DILEMMAS (Evolution)
DAVID: (under "Does evolution have a purpose?") My thinking is still open and progressing under your questioning.-Then let's go on. I'm opening a new thread because the evolution one is becoming quite diffuse, and I would like to focus on the dilemma for now. Previously, you couldn't decide to what extent God preprogrammed everything, and to what extent he dabbled. The inventive mechanism seemed to have solved the problem of minor variations, but apparently God still had to dabble when evolution “wasn't following exactly the path he wanted.” You believe that path led to humans, and a mechanism that could only handle minor variations was hardly likely to put right a programme which was not delivering the bits and pieces God needed for humans.-I agree with your “pattern” idea, as also illustrated by your two posts on “Evidence for pattern development”. The common features between different types of organism simply confirm the principle of common descent. Once a “pattern” is successful, it branches out into different forms, but retains its basic structure. You've now surprised me, though, by including spider silk as one of the patterns. This is why preprogramming and purpose seem to me to go way, way beyond the bounds of credibility. You believe that the very first cells were designed to lead to humans, but also to lead to spider silk. Spider silk, then, was as special to God as humans - unless you think humans could never have evolved without it. This is just one of billions of preprogrammed patterns, all of which had to be passed down for billions of years etc. And if spider silk had not emerged from the 3.7-billion-year-old programme, you think God would have had to dabble, because the IM couldn't have done it on its own. I keep trying to hammer home the unimaginable scale of this programme, and it's becoming greater and greater. We've also discussed another aspect of your dilemma, now graphically illustrated by the spider's silk: if humans were the purpose, why the vast variety and the comings and goings provided by the evolutionary bush? You wrote: “I just can't answer the issue of God's total infallibility in programming evolution.” I don't think you can resolve the issue of the great higgledy-piggledy either. Nothing quite adds up.-Here is a possible solution to both dilemmas: God set in motion an inventive mechanism that autonomously produced the great higgledy-piggledy, but he frequently dabbled in order to guide evolution either towards a predetermined goal, or towards a goal that crystallized as the process went along. Out goes what surely even you must recognize as an incredibly unlikely 3.7-billion-year programme of umpteen billion innovations crammed into the first few pin-heads, and surviving unscathed as it is passed on through the billions of descendants, with all their own variations etc. etc. You can keep evolution, you can keep purpose, you can keep an overall measure of divine control (God may have dabbled to create the “patterns”), and we can explain the higgledy-piggledy bush. But unless you have God separately creating every innovation and every natural wonder (out goes evolution), you will have to give the inventive mechanism a great deal more scope that you've allowed it so far. Worth considering?
DILEMMAS
by David Turell 
, Sunday, October 26, 2014, 01:45 (3680 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: I agree with your “pattern” idea, as also illustrated by your two posts on “Evidence for pattern development”. The common features between different types of organism simply confirm the principle of common descent. Once a “pattern” is successful, it branches out into different forms, but retains its basic structure. You've now surprised me, though, by including spider silk as one of the patterns.-If you knew anything about the biology of spiders you would not have been surprised. Spiders arose from the Cambrian without precursors. Spiders have several distinct complex and specific functions. Some of them have very nasty bite venom. I regularly kill black widows here for very good reason, and I've treated the results of brown recluse spiders, which produce nasty necrotic non-healing skin ulcers. Therefore, however spiders are invented they have to come with an intricate chemical mechanism which poisons others but not themselves. The they spin intricate geometically patterned webs, which are specific in pattern for each sspecies. Then those webs are hydrophobic, rain water resistent. And finally they are very sticky and are being studied to produce products for human use. And finally the tensile strength of a strand is stronger than steel! So the 'pattern' for spiders has to include a tail gland that can produce such a wonderous polymerized protein product by a series of biochemical reactions which allow a liquid material to be extruded through an orifice as a liquid and solidify upon hitting the air. There must also be protective arrangements so the stuff doesn't solidify inside the gland. We human do all this now in making nylon stockings, but we had brains to figure it out.And that reminds me, a convergent pattern is present in silk worms feeding on mulberry trees. -> dhw: This is why preprogramming and purpose seem to me to go way, way beyond the bounds of credibility. You believe that the very first cells were designed to lead to humans, but also to lead to spider silk. Spider silk, then, was as special to God as humans - unless you think humans could never have evolved without it. This is just one of billions of preprogrammed patterns, all of which had to be passed down for billions of years etc. -I'm surprised at you. We are discussing incredulity! The amazing variety of life's complex and specific mechanisms is beyond all imagination. It suggests miracles. That is why I puzzle. Tony seems to assume God steps in at each stage. I think He could have programmed most of it from the beginning. -> dhw: And if spider silk had not emerged from the 3.7-billion-year-old programme, you think God would have had to dabble, because the IM couldn't have done it on its own. I keep trying to hammer home the unimaginable scale of this programme, and it's becoming greater and greater.-Yes, the unimaginable scale of life's diversity and unusual functionalities defies explanation. And years ago you thought Darwinism might do it. But as Denton points out in his essay, 34 years since his first book, it seems more and more that Darwinism doesn't work, the research pointing more and more away from tiny selective breeding steps. > > dhw: We've also discussed another aspect of your dilemma, now graphically illustrated by the spider's silk: if humans were the purpose, why the vast variety and the comings and goings provided by the evolutionary bush....I don't think you can resolve the issue of the great higgledy-piggledy either. Nothing quite adds up.-That is exactly the point. I have to reconcile the bush faced with the obvious purpose to produce humans. > > dhw: Here is a possible solution to both dilemmas: God set in motion an inventive mechanism that autonomously produced the great higgledy-piggledy, but he frequently dabbled in order to guide evolution either towards a predetermined goal, or towards a goal that crystallized as the process went along.-You certainly don't think as I do. The IM is adaptation and nothing more. The Basic Patterns are all in the pre-programming. > > dhw: But unless you have God separately creating every innovation and every natural wonder (out goes evolution), you will have to give the inventive mechanism a great deal more scope that you've allowed it so far. Worth considering?-Not worth a farthling. Please read Denton again. Set basic patterns and then allow variety. Pre-Programming is setting all the basic stuff. Makes the rest much easier. The IM helps introduce variety through epigenetics and probably other mechanisms.-For another day: there is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about. We know what genes do by elimination and substitution studies in embryology. We have no idea how they do it. When that is found out I hope your incredulity increases to the point that you realize the end of Darwinism is near. It is. It can't work.
DILEMMAS
Dhw: I agree with your “pattern” idea [...] Once a “pattern” is successful, it branches out into different forms, but retains its basic structure. You've now surprised me, though, by including spider silk as one of the patterns. DAVID: If you knew anything about the biology of spiders you would not have been surprised. -You then explain spider biology, which like that of all living organisms is astonishingly complex (see below for “design”). You missed my point, which was: dhw: This is why preprogramming and purpose seem to me to go way, way beyond the bounds of credibility. You believe that the very first cells were designed to lead to humans, but also to lead to spider silk. Spider silk, then, was as special to God as humans - unless you think humans could never have evolved without it. This is just one of billions of preprogrammed patterns, all of which had to be passed down for billions of years etc. -DAVID: I'm surprised at you. We are discussing incredulity! The amazing variety of life's complex and specific mechanisms is beyond all imagination. It suggests miracles. That is why I puzzle. Tony seems to assume God steps in at each stage. I think He could have programmed most of it from the beginning. -Of course we're discussing incredulity. We agree that life is too complex for us to believe that it's the product of chance: that too is incredulity, which you accept as an argument. The variety and complexity of life does indeed suggest miracles, and so we're both puzzled. That's why we look for a credible solution. You propose that 3.7 billion years ago, before spiders even existed, God preprogrammed the first living cells not only to produce humans and spiders, but also to give spiders a tail gland to produce a liquid material which would solidify into a strand stronger than steel. Along with billions of other such programmes for the billions of different innovations, this individual spider programme - implanted in those minuscule first cells - would survive through billions of descendants, species and environmental changes until spider-silk-time arrived. I find that incredible, so I'm trying to find another explanation. DAVID: Yes, the unimaginable scale of life's diversity and unusual functionalities defies explanation. And years ago you thought Darwinism might do it. But as Denton points out in his essay, 34 years since his first book, it seems more and more that Darwinism doesn't work, the research pointing more and more away from tiny selective breeding steps.-As usual, you switch to attacking Darwinism. If you believe in common descent (still valid in your hypothesis), you cannot reject the theory en bloc. We have agreed a thousand times that we do not accept gradualism or random mutations, so we're looking for an alternative. dhw: We've also discussed another aspect of your dilemma, now graphically illustrated by the spider's silk: if humans were the purpose, why the vast variety and the comings and goings provided by the evolutionary bush.... DAVID: That is exactly the point. I have to reconcile the bush faced with the obvious purpose to produce humans.-Thank you. I'm offering a way out of that dilemma as an alternative to your inadequate preprogramming hypothesis which - like a chance origin of life and evolution - seems to me incredible. dhw: Here is a possible solution to both dilemmas: God set in motion an inventive mechanism that autonomously produced the great higgledy-piggledy, but he frequently dabbled in order to guide evolution either towards a predetermined goal, or towards a goal that crystallized as the process went along.-DAVID: You certainly don't think as I do. The IM is adaptation and nothing more. The Basic Patterns are all in the pre-programming. -You simply reiterate your explanation, despite its failure to explain the higgledy-piggledy bush, and you reiterate your rigid interpretation of the IM's potential, as if all research into the nature of the cell has been completed. And yet you go on to say: DAVID: For another day: there is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about. We know what genes do by elimination and substitution studies in embryology. We have no idea how they do it. When that is found out I hope your incredulity increases to the point that you realize the end of Darwinism is near. It is. It can't work.-We are not talking about gradualism or random mutations. We are talking about mechanisms within the genome that may be capable of more than mere adaptation. Evolution is going through a period of stasis, and so currently we see only adaptation. I am proposing a theistic hypothesis: instead of preprogramming every innovation you can think of, God created a mechanism within the cell (located in the genome) that is capable not only of adapting - which itself requires great awareness and ”technical” skill - but also of creating most (I shan't be dogmatic) of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush; but he dabbled in order to create the basic structures (such as heart, kidneys, eyes etc.) and maybe even some variations, like the human brain. “There is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about”, and yet you know that the genome is incapable of innovation.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Sunday, October 26, 2014, 21:45 (3679 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Spider silk, then, was as special to God as humans.. This is just one of billions of preprogrammed patterns, all of which had to be passed down for billions of years etc. [/i]-We are at a impass. I have no idea why spiders and silk were even invented. Where we agree, we admit there is enormous complexity in life in all of its diverse ramifications. But what you don't seem to appreciate is how complex the complexity really is. I've thrown Denton at you and you seem to have responded by not recognizing the tedious step by step molecules have to go through to accomplish any of the mechanisms he described. None of these bodily functions can be created from scratch simply looking for the first properly working protein molecule to start series of interlocking molecular events. Somehow or other the endpoint must be visualized in advance and the appropriate proteins understood from the beginning.-Evolution is not like Edison inventing the first light bulb. He used a hunt and peck system, trying this and that, and finally succeeded. We have agreed to throw out chance. What remains to consider is the information needed to design systems. And I believe that is implanted in the original genomes or God put it in later as the process of evolution proceded. The key to what happened to start first life and evolve it is information. Design and information are the same. I will never believe an IM can produce more than simple adaptation without a full complement of design information instructions. We might find such a code in future research, but so far all we have is ragther simple epigenetic changes. As an example,Reznick's guppies that grew larger simply had to increase growth hormone a tad. All of the complex reactions that went into growth were in place as part of the original patterns of development. The growth hormone increase pushed them. The opposite for smaller guppies. This is how I view an IM. > > dhw: Of course we're discussing incredulity.....this individual spider programme - would survive through billions of descendants, species and environmental changes until spider-silk-time arrived. I find that incredible, so I'm trying to find another explanation.-If the original genome set the patterns for life as Denton describes, why shouldn't the programs survive? Who or what removes them? Does the Britannica disappear as it sits in your library? The original DNA that started life is still here and life is still here and following patterns that had to be implanted in the DNA information from the start. DNA not only controls functions, it has the plans to make animal and plant bodies in the embryology section iof DNA. DNA is estimated, if my memory is correct, to contain the information in 20,000 volumes similar to the Britannica. We have to deal with the issue of information. It is possible we will find a layer of the genome, another code, and they are turning up as I have published here in the past, that will show it contains the information for the strange inventions we see in the bush. We just don't have that answer now. The complex molecular interactions as described by Denton are in place, but cannot have been invented without genetic instrctions, that is underlying information. > > dhw: As usual, you switch to attacking Darwinism. If you believe in common descent ...you cannot reject the theory en bloc. We have agreed a thousand times that we do not accept gradualism or random mutations, so we're looking for an alternative.-And I do that because I think your reasoning is grounded in Darwin. And I have rejected his theory totally. All I accept is the progression from OOL to now looks evolutionary to me. I think it is theisticially designed evolution. Darwin is totally out of the picture for me. I think current findings have totally refuted his notion. > > dhw: I'm offering a way out of that dilemma as an alternative to your inadequate preprogramming hypothesis which - like a chance origin of life and evolution - seems to me incredible.-My pre-programming hypothesis is not inadequate for the patterns of life in general. And I think part of the bush is set up for a balance of nature since life depends upon the constant injestion of energy. > > dhw: We are talking about mechanisms within the genome that may be capable of more than mere adaptation. ... instead of preprogramming every innovation you can think of, God created a mechanism within the cell..... creating most of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush;-Certainly possible. Not found yet and what we adaptive ability we have found so far looks too weak to do that.-> dhw:Evolution is going through a period of stasis, and so currently we see only adaptation.-We may be at the end of evolution with humans fully arrived.-> dhw:... but he dabbled in order to create the basic structures (such as heart, kidneys, eyes etc.) and maybe even some variations, like the human brain. “-Yes. Those basic structures are designed from the beginning in the patterns we have discussed, or God stepped in at the Cambrian and inserted them. We don't know which. My dilemma is simply I don't know which way God did it.->dhw:There is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about”, and yet you know that the genome is incapable of innovation.-If we find a missing layer then it may be capable of complex innovation. Again from what we know now, the genome is not capable of it.
