molecules in nature. only some fit into life. And he doesn't mention enzymes which are absolutely necessary for molecular reactions in life. Not 500 amino acids, thousands! And they must be present in the earliest cells. I'll remind you, a protein must have the correct order of amino acids, but also the proper folded form to be functional, so it is not just the number of amino acids alone. To make his case he simplifies the explanation in the article, but he damn-well knows the true facts.-The problem is immense for Darwinists to address with asdsurance, but he describes it as inching along:-"Step by step, the population of survivors spreads out through the library in a process that unfolds over many generations."-Very reassuring, 'many generations' solves the problem. I don't see it.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 21, 2015, 03:52 (3534 days ago) @ David Turell
> The problem is immense for Darwinists to address with asdsurance, but he describes it as inching along: > > "Step by step, the population of survivors spreads out through the library in a process that unfolds over many generations." > > Very reassuring, 'many generations' solves the problem. I don't see it.-Ever notice how they never say how many generations? I mean, supposedly they can count the generations going backwards using a genetic clock, so why aren't they issuing hard numbers to say, for example, "~9000 generations of nematode ago....." It is always nebulous answers.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 04:05 (3534 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> >David Very reassuring, 'many generations' solves the problem. I don't see it. > > Tony: Ever notice how they never say how many generations? I mean, supposedly they can count the generations going backwards using a genetic clock, so why aren't they issuing hard numbers to say, for example, "~9000 generations of nematode ago....." It is always nebulous answers.-It has to be nebulous. They have NO answers.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 21, 2015, 04:12 (3534 days ago) @ David Turell
> > >David Very reassuring, 'many generations' solves the problem. I don't see it. > > > > Tony: Ever notice how they never say how many generations? I mean, supposedly they can count the generations going backwards using a genetic clock, so why aren't they issuing hard numbers to say, for example, "~9000 generations of nematode ago....." It is always nebulous answers. > > David:It has to be nebulous. They have NO answers.-I get that, but doesn't that expose the lie? I mean, seriously. IF they measure the 'genetic clock', and IF they have their estimated age of fossils and what not, then they SHOULD be able to calculate an approximate number of generations based on the life cycle of the organism. If they come up with a number of generations, then there is the basis for testing the probability that the amount of evolution they are claiming happened actually happened. Right?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 14:14 (3533 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > David:It has to be nebulous. They have NO answers. > > Tony: I get that, but doesn't that expose the lie? I mean, seriously. IF they measure the 'genetic clock', and IF they have their estimated age of fossils and what not, then they SHOULD be able to calculate an approximate number of generations based on the life cycle of the organism. If they come up with a number of generations, then there is the basis for testing the probability that the amount of evolution they are claiming happened actually happened. Right?-Right on the money
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: Read this essay to see the odds against unguided evolution: nature's library of possible useful proteins;-http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/natures-library-of-platonic-forms/-Why hasn't dhw commented on this? This is the key to understanding the argument for design-dhw: Wagner does not even reject random mutations, but he concludes that there is an inventive mechanism which can accelerate the process of innovation, and he calls it “genotype networks”. ... 1) How does evolution work? Even you accept the possibility of organisms having an inventive mechanism. Now you can call it “genotype networks” if you like. That is as far as the article goes. -DAVID: You have missed the fact that Wagner talks around the problem of finding new proteins but offers no solution. -You go on to repeat the quotes you used when you first asked me to read the article, and announced that it was the “key to understanding the argument for design”. These are the quotes that explain the problem he thinks he's solved, namely that of evolutionary innovation. I responded with quotations that indicated his proposed solution: a mechanism he calls “genotype networks”. Now you tell me that Wagner misses the point, and you repeat your own argument for design. In other words, the article which was the key to understanding the argument for design is no such thing because the author thinks he's found a solution and according to you he hasn't, whereas you have.-I am in no position to challenge you or him, but I will gladly take your word for it that Wagner's solution ignores certain key factors. So I will return to the solution of an intelligent, inventive mechanism, to which you have half agreed in principle, and I shan't call it “genotype networks”. We are now back where we started
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, March 21, 2015, 22:15 (3533 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, March 21, 2015, 22:44
dhw: In other words, the article which was the key to understanding the argument for design is no such thing because the author thinks he's found a solution and according to you he hasn't, whereas you have. > > I am in no position to challenge you or him, but I will gladly take your word for it that Wagner's solution ignores certain key factors. So I will return to the solution of an intelligent, inventive mechanism, to which you have half agreed in principle, and I shan't call it “genotype networks”. We are now back where we started-My point is he has no solution and you have fallen for his verbiage. He has computer simulations, and gets lots of grant money because he is supporting the preferred paradigm of Darwinism. His viewpoint and mine are exactly opposite. My approach is exactly that of the ID folks. He clearly points out the problem and then talks around it. I'm sorry you can't see it. The problem is finding proteins that can work. He admits to millions of them in the potential library. The fact that he can change a letter and get a new protein doesn't mean it will work. Finding ones that work is the issue. It is perfectly true if you find a protein that does not work the animal may probably die. Most mutations researched now are shown to be deleterious. This means most attempts at change are wrong. It takes time to get it right by his method. That time has been shown not to exist, based on genetic studies.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: In other words, the article which was the key to understanding the argument for design is no such thing because the author thinks he's found a solution and according to you he hasn't, whereas you have. I am in no position to challenge you or him, but I will gladly take your word for it that Wagner's solution ignores certain key factors. So I will return to the solution of an intelligent, inventive mechanism, to which you have half agreed in principle, and I shan't call it “genotype networks”. We are now back where we started -DAVID: My point is he has no solution and you have fallen for his verbiage. He has computer simulations, and gets lots of grant money because he is supporting the preferred paradigm of Darwinism. His viewpoint and mine are exactly opposite. My approach is exactly that of the ID folks. He clearly points out the problem and then talks around it. I'm sorry you can't see it. -I haven't fallen for anything! I said that I am in no position to judge, but I'll take your word for it that he ignores the factors you list, so let's go back to the inventive mechanism.. I still don't know why you insisted that I read an article which you said contained “the key to understanding the argument for design”, when the author obviously thinks he's found a solution that dispenses with design. It is you who constantly provide many keys to understanding the argument for design, so why bother with Wagner at all?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, March 22, 2015, 14:19 (3532 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I still don't know why you insisted that I read an article which you said contained “the key to understanding the argument for design”, when the author obviously thinks he's found a solution that dispenses with design. It is you who constantly provide many keys to understanding the argument for design, so why bother with Wagner at all?-Simply because he describes so well the problem of a landscape of protein search. It is a major, major problem for the Darwin theory, and I discovered a reference to this article in an ID site. They used it as I do. He has not found a solution, but is arguing to support his work and grants. I am attempting to show you where the arguments lie. The extreme difficulty in finding the right 'next' protein is a strong argument for design. Actually his statement that DNA is functionally 'capable' of doing this is a strong argument for design, when you cobble together all of the amazing arrangements, the coiling around histones to give a useful 3-D relationship of genes to modifiers, the expression of genes modified by telomeres, etc., through an ever enlarging list of control layers. This is an amazing construction. It requires an inventor, not chance. The inventive mechanism that we have discussed, if it exists, is in this arrangement. One could argue that God set up DNA this way to work just as Wagner proposes! The thoughts cut both ways.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: I still don't know why you insisted that I read an article which you said contained “the key to understanding the argument for design”, when the author obviously thinks he's found a solution that dispenses with design. It is you who constantly provide many keys to understanding the argument for design, so why bother with Wagner at all?-DAVID: Simply because he describes so well the problem of a landscape of protein search. It is a major, major problem for the Darwin theory, and I discovered a reference to this article in an ID site. They used it as I do. He has not found a solution, but is arguing to support his work and grants. I am attempting to show you where the arguments lie.-The extreme difficulty in finding the right 'next' protein is a strong argument for design. Actually his statement that DNA is functionally 'capable' of doing this is a strong argument for design, when you cobble together all of the amazing arrangements, the coiling around histones to give a useful 3-D relationship of genes to modifiers, the expression of genes modified by telomeres, etc., through an ever enlarging list of control layers. This is an amazing construction. It requires an inventor, not chance. The inventive mechanism that we have discussed, if it exists, is in this arrangement. One could argue that God set up DNA this way to work just as Wagner proposes! The thoughts cut both ways.-Thank you for this clarification. As I keep repeating, I can't make any sort of statement about the technicalities. I rely on scientists like you and him. If you're now saying Wagner's proposal could work, then your only complaint about his article is that he doesn't tell us the mechanism must have been designed by God. And that is what you have said all along, since agreeing that an inventive mechanism is a possibility.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Monday, March 23, 2015, 22:42 (3531 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you for this clarification. As I keep repeating, I can't make any sort of statement about the technicalities. I rely on scientists like you and him. If you're now saying Wagner's proposal could work, then your only complaint about his article is that he doesn't tell us the mechanism must have been designed by God. And that is what you have said all along, since agreeing that an inventive mechanism is a possibility.-My only complaint about his article is he makes it sound easy for DNA to stumble into new functional proteins when necessary. this is the key point copied from above: "The extreme difficulty in finding the right 'next' protein is a strong argument for design." He describes this issue beautifully and then talks all around it. I want you to think about the import of that sentence. It is equal to finding the right grain of sand in a desert. There are 15 major changes in separating humans from ape ancestors. Each change involved hundreds of individual mutations. Enough time for chance to do it? I doubt it. The Wistar Institute conference with mathematicians in 1967 raised this issue, long before the info we have today, and to me the timing looks worse and worse.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: Thank you for this clarification. As I keep repeating, I can't make any sort of statement about the technicalities. I rely on scientists like you and him. If you're now saying Wagner's proposal could work, then your only complaint about his article is that he doesn't tell us the mechanism must have been designed by God. And that is what you have said all along, since agreeing that an inventive mechanism is a possibility. DAVID: My only complaint about his article is he makes it sound easy for DNA to stumble into new functional proteins when necessary. this is the key point copied from above: "The extreme difficulty in finding the right 'next' protein is a strong argument for design." He describes this issue beautifully and then talks all around it. I want you to think about the import of that sentence. It is equal to finding the right grain of sand in a desert. There are 15 major changes in separating humans from ape ancestors. Each change involved hundreds of individual mutations. Enough time for chance to do it? I doubt it. The Wistar Institute conference with mathematicians in 1967 raised this issue, long before the info we have today, and to me the timing looks worse and worse.-The same old question: “Enough time for chance to do it?” No. In all our discussions - and as long ago as when I wrote the “brief guide” - I have accepted the virtual impossibility of chance (in the form of random mutations) as the driving force of evolution. That is the whole basis of the argument for an inventive mechanism, in which microorganisms intelligently cooperate and combine into larger organisms. You have even said that Wagner's proposal might work, provided God designed it. The subject is what enables organisms to accelerate the processes you describe. Your own explanation is preprogramming of every single development, direct dabbling, or the inventive mechanism, all of which EXCLUDE chance. It's the origin of the inventive mechanism which then becomes the area of debate.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 24, 2015, 21:20 (3530 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You have even said that Wagner's proposal might work, provided God designed it. The subject is what enables organisms to accelerate the processes you describe. Your own explanation is preprogramming of every single development, direct dabbling, or the inventive mechanism, all of which EXCLUDE chance. It's the origin of the inventive mechanism which then becomes the area of debate.-We don't know if an IM exists. It is a proposal to get around the problem of evolution only at God's direction with only pre-programming or dabbling at His disposal. P-P or DAB are directly by God, but I do not see God allowing an IM to operate totally outside of His wishes. We currently see a beneficial mutation rate (producing evolutionary advances) which is very slow. It has been suggested that since humans are here and very functional, evolution has stopped. It has gone as far as was intended. Perhaps this is why we don't see new speciation in the past 300 years or so that we have now become aware we should be looking for some.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: You have even said that Wagner's proposal might work, provided God designed it. The subject is what enables organisms to accelerate the processes you describe. Your own explanation is preprogramming of every single development, direct dabbling, or the inventive mechanism, all of which EXCLUDE chance. It's the origin of the inventive mechanism which then becomes the area of debate. DAVID: We don't know if an IM exists. -We don't know if God exists either. All these explanations are hypotheses. Tony would say that evolution is a hypothesis too, but since you and I believe in common descent, at least we can agree to use it as a theoretical premise. -DAVID: It is a proposal to get around the problem of evolution only at God's direction with only pre-programming or dabbling at His disposal. P-P or DAB are directly by God, but I do not see God allowing an IM to operate totally outside of His wishes. -You are now making a basic assumption that we have not agreed on: namely, your God's purpose in starting evolution. I am thinking on two levels here: 1) the IM explains the course of evolution, whether God designed the mechanism or not; 2) if he designed it, he MAY have had the creation of humans in mind, or his purpose might simply have been to set it in motion and see where it led. That is a different subject. My point here is that once the mechanism is in place (whether God designed it or not), we can dispense with the theory of random mutations. The only chance element is changes in the environment. The rest is purpose-driven: to adapt or innovate, in accordance with those changes. DAVID: We currently see a beneficial mutation rate (producing evolutionary advances) which is very slow. It has been suggested that since humans are here and very functional, evolution has stopped. It has gone as far as was intended. Perhaps this is why we don't see new speciation in the past 300 years or so that we have now become aware we should be looking for some.-This appears to be a period of stasis, and is peanuts in terms of geological time. It is understandable that with our superior consciousness, some people - especially the religious - might think we are the end product. It is also perfectly feasible that one day we shall be wiped out, and other forms of life will become dominant. In the end, maybe evolution will come full circle, and there will be nothing left except bacteria. We have no idea what form life will have taken in a billion years‘ time!
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 25, 2015, 17:24 (3529 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We don't know if God exists either. All these explanations are hypotheses. Tony would say that evolution is a hypothesis too, but since you and I believe in common descent, at least we can agree to use it as a theoretical premise. -Yes. > > dhw: You are now making a basic assumption that we have not agreed on: namely, your God's purpose in starting evolution. I am thinking on two levels here: 1) the IM explains the course of evolution, whether God designed the mechanism or not; 2) if he designed it, he MAY have had the creation of humans in mind, or his purpose might simply have been to set it in motion and see where it led. That is a different subject. My point here is that once the mechanism is in place (whether God designed it or not), we can dispense with the theory of random mutations. The only chance element is changes in the environment. The rest is purpose-driven: to adapt or innovate, in accordance with those changes.-We know that animals and plants can use epigenetic mechanisms to adapt to changes in environment. We know there are a few random mutations that are beneficial, so I don't think we can rely on an IM to do the whole job. So I don't think your point really works in a complete sense. As for the first comment humans are such an unexpected unusual result, it certainly smells of purpose. > > dhw: This appears to be a period of stasis, and is peanuts in terms of geological time. It is understandable that with our superior consciousness, some people - especially the religious - might think we are the end product.-Exactly, and it only took 6 million years and 15 extraordinary changes in form and function.-> dhw: It is also perfectly feasible that one day we shall be wiped out, and other forms of life will become dominant. In the end, maybe evolution will come full circle, and there will be nothing left except bacteria. We have no idea what form life will have taken in a billion years‘ time!-Bacteria will never leave, and the sun explodes (under current theory) in 5 billion years, so we are always a limited lifetime group.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: You are now making a basic assumption that we have not agreed on: namely, your God's purpose in starting evolution. I am thinking on two levels here: 1) the IM explains the course of evolution, whether God designed the mechanism or not; 2) if he designed it, he MAY have had the creation of humans in mind, or his purpose might simply have been to set it in motion and see where it led. That is a different subject. My point here is that once the mechanism is in place (whether God designed it or not), we can dispense with the theory of random mutations. The only chance element is changes in the environment. The rest is purpose-driven: to adapt or innovate, in accordance with those changes.-DAVID: We know that animals and plants can use epigenetic mechanisms to adapt to changes in environment. We know there are a few random mutations that are beneficial, so I don't think we can rely on an IM to do the whole job. So I don't think your point really works in a complete sense. As for the first comment humans are such an unexpected unusual result, it certainly smells of purpose.-My IM doesn't need random mutations. In the theistic version, I see no reason why we should not allow for dabbling. But for me that would mean that either God knew what he wanted and had to intervene because his experiments weren't working, or he didn't know what he wanted and fiddled around with new ideas as he went along. -dhw: It is also perfectly feasible that one day we shall be wiped out, and other forms of life will become dominant. In the end, maybe evolution will come full circle, and there will be nothing left except bacteria. We have no idea what form life will have taken in a billion years‘ time! DAVID: Bacteria will never leave, and the sun explodes (under current theory) in 5 billion years, so we are always a limited lifetime group.-That was why I offered Tony a Last Judgement scenario in 5,000,000,014! (Russell forecast the end of the world in 1914. Ah, my little joke was wasted!) Figures like this are meaningless - but the limited lifetime of all materials does create a problem if someone believes in a paradise on earth that will last forever. To be honest, would anybody really like to live forever? BBella once offered us a nice solution to that dilemma - you can opt out at any time, or choose to take on a new identity.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Thursday, March 26, 2015, 23:01 (3528 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My IM doesn't need random mutations. In the theistic version, I see no reason why we should not allow for dabbling. But for me that would mean that either God knew what he wanted and had to intervene because his experiments weren't working, or he didn't know what he wanted and fiddled around with new ideas as he went along.-Well, my IM is semi-autonomous because a totally autonomous IM might head in a weird direction that God didn't like. > > dhw: It is also perfectly feasible that one day we shall be wiped out, and other forms of life will become dominant. In the end, maybe evolution will come full circle, and there will be nothing left except bacteria. We have no idea what form life will have taken in a billion years‘ time! > > dhw: To be honest, would anybody really like to live forever? BBella once offered us a nice solution to that dilemma - you can opt out at any time, or choose to take on a new identity.-Well, we can't live forever. We have to make room for others. This current human race cannot go on forever, but I'll bet there will be others at a different time and a different galaxy.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, March 26, 2015, 23:51 (3528 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: To be honest, would anybody really like to live forever? BBella once offered us a nice solution to that dilemma - you can opt out at any time, or choose to take on a new identity. > >David: Well, we can't live forever. We have to make room for others. This current human race cannot go on forever, but I'll bet there will be others at a different time and a different galaxy.-That question is impossible to answer because our miserably short existence is all we have to go on. If circumstances were different, then perhaps...
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, March 27, 2015, 00:23 (3528 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: That question is impossible to answer because our miserably short existence is all we have to go on. If circumstances were different, then perhaps...-With H. sapiens about 300,000 years old as a species and even if now we are seeing octogenarians (like myself) in large numbers, it is still as very short time frame against eternity.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: My IM doesn't need random mutations. In the theistic version, I see no reason why we should not allow for dabbling. But for me that would mean that either God knew what he wanted and had to intervene because his experiments weren't working, or he didn't know what he wanted and fiddled around with new ideas as he went along.-DAVID: Well, my IM is semi-autonomous because a totally autonomous IM might head in a weird direction that God didn't like.-Not a reason for rejecting autonomy. Your God could always dabble if he didn't like the direction - either by fiddling with organisms, or by doing a Chicxulub. dhw: It is also perfectly feasible that one day we shall be wiped out, and other forms of life will become dominant. In the end, maybe evolution will come full circle, and there will be nothing left except bacteria. We have no idea what form life will have taken in a billion years‘ time! To be honest, would anybody really like to live forever? BBella once offered us a nice solution to that dilemma - you can opt out at any time, or choose to take on a new identity.-DAVID: Well, we can't live forever. We have to make room for others. This current human race cannot go on forever, but I'll bet there will be others at a different time and a different galaxy.-I was referring to Tony's belief in a paradise on earth that would last forever. But I thought you believed in an afterlife (which is certainly the implication of NDEs). Do you not see such an afterlife as being forever?-As regards "others", is your bet that your God will really produce another human race, or is your money on totally different forms of life?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, March 27, 2015, 14:18 (3527 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Well, my IM is semi-autonomous because a totally autonomous IM might head in a weird direction that God didn't like. > > dhw: Not a reason for rejecting autonomy. Your God could always dabble if he didn't like the direction - either by fiddling with organisms, or by doing a Chicxulub.-As for Chicx, He'll have to overcome His own human's abilities. We are planning to defend ourselves from all incomers with rockets and atomic bombs. Semi-autonomous means God can guide or dabble, so you are quibbling. > > DAVID: Well, we can't live forever. We have to make room for others. This current human race cannot go on forever, but I'll bet there will be others at a different time and a different galaxy. > > dhw: I was referring to Tony's belief in a paradise on earth that would last forever. But I thought you believed in an afterlife (which is certainly the implication of NDEs). Do you not see such an afterlife as being forever?-Afterlife forever? Yes. I was discussing the living body vessel dying. See below: we'll meet past and future human souls. > > dhw: As regards "others", is your bet that your God will really produce another human race, or is your money on totally different forms of life?-You are the one who first proposed God doing it over and over in your view of previous eternities. The Milky Way is a galaxy made to produce humans as planned by God. Did He do it before? I think so. Will He do it again with a galaxy that produced humans? I think so. When this universe dies in 100 billion years will He produce another universe? I think so. Will there be more humans? Yes. The key is consciousness which can relate to consciousness. We are the only creatures who can recognize and relate to God. It seems as if that is what He wants. A warning: I don't know God's personal thoughts or his personality. I can only guess at it with what I can analyze.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: Well, my IM is semi-autonomous because a totally autonomous IM might head in a weird direction that God didn't like. dhw: Not a reason for rejecting autonomy. Your God could always dabble if he didn't like the direction - either by fiddling with organisms, or by doing a Chicxulub.-DAVID: As for Chicx, He'll have to overcome His own human's abilities. We are planning to defend ourselves from all incomers with rockets and atomic bombs. Semi-autonomous means God can guide or dabble, so you are quibbling.-Autonomy doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. Even if we have free will, as you believe, we can't will ourselves into becoming elephants or into dissolving the prison walls. In exactly the same way, the autonomous IM would be capable of adapting and innovating, independently of any preprogramming, but not independently of its own limitations or of the environment (which could include a dabbling God). Your “semi-autonomous” is the real quibble.-DAVID: Well, we can't live forever. We have to make room for others. This current human race cannot go on forever, but I'll bet there will be others at a different time and a different galaxy. dhw: I was referring to Tony's belief in a paradise on earth that would last forever. But I thought you believed in an afterlife (which is certainly the implication of NDEs). Do you not see such an afterlife as being forever?-DAVID: Afterlife forever? Yes. I was discussing the living body vessel dying. See below: we'll meet past and future human souls.-Forever. An endless world and endless self. A truly appalling prospect. Probably even more appalling than a world and self that end.-dhw: As regards "others", is your bet that your God will really produce another human race, or is your money on totally different forms of life? DAVID: You are the one who first proposed God doing it over and over in your view of previous eternities. The Milky Way is a galaxy made to produce humans as planned by God. Did He do it before? I think so. Will He do it again with a galaxy that produced humans? I think so. When this universe dies in 100 billion years will He produce another universe? I think so. Will there be more humans? Yes. The key is consciousness which can relate to consciousness. We are the only creatures who can recognize and relate to God. It seems as if that is what He wants. A warning: I don't know God's personal thoughts or his personality. I can only guess at it with what I can analyze.-All of us are limited to guesswork. Your acknowledgement that your God might have produced earlier universes and might go on producing universes runs parallel to my suggestion that first-cause non-conscious energy is capable of doing the same thing. With an eternity of universes, which you now accept as theoretically possible, you have an infinite number of material combinations which eventually - during eternity - might produce the one that results in life and evolution. An atheist's dream.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, March 29, 2015, 00:30 (3526 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Autonomy doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. Even if we have free will, as you believe, we can't will ourselves into becoming elephants or into dissolving the prison walls. In exactly the same way, the autonomous IM would be capable of adapting and innovating, independently of any preprogramming, but not independently of its own limitations or of the environment (which could include a dabbling God). Your “semi-autonomous” is the real quibble.-Definition of autonomous: "acting independently or having the freedom to do so"-You are quibbling. Of course, there are limits from the environment, etc. but I am considering the control of the direction of evolution. > > All of us are limited to guesswork. Your acknowledgement that your God might have produced earlier universes and might go on producing universes runs parallel to my suggestion that first-cause non-conscious energy is capable of doing the same thing. With an eternity of universes, which you now accept as theoretically possible, you have an infinite number of material combinations which eventually - during eternity - might produce the one that results in life and evolution. An atheist's dream.-But if God is doing it, under my scenario, one gets humans every time.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: Autonomy doesn't mean you can do whatever you like. Even if we have free will, as you believe, we can't will ourselves into becoming elephants or into dissolving the prison walls. In exactly the same way, the autonomous IM would be capable of adapting and innovating, independently of any preprogramming, but not independently of its own limitations or of the environment (which could include a dabbling God). Your “semi-autonomous” is the real quibble.-DAVID: Definition of autonomous: "acting independently or having the freedom to do so" You are quibbling. Of course, there are limits from the environment, etc. but I am considering the control of the direction of evolution.-Good definition. I am suggesting that in the theistic version, your God could have given organisms the independence and freedom to use the inventive mechanism in whatever ways were suitable for the environment. Hence the vast variety and higgledy-piggledy comings and goings. That is autonomy. But he could dabble if/when he felt like it (i.e. take control), which means removal of autonomy. What is your definition of semi-autonomy? -dhw: All of us are limited to guesswork. Your acknowledgement that your God might have produced earlier universes and might go on producing universes runs parallel to my suggestion that first-cause non-conscious energy is capable of doing the same thing. With an eternity of universes, which you now accept as theoretically possible, you have an infinite number of material combinations which eventually - during eternity - might produce the one that results in life and evolution. An atheist's dream. DAVID: But if God is doing it, under my scenario, one gets humans every time.-I don't see why all universes have to be the same. You don't allow your God much imagination, do you? -xxxxx-I will reply to the article on "unconscious energy" tomorrow, although you have already posted the obvious reply with the Weinberg interview!
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, March 29, 2015, 19:23 (3525 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Definition of autonomous: "acting independently or having the freedom to do so"-> dhw: Good definition. I am suggesting that in the theistic version, your God could have given organisms the independence and freedom to use the inventive mechanism in whatever ways were suitable for the environment. Hence the vast variety and higgledy-piggledy comings and goings. That is autonomy. But he could dabble if/when he felt like it (i.e. take control), which means removal of autonomy. What is your definition of semi-autonomy?-Semi-autonomy in my version is that God is intent upon humans arriving, therefore He dabbles and corrects when He has to, just as you suggest. -> DAVID: But if God is doing it, under my scenario, one gets humans every time. > > dhw: I don't see why all universes have to be the same. You don't allow your God much imagination, do you?-You are giving God attributes again, ones that we cannot know. If He did it once, why not every time? I view us as an amazing pinnacle to the process of evolution, a seemingly impossible end point if chance is in charge. > > xxxxx > > dhw: I will reply to the article on "unconscious energy" tomorrow, although you have already posted the obvious reply with the Weinberg interview!-I have no idea how you are going to interpret Weinberg. His observation is that we know only what we see, not why it has to be that way.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: Your acknowledgement that your God might have produced earlier universes and might go on producing universes runs parallel to my suggestion that first-cause non-conscious energy is capable of doing the same thing. DAVID: This contention of yours that unconscious energy is capable of invention goes against all current theories about energy: [...]-“Invention” suggests something deliberate, which is not the alternative I am offering. I used the word “produced” as that is more neutral. The article goes on to show the destructive force of kinetic energy, concluding that it requires intelligence to organize a system. It was you who first informed me that energy was matter and matter was energy. Matter is being produced all the time, and given eternity, you can have as many material combinations as you like. By sheer coincidence you have posted an interview with Steven Weinberg in which he gives you the current answer, in the context of our own solar system: -“Most people, like Galen, the Roman physician, thought that it was due to the benevolence of the gods, that it was all arranged for our benefit. A much better answer — the answer we would give today — is that there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. And it's not surprising that a few of them, out of all those billions, are positioned in a way that's favorable for life.”-The “current” theory according to Weinberg is that one universe (let alone an endless sequence) can unconsciously provide enough combinations to yield the organized system your Creationist site considers impossible. Now perhaps you can tell us the current theory to explain how energy can be conscious of itself.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Monday, March 30, 2015, 14:20 (3524 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: “Invention” suggests something deliberate, which is not the alternative I am offering. I used the word “produced” as that is more neutral. The article goes on to show the destructive force of kinetic energy, concluding that it requires intelligence to organize a system. It was you who first informed me that energy was matter and matter was energy. Matter is being produced all the time, and given eternity, you can have as many material combinations as you like.-Your many material combinations are how complex? You skip the idea of levels of complexity. Life is so complex, no one knows any reasonable method hat might have gotten in started. A universe follows complex rules/laws that we still don't fully understand. Matter is made all the time but the power of energy can destroy it at any time unless the process is controlled. Look at what happens in stars.-> dhw: By sheer coincidence you have posted an interview with Steven Weinberg in which he gives you the current answer, in the context of our own solar system: > > “Most people, like Galen, the Roman physician, thought that it was due to the benevolence of the gods, that it was all arranged for our benefit. A much better answer — the answer we would give today — is that there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. And it's not surprising that a few of them, out of all those billions, are positioned in a way that's favorable for life.”-I accept his point (I'm proud of his being a Texan). "Favorable for life" doesn't prove there is another Earth. Earth's characteristics for providing a home for life are almost as long as the fine tuning list. > > dhw: The “current” theory according to Weinberg is that one universe (let alone an endless sequence) can unconsciously provide enough combinations to yield the organized system your Creationist site considers impossible. Now perhaps you can tell us the current theory to explain how energy can be conscious of itself.-Simply it is the first cause. It is obviously beyond theory.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: “Invention” suggests something deliberate, which is not the alternative I am offering. I used the word “produced” as that is more neutral. The article goes on to show the destructive force of kinetic energy, concluding that it requires intelligence to organize a system. It was you who first informed me that energy was matter and matter was energy. Matter is being produced all the time, and given eternity, you can have as many material combinations as you like. DAVID: Your many material combinations are how complex? You skip the idea of levels of complexity. Life is so complex, no one knows any reasonable method hat might have gotten in started. A universe follows complex rules/laws that we still don't fully understand. Matter is made all the time but the power of energy can destroy it at any time unless the process is controlled. Look at what happens in stars.-And our sun is a star, which one day will go the way of all other stars. We have agreed time after time that nobody knows how life got started, and the claim that it was started by an unknown, inexplicable form of consciousness simply takes the problem back another stage. dhw: By sheer coincidence you have posted an interview with Steven Weinberg in which he gives you the current answer, in the context of our own solar system: “Most people, like Galen, the Roman physician, thought that it was due to the benevolence of the gods, that it was all arranged for our benefit. A much better answer — the answer we would give today — is that there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. And it's not surprising that a few of them, out of all those billions, are positioned in a way that's favorable for life.” DAVID: I accept his point (I'm proud of his being a Texan). "Favorable for life" doesn't prove there is another Earth. Earth's characteristics for providing a home for life are almost as long as the fine tuning list.-His point is no different from the point I made in the passage you quoted at the beginning of this post, concerning the infinite number of combinations. Thank you. And you're quite right, there doesn't have to be another “Earth”. One stroke of luck is enough. dhw: The “current” theory according to Weinberg is that one universe (let alone an endless sequence) can unconsciously provide enough combinations to yield the organized system your Creationist site considers impossible. Now perhaps you can tell us the current theory to explain how energy can be conscious of itself.DAVID: Simply it is the first cause. It is obviously beyond theory.-A conscious first cause is simply a philosophical cop-out. It's not “beyond theory” - it IS a theory, but it's beyond the reach of evidence and reason, and depends as much on faith as the atheist's belief that chance can create life and the evolutionary mechanisms. NB I am not pleading for Weinberg's theory either. I'm an agnostic, in case anyone needs reminding.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 31, 2015, 20:52 (3523 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The “current” theory according to Weinberg is that one universe (let alone an endless sequence) can unconsciously provide enough combinations to yield the organized system your Creationist site considers impossible. Now perhaps you can tell us the current theory to explain how energy can be conscious of itself.-DAVID: Simply it is the first cause. It is obviously beyond theory.-> > dhw: A conscious first cause is simply a philosophical cop-out. It's not “beyond theory” - it IS a theory, but it's beyond the reach of evidence and reason, and depends as much on faith as the atheist's belief that chance can create life and the evolutionary mechanisms. NB I am not pleading for Weinberg's theory either. I'm an agnostic, in case anyone needs reminding.- Not a cop-out. Perhaps not a thought for you in your incredulous state. I like finding explanations to mysteries, like diagnosing a difficult case with a patient. I believe that that must be a first cause, following the rule that there must be something to start the chain of contingent results. That is not a theory but is a firm logical belief. The reality I see requires planning, because of the enormous complexity. Therefore first cause is capable of planning. Only a mind is capable of planning. Not a theory. a firm belief. For me that explains everything. Not surprising, not outlandish.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: You are quite right that, as with humans, so with bacteria and all cells/cell communities, we have no way of knowing whether what appears to be sentience and freedom of action is not in fact dictated by mechanisms already preprogrammed. Since we cannot know, we should remain open-minded.-DAVID: You can be open minded as it suits your worldview, but I know the chemistry, and in the book they discuss biochemists recognizing the automatic responses. This is where Darwin is getting in more and more trouble, as he biochemistry of life is unfolded.-Yes, most of our own responses are also automatic and entail biochemistry. But biochemistry does not explain innovation, and that is where the IM (which may or may not have been designed by your God) comes into play. Darwin's random mutations are indeed a problem, but you usually agree that common descent and natural selection remain untroubled.-dhw: The authors say “consciousness is primordial and contains all possible states.” By what authority can they make such a statement? DAVID: The book appears to be filled with references of the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics and therefore our reality.-I still don't see how they can state the above as if it were a fact.-dhw: A conscious first cause is simply a philosophical cop-out. It's not “beyond theory” - it IS a theory, but it's beyond the reach of evidence and reason...-DAVID: Not a cop-out. Perhaps not a thought for you in your incredulous state. I like finding explanations to mysteries, like diagnosing a difficult case with a patient. I believe that that must be a first cause, following the rule that there must be something to start the chain of contingent results. That is not a theory but is a firm logical belief.