DILEMMAS
dhw: Spider silk, then, was as special to God as humans.. This is just one of billions of preprogrammed patterns, all of which had to be passed down for billions of years etc. -DAVID: We are at a impass. [...] We have agreed to throw out chance. What remains to consider is the information needed to design systems. And I believe that is implanted in the original genomes or God put it in later as the process of evolution proceded. -We are not at an impasse at all. “The information to design systems” is a million miles away from preprogramming the first cells with every innovation there ever was. If you expand the expression slightly and call it “the information that gives an organism the ability to design systems”, you have another expression for an inventive mechanism. This will use its in-built (or if you like, God-given) information to process the information that comes from outside and produce its inventions accordingly. In humans the mechanism is called the brain. Add some dabbles for the really tricky bits, and you have my proposal for theistic evolution. -dhw: As usual, you switch to attacking Darwinism. DAVID: And I do that because I think your reasoning is grounded in Darwin. And I have rejected his theory totally. All I accept is the progression from OOL to now looks evolutionary to me. I think it is theisticially designed evolution. Darwin is totally out of the picture for me. I think current findings have totally refuted his notion.-Which notion? If you accept common descent, you are accepting the basis of his theory. The question of how life evolved from OOL to now is what we are investigating, and we both reject random mutations and gradualism. What else do you reject? Natural selection creates nothing but explains why certain organisms survive and others don't. It is self-evident, but in Darwin's day it wasn't, so do you reject that? Theistic evolution is not a refutation of Darwin. -dhw: I'm offering a way out of that dilemma as an alternative to your inadequate preprogramming hypothesis which - like a chance origin of life and evolution - seems to me incredible. DAVID: My pre-programming hypothesis is not inadequate for the patterns of life in general. And I think part of the bush is set up for a balance of nature since life depends upon the constant injestion of energy.-I wrote that one of your dilemmas was: “If humans were the purpose, why the vast variety and the comings and goings...” You replied: “That is exactly the point. I have to reconcile the bush faced with the obvious purpose to produce humans.” And you know you can't explain why trilobites, triceratops, silk-spinning spiders and myrmecophilous beetles were/are essential for the production of humans.-dhw: We are talking about mechanisms within the genome that may be capable of more than mere adaptation. ... instead of preprogramming every innovation you can think of, God created a mechanism within the cell..... creating most of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush...-DAVID: Certainly possible. Not found yet and what we adaptive ability we have found so far looks too weak to do that.-Phew! So after all that vehement opposition, you agree that it's certainly possible. That is all I keep asking you to accept. dhw: Evolution is going through a period of stasis, and so currently we see only adaptation. DAVID: We may be at the end of evolution with humans fully arrived.-You and I will never know. But adaptation in itself is hugely complex, and denotes awareness and great technical skill to be employed by the “brain” in the genome. So maybe that brain is capable of more than adaptation.-dhw:... but he dabbled in order to create the basic structures (such as heart, kidneys, eyes etc.) and maybe even some variations, like the human brain. DAVID: Yes. Those basic structures are designed from the beginning in the patterns we have discussed, or God stepped in at the Cambrian and inserted them. We don't know which. My dilemma is simply I don't know which way God did it.-Another yes - so you are agreeing that instead of preprogramming, God may have dabbled. If so, we can dispense with his preprogramming the first cells with every single innovation: major structures may have been inserted as evolution proceeded, but other innovations were created by the IM. Hence the bush.-dhw: "There is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about”, and yet you know that the genome is incapable of innovation. DAVID: If we find a missing layer then it may be capable of complex innovation. Again from what we know now, the genome is not capable of it.-Thank you. Personally, I'd say a missing layer capable of innovation as well as adaptation (for which a mechanism must exist) is more likely than a missing 3.7-billion-year-old programme for all life's innovations. Anyway, this is a big advance on yesterday's post, in which you wrote: “You certainly don't think as I do. The IM is adaptation and nothing more. The Basic Patterns are all in the pre-programming.” How often have you told me to “think outside the box”? Yep, we're trying.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Monday, October 27, 2014, 23:55 (3678 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:We are not at an impasse at all. “The information to design systems” is a million miles away from preprogramming the first cells with every innovation there ever was. If you expand the expression slightly and call it “the information that gives an organism the ability to design systems”, you have another expression for an inventive mechanism. This will use its in-built (or if you like, God-given) information to process the information that comes from outside and produce its inventions accordingly. -This is where we part ways in the understanding of 'information'. The information that produces major advances is either pre-programmed from the beginning, to which I think you agree, but the 'information' used by an IM is only somewhat 'from outside' as a definition of the challenges to be met, but is also instructional information or guidelines within the IM, that have had to be implanted in the IM from the very beginning of life. You keep suggesting that IM information is all new and up to date at the time for the necessary changes in organisms, and I view this as nothing further from the truth of the issue. The instructional information in the IM comes from the very beginning of life. - > > dhw: If you accept common descent, you are accepting the basis of his theory. The question of how life evolved from OOL to now is what we are investigating, and we both reject random mutations and gradualism. -We agree. We think there was common descent. I totally reject chance.-> dhw:What else do you reject? Natural selection creates nothing but explains why certain organisms survive and others don't. It is self-evident, but in Darwin's day it wasn't, so do you reject that?-No. There is competition.-> dhw: Theistic evolution is not a refutation of Darwin. -Yes it is. For Darwin evolution was a chance naturalistic mechanism. Theistic means God-guided evolution, under His total control. > > dhw: And you know you can't explain why trilobites, triceratops, silk-spinning spiders and myrmecophilous beetles were/are essential for the production of humans.-Except to create a balance in nature, which as I've noted, can be upset. > > dhw: God created a mechanism within the cell..... creating most of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush...[/i] > > DAVID: Certainly possible. Not found yet and what we adaptive ability we have found so far looks too weak to do that. > > Phew! So after all that vehement opposition, you agree that it's certainly possible. That is all I keep asking you to accept.-But as I have described, if present, most of it probably pre-programmed with guidelines and instructions, from the beginning. > > dhw: Evolution is going through a period of stasis, and so currently we see only adaptation.-> DAVID: We may be at the end of evolution with humans fully arrived. > > dhw: You and I will never know. But adaptation in itself is hugely complex, and denotes awareness and great technical skill to be employed by the “brain” in the genome. So maybe that brain is capable of more than adaptation.-I won't accept that, as noted above. > > dhw: Another yes - so you are agreeing that instead of preprogramming, God may have dabbled. If so, we can dispense with his preprogramming the first cells with every single innovation: major structures may have been inserted as evolution proceeded, but other innovations were created by the IM. Hence the bush.-Again, no. IM innovations I still view as minor.-> > dhw: Thank you. Personally, I'd say a missing layer capable of innovation as well as adaptation (for which a mechanism must exist) is more likely than a missing 3.7-billion-year-old programme for all life's innovations. Anyway, this is a big advance on yesterday's post, in which you wrote: “You certainly don't think as I do. The IM is adaptation and nothing more. The Basic Patterns are all in the pre-programming.” -You have totally missed the point about information in an IM, as I view it and stated above. I have repeated the term guidelines over and over. They come from 3.7 billion years ago, and the IM has some minor autonomy.
DILEMMAS
dhw: We are not at an impasse at all. “The information to design systems” is a million miles away from preprogramming the first cells with every innovation there ever was. If you expand the expression slightly and call it “the information that gives an organism the ability to design systems”, you have another expression for an inventive mechanism. This will use its in-built (or if you like, God-given) information to process the information that comes from outside and produce its inventions accordingly. -DAVID: This is where we part ways in the understanding of 'information'. The information that produces major advances is either pre-programmed from the beginning, to which I think you agree, but the 'information' used by an IM is only somewhat 'from outside' as a definition of the challenges to be met, but is also instructional information or guidelines within the IM, that have had to be implanted in the IM from the very beginning of life. You keep suggesting that IM information is all new and up to date at the time for the necessary changes in organisms, and I view this as nothing further from the truth of the issue. The instructional information in the IM comes from the very beginning of life.-Perhaps it would help if you explained precisely what you mean by the word “information”. As I understand it, there are two sorts involved here: 1) the information already inherent in the organism itself: i.e. all those processes that enable an organism to live and to “think”; 2) the information which comes from outside the organism and which it has to process through its “thinking”. In human terms, this is the equivalent of the senses and the brain registering and processing phenomena from the world around us. I am suggesting that 1) has to be present from the start, but has undergone continual complexification throughout evolution, with the result that single sentient, “thinking” cells have combined into the hugely complex “thinking” organisms we know today. In the theistic scenario I have proposed, God created the sentient, “thinking” cell with which life and evolution began (info type 1)), and intervened to produce the major advances, or what you call the “patterns” (still type 1)). The “thinking” part of the cell/cell community, its brain or genome, has created the vast range of variations that arise from interaction with the needs or opportunities arising out of a changing environment (info type 2)). For instance, God may have organized the first light-sensitive cells, but different organisms worked autonomously on his basic plan to produce the various forms of eyes that would best advance their own individual relationship with their environment. dhw: Theistic evolution is not a refutation of Darwin. DAVID: Yes it is. For Darwin evolution was a chance naturalistic mechanism. Theistic means God-guided evolution, under His total control.-If it was under his total control, he must have preprogrammed or specifically created every single form of life and every single “Nature's Wonder",even though apparently his purpose was to produce humans! Previously you have conceded that the inventive mechanism could produce minor variations, but now God is guiding those too, since you “totally reject chance” and evolution is under “His total control”. (From his standpoint, anything beyond his control would have to be left to chance.) No wonder you have a dilemma trying to “reconcile the bush” with your anthropocentric purpose. Furthermore, variations and innovations are very likely to have been triggered by environmental changes (as we see with adaptation), and so those environmental changes must also be under God's total control. Every form of life is God's puppet if you allow ANY degree of autonomy or chance, as it would mean God loses total control. The word “theistic” does not mean under God's total control. Nor does it mean with the purpose of producing humans. It is perfectly possible for God to have deliberately created a process that runs independently of his control. As someone who believes in free will, you can hardly argue with that. -Dhw: ....adaptation in itself is hugely complex, and denotes awareness and great technical skill to be employed by the “brain” in the genome. So maybe that brain is capable of more than adaptation. DAVID: I won't accept that, as noted above.-Yesterday you accepted it as being “certainly possible.” And when we talked of the “layer of gene function we know nothing about”, you conceded that “If we find a missing layer it may be capable of complex innovation.” All of these hypotheses are maybes. Fair enough to express doubt (“Not found yet and what adaptive capability we have found so far looks too weak to do that”), but if on Sunday you concede that my hypothesis is certainly possible, why do you then refuse to accept the same “maybe” on Monday?