-People often believe firmly and logically in theories. If the latter were not theories, they would be talked of in terms of knowledge, not belief. However, we have had this conversation many times, and you always twist the argument. I also firmly believe in a first cause. The cop-out is associating first cause with CONSCIOUSNESS, because that is as much a matter of faith as belief in an unconscious first cause which in an eternity of mindless material-juggling comes up with a combination to engender life.-DAVID: The reality I see requires planning, because of the enormous complexity. Therefore first cause is capable of planning. Only a mind is capable of planning. Not a theory. a firm belief. For me that explains everything. Not surprising, not outlandish.-I am aware of your firm belief (see above), and respect it. The argument is powerful. Unfortunately, it does not explain everything. It does not explain how first cause energy can simply BE conscious and plan complexity, whereas it is impossible for energy/matter to evolve consciousness and develop complexity.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 02, 2015, 01:10 (3522 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Yes, most of our own responses are also automatic and entail biochemistry. But biochemistry does not explain innovation, and that is where the IM (which may or may not have been designed by your God) comes into play. Darwin's random mutations are indeed a problem, but you usually agree that common descent and natural selection remain untroubled.-Interesting reply. In regard to evolution, I am stuck with evidence that life evolved 'somehow' from, single cells, once life started. However the idea that 'biochemistry does not explain innovation' is a neat sidestep. What has to be explained is the complexity of living biochemistry and how that was innovated. For me an IM designed by God or directed evolutionary design by God is all that can work. I cannot ever imagine evolution working freely by chance or an IM inventing on its own.- One of your problems is your education which I presume did not include very much science. You have no background in biochemistry. I had had a half year both in premed and again in medical school and followed biochemical arguments during practice.. This not one-upmanship. You just do not appreciate what I see and you have no way of judging statements about biochemistry which I have reported to you can be interpreted as hyperbole. > > dhw: The cop-out is associating first cause with CONSCIOUSNESS, because that is as much a matter of faith as belief in an unconscious first cause which in an eternity of mindless material-juggling comes up with a combination to engender life.-Matter and energy are the same thing, we agree. The standard model, presently believed in, is a partial description of the particle relationships. It can only explain how particles form the matter we see in he universe. Not why it forms the way it does, nor why it even forms matter. We understand the process for the inorganic universe's development and the rules or laws that guided it. It has proceeded in only one direction, organization of the cosmos. It has never gone backward. Once life appears (I'm skipping that miracle-like event)it also progresses to more and more complexity. So we don't see any back and forth, 'juggling' only in that there are failed organisms dropping along the way, but the complexity is constantly piled on complexity. "Mindless material-juggling" is an out-and-out required appeal to chance. You have accepted that chance doesn't work. How do you pull all you impossible ideas together? > > dhw: I am aware of your firm belief (see above), and respect it. The argument is powerful. Unfortunately, it does not explain everything. It does not explain how first cause energy can simply BE conscious and plan complexity, whereas it is impossible for energy/matter to evolve consciousness and develop complexity.-Because logically, without chance as an active player, a first cause has to be capable of planning. That requires mind. It HAS TO BE conscious.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: Yes, most of our own responses are also automatic and entail biochemistry. But biochemistry does not explain innovation, and that is where the IM (which may or may not have been designed by your God) comes into play. Darwin's random mutations are indeed a problem, but you usually agree that common descent and natural selection remain untroubled.-DAVID: Interesting reply. In regard to evolution, I am stuck with evidence that life evolved 'somehow' from, single cells, once life started. However the idea that 'biochemistry does not explain innovation' is a neat sidestep. What has to be explained is the complexity of living biochemistry and how that was innovated. For me an IM designed by God or directed evolutionary design by God is all that can work. I cannot ever imagine evolution working freely by chance or an IM inventing on its own.-There is no sidestep. The autonomous inventive mechanism hypothesis attempts to explain how evolution works, starting with single cells which cooperate intelligently to invent increasingly complex cell communities with increasingly complex biochemistry. No chance involved. The origin of the IM is a separate issue. I cannot imagine evolution working by chance either, if by "chance" you mean random mutations, so I don't know why you continue to labour the point. On the other hand, I CAN imagine an IM working on its own, because I can imagine all organisms having their own individual form of inventive intelligence, just as humans do. DAVID: One of your problems is your education which I presume did not include very much science. You have no background in biochemistry. I had had a half year both in premed and again in medical school and followed biochemical arguments during practice.. This not one-upmanship. You just do not appreciate what I see and you have no way of judging statements about biochemistry which I have reported to you can be interpreted as hyperbole. -What “can be” interpreted as hyperbole can also be interpreted as accurate. My non-scientific background leaves me dependent on experts. But although the experts may agree about the biochemical complexities and about how the physical processes work, they do not agree on how those complexities may have come into being, or on how much control organisms have over the physical processes. If you told a team of biochemists that all organisms (cell communities) have been preprogrammed by God to adapt and innovate, or innovations are the result of divine dabbling, do you think they would all cheer? You have said it's 50/50 whether the sentience and cognitive abilities (on which many experts do agree) are what they seem, as opposed to being automatic. That is good enough for me, and your choice of interpretation has nothing to do with science. dhw: The cop-out is associating first cause with CONSCIOUSNESS, because that is as much a matter of faith as belief in an unconscious first cause which in an eternity of mindless material-juggling comes up with a combination to engender life. DAVID: [I can't accommodate your entire post, but this is the point that requires an answer:] "Mindless material-juggling" is an out-and-out required appeal to chance. You have accepted that chance doesn't work. How do you pull all you impossible ideas together?-Once life and the mechanism for evolution appear, there is no juggling (see above). The basic premise is an eternity and infinity of matter forming different combinations. Our universe (either eternal or one of an infinite succession of universes) alone has billions of galaxies (see Weinberg et al). I can easily accept that eventually one will provide conditions suitable for life. In eternity, there may even be millions of galaxies containing planets suitable for life. And in eternity eventually there will be the one great stroke of luck that actually produces the first living cells - an act of chance which, as I have repeated over and over again, I find as difficult to believe as eternal, infinite energy being a single conscious mind. That is one reason why I am an agnostic.-dhw: I am aware of your firm belief (see above), and respect it. The argument is powerful. Unfortunately, it does not explain everything. It does not explain how first cause energy can simply BE conscious and plan complexity, whereas it is impossible for energy/matter to evolve consciousness and develop complexity.-DAVID: Because logically, without chance as an active player, a first cause has to be capable of planning. That requires mind. It HAS TO BE conscious.-Of course there has to be a conscious mind or conscious minds if chance is not an active player - but an active player in what, and to what extent, and when? In the above scenario, given a mindless first cause of energy and matter interacting forever, a life-supporting system may have been inevitable, and the one chance element is life itself with its mechanism for evolution - but not evolution itself.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 02, 2015, 19:12 (3521 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The autonomous inventive mechanism hypothesis attempts to explain how evolution works, starting with single cells which cooperate intelligently to invent increasingly complex cell communities with increasingly complex biochemistry. No chance involved..... On the other hand, I CAN imagine an IM working on its own, because I can imagine all organisms having their own individual form of inventive intelligence, just as humans do.-I am delighted that you can use your imagination, because I view the above verbiage as simply a flight of fancy. To review seriously what we know as fact, we know that bacteria are the most successful as a group of all organisms, in that they started 3.6-3.8 billion years ago and are still around as the largest biomass extant. There is no obvious reason for complexification by them, but multicellularity happened. We don't know why, but we do know that epigenetic mechanisms can be inherited to alter life forms to fit new natural requirements. I view built-in response/epigenetic mechanisms as automatic molecular reactions. You don't. You want your imagined pan-psychism to rear its ugly head everywhere, in this case especially in bacteria but you reject outright the idea that consciousness might be at the basis of the universe (relates to the recent book mentioned edited by Davies).-Your whole approach is very inconsistent. We know that evolution and also the universe proceed from simple to complex. We really don't know why the universe became so complex, but we do seem to know how it did. So complexity here contains an unknown driving force In evolution, please tell me what drives the path to complexity. You want mindful cells cooperating, when we have no evidence they have minds, only the 50/50 proposition they 'look' sentient. I keep mentioning chance, even though you want to leave it out, because chance takes a long time to achieve the complexity we see, and it is my view that there hasn't been enough time for chance to have accomplished what we see. -As a result you imagine an IM based on what we know about epigenetics. Mindless and will only be responsive if there are environmental changes. That is chance itself! Appropriate responses are also chance, which is why we use the concept of natural selection as a final arbiter. That takes time and is somewhat chancy itself considering some of the weird lifestyles and forms that make up our favorite bush of life.-Next we do see rapid progression of evolution, seemingly out of thin air: I recently produced here an article that demonstrated 15 major advances in human form over 6 million years to achieve "us" today. Time for chance to work? No way! You seriously need to leave your armchair approach of relying on commentator's opinions and actually read as I have done, forcing me to leave agnosticism. I suggest you start with 'Not By Chance, by Lee Spetner, 1999. I'll even send you a new copy of the book.-What have I imagined, I know that you know. I concluded that chance doesn't have the time to work, based on the complexity of genetics, just to start with. Without a mind everything is chancy! I can imagine (to use your method) a very thoughtful Darwin returning to life now, reviewing current science, and throwing out most of his conjectures and joining me in my approach. Something drives the complexity we find in life. It has to be planned. Therefore a universal consciousness. > > dhw: What “can be” interpreted as hyperbole can also be interpreted as accurate. My non-scientific background leaves me dependent on experts.-That is your problem. You have picked out folks I found for you that fit, what I feel, are your preconceived wishes that it is impossible for you to ever conceive of a consciousness in control. There is no consensus and I follow a whole group of folks who are scientists an think like I do. 40% of doctors are believers! > dhw:I find as difficult to believe as eternal, infinite energy being a single conscious mind. That is one reason why I am an agnostic.-Fully understood.-> > dhw: Of course there has to be a conscious mind or conscious minds if chance is not an active player - but an active player in what, and to what extent, and when? In the above scenario, given a mindless first cause of energy and matter interacting forever, a life-supporting system may have been inevitable, and the one chance element is life itself with its mechanism for evolution - but not evolution itself.-Another strange imagined scenario. We have no evidence of energy/matter interacting except as we see the progression of the universe, which sets the stage for life. We don't even know if the energy/matter of the universe would have advanced beyond the BB unless pushed somehow. It's organization requires mind.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
In order to fit my response to David's diatribe into the allotted space, I can only reproduce its salient points.-dhw:..... On the other hand, I CAN imagine an IM working on its own, because I can imagine all organisms having their own individual form of inventive intelligence, just as humans do. DAVID: There is no obvious reason for complexification by them [bacteria], but multicellularity happened. We don't know why, but we do know that epigenetic mechanisms can be inherited to alter life forms to fit new natural requirements. I view built-in response/epigenetic mechanisms as automatic molecular reactions. You don't. You want your imagined pan-psychism to rear its ugly head everywhere, in this case especially in bacteria but you reject outright the idea that consciousness might be at the basis of the universe.-The intelligent, inventive mechanism is a hypothesis to explain how multicellularity and complexity happened. You have accepted the possibility of an IM, though only semi-autonomous. Even semi-autonomy allows for some responses NOT to be automatic, so it is a matter of degree. Consciousness at the basis of the universe is exactly the same as panpsychism raising its ugly head everywhere (most panpsychist theories go back to God), but my alternative version involves countless evolving consciousnesses as opposed to a single, eternal, universal mind. I do not reject any of these theories outright. I am an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve.-DAVID: We know that evolution and also the universe proceed from simple to complex. We really don't know why the universe became so complex, but we do seem to know how it did. So complexity here contains an unknown driving force. In evolution, please tell me what drives the path to complexity. You want mindful cells cooperating, when we have no evidence they have minds, only the 50/50 proposition they 'look' sentient.-As regards the universe, we have vast amounts of interacting matter and energy, 95% of which we are told is unknown. Whether the driving force is mindless or mindful is pure conjecture, but plenty of physicists and cosmologists think it is mindless. The 50/50 proposition is not that they ‘look' sentient. Even you agree they ‘look' sentient. The proposition is that they ARE sentient, and just like humans, the driving force is the quest for survival and improvement. Such a mechanism may have been designed by your God (whose existence is problematical), and he may also have dabbled. Your alternative is divine preprogramming of every innovation (including items like the weaverbird's nest), or continuous - as opposed to occasional - dabbling, which would mean separate creation.-DAVID: ...it is my view that there hasn't been enough time for chance to have accomplished what we see.-I agree. Hence the inventive mechanism hypothesis. -DAVID: As a result you imagine an IM based on what we know about epigenetics. Mindless and will only be responsive if there are environmental changes. That is chance itself! Appropriate responses are also chance, which is why we use the concept of natural selection as a final arbiter. That takes time and is somewhat chancy itself considering some of the weird lifestyles and forms that make up our favorite bush of life.-I agree that environmental changes are chance. Like extinctions and the weird lifestyles and forms, that is a major problem for your anthropocentric, God-knows-it-all theory, and you have never come to grips with it. Appropriate responses are not chance: some organisms can cope through their IM, and some can't, so they are wiped out. That is natural selection. An analogy would be that some humans are better at solving problems than others. DAVID: Next we do see rapid progression of evolution, seemingly out of thin air. The IM (whether designed by God or not) would explain the rapid progression. -dhw: What “can be” interpreted as hyperbole can also be interpreted as accurate. My non-scientific background leaves me dependent on experts. DAVID: That is your problem. You have picked out folks I found for you that fit, what I feel, are your preconceived wishes that it is impossible for you to ever conceive of a consciousness in control. There is no consensus and I follow a whole group of folks who are scientists an think like I do. 40% of doctors are believers! So what does that tell you about the other 60%? I am greatly in your debt for generously alerting me to the work of renowned experts who disagree with you. The concept of cooperation between intelligent cells is not my invention, but it seems to me to offer an alternative at least as credible as your divine preprogramming and dabbling. I have made it clear, however, that I remain uncommitted with regard to the source of an IM. I wrote that such an act of chance “I find as difficult to believe as eternal, infinite energy being a single conscious mind. That is one reason why I am an agnostic.” And you responded: “Fully understood.” If you understand it, why do you persist in telling me I reject theories which I neither accept nor reject, and why do you not understand that ALL the alternatives entail acts of irrational faith if one is to pass from neutrality to commitment?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, April 03, 2015, 15:23 (3520 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: 40% of doctors are believers!->> dhw: So what does that tell you about the other 60%? I am greatly in your debt for generously alerting me to the work of renowned experts who disagree with you. -Thank you. I try to present a variety of opinions since much of scientific conclusions are really opinions until fully verified.-> dhw:The concept of cooperation between intelligent cells is not my invention, but it seems to me to offer an alternative at least as credible as your divine preprogramming and dabbling. I have made it clear, however, that I remain uncommitted with regard to the source of an IM. I wrote that such an act of chance “I find as difficult to believe as eternal, infinite energy being a single conscious mind. That is one reason why I am an agnostic.” And you responded: “Fully understood.”-I still fully understand that you cannot accept the concept.-> dhw: If you understand it, why do you persist in telling me I reject theories which I neither accept nor reject, and why do you not understand that ALL the alternatives entail acts of irrational faith if one is to pass from neutrality to commitment?-We have reached the nub of the issue: is there any faith you would find as rational? Or must everything be clearly black or white, and provable?. You started this website as a answer to what you perceived as irrational atheism. And I have tried to show how I left agnosticism through what I feel are rational conclusions, as a means of offering an educational contribution to a line of reasoning. I come from the position that living cells are highly complex, beyond what chance can produce, and yet are relatively mindless. Mind is required for complexity planning, and the cells can only use epigenetic automatic response mechanisms to various stimuli and stresses. Mind and information are absolute requirements for life to exist. And therefore there must be a mind with information behind it all. Simple, no Bible needed.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: I am greatly in your debt for generously alerting me to the work of renowned experts who disagree with you. DAVID: Thank you. I try to present a variety of opinions since much of scientific conclusions are really opinions until fully verified.-And most of the subjects we discuss are unlikely ever to be fully verified. If they were, there would be nothing left to discuss! In all honesty, it is your indefatigable research into all the latest findings and opinions that keeps this website going.-dhw: ...why do you persist in telling me I reject theories which I neither accept nor reject, and why do you not understand that ALL the alternatives entail acts of irrational faith if one is to pass from neutrality to commitment? DAVID: We have reached the nub of the issue: is there any faith you would find as rational? Or must everything be clearly black or white, and provable?-The questions of God's existence and the origin of life, evolution and consciousness are unique. In our day-to-day living, we perform acts of faith and make subjective decisions and judgements all the time, based on arguments that are neither clearly black/white nor provable. And you know this as well as I do. So drop your “everything” and focus on faith in God.-DAVID: You started this website as a answer to what you perceived as irrational atheism. And I have tried to show how I left agnosticism through what I feel are rational conclusions, as a means of offering an educational contribution to a line of reasoning. -The educational contribution is invaluable, and the conclusions are indeed rational until they reach a point where reason can no longer cope. You acknowledge that yourself, but seem to have difficulty grasping the rational arguments that lead to different conclusions, though these also reach a point where reason fails.-DAVID: I come from the position that living cells are highly complex, beyond what chance can produce, and yet are relatively mindless.-Your wording is interesting. How mindless is “relatively” mindless? To what extent is “relative” mindlessness able to evolve into complete mindfulness? -DAVID: Mind is required for complexity planning, and the cells can only use epigenetic automatic response mechanisms to various stimuli and stresses. -Your “only” is an opinion, not a fact. -DAVID: Mind and information are absolute requirements for life to exist. And therefore there must be a mind with information behind it all. Simple, no Bible needed.-I don't know why you bring the Bible into this, unless you are addressing these remarks to Tony. I know information is the current “in” word, and I dislike it. But yes, for life to exist and to evolve, certain materials have to combine in a manner so complex that you and I find it impossible to believe it could be achieved by chance. That side of the argument is based on incredulity. So is the other side: some of us find it impossible to believe in an eternally conscious, single-minded form of energy which creates whole universes and bacteria (in your case, all for the sake of humans), and for whose existence there is no objective evidence. No matter which incredible hypothesis you choose, all the “information” for life exists, but we do not know its source.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 04, 2015, 18:08 (3519 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Thank you. I try to present a variety of opinions since much of scientific conclusions are really opinions until fully verified. > > dhw: And most of the subjects we discuss are unlikely ever to be fully verified. If they were, there would be nothing left to discuss! In all honesty, it is your indefatigable research into all the latest findings and opinions that keeps this website going.-Perhaps enough has been presented and this website should end when the current term paid for expires. In 2008 I was hired on to represent my form of theism. I'm happy to continue as long as desired. > > DAVID: You started this website as a answer to what you perceived as irrational atheism. And I have tried to show how I left agnosticism through what I feel are rational conclusions, as a means of offering an educational contribution to a line of reasoning. > > dhw: The educational contribution is invaluable, and the conclusions are indeed rational until they reach a point where reason can no longer cope. You acknowledge that yourself, but seem to have difficulty grasping the rational arguments that lead to different conclusions, though these also reach a point where reason fails.-You are correct. We each reach a point where faith takes over or is rejected. My rational arguments lead me to only one conclusion. There is a rational mind that plans our reality. > > DAVID: I come from the position that living cells are highly complex, beyond what chance can produce, and yet are relatively mindless. > > dhw: Your wording is interesting. How mindless is “relatively” mindless? To what extent is “relative” mindlessness able to evolve into complete mindfulness?-Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans. > > DAVID: Mind is required for complexity planning, and the cells can only use epigenetic automatic response mechanisms to various stimuli and stresses. > > dhw: Your “only” is an opinion, not a fact.-Yes, my opinion based on the facts I see. > > DAVID: Mind and information are absolute requirements for life to exist. And therefore there must be a mind with information behind it all. Simple, no Bible needed. > > dhw: I don't know why you bring the Bible into this, unless you are addressing these remarks to Tony. -I addressing that remark to anyone who turns to the Bible. It is an argument that cannot be used with atheists or agnostics. It shows that one can reach a belief in God without what I believe is a man-made book, the Bible.-> dhw: I know information is the current “in” word, and I dislike it.-I know you dislike it, but what do codes give us but information? How would you define how DNA works? -> dhw: But yes, for life to exist and to evolve, certain materials have to combine in a manner so complex that you and I find it impossible to believe it could be achieved by chance. -You and I are in full agreement.-> dhw:That side of the argument is based on incredulity. So is the other side: some of us find it impossible to believe in an eternally conscious, single-minded form of energy which creates whole universes and bacteria (in your case, all for the sake of humans), and for whose existence there is no objective evidence. No matter which incredible hypothesis you choose, all the “information” for life exists, but we do not know its source.-Agreed. We do not "know" its source, but in my case I have made an educated guess which I think carries a strong enough basis to then accept it on faith.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: In all honesty, it is your indefatigable research into all the latest findings and opinions that keeps this website going. DAVID: Perhaps enough has been presented and this website should end when the current term paid for expires. In 2008 I was hired on to represent my form of theism. I'm happy to continue as long as desired.-Your Nature's Wonders posts have attracted literally thousands of hits, and they are a constant source of delight and education. Our own discussions tend to go round in the same circles, but there is always the possibility of a breakthrough, or of new and interesting angles being offered by contributors like BBella and Tony. I'm therefore also happy to continue at least for the time being. -DAVID: I come from the position that living cells are highly complex, beyond what chance can produce, and yet are relatively mindless. dhw: Your wording is interesting. How mindless is “relatively” mindless? To what extent is “relative” mindlessness able to evolve into complete mindfulness?-DAVID: Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans.-That is my point: evolution may have begun with relatively less mind (as opposed to mindlessness) and proceeded to full consciousness and self-consciousness. In other words, the first living cells were NOT mindless. -DAVID: Mind is required for complexity planning, and the cells can only use epigenetic automatic response mechanisms to various stimuli and stresses. dhw: Your “only” is an opinion, not a fact. DAVID: Yes, my opinion based on the facts I see. -A process shared by those specialists who have reached different conclusions from yours.-DAVID: Mind and information are absolute requirements for life to exist. And therefore there must be a mind with information behind it all. dhw: I know information is the current “in” word, and I dislike it. DAVID: I know you dislike it, but what do codes give us but information? How would you define how DNA works? I dislike this use of the word because it is confusing. Cells run on information (the codes) which enables them to absorb information (from the outside world) which enables them to provide new information (adaptation/innovation) so that they can adjust to any changes in the information they absorb from the outside world. By bracketing everything under “information”, you constantly gloss over the different types of information and the difference between what is processed and the mechanism that does the processing. I would prefer to say that cells/cell communities, just like humans, have the ability to absorb information (OK here for me) from the outside world through their equivalent of our five senses, to process it through the equivalent of our brains, and if possible to alter their structure in response to any changes in the environment.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 05, 2015, 16:06 (3518 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Your Nature's Wonders posts have attracted literally thousands of hits, and they are a constant source of delight and education. Our own discussions tend to go round in the same circles, but there is always the possibility of a breakthrough, or of new and interesting angles being offered by contributors like BBella and Tony. I'm therefore also happy to continue at least for the time being. -As long as we can entertain, have others participate, and explore new concepts as they appear I'm delighted to continue to express my opinions and offer new scientific discoveries.-> > DAVID: Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans. > > dhw: That is my point: evolution may have begun with relatively less mind (as opposed to mindlessness) and proceeded to full consciousness and self-consciousness. In other words, the first living cells were NOT mindless.-No disagreement, the earliest cells acted as sentient. We will still disagree as to whether they were given mechanisms that acted as giving an appearance of sentience, or whether they wondrously somehow survived from their beginning while developing the necessary ability to understand their surroundings. For the latter scenario I feel that has to be magical. > dhw: I know information is the current “in” word, and I dislike it. > DAVID: I know you dislike it, but what do codes give us but information? How would you define how DNA works? > > dhw: I dislike this use of the word because it is confusing. Cells run on information (the codes) which enables them to absorb information (from the outside world) which enables them to provide new information (adaptation/innovation) so that they can adjust to any changes in the information they absorb from the outside world. By bracketing everything under “information”, you constantly gloss over the different types of information and the difference between what is processed and the mechanism that does the processing.-I don't mean to gloss over the various types of information that are involved, as you have listed them. They all exist and all are of great importance. The most central information is in the genome, and not just in DNA but the entire complex that handles DNA and RNA, the histones, telomeres, translatomes, etc, etc. -> dhw" I would prefer to say that cells/cell communities, just like humans, have the ability to absorb information (OK here for me) from the outside world through their equivalent of our five senses, to process it through the equivalent of our brains, and if possible to alter their structure in response to any changes in the environment.-Can you describe the 'cell equivalent' of our brain, and recognize the cells must use onboard 'information' to make the appropriate choices as you seem to have admitted?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans. dhw: That is my point: evolution may have begun with relatively less mind (as opposed to mindlessness) and proceeded to full consciousness and self-consciousness. In other words, the first living cells were NOT mindless. DAVID: No disagreement, the earliest cells acted as sentient. We will still disagree as to whether they were given mechanisms that acted as giving an appearance of sentience, or whether they wondrously somehow survived from their beginning while developing the necessary ability to understand their surroundings. For the latter scenario I feel that has to be magical.-I think all organisms “understand” their surroundings, or they would not be able to survive. Why would that not apply to the earliest cells? As for magic, do you not think the concept of eternally conscious energy is magical? I would, however, say that if YOUR form of magic (God) exists, he would have used science to create the earliest cells. But if he doesn't, the magic begins and ends with the first cells and the inventive mechanism, since everything that follows is a product of autonomous intelligence in an ever changing environment.-dhw: I dislike this use of the word [information] because it is confusing. Cells run on information (the codes) which enables them to absorb information (from the outside world) which enables them to provide new information (adaptation/innovation) so that they can adjust to any changes in the information they absorb from the outside world. By bracketing everything under “information”, you constantly gloss over the different types of information and the difference between what is processed and the mechanism that does the processing. DAVID: I don't mean to gloss over the various types of information that are involved, as you have listed them. They all exist and all are of great importance. The most central information is in the genome, and not just in DNA but the entire complex that handles DNA and RNA, the histones, telomeres, translatomes, etc, etc. Yes, there are different kinds of information everywhere, which is why I find it such a messy and confusing concept. My “favourite” scientists talk of the sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making cell. Clear distinctions, but you lump them all together, which I suppose makes it easier for you to assume automatism. -Dhw: I would prefer to say that cells/cell communities, just like humans, have the ability to absorb information (OK here for me) from the outside world through their equivalent of our five senses, to process it through the equivalent of our brains, and if possible to alter their structure in response to any changes in the environment. DAVID: Can you describe the 'cell equivalent' of our brain, and recognize the cells must use onboard 'information' to make the appropriate choices as you seem to have admitted?-What am I “admitting”? On board ‘information' IS the mechanism which processes the information that comes from the outside world. That's why I complain about this woolly use of the word. If I could describe the cell equivalent of the brain, i.e. the intelligent, inventive mechanism that does the processing and coordinates the communication, enabling adaptation and quite possibly also innovation, I would stand alongside Crick and Watson in the Nobel pantheon. But I am glad you have used the expression “make appropriate choices”. Perhaps now you are “admitting” that cells make choices, as opposed to unfeelingly, unthinkingly, automatically following your God's preprogrammed instructions.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Monday, April 06, 2015, 15:12 (3517 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I think all organisms “understand” their surroundings, or they would not be able to survive. Why would that not apply to the earliest cells?-Your statement is correct. Your question is also correct, but doesn't answer the real issue, which we never can really approach: how did first life develop and include the ability to know its surroundings and respond properly, which it must do to survive. Stated another way develop a working living metabolism and a protective response mechanism all at the same time. Can't have one without the other. Still magic to me.- > dhw: Yes, there are different kinds of information everywhere, which is why I find it such a messy and confusing concept. My “favourite” scientists talk of the sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making cell. Clear distinctions, but you lump them all together, which I suppose makes it easier for you to assume automatism. -Never meant to be a 'lumper'. You have a problem with information, I don't. And my thoughts about automatism are not based on lumping, but on how responses to information are answered molecularly. > > dhw: What am I “admitting”? On board ‘information' IS the mechanism which processes the information that comes from the outside world. That's why I complain about this woolly use of the word. If I could describe the cell equivalent of the brain, i.e. the intelligent, inventive mechanism that does the processing and coordinates the communication, enabling adaptation and quite possibly also innovation, I would stand alongside Crick and Watson in the Nobel pantheon.-But the job is mostly done. The molecular reactions are mostly described, and the machinery in action is visualized. The issue is: was information used to create the automatic molecular reactions and now is not present as everything is functional, or is the genome reacting with information to be responsive in an ongoing way, as if it has a mind. I prefer the former interpretation, which implies design and God did it. the latter approach seems to avoid God and tries to expect that chance created the responsive abilities.-> dhw: But I am glad you have used the expression “make appropriate choices”. Perhaps now you are “admitting” that cells make choices, as opposed to unfeelingly, unthinkingly, automatically following your God's preprogrammed instructions.-Cells have a list of responses to choose from depending on the type and strength of stimuli. All automatic.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: ....how did first life develop and include the ability to know its surroundings and respond properly, which it must do to survive. Stated another way develop a working living metabolism and a protective response mechanism all at the same time. Can't have one without the other. Still magic to me.-Agreed. We also have to account for reproduction and innovation. It's as “magical” as a mind from nowhere that can create universes and bacteria. dhw: My “favourite” scientists talk of the sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making cell. Clear distinctions, but you lump them all together, which I suppose makes it easier for you to assume automatism. DAVID: ...my thoughts about automatism are not based on lumping, but on how responses to information are answered molecularly. -For you, the apparent sentience, cognition, communications and decision-making are all automatically governed by “information” your God has planted. You do not seem to distinguish between what is clearly automatic (perception of information through the equivalent of the senses) and individual cognition (the processing and use of such information) which is NOT clearly automatic.-dhw: If I could describe the cell equivalent of the brain, i.e. the intelligent, inventive mechanism that does the processing and coordinates the communication, enabling adaptation and quite possibly also innovation, I would stand alongside Crick and Watson in the Nobel pantheon. DAVID: But the job is mostly done. The molecular reactions are mostly described, and the machinery in action is visualized. The issue is: was information used to create the automatic molecular reactions and now is not present as everything is functional, or is the genome reacting with information to be responsive in an ongoing way, as if it has a mind. -More obfuscation with “information”! The “machinery in action” has indeed been described on all levels, from perception through to cognition, in bacteria as in humans. But we do not know the extent to which that “machinery” is automatic or autonomous, or how autonomy actually works. Hence the never-ending debate on human free will. The job is nowhere near done - for cells/cell communities or for humans.-DAVID: I prefer the former interpretation, which implies design and God did it. the latter approach seems to avoid God and tries to expect that chance created the responsive abilities.-Like evolution itself, the IM hypothesis neither rejects nor favours God, but the mechanism would have to be of astonishing complexity, and so your design argument would still apply. However, your anthropocentric view of God demands his complete control of evolution, and so you can't bear the thought that he might have given his invention a free hand! DAVID: Cells have a list of responses to choose from depending on the type and strength of stimuli. All automatic.-So 3.7 billion years ago, your God gave the first cells a list of possible responses to every future change in the environment, to be passed on through zillions of organisms so that 1% could automatically adapt and innovate, while 99% were preprogrammed to make the wrong choice (automatically) when certain changes took place. This particular human mind boggles.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 07, 2015, 15:12 (3516 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Agreed. We also have to account for reproduction and innovation. It's as “magical” as a mind from nowhere that can create universes and bacteria.-The problem for you is that only a mind can conceivable do it. An IM unless directed is back to hunt and peck. > > dhw: For you, the apparent sentience, cognition, communications and decision-making are all automatically governed by “information” your God has planted. You do not seem to distinguish between what is clearly automatic (perception of information through the equivalent of the senses) and individual cognition (the processing and use of such information) which is NOT clearly automatic.