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 00:32 (3677 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Perhaps it would help if you explained precisely what you mean by the word “information”. As I understand it, there are two sorts involved here: 1) the information already inherent in the organism itself: i.e. all those processes that enable an organism to live and to “think”; 2) the information which comes from outside the organism and which it has to process through its “thinking”.-Information is what is imparted from DNA to make organisms operate. DNA is a code. Codes contain information. We only understand a part of the code in that we know how DNA codes for proteins. We do not know how DNA designs a body form through embryology to adult, but it must be from information. We know that there are master genes that cover parts of a body. Inserting an extra gene for wings and the fruit fly ends up with extra ones. So we know which genes control what form by addition or deletion. It is just like my example of a pile of wood that can become a house. It has to follow plans. Those plans are information and DNA contains the plans that build the animal or plant.-But it is more than just form. Original DNA in the fertilized egg has all the information for function andintegrationof the various organ systems. The DNA is modified so each organ cell has its own instructions for form and function. All parts of the organisms follow plans.-> dhw: 1) has to be present from the start, but has undergone continual complexification throughout evolution, with the result that single sentient, “thinking” cells have combined into the hugely complex “thinking” organisms we know today.-I agree about initial information. Your nebulous 'combination' is planned how? Cells respond to stimuli in the simplest of ways. There are big gaps in development to consider: start of life is one. The second is the development of the complex compartmentalized type of cell in multicellular organisms. (See the entry 10/28 15:20). Third may be the same as second, as the Cambrian animals seem to usher in this type of cell. And fourth is the human brain. All require the intervention of complex informational planning. For me they require God. Otherwise we are back to chance. -> dhw: The “thinking” part of the cell/cell community, its brain or genome, has created the vast range of variations that arise from interaction with the needs or opportunities arising out of a changing environment (info type 2)). -In my view the most important information is internal and concerned with form and function (patterns). External information provides stimuli for planned responses. If an IM is present, it is at this level that the giraffe grew its big neck with seven vertebrae, just like us (patterns), with semiautonomous patterns and guidelines. The gaps require complex informational planning for the advances to work.-> David: For Darwin evolution was a chance naturalistic mechanism. Theistic means God-guided evolution, under His total control. > > dhw: If it was under his total control, he must have preprogrammed or specifically created every single form of life....., even though apparently his purpose was to produce humans! Previously you have conceded that the inventive mechanism could produce minor variations, but now God is guiding those too, since you “totally reject chance” and evolution is under “His total control”. -What I conceded was semi-autonomous, under guidelines. God obviously still controls.-> dhw: The word “theistic” does not mean under God's total control. Nor does it mean with the purpose of producing humans. It is perfectly possible for God to have deliberately created a process that runs independently of his control. As someone who believes in free will, you can hardly argue with that. -My 'theistic evolution' means just that. An independent evolutionary process without the needed information takes us back to Darwin. God has to have inserted the needed information. - > dhw: if on Sunday you concede that my hypothesis is certainly possible, why do you then refuse to accept the same “maybe” on Monday?-Your hypotheses are only possible with the restrictions I add. The sense I keep getting from you is the rabbit/hat trick, no sense of the method necessary for advancement. Cells just think their way to the subsequent goal.
DILEMMAS
dhw: Perhaps it would help if you explained precisely what you mean by the word “information”. As I understand it, there are two sorts involved here: 1) the information already inherent in the organism itself: i.e. all those processes that enable an organism to live and to “think”; 2) the information which comes from outside the organism and which it has to process through its “thinking”. DAVID: Information is what is imparted from DNA to make organisms operate. -That is what I meant by all those processes that enable an organism to live and to “think”. We are in agreement. dhw: 1) has to be present from the start, but has undergone continual complexification throughout evolution, with the result that single sentient, “thinking” cells have combined into the hugely complex “thinking” organisms we know today.-DAVID: I agree about initial information. Your nebulous 'combination' is planned how? Cells respond to stimuli in the simplest of ways. There are big gaps in development to consider: start of life is one. The second is the development of the complex compartmentalized type of cell in multicellular organisms. (See the entry 10/28 15:20). Third may be the same as second, as the Cambrian animals seem to usher in this type of cell. And fourth is the human brain. All require the intervention of complex informational planning. For me they require God. Otherwise we are back to chance.-There is nothing nebulous about ‘combination'. We all know that organisms are a combination of cells! We do not know how life began, how cells compartmentalized themselves, or how they came to form all the new organisms of the Cambrian. If we knew, we wouldn't need these different hypotheses. In its theistic form, the one I have proposed is: “instead of preprogramming every innovation you can think of, God created a mechanism within the cell (located in the genome) that is capable not only of adapting [...] but also of creating most [...] of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush; but he dabbled in order to create the basic structures (such as heart, kidneys. etc etc.) and maybe even some variations, like the human brain.” How does this contradict what you have said above?-dhw: The “thinking” part of the cell/cell community, its brain or genome, has created the vast range of variations that arise from interaction with the needs or opportunities arising out of a changing environment (info type 2)). -DAVID: In my view the most important information is internal and concerned with form and function (patterns). External information provides stimuli for planned responses. If an IM is present, it is at this level that the giraffe grew its big neck with seven vertebrae, just like us (patterns), with semiautonomous patterns and guidelines. The gaps require complex informational planning for the advances to work. -So did the inventive mechanism work out how to stretch the giraffe's neck, or are you saying God planned the giraffe's neck? I am saying the former. If it's the latter, there is NO autonomy, and God planned every single life form and wonder.-dhw: The word “theistic” does not mean under God's total control. Nor does it mean with the purpose of producing humans. It is perfectly possible for God to have deliberately created a process that runs independently of his control. As someone who believes in free will, you can hardly argue with that. DAVID: My 'theistic evolution' means just that. An independent evolutionary process without the needed information takes us back to Darwin. God has to have inserted the needed information. -Which “needed information”? In the hypothesis I have proposed, God provided the information that enables organisms to invent. That does not mean he dictates WHAT they are going to invent (e.g. the giraffe's long neck). So did the inventive mechanism work out how....etc? dhw: If on Sunday you concede that my hypothesis is certainly possible, why do you then refuse to accept the same “maybe” on Monday? DAVID: Your hypotheses are only possible with the restrictions I add. The sense I keep getting from you is the rabbit/hat trick, no sense of the method necessary for advancement. Cells just think their way to the subsequent goal.-Your restrictions vary from day to day. One moment the inventive mechanism is semi-autonomous, and the next God has total control. Either God planned every innovation, variation, and mode of living, or he created a mechanism (the equivalent of the human brain) which within natural limits was capable of planning and creating the vast range of variations that make up the higgledy-piggledy bush. If it's the latter, he deliberately relaxed control over evolution, though he could always step in to dabble (your patterns, and maybe the human brain). Yes, if God created a mechanism enabling cells to think their way to creating the giraffe's neck or the billions of other variations that separate one species from another, they must think their way to the subsequent goal! You can hardly expect me to explain how it all works, since nobody on this planet can tell you. So, once again: do you think God planned the giraffe's neck, did he dabble, or did the pre-giraffe's God-given inventive mechanism work it out all by itself?
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Thursday, October 30, 2014, 00:01 (3676 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In its theistic form, the one I have proposed is: “instead of preprogramming every innovation you can think of, God created a mechanism within the cell (located in the genome) that is capable not only of adapting [...] but also of creating most [...] of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush; but he dabbled in order to create the basic structures (such as heart, kidneys. etc etc.) and maybe even some variations, like the human brain.” How does this contradict what you have said above?-It doesn't. The basic patterns of organs were probably in the program that created the Cambrian, either from the beginning of life or inserted at that time.-> > dhw: So did the inventive mechanism work out how to stretch the giraffe's neck, or are you saying God planned the giraffe's neck? I am saying the former.-The neck follows the pattern and is an adaptation the IM could have handled it seems to me.- > dhw: Which “needed information”? In the hypothesis I have proposed, God provided the information that enables organisms to invent. That does not mean he dictates WHAT they are going to invent (e.g. the giraffe's long neck).-Fair enough. > > Your restrictions vary from day to day. One moment the inventive mechanism is semi-autonomous, and the next God has total control. Either God planned every innovation, variation, and mode of living, or he created a mechanism (the equivalent of the human brain) which within natural limits was capable of planning and creating the vast range of variations that make up the higgledy-piggledy bush.-Remember, I'm in the process of mulling about all this. As long as we stick with variations on the main theme of patterns, I agree with yhou that an IM is very possible.-> dhw: If it's the latter, he deliberately relaxed control over evolution, though he could always step in to dabble (your patterns, and maybe the human brain).....So, once again: do you think God planned the giraffe's neck, did he dabble, or did the pre-giraffe's God-given inventive mechanism work it out all by itself?-I think it is possible to have an IM that makes variations and adaptations.
DILEMMAS
dhw: In its theistic form, the one I have proposed is: “instead of preprogramming every innovation you can think of, God created a mechanism within the cell (located in the genome) that is capable not only of adapting [...] but also of creating most [...] of the variations we see in the evolutionary bush; but he dabbled in order to create the basic structures (such as heart, kidneys. etc etc.) and maybe even some variations, like the human brain.” How does this contradict what you have said above? -DAVID: It doesn't. The basic patterns of organs were probably in the program that created the Cambrian, either from the beginning of life or inserted at that time.-For the moment, I'd like to dispense altogether with your “program” inserted at the beginning of life, which has caused us nothing but trouble because of the higgledy-piggledy bush. We need to consider the implications of the following exchanges:-dhw: So did the inventive mechanism work out how to stretch the giraffe's neck, or are you saying God planned the giraffe's neck? I am saying the former. DAVID: The neck follows the pattern and is an adaptation the IM could have handled it seems to me.-dhw: In the hypothesis I have proposed, God provided the information that enables organisms to invent. That does not mean he dictates WHAT they are going to invent (e.g. the giraffe's long neck). DAVID: Fair enough.-This means that God does not have total control over evolution. The IM does its own inventing within the parameters of what you have called the patterns (which he set). Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. In the context of Darwin's theory, species were not formed by random mutations, but by deliberate adaptations / innovations invented by the mechanism God devised for that very purpose. The major structures (patterns) must work straight away (out goes gradualism), but the variations may take place over an indefinite period, as the environment changes and the IM does its work. There are no transitions (hence the gaps in the fossil record), since variations must also work straight away if they are to survive. Common descent still stands; natural selection still stands (because only successful adaptations/innovations will survive); competition still stands as an element of natural selection; assuming God did not deliberately organize every single change in the environment, chance still plays a role (a) through these changes, and (b) through the autonomy of the IM (free to invent within the parameters established by the patterns), over which God has deliberately given up control, except that he dabbles when he wants to (e.g. perhaps in order to direct specific organisms towards making the human brain). DAVID: Remember, I'm in the process of mulling about all this. As long as we stick with variations on the main theme of patterns, I agree with yhou that an IM is very possible.-I am also mulling. What is crucial at this stage of our mulling is that you accept the possibility of an inventive mechanism within the cell/cell community (the “brain” in the genome) which can produce variations that have not been preprogrammed.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Thursday, October 30, 2014, 19:15 (3675 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw ; We need to consider the implications of the following exchanges: > > dhw: So did the inventive mechanism work out how to stretch the giraffe's neck, or are you saying God planned the giraffe's neck? I am saying the former. > DAVID: The neck follows the pattern and is an adaptation the IM could have handled it seems to me. > > dhw: In the hypothesis I have proposed, God provided the information that enables organisms to invent. That does not mean he dictates WHAT they are going to invent (e.g. the giraffe's long neck).-> DAVID: Fair enough. > > dhw: This means that God does not have total control over evolution. The IM does its own inventing within the parameters of what you have called the patterns (which he set). Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. In the context of Darwin's theory, species were not formed by random mutations, but by deliberate adaptations / innovations invented by the mechanism God devised for that very purpose.-I doubt that God would allow new species without his total control.-> dhw: The major structures (patterns) must work straight away (out goes gradualism), but the variations may take place over an indefinite period, as the environment changes and the IM does its work.-I accept the idea of adaptations and variations based on the original patterns.-> dhw: There are no transitions (hence the gaps in the fossil record), since variations must also work straight away if they are to survive.-Here your reasoning fails to recognize that the gaps are too big to assume an IM can do that much advance planning to have immediate success. It really has to be God at the gaps to twist an old phrase. See GK's recent entry on simple to complex. -> dhw: Common descent still stands; natural selection still stands (because only successful adaptations/innovations will survive); competition still stands as an element of natural selection; assuming God did not deliberately organize every single change in the environment, chance still plays a role (a) through these changes,-OK-> dhw: and (b) through the autonomy of the IM (free to invent within the parameters established by the patterns), over which God has deliberately given up control, except that he dabbles when he wants to (e.g. perhaps in order to direct specific organisms towards making the human brain). -Again, a semi-autonomous IM. It must follow stringent rules.-> > dhw: I am also mulling. What is crucial at this stage of our mulling is that you accept the possibility of an inventive mechanism within the cell/cell community (the “brain” in the genome) which can produce variations that have not been preprogrammed.-I have pointd out ways it might have worked: two organisms working out symbiosis, the longer giraffe neck, ant rafts. But nothing as complex as monarch butterfly migration through four generations of metamorphosis. That comes with the patterns.