-It is clearly automatic to me and is demonstrated that way in the research. Your so-called cognition is the molecular response to stimuli, which stimuli are received by molecules. Molecules with a cortex? No, one molecule triggers another in series. All of life is like this except our consciousness and free will. > > dhw: More obfuscation with “information”! The “machinery in action” has indeed been described on all levels, from perception through to cognition, in bacteria as in humans. But we do not know the extent to which that “machinery” is automatic or autonomous, or how autonomy actually works. Hence the never-ending debate on human free will. The job is nowhere near done - for cells/cell communities or for humans.-You have your interpretation of biochemistry. I have mine.-> > dhw: Like evolution itself, the IM hypothesis neither rejects nor favours God, but the mechanism would have to be of astonishing complexity, and so your design argument would still apply. However, your anthropocentric view of God demands his complete control of evolution, and so you can't bear the thought that he might have given his invention a free hand!-Please remember, we have no idea if an IM even exists. We do see epigenetic alterations that are responsive to changes, and that is probably what the IM is. It implies any major change is environmentally dependent. There is no clear cut correlation for the 3.5 million years of human development. > > DAVID: Cells have a list of responses to choose from depending on the type and strength of stimuli. All automatic. > > dhw: So 3.7 billion years ago, your God gave the first cells a list of possible responses to every future change in the environment, to be passed on through zillions of organisms so that 1% could automatically adapt and innovate, while 99% were preprogrammed to make the wrong choice (automatically) when certain changes took place. This particular human mind boggles.-It should boggle. Your reasoning is wrong. There is no reason for multicellularity or for any change from just bacteria. I don't see evolution as a process that is anything but driven by a thinking and planning force, and I know you cannot explain why a life form that can have every imaginable form of extremophile bothered with the further complexity of multicellularity. Simply, the evolution we see had to be guided. There is no obvious reason for multicellularity with bacteria so successful. Your concept that those single cell guys knew everything from the beginning is not reasonable. I assume the multi forms got a further input of instructions as they had to do more complex forms of living. Only simple logic.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: You do not seem to distinguish between what is clearly automatic (perception of information through the equivalent of the senses) and individual cognition (the processing and use of such information) which is NOT clearly automatic. DAVID: It is clearly automatic to me and is demonstrated that way in the research. Your so-called cognition is the molecular response to stimuli, which stimuli are received by molecules. Molecules with a cortex? No, one molecule triggers another in series. All of life is like this except our consciousness and free will.-No-one claims that individual molecules have a brain! As you know perfectly well, the argument is that cells/cell communities have a brain equivalent which coordinates all the molecular activity. As for your final sentence, Shapiro says: “Large organisms chauvinism, we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.” (See also “Quorum sensing”)-DAVID: Please remember, we have no idea if an IM even exists. -Please remember, we have no idea if God even exists.-DAVID: We do see epigenetic alterations that are responsive to changes, and that is probably what the IM is. It implies any major change is environmentally dependent. -I have no doubt that major changes are environmentally dependent. An autonomous IM would adapt to or exploit new conditions. DAVID: Cells have a list of responses to choose from depending on the type and strength of stimuli. All automatic. dhw: So 3.7 billion years ago, your God gave the first cells a list of possible responses to every future change in the environment, to be passed on through zillions of organisms so that 1% could automatically adapt and innovate, while 99% were preprogrammed to make the wrong choice (automatically) when certain changes took place. This particular human mind boggles.-DAVID: It should boggle. Your reasoning is wrong. There is no reason for multicellularity or for any change from just bacteria. -We have always agreed on this. An autonomous inventive mechanism would explain the change. Some single cells remained single while others merged to launch multicellularity. -DAVID: Your concept that those single cell guys knew everything from the beginning is not reasonable. I assume the multi forms got a further input of instructions as they had to do more complex forms of living. Only simple logic.-This is a travesty! You have reversed my concept! My single cell guys did NOT know everything from the beginning. That is the whole point. They cooperated, and as the environment changed, so they adapted or innovated (or died). Hence the higgledy-piggledy extinctions, weird forms and lifestyles of evolution. It is you who had the little guys preprogrammed from the beginning with every conceivable adaptation and innovation, and your alternative was divine dabbling (now called “a further input of instructions...”), apparently supplemented by a list of options for cells to choose from. So did God preprogramme the weaverbird's nest in the first living cells, dabble, or let the weaverbird automatically choose one nest-plan from an inherited or newly presented list? Come to think of it, what is the point of a list to choose from if the very process of choosing is “all automatic”? Curiouser and curiouser.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 09, 2015, 01:56 (3515 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: No-one claims that individual molecules have a brain! As you know perfectly well, the argument is that cells/cell communities have a brain equivalent which coordinates all the molecular activity. As for your final sentence, Shapiro says: “Large organisms chauvinism, we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.” (See also “Quorum sensing”)-Same old problem: either the one celled act intelligently because they have a degree of it ,or they act intelligently because they are following implicit instructions. No one can tell which. > > DAVID: It should boggle. Your reasoning is wrong. There is no reason for multicellularity or for any change from just bacteria. > > dhw: We have always agreed on this. An autonomous inventive mechanism would explain the change. Some single cells remained single while others merged to launch multicellularity.-I have agreed but we still don't know why multicellularity happened by what process or for what reason. It is a difficult step for evolution, and offers a reason to consider design or guidance. - > dhw: You have reversed my concept! My single cell guys did NOT know everything from the beginning. That is the whole point. They cooperated, and as the environment changed, so they adapted or innovated (or died). Hence the higgledy-piggledy extinctions, weird forms and lifestyles of evolution. -It is a nice thesis. Finds a nice third way around God or UI guidance. Something makes all of life very inventive. I have my choice. you have yours.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: No-one claims that individual molecules have a brain! As you know perfectly well, the argument is that cells/cell communities have a brain equivalent which coordinates all the molecular activity. As for your final sentence, Shapiro says: “Large organisms chauvinism, we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.” (See also “Quorum sensing”)-DAVID: Same old problem: either the one celled act intelligently because they have a degree of it ,or they act intelligently because they are following implicit instructions. No one can tell which.-If no one knows, why do you keep insisting that they are automatons?-DAVID: There is no reason for multicellularity or for any change from just bacteria. dhw: An autonomous inventive mechanism would explain the change. Some single cells remained single while others merged to launch multicellularity.-DAVID: I have agreed but we still don't know why multicellularity happened by what process or for what reason. It is a difficult step for evolution, and offers a reason to consider design or guidance.-The reason would be self-improvement. I do not dismiss design or guidance. My problem is your vacillation over the concept of an inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) as opposed to preprogramming of the first cells or dabbling. Here you appear open to it, but in your post under “Quorum sensing” today, you are adamant that bacteria are automatons. In order to save unnecessary repetition, let me point out that under “Quorum sensing” you are as usual focusing on cell communities that are already established. The whole point of the “inventive mechanism” is that it is inventive, i.e. the hypothesis explains how innovations may have taken place, not how they function once they have proved successful. dhw: You have reversed my concept! My single cell guys did NOT know everything from the beginning. That is the whole point. They cooperated, and as the environment changed, so they adapted or innovated (or died). Hence the higgledy-piggledy extinctions, weird forms and lifestyles of evolution. -DAVID: It is a nice thesis. Finds a nice third way around God or UI guidance. Something makes all of life very inventive. I have my choice. you have yours.-Yet again, it does not have to find a way round God. We still need to find a source. And you can even have a bit of guidance through the occasional dabble. But continuous dabbling = Creationism. Your choice depends on your belief (a) that God set out to create humans, and (b) that he knew right from the start how to do it. This has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with belief in God. It is entirely based on your attempt to read the mind of your God - the very danger you keep warning the rest of us to avoid! I would still like to know whether you think your God preprogrammed the first cells with the weaverbird's nest, dabbled, or gave the bird a list of options while at the same time preprogramming its choice.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 09, 2015, 20:04 (3514 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Same old problem: either the one celled act intelligently because they have a degree of it ,or they act intelligently because they are following implicit instructions. No one can tell which. > > dhw: If no one knows, why do you keep insisting that they are automatons?-Very easy: my choice between the only two possibilities is they respond automatically- > DAVID: I have agreed but we still don't know why multicellularity happened by what process or for what reason. It is a difficult step for evolution, and offers a reason to consider design or guidance. > > dhw: The reason would be self-improvement. I do not dismiss design or guidance. My problem is your vacillation over the concept of an inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) as opposed to preprogramming of the first cells or dabbling. -My vacillation is because I don't know. And picking a choice is not a solution. You should understand that as an agnostic.- > dhw: The whole point of the “inventive mechanism” is that it is inventive, i.e. the hypothesis explains how innovations may have taken place, not how they function once they have proved successful.-We have invented an IM, but we don't know if, in fact, it exists, except for the evidence of epigenetic modifications which are responses to challenges, and not necessarily an advance in evolution to more refinement and complexity. > > dhw: Yet again, it does not have to find a way round God. We still need to find a source. And you can even have a bit of guidance through the occasional dabble. But continuous dabbling = Creationism. .... It is entirely based on your attempt to read the mind of your God - the very danger you keep warning the rest of us to avoid!-I don't warn about attempting to read God's intentions, understanding or describing His personality is what I try to avoid. I've said He intends to have humans. > > dhw: I would still like to know whether you think your God preprogrammed the first cells with the weaverbird's nest, dabbled, or gave the bird a list of options while at the same time preprogramming its choice.-And once again I will assume your role. I am agnostic on the point. I will accept the point that God invented a very clever inventive type of living matter.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: Same old problem: either the one celled act intelligently because they have a degree of it ,or they act intelligently because they are following implicit instructions. No one can tell which. dhw: If no one knows, why do you keep insisting that they are automatons?-DAVID: Very easy: my choice between the only two possibilities is they respond automatically.-Twice below you have danced away from tricky questions by claiming agnosticism. In this particular case, the somewhat unenlightening reason you have given for your choice is that it is your choice.-dhw: I do not dismiss design or guidance. My problem is your vacillation over the concept of an inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) as opposed to preprogramming of the first cells or dabbling. DAVID: My vacillation is because I don't know. And picking a choice is not a solution. You should understand that as an agnostic.-Then please stop choosing automatism over autonomy and keep an open mind.-dhw: The whole point of the “inventive mechanism” is that it is inventive, i.e. the hypothesis explains how innovations may have taken place, not how they function once they have proved successful. DAVID: We have invented an IM, but we don't know if, in fact, it exists, except for the evidence of epigenetic modifications which are responses to challenges, and not necessarily an advance in evolution to more refinement and complexity.-Once again, nobody knows how innovations take place. But we do know that organisms can adapt by changing their structures, so maybe the same mechanism can also innovate. And we have invented a UI, but we don't know if, in fact, it exists. In all cases, we can only deal in hypotheses.-dhw: I would still like to know whether you think your God preprogrammed the first cells with the weaverbird's nest, dabbled, or gave the bird a list of options while at the same time preprogramming its choice.-DAVID: And once again I will assume your role. I am agnostic on the point. I will accept the point that God invented a very clever inventive type of living matter.-I wish I could rely on your acceptance, but tomorrow you will tell us that cells and cell communities are automatons obeying instructions - i.e. the very opposite of clever, inventive types of living matter. I also wish you would acknowledge that the three above choices are your alternatives to an autonomous inventive mechanism, and the first and third are frankly pretty absurd. So too is dabbling at weaverbird-nest level. These are the unlikely-sounding options covered by your “design” and your “guidance”. That is why I keep trying to pin you down, and no doubt why you always avoid giving me a direct answer.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 14, 2015, 00:15 (3510 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:Then please stop choosing automatism over autonomy and keep an open mind.-Very bluntly I have been taught in med school that our organs cells are automatic. I see no difference in what I have seen in the research about one-celled creatures. I will repeat for one last time. No one can tell the difference between automatic responses to stimuli or chosen responses guided by the DNA. In the latter possibility, the cells may well be offered simple algorisms to follow which allow for slightly different results based on the strength and quality of the stimuli. I categorically state there are no other known alternative response mechanisms to stimuli. > > dhw: Once again, nobody knows how innovations take place. But we do know that organisms can adapt by changing their structures, so maybe the same mechanism can also innovate. And we have invented a UI, but we don't know if, in fact, it exists. In all cases, we can only deal in hypotheses.-I have agreed with this statement. I've invented the UI. You haven't bought into it but have agreed to its possibility. In the same way there may be some degree of an IM. Since no one really knows, this is a good point to agree to go no further. > > dhw: I wish I could rely on your acceptance, but tomorrow you will tell us that cells and cell communities are automatons obeying instructions - i.e. the very opposite of clever, inventive types of living matter.-Life appears to be very inventive. Unfortunately we don't know how that inventiveness works. We know natural selection plays a refereeing role. I don't agree with the concept of a totally autonomous IM. I firmly accept the conclusion that both evolution of life and of the universe are guided by God. I reached that conclusion about 20 years ago and have seen nothing in new science discoveries to change my mind.-> dhw: I also wish you would acknowledge that the three above choices are your alternatives to an autonomous inventive mechanism,....That is why I keep trying to pin you down, and no doubt why you always avoid giving me a direct answer.-I think my answers are quite direct.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
The main thrust of this debate is repeated under “Origin of Language”, so I am going to summarize the whole discussion from my point of view, rather than answer each point separately. I agree that our organs function automatically. The hypothesis of the intelligent cell is that it is capable of invention, but once an invention functions (i.e. a cell community has reorganized itself), it automatically repeats itself. This process is clearly to be seen in adaptation: an organism (community of cell communities) will remain the same until conditions demand a change, and then the cell communities cooperate intelligently to make the necessary adjustments, so that the organism can survive as itself. (Some don't, and they perish.) In this context, you insist on sticking to what you know (automatic cell behaviour), whereas I am offering an explanation for innovation through what is not known, namely the capacity of cells/cell communities to invent as well as to adapt. You only seem willing to hypothesize about the unknown if you can call it God. The argument that cells are capable of thought, which underlies my IM hypothesis, has been supported by many researchers in the field, but you do not accept their findings. For your alternatives, please see “Origin of Language”. An autonomous mechanism (whether invented by God or not) would explain the haphazard history of evolution as well as the jumps, since non-functioning innovations would not survive. However, you believe God either preprogrammed or guided evolution (dabbled) through every innovation from bacteria to humans, who were his purpose for starting life in the first place. This does not allow for haphazardness. We have reached a dead end, as you have made it clear that even a God-designed autonomous inventive mechanism is out of the question for you. However, you have acknowledged in the past that no-one can tell the difference between automatic responses and autonomous, intelligent responses. So long as there are scientists who argue in favour of sentient, cognitive, decision-making cells/cell communities, and no satisfactory solution has been found to the mystery of innovation, my hypothesis has to remain a possibility.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 21:04 (3508 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We have reached a dead end, as you have made it clear that even a God-designed autonomous inventive mechanism is out of the question for you. However, you have acknowledged in the past that no-one can tell the difference between automatic responses and autonomous, intelligent responses. So long as there are scientists who argue in favour of sentient, cognitive, decision-making cells/cell communities, and no satisfactory solution has been found to the mystery of innovation, my hypothesis has to remain a possibility.-It still depends upon the word sentient, which can mean an automatic response to stimuli. As tis article shows multicellular cells can communicate just like bacteria in quorum sensing. Why not? Cells that are 'uni' learned first and when they joined logically they carried the same abilities to the 'multi' state:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hair-regrowth-discovery-suggests-skin-cells-communicate-like-bacteria/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20150415-"Bacteria chatter among themselves. A chemical signaling system called quorum sensing allows those single-celled bugs to detect when their numbers have multiplied enough to mount an effective attack or emit glowing light. Yet decades after scientists learned about this brainless bacterial coordination a research team has uncovered new evidence suggesting animal cells may speak the same lingo."-All by chemical reactions, under the control of DNA instructions.