DILEMMAS
dhw: In the hypothesis I have proposed, God provided the information that enables organisms to invent. That does not mean he dictates WHAT they are going to invent (e.g. the giraffe's long neck). DAVID: Fair enough. -dhw: I am also mulling. What is crucial at this stage of our mulling is that you accept the possibility of an inventive mechanism within the cell/cell community (the “brain” in the genome) which can produce variations that have not been preprogrammed. DAVID: I have pointd out ways it might have worked: two organisms working out symbiosis, the longer giraffe neck, ant rafts. But nothing as complex as monarch butterfly migration through four generations of metamorphosis. That comes with the patterns.- I've omitted the rest of your post, because here you have moved us on to the next phase of our discussion, which is where we draw lines. (I am still mulling, and I hope your various statements are mulls and not rigid beliefs.) We have agreed - my theistic version - that God endowed organisms with an inventive mechanism capable of variations he has not preprogrammed (he does not dictate WHAT they are going to invent). So once more the same question: do you believe God preprogrammed the first cells with the four-generation life cycle and migration pattern of the monarch butterfly? Or do you think he dabbled with existing types of butterfly to create this special pattern? Or do you think the butterflies (through their IM) worked it out for themselves? See also my entry under "Nature's Balance". These examples may help us both to clarify what we think may be the range of the inventive mechanism whose existence you now agree is a possibility, and also what you think may the extent of God's control over evolution.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Friday, October 31, 2014, 22:24 (3674 days ago) @ dhw
> > dhw: We have agreed - my theistic version - that God endowed organisms with an inventive mechanism capable of variations he has not preprogrammed (he does not dictate WHAT they are going to invent). So once more the same question: do you believe God preprogrammed the first cells with the four-generation life cycle and migration pattern of the monarch butterfly? Or do you think he dabbled with existing types of butterfly to create this special pattern? Or do you think the butterflies (through their IM) worked it out for themselves?-The multi-stage monarch molting/ migrating is a pattern from God. Too complex for an IM. God may not dictate, but offers guidelines in the IM.-> dhw: See also my entry under "Nature's Balance". These examples may help us both to clarify what we think may be the range of the inventive mechanism whose existence you now agree is a possibility, and also what you think may the extent of God's control over evolution.-Ant raft is a learned event. An IM can do it IMHO. Same with giraffe neck length, padttern is set and change is not major.
DILEMMAS
Dhw: We have agreed - my theistic version - that God endowed organisms with an inventive mechanism capable of variations he has not preprogrammed (he does not dictate WHAT they are going to invent.) So once more the same question: do you believe God preprogrammed the first cells with the four-generation life cycle and migration pattern of the monarch butterfly? Do you think he dabbled with existing types of butterfly to create this special pattern? Or do you think the butterflies (through their IM) worked it out for themselves? -DAVID: The multi-stage monarch molting/migrating is a pattern from God. Too complex for an IM. God may not dictate, but offers guidelines in the IM.-You have gone back to these wretched guidelines, which we had agreed constituted the restrictions on what an organism can do, and the conditions imposed by the environment. Either God created a programme for three generations of the butterflies to live, reproduce and die, and the fourth to migrate, or he dabbled, or they worked it out for themselves. Under “Nature's balance” you thought the IM of ants could handle the construction of their immensely complex cities “by learned experience”. One has to bear in mind that there is very sophisticated technology involved here, and experience is no use unless there is an intelligent mind to apply what has been learned. Why do you think the monarch butterfly's IM is incapable of learning from experience and applying what it has learned? And why do you think God - whose evolutionary purpose you believe to have been the creation of humans - would have chosen to create a special programme for monarch butterflies, or would have dabbled to make the monarch behave in this special way?
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Saturday, November 01, 2014, 14:50 (3673 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You have gone back to these wretched guidelines, which we had agreed constituted the restrictions on what an organism can do, and the conditions imposed by the environment. -I look at the degree of complexity. You like to skip over the need for advanced planning. Highly complex innovations require that, and it beyond my concept of an IM, which I see as modification of patterned advances.-> dhw: Either God created a programme for three generations of the butterflies to live, reproduce and die, and the fourth to migrate, or he dabbled, or they worked it out for themselves.-Metamorphosis is highly complex, in which an early form dissolves into a pile of goo and a totally new life form appears. It is as if one new species morphs into an entirely different species, but it is the same animal in a 'now you see me now you don't'.-> dhw: Under “Nature's balance” you thought the IM of ants could handle the construction of their immensely complex cities “by learned experience”.-I remember referring to ants forming rafts for a flood. That an IM could handle. Can you show me the cities reference, so I may review it. Still mulling. -> dhw: Why do you think the monarch butterfly's IM is incapable of learning from experience and applying what it has learned? And why do you think God - whose evolutionary purpose you believe to have been the creation of humans - would have chosen to create a special programme for monarch butterflies, or would have dabbled to make the monarch behave in this special way?-Balance of nature. Butterflies help pollination and are food for others. You want a caterpillar form to figure out how to grow wings and fly.
DILEMMAS: a new book
by David Turell , Saturday, November 01, 2014, 15:14 (3673 days ago) @ David Turell
An evolutionary scientist writes about his faith:-http://www.amazon.com/Arrival-Fittest-Solving-Evolutions-Greatest/dp/1591846463/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414851545&sr=1-1&keywords=Arrival+of+the+Fittest-A review with comments:-http://www.amazon.com/review/R1S25CAAGSQ5TQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1591846463&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful-"There could never be enough time in the world to take an impossibility and make it possible. Something, it appears, always existed: Mind or Matter. Which requires more faith is the question all must ask themselves. "-Right on!!!!
DILEMMAS
dhw: You have gone back to these wretched guidelines, which we had agreed constituted the restrictions on what an organism can do, and the conditions imposed by the environment. DAVID: I look at the degree of complexity. You like to skip over the need for advanced planning. Highly complex innovations require that, and it beyond my concept of an IM, which I see as modification of patterned advances.-For the time being, I have accepted your view of “patterns” (= highly complex innovations). We are now trying to find the borderlines between what the IM can and can't do, and you chose the monarch butterfly as an example. Your nebulous “guidelines” (previously defined as what an organism can/can't do, plus the restraints imposed by the environment) fudge the issue raised by my next point:-dhw: Either God created a programme for three generations of the butterflies to live, reproduce and die, and the fourth to migrate, or he dabbled, or they worked it out for themselves. DAVID: Metamorphosis is highly complex, in which an early form dissolves into a pile of goo and a totally new life form appears. It is as if one new species morphs into an entirely different species, but it is the same animal in a 'now you see me now you don't'.-Metamorphosis was not the focus of your post. All butterflies metamorphose from caterpillar to butterfly. You chose the monarch because of its extraordinary life cycle: three generations live and die within a few weeks, and the fourth migrates and lives for several months.-dhw: Under “Nature's balance” you thought the IM of ants could handle the construction of their immensely complex cities “by learned experience”. DAVID: I remember referring to ants forming rafts for a flood. That an IM could handle. Can you show me the cities reference, so I may review it. Still mulling. -dhw: (Friday 31 October at 19.37 under “Nature's balance”) Perhaps, though, we could take the example one step further and consider my very dear friends the ants, who rather than using existing habitats actually build their own, complete with all the mod cons they need for their own survival and comfort. Usual question: divinely preprogrammed, product of a divine dabble, or working it out for themselves? DAVID: (Friday 31 October at 22.14) I think an IM can handle this. It occurs by learned experience.-dhw: Why do you think the monarch butterfly's IM is incapable of learning from experience and applying what it has learned? And why do you think God - whose evolutionary purpose you believe to have been the creation of humans - would have chosen to create a special programme for monarch butterflies, or would have dabbled to make the monarch behave in this special way? DAVID: Balance of nature. Butterflies help pollination and are food for others. You want a caterpillar form to figure out how to grow wings and fly.-Same as above. You have shifted from monarch to all butterflies. My question concerned the special programme for the monarch, so I'll repeat it. Did God preprogramme the four generation cycle and migration, did he dabble, or did the monarch work it out? Please remember I am trying establish borderlines from these examples.-********-DAVID: An evolutionary scientist writes about his faith:-http://www.amazon.com/Arrival-Fittest-Solving-Evolutions-Greatest/dp/1591846463/ref=sr_... A review with comments: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1S25CAAGSQ5TQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=159184646...-"There could never be enough time in the world to take an impossibility and make it possible. Something, it appears, always existed: Mind or Matter. Which requires more faith is the question all must ask themselves. "-Right on!!!!-I know nothing about Andreas Wagner, and can't find out about his religious background, but there is no mention of faith here. The excellent quote is not from him but from someone called Keith Davis. The book apparently talks of: “a set of laws that allow nature to discover new molecules and mechanisms in a fraction of the time that random mutations would take.” I would point out that nature and sets of laws can hardly make discoveries on their own. The discoveries have to be made by organisms. And I would suggest that the “laws” which enable organisms to make those discoveries are none other than what you call the “information” which constitutes an inventive mechanism within their own genome.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Sunday, November 02, 2014, 19:50 (3672 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You have shifted from monarch to all butterflies. My question concerned the special programme for the monarch, so I'll repeat it. Did God preprogramme the four generation cycle and migration, did he dabble, or did the monarch work it out? Please remember I am trying establish borderlines from these examples.-The monarch did not work it out by itself. God did it either way you mention.-> > dhw: I know nothing about Andreas Wagner, and can't find out about his religious background, but there is no mention of faith here. ... The book apparently talks of: “a set of laws that allow nature to discover new molecules and mechanisms in a fraction of the time that random mutations would take.” I would point out that nature and sets of laws can hardly make discoveries on their own. The discoveries have to be made by organisms. And I would suggest that the “laws” which enable organisms to make those discoveries are none other than what you call the “information” which constitutes an inventive mechanism within their own genome.-From what I have read about Wagner, he is an atheist scientist. The laws are patterns of activity in the universe and in life. Humans discover them by observation and the issue is where did they come from. They require planning and information as you note. Again, information cannot come from a Big Bang or a origin of life from inorganic matter, or by chance. What else can you think of?
DILEMMAS
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 11:34 (3676 days ago) @ dhw
I think dna solves for every solution it can at a given time. For example I think It is actually solving for future climates that may or may not arise. Take giraffes and figure out some average specs . Some of the earlier animals would have longer legs and some would have shorter legs. Some with longer necks and some with shorter necks'. natural selection does the rest as the forrest recedes. -I bet if we studied giraffes we would we would find some with an above average skin thickness and/or longer fur. If the climate were to change to be colder this trait would begin to be expressed. I think we would find some with thinner shin and shorter also. The curve for the measurements of these traits would shift as the climate changes.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 14:55 (3676 days ago) @ GateKeeper
GK: I think dna solves for every solution it can at a given time. For example I think It is actually solving for future climates that may or may not arise.-Welcome back GK: you seem to accept an inventive mechanism that has full confidence to continue evolution on its own? - > GK: I bet if we studied giraffes we would we would find some with an above average skin thickness and/or longer fur. If the climate were to change to be colder this trait would begin to be expressed. I think we would find some with thinner shin and shorter also. The curve for the measurements of these traits would shift as the climate changes.-I consider these minor adaptations and agree with you. But can DNA make a whole new species by itself?
DILEMMAS
by GateKeeper , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 19:29 (3676 days ago) @ David Turell
GK: I think dna solves for every solution it can at a given time. For example I think It is actually solving for future climates that may or may not arise. > > Welcome back GK: you seem to accept an inventive mechanism that has full confidence to continue evolution on its own? > Yes, kind of. Nothing really happens "on its own." IMO. Imagine if you will being a protein passing through a cell wall. If you were the protein you might think you were doing it on your own because you desided to with never having the understanding that a larger organism was driving the events. --> > GK: I bet if we studied giraffes we would we would find some with an above average skin thickness and/or longer fur. If the climate were to change to be colder this trait would begin to be expressed. I think we would find some with thinner shin and shorter also. The curve for the measurements of these traits would shift as the climate changes. > > I consider these minor adaptations and agree with you. But can DNA make a whole new species by itself?- yes. slow and steady changes with jumps. Punctuated equilibrium. I offer the caterpillar as an example of a huge jump right before our eyes. So yes, I believe it can change into another species. And when we copy the caterpillar to butterfly trick we will claim "we did it without any help!!". To funny. Just like the protien thinks itself in total control.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 23:51 (3676 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: yes. slow and steady changes with jumps. Punctuated equilibrium. I offer the caterpillar as an example of a huge jump right before our eyes. So yes, I believe it can change into another species. And when we copy the caterpillar to butterfly trick we will claim "we did it without any help!!". To funny. Just like the protien thinks itself in total control.
-But Punc-eq is just a descriptive term for the gaps we see. No itty-bitty Darwin stuff to create a new species.
DILEMMAS
GATEKEEPER: I think dna solves for every solution it can at a given time. For example I think It is actually solving for future climates that may or may not arise. -Thanks for joining in. I'd just like to clarify the above point. In my hypothesis, what we are calling the inventive mechanism (the “brain” in the genome) may do two things: adapt to the new conditions (necessary for survival), or exploit them to create new forms (that's the really inventive bit). In both cases there is a response to the new environment. But I can't see it planning for FUTURE environments that may or may not arise. It has the potential to act in response to future change, but it won't do so until the change takes place. Of course a major change will result in the extinction of many organisms, but the lucky ones will have an IM that can adapt or innovate!