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: We have reached a dead end, as you have made it clear that even a God-designed autonomous inventive mechanism is out of the question for you. However, you have acknowledged in the past that no-one can tell the difference between automatic responses and autonomous, intelligent responses. So long as there are scientists who argue in favour of sentient, cognitive, decision-making cells/cell communities, and no satisfactory solution has been found to the mystery of innovation, my hypothesis has to remain a possibility.-DAVID: It still depends upon the word sentient, which can mean an automatic response to stimuli. -I gave you three adjectives, and you selected one. “Sentient” is the least problematical. Of course cells/cell communities are sentient - you cannot respond to the environment if you can't sense it in some way, and for the most part I would say this IS automatic. It's the use that is made of perceptions that brings cognition and decision-making into play.-DAVID: As tis article shows multicellular cells can communicate just like bacteria in quorum sensing. Why not? Cells that are 'uni' learned first and when they joined logically they carried the same abilities to the 'multi' state:-Yes, indeed, and these abilities may include autonomous cognition and decision-making.-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hair-regrowth-discovery-suggests-skin-cells-c...-QUOTE: "Bacteria chatter among themselves. A chemical signaling system called quorum sensing allows those single-celled bugs to detect when their numbers have multiplied enough to mount an effective attack or emit glowing light. Yet decades after scientists learned about this brainless bacterial coordination a research team has uncovered new evidence suggesting animal cells may speak the same lingo."-DAVID: All by chemical reactions, under the control of DNA instructions.-Our own responses and decisions also involve chemical reactions. The question is what controls them, and “DNA instructions” does not answer the question. “Brainless” is fair enough, but we simply do not know if cells/cell communities have the EQUIVALENT of a brain, i.e. a control centre that coordinates the responses and the decision-making. Your dog has a degree of cognitive ability, though it is far smaller than your own. Nevertheless, it is capable of certain responses that are beyond you, because for example it has a vastly superior sense of smell and hearing. No-one is claiming that cells have human-type intelligence, but you know from Nature's Wonders and from your own body that cell communities can cooperate to accomplish astonishing feats even without your great intellect. In fact, we don't actually know the extent to which our human intelligence is autonomous. If we did, there would be no debate about free will. My point is that all forms of life have their own special kind of intelligence, and since we know that cells/cell communities can do their own adapting, we cannot - as you do - exclude the possibility that they can also do their own inventing.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, April 17, 2015, 01:13 (3507 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Of course cells/cell communities are sentient - you cannot respond to the environment if you can't sense it in some way, and for the most part I would say this IS automatic. It's the use that is made of perceptions that brings cognition and decision-making into play.-Cognition is the act by the chemical receptors that recognized the sensed chemical/ chemicals. The articles describe this as a series of molecular reactions. Then the response is another series of chemical reactions. There is nothing else described. Since DNA controls the cell, these molecular reactions are under DNA control. > > DAVID: As tis article shows multicellular cells can communicate just like bacteria in quorum sensing. Why not? Cells that are 'uni' learned first and when they joined logically they carried the same abilities to the 'multi' state: > > dhw: Yes, indeed, and these abilities may include autonomous cognition and decision-making.-That is your version which does not fit the articles describing the reactions. > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hair-regrowth-discovery-suggests-skin-cells-c... > QUOTE: "Bacteria chatter among themselves. A chemical signaling system called quorum sensing allows those single-celled bugs to detect when their numbers have multiplied enough to mount an effective attack or emit glowing light. Yet decades after scientists learned about this brainless bacterial coordination a research team has uncovered new evidence suggesting animal cells may speak the same lingo." > > Repeated: DAVID: All by chemical reactions, under the control of DNA instructions. > > dhw: Our own responses and decisions also involve chemical reactions. The question is what controls them, and “DNA instructions” does not answer the question. “Brainless” is fair enough, but we simply do not know if cells/cell communities have the EQUIVALENT of a brain, i.e. a control centre that coordinates the responses and the decision-making.-'Brainless' is all we know. Nothing else has been demonstrated. DNA (implying all the known parts of the genome) is the only known functioning control system. If there is anything else there is no overt evidence of it.-> dhw: ....you know from Nature's Wonders and from your own body that cell communities can cooperate to accomplish astonishing feats even without your great intellect. In fact, we don't actually know the extent to which our human intelligence is autonomous. If we did, there would be no debate about free will.-The best view of free will is to realize we are using living computer and so there are chemical reactions in neurons that we do not control, but I know I have free will.-> dhw: My point is that all forms of life have their own special kind of intelligence, and since we know that cells/cell communities can do their own adapting, we cannot - as you do - exclude the possibility that they can also do their own inventing.-I've never said organisms can't invent. We see epigenetics. There is evidence they do, but invention of complex changes involving, for example, making a leg from a fin is beyond the epigenetic responses we've seen so far. So is arranging for a larynx, a tongue and a palate that can speak. Therefore, looking at epigenetics as a possibility for inventiveness is a matter of what degree of complexity it can produce.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
I'll quote some of your responses, which will suffice to illustrate the point I am trying to make.-DAVID: That is your version which does not fit the articles describing the reactions.-DAVID: 'Brainless' is all we know. Nothing else has been demonstrated. DNA (implying all the known parts of the genome) is the only known functioning control system. If there is anything else there is no overt evidence of it.-DAVID: I've never said organisms can't invent. We see epigenetics. There is evidence they do, but invention of complex changes involving, for example, making a leg from a fin is beyond the epigenetic responses we've seen so far. So is arranging for a larynx, a tongue and a palate that can speak. Therefore, looking at epigenetics as a possibility for inventiveness is a matter of what degree of complexity it can produce.-"Invent" = create something that never existed before. You have told us that the weaverbird, the monarch and the spider are not capable of inventing their nest, lifestyle or silk. Perhaps you could give us an example of a genuine innovation you think organisms have invented without God's direct instructions or intervention.-Nobody knows how complex changes took place. It is pointless quoting articles and saying they do not indicate an autonomous IM. Of course they don't. (In any case, you dismiss other articles which argue that bacteria are cognitive and take their own decisions.) If we knew there was an autonomous inventive mechanism, there wouldn't be a problem. And if we knew that God existed and had preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest, there wouldn't be a problem either. All we can do is offer hypothetical explanations. I'm not disputing that the control system would be within the genome, and maybe epigenetics will provide an answer. What I object to is your categorical rejection of even the possibility of an autonomous IM.-Under “Origin of Language” you write: "I have also said that life is very inventive and I have allowed for a semi-autonomous IM." Life is not inventive. Life does not exist independently of living organisms. Each invention must take place within an organism. Either the organism creates its own inventions or God does, by preprogramming or dabbling. “Semi-autonomy” is meaningless, unless you reject any kind of autonomy on the grounds that all actions and decisions are subject to restrictions beyond the control of the organism (which includes ourselves and our free will). If the weaverbird's nest is beyond the capability of the organism itself, that leaves God to organize it.-DHW: I have offered you God as the possible inventor of the mechanism. You mean you'll stick with your hugely hopeful, awfully iffy 3.7-billion-year computer programme and an occasional dabble.-David: No, I've accepted the possibility of a semi-autonomous IM. Based on our current knowledge of epigenetics, I don't think we can know how much complexity can be developed by an IM.-By “no” do you mean you have now finally recognized the unreasonableness of the first cells passing on a 3.7-billion-year programme for all innovations? That is encouraging. And yet even though we don't or can't know how much complexity can be developed by an IM, you refuse to accept the possibility of autonomy. We don't or can't know whether God exists or not, or whether we have free will or not, and yet you wrote: “I know I have free will.” Autonomous or semi-autonomous? (Your answer to this could be quite revealing!)-To sum up, the problem is innovation. Nobody has observed it, but it has to take place within existing organisms unless you believe in separate creation. It is as pointless to say that current research has not revealed an autonomous inventive mechanism as it would be to say current research has not revealed the presence of a universal intelligence that turned fins into legs. Until the mystery is solved, we can only speculate and should therefore keep an open mind.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, April 17, 2015, 19:11 (3506 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: "Invent" = create something that never existed before. ... Perhaps you could give us an example of a genuine innovation you think organisms have invented without God's direct instructions or intervention.-I think it should be apparent, I think God guided evolution, and therefore had a hand in the complex developments, i.e., inventions, that led to humans. I have held this position all along. Epigenetics shows us rather modest alterations that can be inherited. It does not seem there is time enough for such small changes to make giant complex advances, just as random mutation which has the same problem. > > dhw: Nobody knows how complex changes took place. ... (In any case, you dismiss other articles which argue that bacteria are cognitive and take their own decisions.)-I dismiss those conclusions. I view cells as receiving stimuli, interpreting them by chains of molecular reactions and choose their appropriate responses from a given list. I and others think it is automatic. You have admitted one cannot tell the difference.-> dhw: What I object to is your categorical rejection of even the possibility of an autonomous IM.-I will continue to reject it throughout further discussion. Again, God guided evolution > > dhw: Under “Origin of Language” you write: "I have also said that life is very inventive and I have allowed for a semi-autonomous IM." Life is not inventive. Life does not exist independently of living organisms. Each invention must take place within an organism. I use the time 'life' to refer to the emergent property that we call 'living' matter. That property has the ability to self-modify to a degree.-> dhw: “Semi-autonomy” is meaningless, unless you reject any kind of autonomy on the grounds that all actions and decisions are subject to restrictions beyond the control of the organism (which includes ourselves and our free will). If the weaverbird's nest is beyond the capability of the organism itself, that leaves God to organize it.-Of the nest, that is my view. Somehow God has offered means of adaptation (epigenetics), but major modifications are definitely guided by His instructions. Why you have to insert free will, I find unreasonable. Our brain is a living computer. We can't control each individual cell as it performs its biochemistry, but we can modify the brain by thought process. It has plasticity built in from its beginning. My childhood piano playing modified an area that controlled my fingers and my understanding of the music sheet. My answer to you is freely my own answer, not God driving me to argue with you. And so a meaningful 'semi-autonomous' is all I can give you. > > DHW: I have offered you God as the possible inventor of the mechanism. You mean you'll stick with your hugely hopeful, awfully iffy 3.7-billion-year computer programme and an occasional dabble. > > David: No, I've accepted the possibility of a semi-autonomous IM. Based on our current knowledge of epigenetics, I don't think we can know how much complexity can be developed by an IM. > > dhw: By “no” do you mean you have now finally recognized the unreasonableness of the first cells passing on a 3.7-billion-year programme for all innovations? That is encouraging.-I am still in my same position. Full directions or dabbling, I don't know which or whether both. You want me to choose and I can't. Why do I have to choose. I am content with this statement: God guided evolution. Period.->dhw: And yet even though we don't or can't know how much complexity can be developed by an IM, you refuse to accept the possibility of autonomy.-That is my position.-> dhw: We don't or can't know whether God exists or not, or whether we have free will or not, and yet you wrote: “I know I have free will.” Autonomous or semi-autonomous? (Your answer to this could be quite revealing!)-You don't know God exists or not. My position is that He certainly does. Remember 'faith'? I've answered the free will issue above. Our biologic computer suits me just fine. I use it independently all the time, and so do you, and I do have the capability to alter it, so it functions better for my purposes. > > dhw: To sum up, the problem is innovation. Nobody has observed it..-My mind is decided. God guided evolution. For me the only reasonable conclusion. You are absolutely correct. No one has observed speciation since the time of Darwin. Variation, yes, surprisingly different new organisms from old, no.-Now questions for you. I have presented a video showing the complexity of the single cell in a multicellular animal, to which you have made no response. I will tell you that single-celled animals are as complex in their own way. Would you care to comment on how you think that complexity developed? Think of how complex multicellular single-cell cooperation must be. Automatically developed or guided? I saw the cooperation of cells and organs in my med school studies. Overwhelmingly complex. Automatically developed or guided? I know your answer. 'No-one knows'. True, but chance cannot take inorganic material, and then create life to this level of complexity without purpose and planning. It requires mentation. There is no other conclusion. You are striving for an 'automatic' solution as did Darwin. The knowledge of the complexity will keep on growing from his simple concepts. How much complexity do you need before you recognize teleology is at work?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: Nobody knows how complex changes took place. ... (In any case, you dismiss other articles which argue that bacteria are cognitive and take their own decisions.) DAVID: I dismiss those conclusions. I view cells as receiving stimuli, interpreting them by chains of molecular reactions and choose their appropriate responses from a given list. I and others think it is automatic. You have admitted one cannot tell the difference.-In most situations there is a limited choice of responses, if that is what you mean by a “given list”. You think humans make a free choice (autonomous), but you can hardly talk of bacteria ”choosing” if the choice is automatic! You ask later why I mention free will. It is because many people use the same arguments to oppose human autonomy as you use to oppose bacterial autonomy (it's all chemical responses governed by conditions we cannot control). If “one cannot tell the difference”, perhaps one should keep an open mind in both cases. But somehow you know we are autonomous and bacteria are not.-dhw: By “no” do you mean you have now finally recognized the unreasonableness of the first cells passing on a 3.7-billion-year programme for all innovations? That is encouraging. DAVID: I am still in my same position. Full directions or dabbling, I don't know which or whether both. You want me to choose and I can't. Why do I have to choose. I am content with this statement: God guided evolution. Period.-I have never asked you to choose between preprogramming and dabbling. I only ask you to recognize that “guidance” = God preprogramming the first living cells with every single innovation, including the weaverbird's nest, to be passed down over 3.7 thousand million years through zillions of organisms and environmental changes, or God stepping in to instruct each organism (including the weaverbird) on how to produce its invention. “Guidance” glosses over the unlikelihood, as does “semi-autonomous”. I find it surprising that you regard these hypotheses as reasonable but totally reject the hypothesis that your God might have endowed organisms with the ability to do their own inventing. DAVID: Now questions for you. I have presented a video showing the complexity of the single cell in a multicellular animal, to which you have made no response. I will tell you that single-celled animals are as complex in their own way. Would you care to comment on how you think that complexity developed? [...] Overwhelmingly complex. Automatically developed or guided? I know your answer. 'No-one knows'. True, but chance cannot take inorganic material, and then create life to this level of complexity without purpose and planning. It requires mentation. [...] How much complexity do you need before you recognize teleology is at work?-Has there ever been a single moment in our correspondence when I have not acknowledged complexity? It is a prime reason why I am not an atheist, and if I were discussing the subject with an atheist, I would use the same arguments as you. How do I think that complexity developed? By single cells combining and cooperating intelligently with other cells. But as always you change the subject from how evolution works to the origin of life and the inevitable attack on “chance”, which has never been a matter of dispute between us. I have dealt with “teleology” many times before: the purpose is survival and/or self-improvement. Divine purpose? An open question. Xxxxxxxx-Thank you for the Feynman quote, which is a gem: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything." -And a special thank you for the essay by Stephen L. Talbott, which I will have to comment on another time. Very meaty!
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 19, 2015, 15:37 (3504 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In most situations there is a limited choice of responses, if that is what you mean by a “given list”. You think humans make a free choice (autonomous), but you can hardly talk of bacteria ”choosing” if the choice is automatic! You ask later why I mention free will. It is because many people use the same arguments to oppose human autonomy as you use to oppose bacterial autonomy (it's all chemical responses governed by conditions we cannot control). If “one cannot tell the difference”, perhaps one should keep an open mind in both cases. But somehow you know we are autonomous and bacteria are not.-I make up new thoughts and proposals all the time. Note the article on Sam Harris' book. Your referral to the short-sided view of how our brain works has no relevance to me. I don't accept it, and it is a very poor comparison to bacterial thought process, which doesn't exist.-> > I have never asked you to choose between preprogramming and dabbling. ..... I find it surprising that you regard these hypotheses as reasonable but totally reject the hypothesis that your God might have endowed organisms with the ability to do their own inventing.-You constantly skip over my conclusion that humans were the end point of evolution. If organisms did their own fully free inventing, humans might never appear. We are back at chance. The bush of life is strange enough as it is, but we've talked about balance of nature.-> > dhw; Has there ever been a single moment in our correspondence when I have not acknowledged complexity? It is a prime reason why I am not an atheist, and if I were discussing the subject with an atheist, I would use the same arguments as you. How do I think that complexity developed? By single cells combining and cooperating intelligently with other cells.-And how did single cells develop the intelligence to produce complex 'multicells' like humans? Do you really understand the uber-complexity that is still under discovery? The issue re' complexity is that research shows a continuous steep climbing graph of overwhelming complexity with each new study. How much complexity do you need before recognizing that planning intelligence is needed to be behind it? -> > Xxxxxxxx > > dhw: Thank you for the Feynman quote, which is a gem: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything." > > And a special thank you for the essay by Stephen L. Talbott, which I will have to comment on another time. Very meaty!-Try Denton also!