DILEMMAS
by GateKeeper , Thursday, October 30, 2014, 17:24 (3675 days ago) @ dhw
GATEKEEPER: I think dna solves for every solution it can at a given time. For example I think It is actually solving for future climates that may or may not arise. > > > Thanks for joining in. I'd just like to clarify the above point. In my hypothesis, what we are calling the inventive mechanism (the “brain” in the genome) may do two things: adapt to the new conditions (necessary for survival), or exploit them to create new forms (that's the really inventive bit). In both cases there is a response to the new environment. But I can't see it planning for FUTURE environments that may or may not arise. It has the potential to act in response to future change, but it won't do so until the change takes place. Of course a major change will result in the extinction of many organisms, but the lucky ones will have an IM that can adapt or innovate!-I agree. But I wouldn't use just "or". I would say "and" and "or". The "brain" or "IM" then would be this "god" they are talking about to me. "they" just are getting the characteristics or traits wrong. Like saying Newton has a great man. I think Newton was sick jerk that understood physics. But I understand how some, more limited humans, could worship him.-I don't have the answer to "adopt" or "exploit". I see it as both, over all that is. Life adapts to and exploits. Asking if it is one is like asking if your left leg or your right leg does the walking to me. All life exploits its surroundings until something stops it. "exploiting" cost less energy for the most part too. And All life has adapted. Look at "fat" people, they would have a better chance in the cold to breed without technology than thin people. So if the climate gets colder then there are/would be more fat people. So after the event it looks likes the trait "responded to" the climate change. But if we look at the population before the event I think we would probably see the "weight curve" or "%fat concentration" shifting to better survive the cold.-maybe We could do the same for Hair. Maybe the life would get so big and hairy it would enter the water. Lose hair and get fatter but still need air. How about space men in space? How fast would their bodies change? If they breaded in space they may survive the change. Maybe after some time they could not breed with earth humans. -The question, does the change in protein concentration come first or does the code come first? I don't know. For me it comes down to "can a more complex system arise from a less complex system?" I do not see one example of "more complex" arising from "less complex". Not one. Now, Does this "more complex" system know we are here? I am ok with "yes" if one needs that. I am ok with "no" if one needs that too. If I may speak for you two, None of us think it is ok to "tell" others what they must "feel" about it.-As for "quick changes" A single cell to human in 10 months? Is there anything quicker than that? Caterpillar into a butterfly? That's quick too. So yes, DNA not only can do it; it does it. but More complex from less complex? I do not know, or have not seen one example of it.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Thursday, October 30, 2014, 19:00 (3675 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: The question, does the change in protein concentration come first or does the code come first? I don't know. For me it comes down to "can a more complex system arise from a less complex system?" I do not see one example of "more complex" arising from "less complex". Not one.-That is exactly my point in all our discussions about an IM. Most of the advances in evolution are highly complex and require planning before execution. > > GK: Now, Does this "more complex" system know we are here? I am ok with "yes" if one needs that. I am ok with "no" if one needs that too. If I may speak for you two, None of us think it is ok to "tell" others what they must "feel" about it.-Agreed. > > GK: As for "quick changes" A single cell to human in 10 months? Is there anything quicker than that? Caterpillar into a butterfly? That's quick too. So yes, DNA not only can do it; it does it. but More complex from less complex? I do not know, or have not seen one example of it.-You are absolutely right.
DILEMMAS
GATEKEEPER: I think dna solves for every solution it can at a given time. For example I think It is actually solving for future climates that may or may not arise. dhw: In my hypothesis, what we are calling the inventive mechanism (the “brain” in the genome) may do two things: adapt to the new conditions (necessary for survival), or exploit them to create new forms (that's the really inventive bit). In both cases there is a response to the new environment. GK: I don't have the answer to "adapt" or "exploit". I see it as both, over all that is. Life adapts to and exploits.-Sorry, I obviously didn't make that part of my post clear. The context is evolution, and I'm suggesting that when the environment changes, organisms will either perish, adapt, or possibly innovate. Adaptation will almost certainly result in the organism remaining the same species. We see that all the time. However, some organisms in the past may have found that the new environment enables them to do things that couldn't be done before, e.g. an aquatic organism finds itself confronted by dry land, so while others stay in the water, it moves onto the land, and fins become legs. That's innovation, triggered by exploitation of new conditions. Don't ask me HOW it works. David and I are discussing possible explanations: his God preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on instructions for fins to become legs; his God intervened and turned fins into legs; organisms have a “brain” in the genome that enables them to turn fins into legs. GK: More complex from less complex? I do not know, or have not seen one example of it. DAVID: You are absolutely right.-I don't know your views on evolution, GK, and am beginning to wonder if I know David's, but if you believe in the theory that all living organisms except the very first descended from earlier living organisms, you are looking at examples every waking moment of your life. The question then is not whether, but how complex comes from less complex.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Friday, October 31, 2014, 22:18 (3674 days ago) @ dhw
> GK: More complex from less complex? I do not know, or have not seen one example of it. > DAVID: You are absolutely right. > > dhw: I don't know your views on evolution, GK, and am beginning to wonder if I know David's, but if you believe in the theory that all living organisms except the very first descended from earlier living organisms, you are looking at examples every waking moment of your life. The question then is not whether, but how complex comes from less complex.-I think he was referring to method. Evolution certainly leads from simple (although quite complex to begin with) to very complex. It requires prior planning. There is no other way.
DILEMMAS
by GateKeeper , Saturday, November 01, 2014, 12:43 (3673 days ago) @ dhw
> Sorry, I obviously didn't make that part of my post clear. The context is evolution, and I'm suggesting that when the environment changes, organisms will either perish, adapt, or possibly innovate. >-It's me, not you. I think organism will make use of all three. "perish" gets a little tricky when we start answering what an organism is and what is the system is. maybe the "system" and the "organism" are one in the same. In the same vain that your heart, circulatory system, and "you" are the same thing depending on how we are discussing things. You like that "vain" use, a little humor to lessen all that hard core thinking It makes me brain smoke.
- > I don't know your views on evolution, GK, and am beginning to wonder if I know David's, but if you believe in the theory that all living organisms except the very first descended from earlier living organisms, you are looking at examples every waking moment of your life. The question then is not whether, but how complex comes from less complex. > >-I think evolution seems to work just like the rock record and experiments shows it works. The only question left for me is the "knowingly dabbling" component of the discussion. I can't really answer that so the next thing I can do is come up with solutions that seem to match observations with the least amount of assumptions.-"no nothing" doesn't make any assumptions. In fact it doesn't do anything at all. But if I address this "no nothing", I do not see "more complex" arising from "less complex"; anywhere. So I move on. "Old guy in the sky", well, That makes more assumptions than a star makes neutrino's. If we continue to argue these two "end points" the rift will never close in our lifetimes.
DILEMMAS
dhw: Sorry, I obviously didn't make that part of my post clear. The context is evolution, and I'm suggesting that when the environment changes, organisms will either perish, adapt, or possibly innovate. GK: I think organism will make use of all three. -Pretty difficult for an organism to perish, adapt and innovate all at the same time. (Yeah, let's have a giggle).-dhw: I don't know your views on evolution, GK, and am beginning to wonder if I know David's, but if you believe in the theory that all living organisms except the very first descended from earlier living organisms, you are looking at examples every waking moment of your life. The question then is not whether, but how complex comes from less complex. GK: I think evolution seems to work just like the rock record and experiments shows it works. [...] I do not see "more complex" arising from "less complex"; anywhere. So I move on. "Old guy in the sky", well, That makes more assumptions than a star makes neutrino's. If we continue to argue these two "end points" the rift will never close in our lifetimes. -Agreed re assumptions and end points, but I think we learn a lot from these arguments. Under “Contingent evolution” you asked: “What “pushes” the cells in your body to do what they do?” [...] What pushes the fabric of space that is “you” to be you?” BBella replied with a single word answer: “Symbiosis”. I wouldn't dare to sum up the driving force behind identity in that manner, but it's a brilliant answer to your comments on evolutionary complexity. Once multicellularity came on the scene, every single innovation had to be the result of cells cooperating for mutual advantage, no matter whether they were divinely preprogrammed, divinely ”pushed”, or “pushed” by some intelligent mechanism within the genome.
DILEMMAS
by GateKeeper , Sunday, November 02, 2014, 16:25 (3672 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Sorry, I obviously didn't make that part of my post clear. The context is evolution, and I'm suggesting that when the environment changes, organisms will either perish, adapt, or possibly innovate. > GK: I think organism will make use of all three. > > Pretty difficult for an organism to perish, adapt and innovate all at the same time. (Yeah, let's have a giggle). > > dhw: I don't know your views on evolution, GK, and am beginning to wonder if I know David's, but if you believe in the theory that all living organisms except the very first descended from earlier living organisms, you are looking at examples every waking moment of your life. The question then is not whether, but how complex comes from less complex. > GK: I think evolution seems to work just like the rock record and experiments shows it works. [...] I do not see "more complex" arising from "less complex"; anywhere. So I move on. "Old guy in the sky", well, That makes more assumptions than a star makes neutrino's. If we continue to argue these two "end points" the rift will never close in our lifetimes. > > Agreed re assumptions and end points, but I think we learn a lot from these arguments. > > Under “Contingent evolution” you asked: “What “pushes” the cells in your body to do what they do?” [...] What pushes the fabric of space that is “you” to be you?” BBella replied with a single word answer: “Symbiosis”. I wouldn't dare to sum up the driving force behind identity in that manner, but it's a brilliant answer to your comments on evolutionary complexity. Once multicellularity came on the scene, every single innovation had to be the result of cells cooperating for mutual advantage, no matter whether they were divinely preprogrammed, divinely ”pushed”, or “pushed” by some intelligent mechanism within the genome.-One step closer you get. I would expect a biologist to use the word. Now address the "fact" that there is not one example of less complex forming more complex.
DILEMMAS
by David Turell , Sunday, November 02, 2014, 21:02 (3672 days ago) @ GateKeeper
> GK: One step closer you get. I would expect a biologist to use the word. Now address the "fact" that there is not one example of less complex forming more complex.-This is exactly correct. What GK is referring to are the gaps. All the fossils for complex organisms appear out of nowhere, fully functional. Because we see life go from simple to complex and the fossils are progressive by age, we presume a mechanism of evolution occurred. As Tony has just pointed out, evolution is a thoery, not a fact. My presumption may be wrong. It may be God stepping in all along the way.
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
by David Turell , Sunday, November 02, 2014, 21:37 (3672 days ago) @ David Turell
I work under the assumption that evolution occurred. The science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism. Since I believe in God, I believe in a guided theistic evolution. Tony appears to believe that God created life in stages, not a free can independent process. I agree. He and I are not much apart. I can see that both animal and plant kingdoms are set up in basic patterns. Then there are variations on those patterns. Some of these are instinctual behavior such as ant learning to float in a flood by joining bodies as a raft. Some of these are environmental: the squirrels on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon are a slightly different species than those on the South Rim. Darwin's famous finches differ slight from island to island with varying vegetation. These simple modifications are the only inventions that living organisms can do, if there is an IM, as epigentic research is finding.-Complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM. -The entire bush of life provides a balance of nature. For example Monarchs feed only on Milkweed, and they help the pollination process by that. The entire complex system of life' organisms has all parts depending upon a relationship to other parts. Life must either gain energy by itself as photosynthesis takes energy from the sun to produce plants, or in the animal kingdom, greater animals prey on lesser animals. Therefore the natural mox of living things are generally all necessary to support the system. I know the bush looks weird with all its branches and sub-branches, but everytime the balance is upset, we find reasons for why the balance is designed the way it is. The Australian experience is the best example I know of as to what happens when bringing in entirely new species, and the balance is severely damaged. In Hawaii they have learned their lesson and are very strict. There is a reason for the bush.-Whenever we think we know better than what we find is the natural balance, we cause trouble.-In summary I strongly believe is God-guided evolution, and an IM is only for minor variation from the basic patterns. God provides the information to run the show. Information cannot arise by chance.