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: ...many people use the same arguments to oppose human autonomy as you use to oppose bacterial autonomy (it's all chemical responses governed by conditions we cannot control). If “one cannot tell the difference”, perhaps one should keep an open mind in both cases. DAVID: I make up new thoughts and proposals all the time. Note the article on Sam Harris' book. Your referral to the short-sided view of how our brain works has no relevance to me. I don't accept it, and it is a very poor comparison to bacterial thought process, which doesn't exist.-Scientists like Margulis, McClintock, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler etc. tell us that bacteria make up new “thoughts” (but not human-type thinking) and proposals all the time. You are of course free to reject their findings, but please see my responses to the Talbott and Harris articles. -dhw: I have never asked you to choose between preprogramming and dabbling. ..... I find it surprising that you regard these hypotheses as reasonable but totally reject the hypothesis that your God might have endowed organisms with the ability to do their own inventing. DAVID: You constantly skip over my conclusion that humans were the end point of evolution. If organisms did their own fully free inventing, humans might never appear. We are back at chance. The bush of life is strange enough as it is, but we've talked about balance of nature.-I have never skipped your conclusion, and have repeatedly pointed out that this anthropocentric view of evolution is what blinds you to the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings. Wearing my theist cap, I have conceded the possibility of divine dabbling, but that would indicate things going wrong, changes of plan, or improvisation, which you can't tolerate because of your fixed ideas about God's infallibility. Your alternative is the preprogramming of every single innovation, allowing for every single change in the environment - a scenario you gloss over with “guidance”. “Balance of nature” is another gloss. We all acknowledge its necessity and its constant changes, but it doesn't support the argument that the zillions of species extinct and extant were necessary for the production of humans. DAVID: And how did single cells develop the intelligence to produce complex 'multicells' like humans? Do you really understand the uber-complexity that is still under discovery? [...] How much complexity do you need before recognizing that planning intelligence is needed to be behind it? -I am aware of the über-complexity, and I don't know how single cells developed the intelligence etc. Nobody knows. How did primal energy acquire its intelligence and its knowledge of how to create universes and life? Nobody knows. But mumble “first cause” and you think the unanswerable question can simply be ignored.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Monday, April 20, 2015, 22:36 (3503 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have never skipped your conclusion, and have repeatedly pointed out that this anthropocentric view of evolution is what blinds you to the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings.-But you do skip. Mine is a coherent theory where every part fits my concept.-> dhw: Wearing my theist cap, I have conceded the possibility of divine dabbling, but that would indicate things going wrong, changes of plan, or improvisation, which you can't tolerate because of your fixed ideas about God's infallibility.-I don't know that God is infallible. My concept of 'dabbling' is since there is some degree of epigenetic responsiveness to stress, He may have to step in to keep things on course.-> dhw: Your alternative is the preprogramming of every single innovation, allowing for every single change in the environment - a scenario you gloss over with “guidance”.-Of course He guides. -> dhw: “Balance of nature” is another gloss. We all acknowledge its necessity and its constant changes, but it doesn't support the argument that the zillions of species extinct and extant were necessary for the production of humans.-Remember, I've accepted the idea that God used evolution to produce humans. The observation of balance makes perfect sense. Why the 'balance' had to be so broad has never been clear to me, but it is what we observe, and therefore I conclude it must be necessary It is also why I think 'dabbling' is necessary, to keep evolution on its desired track to humans. As you see, all of my theory fits its parts.-> > dhw: I am aware of the über-complexity, and I don't know how single cells developed the intelligence etc. Nobody knows. How did primal energy acquire its intelligence and its knowledge of how to create universes and life? Nobody knows. But mumble “first cause” and you think the unanswerable question can simply be ignored.-I'm not ignoring the problem. I believe there is God. You don't like the answer.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: “Balance of nature” is another gloss. We all acknowledge its necessity and its constant changes, but it doesn't support the argument that the zillions of species extinct and extant were necessary for the production of humans.-DAVID: Remember, I've accepted the idea that God used evolution to produce humans. The observation of balance makes perfect sense. Why the 'balance' had to be so broad has never been clear to me, but it is what we observe, and therefore I conclude it must be necessary It is also why I think 'dabbling' is necessary, to keep evolution on its desired track to humans. As you see, all of my theory fits its parts.-Your theory, as I understand it, is that God created the universe and life in order to produce human beings. The universe consists of billions of galaxies and stars that come and go. It is not clear why all these billions of galaxies and coming-and-going stars are/were necessary for the production of humans, but this is what we observe, God knows what he's doing, and so your theory fits the billions of galaxies and stars. In order to produce humans, God preprogrammed the first living cells with the weaverbird and its nest, the spider and its silk, the monarch and its weird lifestyle. It is not clear why these were necessary for the production of humans, but they are what we observe, God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the weaverbird, the spider and the monarch. In order to produce human beings, God preprogrammed millions of other organisms, 99% of which have now disappeared. It is not clear why these were necessary for the production of humans, but they hung around for millions of years and then they died, God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the 99% of organisms that are now extinct. It's possible that God dabbled to keep evolution on course for production of humans. It is not clear why he would have to dabble if everything was preprogrammed, but since it is not clear what control he exercised over changes in the environment, maybe he had to counteract those, or...well...who knows why he would have had to dabble? It's just not clear. But God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the need to dabble. Your theory fits its parts, except that it's not clear how your theory fits its parts.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 01:26 (3502 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Your theory, as I understand it, is that God created the universe and life in order to produce human beings..... God knows what he's doing, and so your theory fits the billions of galaxies and stars. In order to produce humans, God preprogrammed the first living cells with the weaverbird and its nest, the spider and its silk, the monarch and its weird lifestyle. It is not clear why these were necessary for the production of humans, but they are what we observe, God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the weaverbird, the spider and the monarch. ....It's possible that God dabbled to keep evolution on course for production of humans. It is not clear why he would have to dabble if everything was preprogrammed, but since it is not clear what control he exercised over changes in the environment, maybe he had to counteract those, or...well...who knows why he would have had to dabble? It's just not clear. But God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the need to dabble. Your theory fits its parts, except that it's not clear how your theory fits its parts.-It is not clear to you but it is to me, just as you have stated. God guided evolution, because only a planning mind can explain what we see. All the extraneous stuff you worry about is what we see, Accept it and return to the obvious. It has to be planned. Remember no intermediate steps, only large leaps. One must take into account all evidence, not just the confusing parts that have no rational explanation that we can reach at this time, as to why God allowed life to develop all the weird branches of the bush, such as whales, which make no sense as to why they are here.-Back to the whales: eight steps (species) with enormous body form changes, i.e., pelvis but no tail bones. Respiratory changes: no mouth breathing but out of a hole in the back of the neck! Enormous increase in myoglobin (holds oxygen in muscles) for deep sea diving; can't breathe down there. Special kidney physiology; different internal organization; must hyper-concentrate electrolytes (especially sodium)because of living in salt water. Also special expulsion muscles to produce urine at under water pressures. Finally don't drink, but extract water from diet. Whew!-http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Facademic.keystone.edu%2FJSkinner%2FThe_Anatomy_and_Physiology_of_Toothed_and_Baleen.ppt&ei=Me82Va7wK5W1yAT7hYCgDA&usg=AFQjCNG4X9x3LfDF0aOihUV0x9Gj0pnzxw&sig2=FugkVFBAcJ0X8ITufgMfjg-And the way the calf nurses for sometimes more than a year is through a special tongue that acts like a straw! No lips for sucking!-http://www.insideseaworld.com/baby-dolphin-nursing-how-do-they-do-it-Life started at sea, advanced to land, and then some mammals went back again. What kind of advancement planning is that? And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
Dhw: Your theory fits its parts, except that it's not clear how your theory fits its parts.-DAVID: It is not clear to you but it is to me, just as you have stated. God guided evolution, because only a planning mind can explain what we see. All the extraneous stuff you worry about is what we see, Accept it and return to the obvious. It has to be planned. Remember no intermediate steps, only large leaps. One must take into account all evidence, not just the confusing parts that have no rational explanation that we can reach at this time, as to why God allowed life to develop all the weird branches of the bush, such as whales, which make no sense as to why they are here.-One must take into account all the evidence for the theory, but one must ignore all the evidence that makes no sense in the light of the theory! -DAVID: Life started at sea, advanced to land, and then some mammals went back again. What kind of advancement planning is that? And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts.-The usual misunderstanding: I do not “want” anything. The wanting is done by you, because you want the evidence to fit in with your belief that God planned life for the sake of humans. You admit yourself that in that case "all the stuff we see" - the billions of galaxies, the vast variety of life forms, 99% of which are extinct - doesn't make sense. Unlike you, I have no preconceived theory to which I want to fit the evidence, and I am perfectly aware of the enormous demands on an IM, especially if it was not designed by God in the first place. I put the IM forward as a hypothesis, not a belief, and instead of the fulfilment of a pre-existing plan, it proposes continuous improvisation, experimentation, innovation, improvement, always at the level of individual organisms or groups of organisms responding to environmental change (or in many cases, failing to respond adequately). It's a scenario that explains the haphazardness of evolution but still allows for the possible existence of your God, who might be the designer of the IM and might also have intervened when he felt like it. What it doesn't explain is why your God would specifically plan the amazing complexities of the whale in order to produce humans.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 23, 2015, 18:39 (3500 days ago) @ dhw
David One must take into account all evidence, not just the confusing parts that have no rational explanation that we can reach at this time, as to why God allowed life to develop all the weird branches of the bush, such as whales, which make no sense as to why they are here.[/i] > > dhw: One must take into account all the evidence for the theory, but one must ignore all the evidence that makes no sense in the light of the theory! -You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't. I look at conscious humans which are an extremely unexplained result of an evolutionary process. I see this as purposeful. That the process produced a weird bush doesn't disturb me as it does you. Do you really want explanations for everything. Darwin folks make up just-so stories to do that, protecting their theory. I don't. > > DAVID: Life started at sea, advanced to land, and then some mammals went back again. What kind of advancement planning is that? And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts. > > dhw: The usual misunderstanding: I do not “want” anything. The wanting is done by you, because you want the evidence to fit in with your belief that God planned life for the sake of humans.-You do 'want' an IM. You developed it to help you explain what none of us fully understand, innovation, so you don't have to accept a planning mind, the only thing that makes sense to me. Remember, we cannot ever prove that 'mind'.-> dhw: I put the IM forward as a hypothesis, not a belief, and instead of the fulfilment of a pre-existing plan, it proposes continuous improvisation, experimentation, innovation, improvement, always at the level of individual organisms or groups of organisms responding to environmental change (or in many cases, failing to respond adequately). It's a scenario that explains the haphazardness of evolution but still allows for the possible existence of your God, who might be the designer of the IM and might also have intervened when he felt like it. What it doesn't explain is why your God would specifically plan the amazing complexities of the whale in order to produce humans.-Your hypothesis helps you remain non-committed, something I understand you cannot do. I don't know that whales play a role in achieving humans. I use them as an example of evolutionary complexities that defy explanation or of the possibility of the role of a totally independent IM.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't. I look at conscious humans which are an extremely unexplained result of an evolutionary process. I see this as purposeful. That the process produced a weird bush doesn't disturb me as it does you. Do you really want explanations for everything. Darwin folks make up just-so stories to do that, protecting their theory. I don't.-I will never get explanations for everything, but trying to make sense of the world we live in is the common ground that brought us together in the first place. Darwin folks make up a just-so story about random mutations. You make up a just-so story about a nebulous super-mind preprogramming the first cells with every innovation (or fiddling around with individual organisms to keep them on course). I make up a just-so story about a mechanism within the cells that comes up with its own innovations. Then we look at the facts and see to what extent these just-so stories (I prefer to call them hypotheses) fit in with what we know or think we know. That is the basis of all our discussions. You are prepared to attack other hypotheses on rational grounds, but you reject a rational approach to your own! -DAVID: And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts. dhw: The usual misunderstanding: I do not “want” anything. The wanting is done by you, because you want the evidence to fit in with your belief that God planned life for the sake of humans.-DAVID: You do 'want' an IM. You developed it to help you explain what none of us fully understand, innovation, so you don't have to accept a planning mind, the only thing that makes sense to me. Remember, we cannot ever prove that 'mind'.-The reason for developing it was indeed to explain innovation, but not so that I could reject a planning mind. You continue to ignore the fact that the hypothesis still allows for your God. What it rejects is the hypothesis that God planned the universe, life and evolution in order to produce humans. In other words, it does not accept your interpretation of your God's plans. However, you are probably right, that I do ‘want' it or at least I like it, because it appeals to my neutrality as the only explanation that can dispense with random mutations, explain the haphazard history of evolution, and at the same time leave open the question of whether God does or does not exist.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 25, 2015, 01:06 (3499 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, April 25, 2015, 01:11
> dhw: I will never get explanations for everything, but trying to make sense of the world we live in is the common ground that brought us together in the first place. ...we look at the facts and see to what extent these just-so stories (I prefer to call them hypotheses) fit in with what we know or think we know. That is the basis of all our discussions. You are prepared to attack other hypotheses on rational grounds, but you reject a rational approach to your own!-My problem is the primary fact that evolution appears to have produced conscious humans. I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance. > > DAVID: You do 'want' an IM. You developed it to help you explain what none of us fully understand, innovation, so you don't have to accept a planning mind, the only thing that makes sense to me. Remember, we cannot ever prove that 'mind'. > > dhw: The reason for developing it was indeed to explain innovation, but not so that I could reject a planning mind. You continue to ignore the fact that the hypothesis still allows for your God. What it rejects is the hypothesis that God planned the universe, life and evolution in order to produce humans. In other words, it does not accept your interpretation of your God's plans. However, you are probably right, that I do ‘want' it or at least I like it, because it appeals to my neutrality as the only explanation that can dispense with random mutations, explain the haphazard history of evolution, and at the same time leave open the question of whether God does or does not exist.-Thank you for finally admitting that my psychological analysis of your reasoning is on the mark. I know that your fence-sitting 'allows' for the possibility that God might be in change. After all, there are two sides to the fence. Articles I have submitted today go further in showing how much complexity surrounds the main genome code: We see transcription controls in RNA, histones, centrioles, telomeres, special proteins, etc. Even mitochondria with its own DNA from Mom, and centrioles from Dad. Will the never-ending complexity get complexer and complexer. Of course it will, and at some point require an admission that only a mind can plan the interlocking controls.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: My problem is the primary fact that evolution appears to have produced conscious humans. I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance.-Perhaps your problem is that you believe the production of humans to be the primary fact. You admit that other organisms have degrees of consciousness, and you accept that humans have descended from other organisms, but for some reason you are desperate to impose a 3.7-billion-year plan on your God, and to fit history around it. The truly incredible circumstance in my view is the origin of mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution. These would seem to require some sort of consciousness, and whatever that form may be, it must be responsible for all the advances, including the weaverbird's special nest, the spider's special silk, the whale's special blowhole, and the human brain with its special self-awareness. Your anthropocentric interpretation does not fit in with all the other "specials", and so on Thursday you wrote: "You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't." And on Saturday you wrote: "I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance." Why are we only allowed to be rational if we adhere to your idea of "the primary fact"?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, April 26, 2015, 21:03 (3497 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Perhaps your problem is that you believe the production of humans to be the primary fact.-No, I view that as your problem. I don't think you see how stupendous that result is.-> dhw: You admit that other organisms have degrees of consciousness, and you accept that humans have descended from other organisms,...-Organisms, in my view can only have consciousness if they have a demonstrable brain. -> dhw: The truly incredible circumstance in my view is the origin of mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution. These would seem to require some sort of consciousness, and whatever that form may be, it must be responsible for all the advances, including the weaverbird's special nest, the spider's special silk, the whale's special blowhole, and the human brain with its special self-awareness.-Can you tell me about 'some sort of consciousness'? We agree here there must be one at work. Was it always present? If not, how did it develop and learn to make sense and plan all of natures wonders?-> dhw: Your anthropocentric interpretation does not fit in with all the other "specials", and so on Thursday you wrote: "You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't." And on Saturday you wrote: "I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance." Why are we only allowed to be rational if we adhere to your idea of "the primary fact"?-Your editorial 'we' is not appropriate. I'm describing my thinking. You are very capable of thinking for yourself.-We are working in this thread on God and evolution. I need to remind you that my book describes a number of reasons to gain a belief in God. Remember I look at a series of evidentiary proofs that provide a basis for belief in God 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The arrival of humans is a major point, but not the only one.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: You admit that other organisms have degrees of consciousness, and you accept that humans have descended from other organisms,... DAVID: Organisms, in my view can only have consciousness if they have a demonstrable brain. -In this context, I was referring to the brainy organisms from which we have descended, my point being that there is a natural evolutionary progression from lesser brain/consciousness to greater brain/consciousness.-dhw: The truly incredible circumstance in my view is the origin of mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution. These would seem to require some sort of consciousness, and whatever that form may be, it must be responsible for all the advances, including the weaverbird's special nest, the spider's special silk, the whale's special blowhole, and the human brain with its special self-awareness.-DAVID: Can you tell me about 'some sort of consciousness'? We agree here there must be one at work. Was it always present? If not, how did it develop and learn to make sense and plan all of natures wonders?-Round we go. Always present = the meaningless explanation “first cause”, which does not explain how energy simply “had” consciousness and the ability to plan nature's wonders. We have discussed the alternative many times: panpsychist evolution, which entails an on-going processing of information and decision-making from inside and not outside. No more and no less improbable than your “first cause”.-dhw: Your anthropocentric interpretation does not fit in with all the other "specials", and so on Thursday you wrote: "You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't." And on Saturday you wrote: "I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance." Why are we only allowed to be rational if we adhere to your idea of "the primary fact"? DAVID: Your editorial 'we' is not appropriate. I'm describing my thinking. You are very capable of thinking for yourself.-Nicely reminiscent of the Ali shuffle. On Thursday you don't look for rational explanations, and on Saturday you do. I should not use reason when confronted with the problem of God planning the whale when all he really wants is to plan the human, but it is OK for you to use reason so long as you don't have to use it when your theories are unreasonable. DAVID: We are working in this thread on God and evolution. I need to remind you that my book describes a number of reasons to gain a belief in God. Remember I look at a series of evidentiary proofs that provide a basis for belief in God 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The arrival of humans is a major point, but not the only one.-I cannot recommend your book too highly for the case you make in defence of your beliefs, and it was an immense privilege to be part of its making. Of course I have never accepted “beyond a reasonable doubt” for reasons we and others have discussed at enormous length over the last seven years - another privilege - but not accepting does not mean rejecting. “I need to remind you” that I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 28, 2015, 05:19 (3496 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In this context, I was referring to the brainy organisms from which we have descended, my point being that there is a natural evolutionary progression from lesser brain/consciousness to greater brain/consciousness.-Our forebears were not brainy like us. 2% vs. 98% in my way of thinking about it. > > dhw: Nicely reminiscent of the Ali shuffle. On Thursday you don't look for rational explanations, and on Saturday you do. I should not use reason when confronted with the problem of God planning the whale when all he really wants is to plan the human, but it is OK for you to use reason so long as you don't have to use it when your theories are unreasonable.-I always look for the rational answer. You don't see the rationality. I don't know why the whale appeared, crazy as its adaptations have to be. Humans are here for no good reason based on Darwin's approach to evolution. Why did hominim's have a better grip before grip was necessary. I keep presenting inferences and you never pick up on them. Exaptation's are gifts like candy. Why? the preplanning so so obvious if hou are willing to think about it. > > DAVID: We are working in this thread on God and evolution. I need to remind you that my book describes a number of reasons to gain a belief in God. Remember I look at a series of evidentiary proofs that provide a basis for belief in God 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The arrival of humans is a major point, but not the only one. > > dhw: I cannot recommend your book too highly for the case you make in defence of your beliefs, and it was an immense privilege to be part of its making. Of course I have never accepted “beyond a reasonable doubt” for reasons we and others have discussed at enormous length over the last seven years - another privilege - but not accepting does not mean rejecting. “I need to remind you” that I am an agnostic, not an atheist.-And I believe I was hired on to combat your stance, and make your picket fence a very uneasy position.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
DAVID: I always look for the rational answer. You don't see the rationality. I don't know why the whale appeared, crazy as its adaptations have to be. Humans are here for no good reason based on Darwin's approach to evolution. Why did hominim's have a better grip before grip was necessary. I keep presenting inferences and you never pick up on them. Exaptation's are gifts like candy. Why? the preplanning so so obvious if hou are willing to think about it.-You look for the rational answer to the problem of the whale. You don't know it, but when I offer a rational answer, I'm told not to look for rational answers. As for the grip story, I'm deeply, deeply sceptical. I really don't think for one minute that our ancestors suddenly found they had a new grip but didn't know what to do with it. It seems far more likely to me that the grip developed because our ancestors needed it for one purpose or another. I suspect that the same applies to all so-called exaptations. An organ develops for a particular use, and then as conditions change, the organisms adapt the existing organs for other uses. Fins becoming legs, for instance. Why such natural adaptations should have required preplanning 3.7 billion years ago is not obvious to me at all. Nor can I see why your God would dabble to create a grip his darlings didn't need at the time. DAVID: I believe I was hired on to combat your stance, and make your picket fence a very uneasy position. The lady who invited you did a great job! And I am happy to award you the dhw Medal for Persistent Picket-Pocking.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 18:19 (3494 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You look for the rational answer to the problem of the whale. You don't know it, but when I offer a rational answer, I'm told not to look for rational answers.-You are playing with just-so Darwinian gamesmanship like they do. What the whales did is totally unexplained, if one thinks that natural selection is a way to find improvements. The whales completely complicated their life's struggle for no good reason I can see.-> dhw: As for the grip story, I'm deeply, deeply sceptical. I really don't think for one minute that our ancestors suddenly found they had a new grip but didn't know what to do with it. It seems far more likely to me that the grip developed because our ancestors needed it for one purpose or another. I suspect that the same applies to all so-called exaptations.-The word was invented by Ian Tattersall, a world-renowned paleontologist, who was surprised by how many are in evidence.. Until you have reviewed a group of them, as I have, don't be so quick to poo-poo the idea. I recently mentioned the descent of the larynx, long before language. "I suspect" suggests you don't know the subject.-> dhw:An organ develops for a particular use, and then as conditions change, the organisms adapt the existing organs for other uses. Fins becoming legs, for instance. Why such natural adaptations should have required preplanning 3.7 billion years ago is not obvious to me at all. Nor can I see why your God would dabble to create a grip his darlings didn't need at the time. -As I've noted, good pre-planning. > > DAVID: I believe I was hired on to combat your stance, and make your picket fence a very uneasy position. > > The lady who invited you did a great job! And I am happy to award you the dhw Medal for Persistent Picket-Pocking.-I've built many a ranch fence. I'm building one around your pre-conceived agnostic ideas to gradually exclude you from them.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw: You look for the rational answer to the problem of the whale. You don't know it, but when I offer a rational answer, I'm told not to look for rational answers. DAVID: You are playing with just-so Darwinian gamesmanship like they do. What the whales did is totally unexplained, if one thinks that natural selection is a way to find improvements. The whales completely complicated their life's struggle for no good reason I can see.-I never mentioned natural selection, which we both agree never created anything. The fact that you cannot see a reason is why I am questioning your theory that it is all part of God's masterly plan to produce human beings! Set against that is my suggestion that all the extraordinary organisms and lifestyles that have come and gone are the result of interaction between individual inventive mechanisms and an ever changing environment. No master plan. Ongoing adaptations and innovations for the sake of survival or improvement. (See also “Evolution: a different view”)-dhw: As for the grip story, I'm deeply, deeply sceptical. I really don't think for one minute that our ancestors suddenly found they had a new grip but didn't know what to do with it. It seems far more likely to me that the grip developed because our ancestors needed it for one purpose or another. I suspect that the same applies to all so-called exaptations. DAVID: The word was invented by Ian Tattersall, a world-renowned paleontologist, who was surprised by how many are in evidence.. Until you have reviewed a group of them, as I have, don't be so quick to poo-poo the idea. I recently mentioned the descent of the larynx, long before language. "I suspect" suggests you don't know the subject.-And I have suggested that the descent of the larynx came about because our ancestors needed new ways of communicating. Once again we have a chicken and egg problem. Even the experts find it difficult to distinguish between adaptation and exaptation, but I was poo-pooing the grip example, not the whole concept. You always cling to your pre-planning, and I really don't see how the grip example proves anything. We know organisms can change their structure in order to adapt, and so it is not illogical to hypothesize that they might also change their structure to improve. -DAVID: I believe I was hired on to combat your stance, and make your picket fence a very uneasy position. dhw: The lady who invited you did a great job! And I am happy to award you the dhw Medal for Persistent Picket-Pocking. DAVID: I've built many a ranch fence. I'm building one around your pre-conceived agnostic ideas to gradually exclude you from them.-Your concept of fences is incomplete. Fences can be built to keep people in or out. I seem to spend most of my web-time knocking holes in those that theists (and in earlier times atheists) keep building in order to protect their own preconceptions!