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
I have tried to break various “dilemma” and “contingent evolution” posts down into three sections which seem to me to cover the dilemmas arising from David's latest mullings.-DAVID: I work under the assumption that evolution occurred. The science findings strongly suggest such a mechanism. Since I believe in God, I believe in a guided theistic evolution.[...]. These simple modifications [ant rafts, finches with longer beaks] are the only inventions that living organisms can do, if there is an IM, as epigentic research is finding.-And in response to Tony's “third way” you wrote: You are describing what I think of as micro-evolution, adaptive changes in fully established species. And this is all an inventive mechanism can do. We cannot excape the fact that the fossil rcord repeatedly tells us all new advanced species arrive full-blown, fully functional. This is the loud and clear message from the Cambrian Explosion.-Once more, then, despite the fact that “there is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about” (26 October at 01.45), you know that living organisms are capable of only the simplest modifications - they can learn new tricks (ant rafts), or Nature will select longer beaks for certain environments. Do you stand by your (forgotten) agreement on 31 October that ants could build cities without divine guidance, or do you now believe God dabbled or preprogrammed those into the first cells, as he did with the monarch butterfly's four generation cycle and migration? A week ago, a mechanism capable of more than mere adaptation was “certainly possible”, but now we are seemingly back to every single innovation and virtually every natural wonder being either preprogrammed into the first living cells, or the result of divine dabbling. There is no inventive mechanism at all, since you happen to know the mechanism is incapable of inventing. (During this period of evolutionary stasis, nothing new has evolved, so presumably you know that what we see is all there will ever be, although we don't actually know what genes are capable of, let alone what will happen in the next thousand/million/billion years.) As for the Cambrian, do you really expect to find fossils of non-creatures? No matter what form of evolution you believe in, if you accept common descent, you accept that living creatures are descended from other living creatures, which seems to tie in with your comment below, that “contingent evolution means one step follows another”. Perhaps, though, in the light of the above comment on the Cambrian, you are coming round to embracing creationism. DAVID: The entire bush of life provides a balance of nature. [...]-You think you have solved your dilemma of the higgledy-piggledy bush by convincing yourself that without every twiglet, the world would come to an end, and so God had to plan the four-generation cycle and migration of the monarch. The fact that Nature's “balance” has shifted seismically throughout life's history, with millions of species going extinct, and new organisms replacing old ones, makes no difference, because that was presumably also God's plan (he is, after all, in “total control” of evolution). Until we humans came on the scene, the rebalancing depended entirely on the workings of Nature. So do you believe your God preprogrammed/directed every single environmental change, extinction and innovation, both local and global, prior to the arrival of humans? DAVID: To me contingent evolution means one step follows another. For Gould this meant a chance sequence. Evolution is either by chance or it is planned. There is no third way. -“Evolution is either by chance or it is planned” begs the question what aspect of evolution, and what sort of planning? A god who created an inventive mechanism to respond in different ways to random changes in the environment can be said to have planned evolution to provide an unpredictable variety of life forms. So there is overall planned randomness. Each individual innovation in itself requires planning, but if it is triggered by random changes in the environment, you have a mixture of chance and small-scale planning (perhaps by God, perhaps by an IM, depending on the range of its capabilities). Even the theory of random mutations - which all three of us reject - can be taken back to the beginning, if you think God planned a great big lucky dip, allowing Nature to do the rest. (I wonder how the enthusiastic Rev. Charles Kingsley interpreted Darwin's theory, since random mutations were then integral to it.) Or of course your God could have started out without a clue what he was doing, and dabbled as things developed - another mixture of chance and design. Planning entails purpose, but the sort of planning will depend on the sort of purpose. And attributing a purpose entails reading God's mind, which with your warnings against anthropomorphizing God, you would surely not advise us even to attempt.
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 05, 2014, 16:05 (3669 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:As for the Cambrian, do you really expect to find fossils of non-creatures? No matter what form of evolution you believe in, if you accept common descent, you accept that living creatures are descended from other living creatures, which seems to tie in with your comment below, that “contingent evolution means one step follows another”. Perhaps, though, in the light of the above comment on the Cambrian, you are coming round to embracing creationism.-What?! I am a creationist. Is that a surprise. I believe in theistic evolution, a process in which God designed the developing complexity, in steps, not itty-bits. As for 'fossils from non-creatures', before the Cambrian everything is very simple, and then suddenly (in geologic time) very complex. This is punc-eq at its most elegant. There are pre-Cambrian fossils, more and more of them as discovery continues. I don't see your point.-> dhw: The fact that Nature's “balance” has shifted seismically throughout life's history, with millions of species going extinct, and new organisms replacing old ones, makes no difference, because that was presumably also God's plan (he is, after all, in “total control” of evolution). Until we humans came on the scene, the rebalancing depended entirely on the workings of Nature.-Nature was always in balance in the past at each step. It doesn't work if out of balance. we humans had better be very careful.-> dhw: So do you believe your God preprogrammed/directed every single environmental change, extinction and innovation, both local and global, prior to the arrival of humans?-I have no way of knowing. Only guesses I prefer. God created the universe to evolve from the BB. It may run partially on its own.-> dhw: Each individual innovation in itself requires planning, but if it is triggered by random changes in the environment, you have a mixture of chance and small-scale planning (perhaps by God, perhaps by an IM, depending on the range of its capabilities).-All planning requires the development of information. It must follow rules and guidelines to be coherent. 'Planning' always means prior design and purpose. That statement cannot be avoided. An IM must follow those rules.-> dhw:Or of course your God could have started out without a clue what he was doing, and dabbled as things developed - another mixture of chance and design. Planning entails purpose, but the sort of planning will depend on the sort of purpose. And attributing a purpose entails reading God's mind, which with your warnings against anthropomorphizing God, you would surely not advise us even to attempt.-But I do attempt it. I don't try to analyze His personality, as religions do, but if God thinks, and we are part of the universal consciousness, then we think just like He does. We plan like He plans. This has been my position all along.
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
dhw: As for the Cambrian, do you really expect to find fossils of non-creatures? No matter what form of evolution you believe in, if you accept common descent, you accept that living creatures are descended from other living creatures, which seems to tie in with your comment below, that “contingent evolution means one step follows another”. Perhaps, though, in the light of the above comment on the Cambrian, you are coming round to embracing creationism. DAVID: What?! I am a creationist. Is that a surprise. I believe in theistic evolution, a process in which God designed the developing complexity, in steps, not itty-bits.-I keep forgetting that terms change their meanings even as we use them. I meant ‘creationist' as antithesis to ‘evolutionist': i.e. someone who rejects common descent and believes God created all species separately. DAVID: As for 'fossils from non-creatures', before the Cambrian everything is very simple, and then suddenly (in geologic time) very complex. This is punc-eq at its most elegant. There are pre-Cambrian fossils, more and more of them as discovery continues. I don't see your point.-You linked your latest restriction of the inventive mechanism (minor adaptations only) with the fossil record showing that Cambrian organisms arrive “full-blown, fully functional”. My point is that if you accept common descent, each new step (regardless of its initiator) would have taken place in existing, functioning organisms, so there won't be fossils of any non functional creatures. Since many species became extinct in a relatively short time, perhaps they were experiments that didn't work out, though the organisms were also full-blown and fully functional. (It will be interesting to see what else comes to light from the Precambrian period, as the appearance of some new organisms may not have been as sudden as was first thought.) dhw: The fact that Nature's “balance” has shifted seismically throughout life's history, with millions of species going extinct, and new organisms replacing old ones, makes no difference, because that was presumably also God's plan (he is, after all, in “total control” of evolution). Until we humans came on the scene, the rebalancing depended entirely on the workings of Nature. DAVID: Nature was always in balance in the past at each step. It doesn't work if out of balance. we humans had better be very careful.-It depends how you define balance. The planet has survived all the catastrophes and transformations that Nature has thrown at it, but it has not remained the same. Different forms of life have dominated at different periods, and the balance has constantly changed. If we humans destroy ourselves, it will change again. But I still doubt that the world as we know it would collapse if God hadn't planned the four-generation-plus-migration life cycle of the monarch butterfly. dhw: So do you believe your God preprogrammed/directed every single environmental change, extinction and innovation, both local and global, prior to the arrival of humans? DAVID: I have no way of knowing. Only guesses I prefer. God created the universe to evolve from the BB. It may run partially on its own.-You are teasing me. One day it's “certainly possible” that the IM can do more than merely adapt, the next day it can't because God is in “total control”, the next day the universe may “run partially on its own”...In the context of theistic evolution, it's the part outside God's control that makes for the dilemma.-DAVID: All planning requires the development of information. It must follow rules and guidelines to be coherent. 'Planning' always means prior design and purpose. That statement cannot be avoided. An IM must follow those rules.-No disagreement here. An IM's purpose would be to exploit new conditions to the advantage of the organism as a whole. It would follow the guidelines laid down by those conditions and by the limitations of its own potential. Your divine preprogramming or dabbling would follow the same purpose and guidelines. dhw: Planning entails purpose, but the sort of planning will depend on the sort of purpose. And attributing a purpose entails reading God's mind, which with your warnings against anthropomorphizing God, you would surely not advise us even to attempt. DAVID: But I do attempt it. I don't try to analyze His personality, as religions do, but if God thinks, and we are part of the universal consciousness, then we think just like He does. We plan like He plans. This has been my position all along.-Mine too, when I wear my theist's hat. So we can hypothesize that God may have designed an unpredictable game that would run itself for his entertainment, or may have had a vague idea of what he wanted but had to keep messing about to achieve it, or may have set the wheels in motion and then got bored with the whole spiel and left it to its own devices. Each of these hypotheses can be squared with the world and the bush we know and with God thinking as we think. Why confine yourself, then, to the hypotheses that God set out to create humans, and has always been “in total control” (or maybe not), and deliberately preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle in order to maintain the balance of the Earth?
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
by David Turell , Friday, November 07, 2014, 16:32 (3667 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: My point is that if you accept common descent, each new step (regardless of its initiator) would have taken place in existing, functioning organisms, so there won't be fossils of any non functional creatures. Since many species became extinct in a relatively short time, perhaps they were experiments that didn't work out, though the organisms were also full-blown and fully functional.-Your thinking is not complete. Non-functional as you imply means the organism never existed. Common descent is the passage of life from one existing form to another. Only functional forms pass life from a lesser level to a higher level. If non-func. forms existed even for a short while (which might be what you are thinking) then there should be fossils. > > dhw: It depends how you define balance. The planet has survived all the catastrophes and transformations that Nature has thrown at it, but it has not remained the same. Different forms of life have dominated at different periods, and the balance has constantly changed.-You have just made my point: at each period of history the Earth and life have maintained a careful successful balance. It must be one of the required pattern rules. We humans are screwing with it now, as we both note. -> > dhw: You are teasing me. One day it's “certainly possible” that the IM can do more than merely adapt, the next day it can't because God is in “total control”, the next day the universe may “run partially on its own”...In the context of theistic evolution, it's the part outside God's control that makes for the dilemma.-You are the one teasing. I see no way of solving the dilemma with the evidence we have. > > DAVID: All planning requires the development of information. It must follow rules and guidelines to be coherent. 'Planning' always means prior design and purpose. That statement cannot be avoided. An IM must follow those rules. > > No disagreement here. An IM's purpose would be to exploit new conditions to the advantage of the organism as a whole. It would follow the guidelines laid down by those conditions and by the limitations of its own potential. Your divine preprogramming or dabbling would follow the same purpose and guidelines.-Agreed-> David: I don't try to analyze His personality, as religions do, but if God thinks, and we are part of the universal consciousness, then we think just like He does. We plan like He plans. This has been my position all along.[/i] > > dhw: So we can hypothesize that God may have designed an unpredictable game that would run itself for his entertainment, or may have had a vague idea of what he wanted but had to keep messing about to achieve it, or may have set the wheels in motion and then got bored with the whole spiel and left it to its own devices. Each of these hypotheses can be squared with the world and the bush we know and with God thinking as we think. Why confine yourself, then, to the hypotheses that God set out to create humans, and has always been “in total control” (or maybe not), and deliberately preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle in order to maintain the balance of the Earth?-For the simple reason that you and I exist and debate. Paul Davies observation that the arrival of sentient beings who can understand the workings of the universe, but who originated from rock and water is an extremely significant series of events, appearing to be against all odds. Why us? I still think there are only chance and design alternatives, or the picket fence!
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
dhw: My point is that if you accept common descent, each new step (regardless of its initiator) would have taken place in existing, functioning organisms, so there won't be fossils of any non functional creatures. Since many species became extinct in a relatively short time, perhaps they were experiments that didn't work out, though the organisms were also full-blown and fully functional.-DAVID: Your thinking is not complete. Non-functional as you imply means the organism never existed. Common descent is the passage of life from one existing form to another. Only functional forms pass life from a lesser level to a higher level. If non-func. forms existed even for a short while (which might be what you are thinking) then there should be fossils.-I did not think for one moment that non-functional forms existed! My point was that there are no fossils of non-functional organisms because there cannot have been any non-functional organisms. dhw: It depends how you define balance. The planet has survived all the catastrophes and transformations that Nature has thrown at it, but it has not remained the same. Different forms of life have dominated at different periods, and the balance has constantly changed. DAVID: You have just made my point: at each period of history the Earth and life have maintained a careful successful balance. It must be one of the required pattern rules. We humans are screwing with it now, as we both note. -It still depends on how you define balance. Until the Earth explodes, is burnt up, is smashed to pieces or whatever, it will have some sort of balance. Even if/when we wipe ourselves out, along with as many species as we can take with us, no doubt there will still be a balance of plants and bacteria. There just won't be anyone around to say: “Oh look, isn't it all beautifully balanced!” dhw: You are teasing me. One day it's “certainly possible” that the IM can do more than merely adapt, the next day it can't because God is in “total control”, the next day the universe may “run partially on its own”...In the context of theistic evolution, it's the part outside God's control that makes for the dilemma.-DAVID: You are the one teasing. I see no way of solving the dilemma with the evidence we have.-Nor do I, and so I am prepared to consider different options. No teasing. Whereas certainly possible on Monday, impossible on Tuesday, maybe on Wednesday....that's teasing.-dhw: ...we can hypothesize that God may have designed an unpredictable game that would run itself for his entertainment, or may have had a vague idea of what he wanted but had to keep messing about to achieve it, or may have set the wheels in motion and then got bored with the whole spiel and left it to its own devices. Each of these hypotheses can be squared with the world and the bush we know and with God thinking as we think. Why confine yourself, then, to the hypotheses that God set out to create humans, and has always been “in total control” (or maybe not), and deliberately preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle in order to maintain the balance of the Earth?-DAVID: For the simple reason that you and I exist and debate. Paul Davies observation that the arrival of sentient beings who can understand the workings of the universe, but who originated from rock and water is an extremely significant series of events, appearing to be against all odds. Why us? I still think there are only chance and design alternatives, or the picket fence!-Of course we have these three options, and of course consciousness is a significant event (especially for us), but that is still no reason to believe that God started out with the intention of creating us, was always in total control, and preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle! He may have started out with no particular intentions, may not have been in total control, and the Earth might not be unbalanced even by the extinction of the monarch butterfly, which might have figured out its migratory pattern all by itself!