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Friday, May 01, 2015, 02:56 (3493 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As for the grip story, I'm deeply, deeply sceptical. I really don't think for one minute that our ancestors suddenly found they had a new grip but didn't know what to do with it. It seems far more likely to me that the grip developed because our ancestors needed it for one purpose or another. I suspect that the same applies to all so-called exaptation's.-You totally miss the point about exaptation's. They appear well before any use of them is found and they are not necessary at the time of appearance. That is the definition of them.-> > dhw: And I have suggested that the descent of the larynx came about because our ancestors needed new ways of communicating. Once again we have a chicken and egg problem.-No we don't as I've explained above. Lucy had no idea she could one day learn to speak.-> dhw: Even the experts find it difficult to distinguish between adaptation and exaptation, but I was poo-pooing the grip example, not the whole concept. You always cling to your pre-planning, and I really don't see how the grip example proves anything. We know organisms can change their structure in order to adapt, and so it is not illogical to hypothesize that they might also change their structure to improve. -You are totally missing the time sequence and its import. > > dhw: Your concept of fences is incomplete. Fences can be built to keep people in or out. I seem to spend most of my web-time knocking holes in those that theists (and in earlier times atheists) keep building in order to protect their own preconceptions!-I know you live your pickets, but aren't they a little sharp?
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
Please note: I am switching threads, as this discussion concerns Evolution v Creationism. For exaptations, see “Evolution: a different view”.-DAVID: How do you know God has a learning curve? No theologian would claim that, why should you? dhw: ...frankly, I'm surprised that someone who claims to think for himself should be so dependent on what theologians claim. DAVID: I'm not claiming to be dependent on theologians in the comment I gave. Other than the possibility of Whitehead, whom I have not studied, I've not heard that God has a learning curve and I don't know if He does or not. Why did you twist my comment?-Your “why should you?” appeared to be challenging my right to go against the views of the theologians you know. Since apparently neither of us regard theologians as having the exclusive right to formulate hypotheses about God, I can't see the point of your challenge! dhw: ... you have categorically stated God's exact role in evolution, and I am not convinced. ... But when your theory is shown to be riddled with problems, you tell me not to bother DAVID: The problem is I liked my theory, and don't accept your problems with it. I've said I accept the probability of an evolutionary process because the appearance of organisms from simple to complex over time is strongly suggestive of evolution. That doesn't mean I understand how a guided evolutionary process works, but that is what I think it is.-It's always a problem if you like a theory but can't fit it to the facts. By preprogramming I understand that God fixed the first cells to pass down all the innovations for the next 3.7 billion years. By dabbling I understand that he intervened to make changes as and when. That is the explanation you have given about “how a guided evolutionary process works” (plus an IM that can only function if it is preprogrammed or dabbled with). Perhaps you are now willing to discard that very concrete explanation in favour of an agnostic “don't know”? -dhw: I wonder what the evolutionary pressure/reason was for the 99% of extinct species, for the whale, for the weaverbird, and for the duck-billed platypus.-DAVID: I don't know and I don't think it matters.-You wrote that there was "no evolutionary pressure/reason for us to be here", which you seem to think supports your theory that God created life for the purpose of producing humans. I am pointing out that there was also no evolutionary pressure for the whale, weaverbird or duck-billed platypus to be here, so you can hardly use the lack of evolutionary pressure as evidence that humans are God's purpose.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Saturday, May 02, 2015, 20:57 (3491 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; You wrote that there was "no evolutionary pressure/reason for us to be here", which you seem to think supports your theory that God created life for the purpose of producing humans. I am pointing out that there was also no evolutionary pressure for the whale, weaverbird or duck-billed platypus to be here, so you can hardly use the lack of evolutionary pressure as evidence that humans are God's purpose.-My problem with your statement is omitting the very significant fact of the develop of human consciousness. Yes I can use that, because there is no demonstrable evolutionary pressure or need for it. It looks like a gift to me, and it is what Adler used to make his point about 'different in kind'.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
dhw; You wrote that there was "no evolutionary pressure/reason for us to be here", which you seem to think supports your theory that God created life for the purpose of producing humans. I am pointing out that there was also no evolutionary pressure for the whale, weaverbird or duck-billed platypus to be here, so you can hardly use the lack of evolutionary pressure as evidence that humans are God's purpose.-DAVID: My problem with your statement is omitting the very significant fact of the develop of human consciousness. Yes I can use that, because there is no demonstrable evolutionary pressure or need for it. It looks like a gift to me, and it is what Adler used to make his point about 'different in kind'.-Nevertheless, there was also no evolutionary pressure or need for the weird and wonderful whale, the weaverbird, and the spider, and so if “no evolutionary pressure or need” leads you to conclude that humans were God's purpose in creating life, it must also lead you to conclude that the whale, weaverbird and spider were his purpose too. (Not to mention my buddy the duck-billed platypus.) And lucky them to have God's gift of a blessed blowhole, a neat nest and that smooth soft silk.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 05, 2015, 00:02 (3489 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: My problem with your statement is omitting the very significant fact of the develop of human consciousness. Yes I can use that, because there is no demonstrable evolutionary pressure or need for it. It looks like a gift to me, and it is what Adler used to make his point about 'different in kind'. > > dhw: Nevertheless, there was also no evolutionary pressure or need for the weird and wonderful whale, the weaverbird, and the spider, and so if “no evolutionary pressure or need” leads you to conclude that humans were God's purpose in creating life, it must also lead you to conclude that the whale, weaverbird and spider were his purpose too. (Not to mention my buddy the duck-billed platypus.) And lucky them to have God's gift of a blessed blowhole, a neat nest and that smooth soft silk.-But none have the development of a consciousness such as in humans.
Evolution v Creationism: creationist article in a journal
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 22:05 (2165 days ago) @ David Turell
In a standard materialism first science journal:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-018-0014-2
"Richard C. Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses;
“'It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'”(Lewontin 1997)
"So, in short, the evolutionists who give materialist answers to the hundreds of questions that arise in the conscious thinking mind of the modern man today, are not only further creating confusions but have in a way failed to satisfy the logical and rational human mind. How can one believe that an unconscious matter can create life? How can one believe that matter created thousands and thousands of living things and living species with their own distinct attributes, qualities, and characteristics when scientist until today are not sure even how a small thing such as a simple cell can be formed? They know that it is formed when proteins come together, but how they come together, in what ratios and form a cell is a process that they have failed to understand (The Usborne Internet Linked Encyclopedia of World History, s.v., “human cell” 2000). For many years now engineers from around the world have been trying to make a three-dimensional television that can match the quality of the human eye. Yes, they have being successful in making a three-dimensional television screen, but you cannot watch it without putting on special glasses; moreover, it only creates artificial three dimension. Similarly ears, engineers have failed to produce a device that can ensure the same quality and clarity of sound that the human ear perceives. Another thing which is even more important than seeing and hearing abilities is the ‘consciousness’ that man has been blessed with (Yahya 2002a, b, c). It is this consciousness that creates the major difference between man and all other living species. It is this that takes man one step ahead of all others. It is this ability that makes us flee from a fire, but we can go back in the same fire to save someone. It is this ability that helps us to understand and comprehend, that despite of the best of qualities given to us in this world, there are certain things that are still beyond our reach, control and comprehension. Even we humans have limitations, and this concept was well taken and understood even by early man since antiquity. He also knew that he had no control over the elements and there was some “Divine Force” somewhere, which had everything under its control. Hence it would not be wrong to presume here, that it was at this point in time around approximately 50,000 to 40,000 years ago, that the modern man entered the scene, and all the other species predating him were not actually ‘man’, or his ancestors. Hence, man was born a man with the best of qualities and a consciousness to understand the ‘Divine’ which has helped him not only to conquer but also to rule the world."
Comment: This is the final summary of a very long review of all we know about evolution of hum ans. It sounds like my arguments. The atheistic scientists are apoplectic that it appeared. Lewontin's quote is famous.
Evolution v Creationism: creationist article in a journal
DAVID: This is the final summary of a very long review of all we know about evolution of hum ans. It sounds like my arguments. The atheistic scientists are apoplectic that it appeared.
It is indeed an excellent summary of the design argument which you yourself have put forward in your two books and on this website, and which – along with psychic experiences – is a major factor in my own agnosticism. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that evolution is the province of materialists/atheists. It is perfectly possible to believe in evolution and God and dualism.
It might be interesting to know why the apoplectic atheists object to the design argument, although (I must redress the balance) I can fully understand the view that the mystery of life is not solved by creating another mystery.
Evolution v Creationism: creationist article in a journal
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 19, 2018, 18:47 (2164 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This is the final summary of a very long review of all we know about evolution of hum ans. It sounds like my arguments. The atheistic scientists are apoplectic that it appeared.
dhw: It is indeed an excellent summary of the design argument which you yourself have put forward in your two books and on this website, and which – along with psychic experiences – is a major factor in my own agnosticism. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that evolution is the province of materialists/atheists. It is perfectly possible to believe in evolution and God and dualism.
It might be interesting to know why the apoplectic atheists object to the design argument, although (I must redress the balance) I can fully understand the view that the mystery of life is not solved by creating another mystery.
The problem is that it appeared in a sacrosanct materialism science journal.
Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw?
by David Turell , Sunday, March 29, 2015, 16:04 (3525 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Your acknowledgement that your God might have produced earlier universes and might go on producing universes runs parallel to my suggestion that first-cause non-conscious energy is capable of doing the same thing.-This contention of yours that unconscious energy is capable of invention goes against all current theories about energy:-"All know what energy is. The capability to do a work. Mechanical work/energy is defined as a force producing a shift. A moving object has kinetic energy, due to its speed. Thermal energy is due to the disordered motions of the molecules making up matter. Electric energy is a flow of electrons. Chemical energy is sort of potential energy able to power chemical reactions. Radiant energy is carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation.-"Energy can power the systems, but never can create the organized system in the first place. In short, energy is the fuel, not the engine. Example, in photosynthesis, used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy, the light energy presupposes a photosynthesis system just in place. The light energy doesn't create the photosynthesis system, like the photons don't create the photovoltaic cell that outputs electric current.-"In all definitions of “energy” there is nothing that could lead us to think that energy is able to transform improbable states into probable states. Consequently, energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states. Indeed the opposite: per se uncontrolled energy is destructive. Example: an abandoned building is slowly but inexorably destroyed by the natural forces of the environment during some centuries. If we increases the energy by considering a flood, it can be destroyed in some days. With more energy, a tornado can destroy it in minutes. Finally with the energy of a bomb we can destroy the building in few seconds. More the energy, more the speed of destruction. -"If we consider the physical principle of mass-energy equivalence we reach the same conclusion as above. Mass per se has nothing to do with real organization. Mass and matter are simply the initial support/substance on which an higher principle — intelligence/essence — must operate to obtain a final organized system." (my bold)-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-illusion-of-organizing-energy/
Evolution v Creationism
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 12, 2014, 23:19 (3723 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE (Sorry for all the trimming, Size Constraints suck) > Punctuated Equilibrium:-Evolutionary Version - Environmental changes killed off everything allowing those that survived to expand into new forms suitable to the new environment. New species arose de novo. This theory, postulated by Stephen Gould, was meant specifically to combat the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. -Creation Version - At each stage of development, the earth needed different creatures in order to prepare for the subsequent stage. When they had fulfilled their purpose they were allowed to die off and the creatures needed for the next stage of development were created. There would NOT be any transitional fossils because there was no transition. - Failed Innovation, Fossils, Gradualism, and Organ Complexity- Inventive cells WOULD leave some kind of evidence behind. All of the evidence we have ever found was 100% fully and perfectly formed. That should raise doubts too any form of 'experimentation'. Can you give an example of a creature with a functioning organ that grew more complex? Any evidence to back up that assertion?--Lack of Freedom and Foresight- Yes, I believe that somethings were created with a view to them dying off once their purpose was served. That is not a lack of pre-planning or foresight, but the exact opposite coupled with the understanding that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. Is that bad pre-planning? If a architect builds a support that he knows will have to be removed, is that bad pre-planning? Or does it actually demonstrate better pre-planning because he knows in advance what will need to be changed/fixed before it needs it?- -Fossil Record and Fully Formed De Novo Species-If separate creation is true, you would see new species pop-up ONLY at specific key points (Periods of creation). And if the biblical accounting is true, then we would see no new species post-humans. If evolution is true, they should pop-up fairly randomly, scattered throughout the ages with some clumping after major environmental changes. The major clumping around environmental changes fits both theories, which leaves the distinguishing question to be: Do we see random species cropping up outside of major environmental shifts? - >DHW:Once an organism functions well enough to survive, however, it does not need to evolve any further. -As you remarked above, we have not observed gradual speciation and no new species keep cropping up that we are aware of. So, no evidence in the fossil record(all creatures show up fully formed) and no evidence in the living world (creatures remain virtually unchanged since the last creative event). Thus the need for punctuated equilibrium to explain away how the facts don't fit the theory. - >DHW: ...Why does God have to keep creating the mechanism separately for each new species? > -Is it simpler to create one mechanism that exists in all life forms to keep them relatively stable and unchanged (within predefined parameters), or is it simpler to create a different mechanism for each creature that is synched with the mechanisms for all other creatures so that they diversify and branch out in a manner that preserves homeostasis? The answer has already been witnessed in the way the DNA in ALL creatures is preserved from transcription/copy errors. They ALL use the same mechanism.-- > DHW: There are vast numbers of different species in given environments, and what they have in common is their ability to cope with that environment. How does this prove that God created them all separately? > -The answer is in the need for the theory of Convergent Evolution, "the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches."-These creatures are NOT closely related, NOT from the same phylogenetic branch. So how could they come up with virtually identical solutions via random chance? Even intelligent cell communities can not explain this one. -->DHW: If all organisms are derived from earlier organisms (= evolution), the same applies in spades. Why would God have to keep repeating himself if he was starting from scratch every time? > -Why do you assume he was starting from scratch? The clear evidence from genetics tells us that he DIDN'T start from scratch. He reused code liberally throughout all of creation to deal with specific environmental circumstances.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.