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
by David Turell , Saturday, November 08, 2014, 17:48 (3666 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I did not think for one moment that non-functional forms existed! My point was that there are no fossils of non-functional organisms because there cannot have been any non-functional organisms.-I'm sorry. You seemed to imply the gigantic gap in progressively complex fossils before the Cambrian was due to their non-functionality. Of course it makes no sense. That gap is very real and as that remote part of time is further investigated, nothing has appeared that is very complex. Just sheets of cells, slightly more complex bags of cells with a mouth and anus, or no anus. Some are bilateral, which is an advance since it gives us a slight 'form' that is fixed. Some of the Ediacarans are frond-like, and still poorly understood. If the gap remains, and it has since Darwin's time, naturally occurring evolution is disproven by that negative. -> > dhw: It still depends on how you define balance. Until the Earth explodes, is burnt up, is smashed to pieces or whatever, it will have some sort of balance.-We see imbalance now. Ask the Australians. they brought in animals that have no business being there and are still trying to undo the population explosions of beasts that have no predators. Red in tooth and claw still applies and is best if maintained. Too many people surviving in Africa is displacing the wildlife. You've been there. You know. Elephants trampling villages because their habitat is displaced. For the best outcome for living organisms, the original balances are best. That is indisputable.-> > dhw: so I am prepared to consider different options. No teasing. Whereas certainly possible on Monday, impossible on Tuesday, maybe on Wednesday....that's teasing.-I've just been mulling. And I have declared my position at the start of this thread. > > dhw: Of course we have these three options, and of course consciousness is a significant event (especially for us), but that is still no reason to believe that God started out with the intention of creating us, was always in total control, and preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle! He may have started out with no particular intentions, may not have been in total control, and the Earth might not be unbalanced even by the extinction of the monarch butterfly, which might have figured out its migratory pattern all by itself!-I think my analysis has proven to me 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that my theory is correct. You can continue to posit alternate scenarios, but they make no rational sense to me. We remain apart: an IM is probably present. It follows patterns previously established; it follows guidelines, and it is limited to adaptation to solve environmental changes and problems. Natural selection passively picks out winners, but species remain species. I have concluded that God arranges for totally new species in theistic evolution.
DILEMMAS: my position clarified
dhw: I did not think for one moment that non-functional forms existed! My point was that there are no fossils of non-functional organisms because there cannot have been any non-functional organisms. DAVID: I'm sorry. You seemed to imply the gigantic gap in progressively complex fossils before the Cambrian was due to their non-functionality. Of course it makes no sense. That gap is very real and as that remote part of time is further investigated, nothing has appeared that is very complex....If the gap remains, and it has since Darwin's time, naturally occurring evolution is disproven by that negative.-It's fascinating to speculate on why so many new species appeared, but it would also be interesting to know why so many new species failed to survive. God's preprogramming and/or dabbling would appear to have been highly ineffective in those cases, whereas an independently operating inventive mechanism would have had its successes and failures (“failures” meaning functioning organisms that did not stand the test of natural selection). Why do you think your God planned for all those species to “explode” onto the Cambrian scene and then depart so (relatively) soon? -dhw: It still depends on how you define balance. Until the Earth explodes, is burnt up, is smashed to pieces or whatever, it will have some sort of balance.-DAVID: We see imbalance now...Red in tooth and claw still applies and is best if maintained. Too many people surviving in Africa is displacing the wildlife... For the best outcome for living organisms, the original balances are best. That is indisputable.-You wrote: “At each period of history, the Earth and life have maintained a careful successful balance.” At each period of life's history, species have become extinct, so what balances what? If “Nature red in tooth and claw” is best, the best balance was clearly before the introduction of humans, who are the reddest of all Nature's animal species. “Too many people”? So balance depends on there being fewer people, which means war, natural catastrophes, disease etc. to restore the natural balance. Fair enough, but it really makes you wonder why God bothered to preprogramme the life cycle of the monarch butterfly. dhw: ...so I am prepared to consider different options. No teasing. Whereas certainly possible on Monday, impossible on Tuesday, maybe on Wednesday....that's teasing. DAVID: I've just been mulling. And I have declared my position at the start of this thread.-You said that the basic patterns were preprogrammed, and the IM was “adaptation and nothing more”. You also went on to say that “there is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about”, and later conceded it was “certainly possible” that the IM could do more than adapt. Please carry on mulling, but perhaps it might be wiser to refrain from authoritative statements about what functions genes can and cannot perform until science finally establishes what genes can and cannot perform!-dhw: Of course we have these three options, and of course consciousness is a significant event (especially for us), but that is still no reason to believe that God started out with the intention of creating us, was always in total control, and preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle! He may have started out with no particular intentions, may not have been in total control, and the Earth might not be unbalanced even by the extinction of the monarch butterfly, which might have figured out its migratory pattern all by itself!-DAVID: I think my analysis has proven to me 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that my theory is correct. Well, you should know what you think your analysis has proven to you, and you wouldn't believe it if you thought there was reasonable doubt. Where you, Tony and I differ is in what we hold to be reasonable doubt. Just where does “rational sense” end and faith begin? For me - and I hope for you and Tony too - that is what makes these discussions worthwhile.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 10, 2014, 04:14 (3665 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: God's preprogramming and/or dabbling would appear to have been highly ineffective in those cases... Why do you think your God planned for all those species to “explode” onto the Cambrian scene and then depart so (relatively) soon? > -I just wanted to chime in on this point here, because it is one that has been raised many times, despite what I think is a sufficient reasonable explanation. Your primary question, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is:-If God is knowledgeable and powerful enough to create all of this, why didn't he create it de nihilo plene in extremis (Out of nothing fully formed in its final state).-First, I think the question deserves another question in response:-If we can create a computer program from scratch, why don't we create them straight into their final state and just skip all that intermediary stuff?-Your secondary question, which is causative related to the first, is:-If God is knowledgeable and powerful enough to create all of this, why create intermediaries that he knew would have to be destroyed?- The simple answer is, you don't do it because you can't and it has nothing to do with power or knowledge. Without the laws of physics, the computer won't run. Without the hardware, the software won't run. Without the BIOS, the OS won't run. Without the OS, the other software won't run. What good is writing the software for a OS, BIOS, and PC that do not exist? You can plan them all in advance, you could even, to an extent, implement them in some form or fashion in advance(jotting down the code in your notebook, for example). Yet, unless each stage is already in existence and running you can not implement the next stage. -Now, as it applies directly to Earth and living species, consider this. What if the end goal was not one lonely planet with a few million species in the middle of a vast and otherwise empty universe? What if the plan was a vast universe teaming with near infinite variety of life?-The reason these two questions are of utmost importance is that it goes back to the order of the way things were created. IF the plan was to create just the Earth, and just the (relatively) few species that live on it, then why create the rest of the Universe at all? He probably could have gotten away with a small galaxy and just tweaked the parameters accordingly. But if the plan was much, much bigger than that, then that would require intermediary steps. -The laws of physics dictate how electronics work, but they do not specify a strict TYPE of computer that we can create, nor do they explicitly dictate the way that they are constructed or how they function. Just look at the huge strides that we have made since the old vacuum tube computers! Similarly, the laws of physics do not dictate a specific type of planet that will be generated. They impose limits and constraints while allowing for variation.-The very mechanisms that allow for variation DEMAND 'post-processing'. To go back to our computer analogy, the software that runs between the hardware and operating system (called the BIOS) performs conditioning that allows for the OS to interact with the hardware. This can't run until the computer is powered on. More tellingly, one of the things that happens when you turn on your computer is that it "sets the environmental variables". In the case of the earth, this would have been the microbial life that forms the foundation of all life on this planet. It acts as a interface layer, a conditioning layer, between higher lifeforms and the environment, and quite literally sets the environmental variables necessary to sustain higher life.-And now we come to the tell-tale part of our analogy. Once the computer boots up, and the new environment is configured, do you think that the work is done? No! Once the OS is up and running, other software will start. Some of it will run non-stop until the computer shuts down, others will only start up, run their required program, and switch back off. Does that make them any less meaningful? Not at all. If those programs had not done their work, the program that is running today simply could not have functioned properly.-This is where evolution fails us. Instead of looking for WHY these things existed, what their purpose was, we try to understand HOW they existed. In confuses the priorities and leads to a segmented and skewed perception of the world. Of course, this segmentation was the prime principle of the reductionist mentality which still rules supreme today.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Monday, November 10, 2014, 05:47 (3665 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: This is where evolution fails us. Instead of looking for WHY these things existed, what their purpose was, we try to understand HOW they existed. In confuses the priorities and leads to a segmented and skewed perception of the world. Of course, this segmentation was the prime principle of the reductionist mentality which still rules supreme today.-Great analogy. DNA is a code and the genome runs as a computer program. We understand only a small portion of it so far, but I anticipate extreme complexity will be uncovered which will help explain how the genome creates life and runs its programs. That complexity will require the recognition of design.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DAVID: Great analogy. DNA is a code and the genome runs as a computer program. We understand only a small portion of it so far, but I anticipate extreme complexity will be uncovered which will help explain how the genome creates life and runs its programs. That complexity will require the recognition of design.-The fact that we understand only a small portion so far makes me ask yet again how you can be so sure that the genome is capable of nothing more than minor adaptations. Your prediction is confusing. You say the genome runs as a computer programme, and it (creates life and) runs its programmes. So where did “its programmes” come from? Are you saying God preprogrammed the genome to invent its own programmes? If so, we are back in full force to my inventive mechanism which creates its own innovations. Thank you. Or are you saying God preprogrammed the genome of the first cells to pass on and run a few zillion programmes he himself had inserted into them, such as the three-generation-plus-migration life cycle of the monarch butterfly? You can still have your design, but do you think scientists are more likely to discover the programme for implementing a zillion monarch-like preprogrammed programmes, or a mechanism capable of creating its own programmes?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Monday, November 10, 2014, 15:24 (3664 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You say the genome runs as a computer programme, and it (creates life and) runs its programmes. So where did “its programmes” come from? Are you saying God preprogrammed the genome to invent its own programmes?-That is possible, but I don't know. There is a simpler answer below. -> dhw: Or are you saying God preprogrammed the genome of the first cells to pass on and run a few zillion programmes he himself had inserted into them?-Also possible, but simpler answer below.-> dhw: You can still have your design, but do you think scientists are more likely to discover the programme for implementing a zillion monarch-like preprogrammed programmes, or a mechanism capable of creating its own programmes?-Answer: Computer programs that write programs exist. Programmers exist. History fits my answer: The computers of the 1980's were filled with childs-play programs compared to today. Note Tony's description of whole teams of programs cooperating with each other. DNA with 3+ billion bases, a quaternary coding system, now noted to be 80% functional is making human beings with 20,000+ genes and layers of controls. Imagine God as a programmer, for His reasons (unknown to us)starting life from rocks and water with a complex code, and using the evolutionary process to advance life from wiggly single cells to our complexity, by introducing master programs on top of previously master programs. As I solidify my thinking, and Tony has helped (thank you Tony), I think dabbling may be a major consideration. I believe in the concept of theistic evolution, which means guided evolution, which means introducing new DNA programs, which means current human DNA is an evolved coding molecule.-Your last question above typically leaves out God, the dabbler. As for the monarch, its DNA is sequenced, but so far no one knows how it causes metamorphosis, no less than its GPS guidance system for migration. When the 'how' is delineated (if ever) the complexity will demand a recognition of purposeful design.-Wolfgang Pauli on Darwin:-“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific' and ‘rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” (pp. 27-28)-http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf-Matt's comments would be interesting.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 10, 2014, 20:16 (3664 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by Balance_Maintained, Monday, November 10, 2014, 20:54
Just as a quick something to think about...-If you have base creature with 4 (and only four) possible 'components' or parts that it is comprised of, and you have 10 versions of each part, and 6 possible 'material' variations, and 2 possible colors, you end up with over 200 million possible combinations. Yes, those numbers are rather arbitrary, but consider this:-Let's say you have a base "Canine". All canines have some things in common. Consider this a 'Parent Class' in programming terms. Then you have varients:-Snout Length - Extra Long, Long, Normal, Medium, Small, Pug (6) Ear Length - Extra Long, Long, Normal, Medium, Small (5) Hair Length - Extra Long, Long, Normal, Medium, Small, None (6) Tail Length - Extra Long, Long, Normal, Medium, Small, Bobbed, None (7) Body Length - Extra Long, Long, Normal, Medium, Small (5) Leg Length - Extra Long, Long, Normal, Medium, Small (5) Muscle Mass - Massive, Stocky, Normal, Slight, Small, Miniature (6)- That is 189,000 Possible variants of "Canine" JUST off of those few variants. But in nature, the variants aren't discreet. They are more like floating point values between 0.0 & 1.0. That is literally 100 trillion possible variants based on just those 7 values. Add 2 more zeroes for every additional variant trait you add. So, when I say God could have literally created just a handful of animals originally, and had them populate the Earth and show such great variety, it is not that much of a stretch. Create one pair of canines, with say 50 possible variant factors that scale on floating point values, and you end up with 50e100 (50+100 zeroes) possible variants of a single archetype. -Now, there are only about 35 major phyla that are generally accepted. I seriously doubt that classification is correct. But even if we double it, or quadruple it, is it too much to think that the creator of the entire universe could create 140 separate creatures with 10 (or 50!) possible variants? As a game designer, I can tell you that creating a few hundred objects with a few dozen variables, while not trivial, is certainly doable event bu humans. If God already has the Blueprint (program), and understands it the way today's procedural programmers understand their code, the task would be almost trivial.-**edit** Creating them would be trivial.... balancing them... that is an ENTIRELY different story.-**edit 2** Even if the creation was done at the Order or Family level, it is still several orders of magnitude lower than would be required to create ever "species".
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Monday, November 10, 2014, 22:03 (3664 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony; Now, there are only about 35 major phyla that are generally accepted. I seriously doubt that classification is correct. But even if we double it, or quadruple it, is it too much to think that the creator of the entire universe could create 140 separate creatures with 10 (or 50!) possible variants? As a game designer, I can tell you that creating a few hundred objects with a few dozen variables, while not trivial, is certainly doable event bu humans. If God already has the Blueprint (program), and understands it the way today's procedural programmers understand their code, the task would be almost trivial. > > **edit** Creating them would be trivial.... balancing them... that is an ENTIRELY different story.-This is why I brought up the idea of patterns of body design, although I don't fully understand programming. Actually in the Cambrian about 70 phyla have been identified. I think that flurry was to set the patterns in the most reasonable way.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: You say the genome runs as a computer programme, and it (creates life and) runs its programmes. So where did “its programmes” come from? Are you saying God preprogrammed the genome to invent its own programmes? DAVID: That is possible, but I don't know. There is a simpler answer below. -It's not a simpler answer. It's the same answer.-dhw: Or are you saying God preprogrammed the genome of the first cells to pass on and run a few zillion programmes he himself had inserted into them? DAVID: Also possible, but simpler answer below.-DAVID: Answer: Computer programs that write programs exist. Programmers exist.-That, in the theistic version of my scenario, means God (the programmer) invented the inventive mechanism (the computer programme that writes programmes) in the genome, and so the genome creates its own innovations. As you have done so many times before, you agree that it is possible. So please stop insisting that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adaptations. DAVID: Imagine God as a programmer, for His reasons (unknown to us) starting life from rocks and water with a complex code, and using the evolutionary process to advance life from wiggly single cells to our complexity, by introducing master programs on top of previously master programs. As I solidify my thinking, and Tony has helped (thank you Tony), I think dabbling may be a major consideration. -Dabbling is an alternative. But instead of God introducing new programmes, I am asking you to imagine God as a programmer who invents a programme that can invent its own programmes. You have agreed (on Monday) that it is possible. Today is Tuesday. I hope you still agree that it is possible. dhw: You can still have your design, but do you think scientists are more likely to discover the programme for implementing a zillion monarch-like preprogrammed programmes, or a mechanism capable of creating its own programmes?-DAVID: Your last question above typically leaves out God, the dabbler. -I'm not sure how scientists would discover that God had dabbled, but as above, dabbling is another possibility. DAVID: As for the monarch, its DNA is sequenced, but so far no one knows how it causes metamorphosis, no less than its GPS guidance system for migration. When the 'how' is delineated (if ever) the complexity will demand a recognition of purposeful design.-Agreed. I am simply left wondering why 3.7 billion years ago your God would preprogramme the first cells with a special programme for monarch butterflies or would later dabble to make sure the monarch butterfly lives and dies three times before its fourth generation migrates. I must confess I find it easier to imagine this being one of the autonomous inventions of the inventive mechanism which, in our theistic scenario, God invented in the first place. -DAVID: Wolfgang Pauli on Darwin.....-Yet another attack on “chance”. You'd have thought enough people had pointed this out already. Certainly on this website, the point has been done to death.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 11, 2014, 14:17 (3663 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: means God (the programmer) invented the inventive mechanism (the computer programme that writes programmes) in the genome, and so the genome creates its own innovations. As you have done so many times before, you agree that it is possible. So please stop insisting that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adaptations.-I agree with you that theoretically the IM might be capable of major adaptations, but the only evidence I see so far is for minor adaptations of existing patterns. My nylon bugs illustrate the point.- > > dhw: Dabbling is an alternative. But instead of God introducing new programmes, I am asking you to imagine God as a programmer who invents a programme that can invent its own programmes. You have agreed (on Monday) that it is possible. Today is Tuesday. I hope you still agree that it is possible.-Possible, and if God does the programming, obviously all outcomes are what He wishes.-> dhw: I am simply left wondering why 3.7 billion years ago your God would preprogramme the first cells with a special programme for monarch butterflies or would later dabble to make sure the monarch butterfly lives and dies three times before its fourth generation migrates. I must confess I find it easier to imagine this being one of the autonomous inventions of the inventive mechanism which, in our theistic scenario, God invented in the first place.-Your imagination is limited to the picket fence. If God is Tony's description of a master programmer, then once basic patterns are established, minor program modifications (dabbling) does the rest. And the IM handles minor adaptations, so God doesn't have to bother with every nit-picking change. > > DAVID: Wolfgang Pauli on Darwin..... > > dhw: Yet another attack on “chance”. You'd have thought enough people had pointed this out already. Certainly on this website, the point has been done to death.-Not the point in my mind. It is the vast landscape of possible proteins to form life. The odds against finding the proper ones are enormous, but they were found. We are living. That strongly suggests design and guidance to the right choices. I see no other third possibility when considering chance or design. Origin of life must be part of the theorizing in thinking of God's possible role. Ignoring OOL removes part of the equation.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw:...means God (the programmer) invented the inventive mechanism (the computer programme that writes programmes) in the genome, and so the genome creates its own innovations. As you have done so many times before, you agree that it is possible. So please stop insisting that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adaptations. DAVID: I agree with you that theoretically the IM might be capable of major adaptations, but the only evidence I see so far is for minor adaptations of existing patterns. My nylon bugs illustrate the point.-As I pointed out in my post on your lovely nylon bugs, no-one has ever observed the formation of new species. Of course the evidence "so far" is for adaptations. What evidence have you seen "so far" of God's 3.7-billion-year computer programme, or a dabble? But I'm happy with your theoretical agreement. I'm only theorizing myself.-dhw: ...I am asking you to imagine God as a programmer who invents a programme that can invent its own programmes. You have agreed (on Monday) that it is possible. Today is Tuesday. I hope you still agree that it is possible. DAVID: Possible, and if God does the programming, obviously all outcomes are what He wishes.-Maybe what he wishes is an unpredictable outcome. If he thinks like us (as you have maintained), he'll enjoy the excitement of the unpredictable. Do you get as much enjoyment watching sport, films etc. when you already know the outcome in advance? -dhw: I am simply left wondering why 3.7 billion years ago your God would preprogramme the first cells with a special programme for monarch butterflies or would later dabble to make sure the monarch butterfly lives and dies three times before its fourth generation migrates. I must confess I find it easier to imagine this being one of the autonomous inventions of the inventive mechanism which, in our theistic scenario, God invented in the first place.-DAVID: Your imagination is limited to the picket fence. If God is Tony's description of a master programmer, then once basic patterns are established, minor program modifications (dabbling) does the rest. And the IM handles minor adaptations, so God doesn't have to bother with every nit-picking change.-Nothing to do with the picket fence. I am debating with you here on a theistic level. With my theist hat on, it makes perfect sense for God to invent a mechanism that will do its own inventing, but your imagination is limited to a specific concept of God: namely, that he knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it (with a dabble here and there). And what he wanted - in your scenario - was to create humans. It's not even clear why he wanted to create humans. -DAVID: Wolfgang Pauli on Darwin..... dhw: Yet another attack on “chance”. You'd have thought enough people had pointed this out already. Certainly on this website, the point has been done to death.-DAVID: Not the point in my mind. It is the vast landscape of possible proteins to form life. The odds against finding the proper ones are enormous, but they were found. We are living. That strongly suggests design and guidance to the right choices. I see no other third possibility when considering chance or design. Origin of life must be part of the theorizing in thinking of God's possible role. Ignoring OOL removes part of the equation.-But we have laboured this point a thousand times. And a thousand times I have repeated that it is a major reason for not embracing atheism. The reverse side of the argument is the mystery of OOG - the Origin of God. You have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. Atheists have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. That's why agnostics sit on the fence.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 02:06 (3661 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Maybe what he [God] wishes is an unpredictable outcome. If he thinks like us (as you have maintained), he'll enjoy the excitement of the unpredictable. Do you get as much enjoyment watching sport, films etc. when you already know the outcome in advance?-Not likely. I don't know if God is omniscient, but I think He is all purposeful at heart. > dhw: I am debating with you here on a theistic level. With my theist hat on, it makes perfect sense for God to invent a mechanism that will do its own inventing, but your imagination is limited to a specific concept of God: namely, that he knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it (with a dabble here and there). And what he wanted - in your scenario - was to create humans. It's not even clear why he wanted to create humans.-Don't you like being here with the sentience we have? Don't you enjoy our existence? You sound very ungrateful to me. Do you have another suggestion of something or some one for Him to create? You think He doesn't have purposes? Why bother going to the trouble of a universe and all those animals and plants? Just fiddling around I guess. Phew! > > DAVID: Not the point in my mind. It is the vast landscape of possible proteins to form life. The odds against finding the proper ones are enormous, but they were found. We are living. That strongly suggests design and guidance to the right choices. I see no other third possibility when considering chance or design. Origin of life must be part of the theorizing in thinking of God's possible role. Ignoring OOL removes part of the equation. > > dhw: But we have laboured this point a thousand times. And a thousand times I have repeated that it is a major reason for not embracing atheism. The reverse side of the argument is the mystery of OOG - the Origin of God. You have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. Atheists have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. That's why agnostics sit on the fence.-You don't like my use of 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt'? A reasonable solution to the issue of 'why' is to reason to the best solution to the question. If you accept cause and effect, and understand the question of 'why is there anything?', there has to be a first cause, which must, per force, be supernatural. Just because you cannot get yourself to image that possibility, does not mean that it is illogical. Show me a fallacy in my line of reasoning.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: Maybe what he [God] wishes is an unpredictable outcome. If he thinks like us (as you have maintained), he'll enjoy the excitement of the unpredictable. Do you get as much enjoyment watching sport, films etc. when you already know the outcome in advance? DAVID: Not likely. I don't know if God is omniscient, but I think He is all purposeful at heart.-You did not answer my question. People who watch sport and who watch films also do so for a purpose. And the makers of the games and the films plan for unpredictability. dhw: I am debating with you here on a theistic level. With my theist hat on, it makes perfect sense for God to invent a mechanism that will do its own inventing, but your imagination is limited to a specific concept of God: namely, that he knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it (with a dabble here and there). And what he wanted - in your scenario - was to create humans. It's not even clear why he wanted to create humans. DAVID: Don't you like being here with the sentience we have? Don't you enjoy our existence? You sound very ungrateful to me. Do you have another suggestion of something or some one for Him to create? You think He doesn't have purposes? Why bother going to the trouble of a universe and all those animals and plants? Just fiddling around I guess. Phew!-I have no doubt that if God exists, he had a purpose in creating life. But I'm not convinced that WE are that purpose, or even if we are, I don't know his purpose for creating us. I love being here (so do many atheists) and am delighted to have had the opportunity to live my life. Lots of people have been less fortunate than me. What does that prove? That God loves us? That God doesn't love us? That God is enjoying the show? That God is fed up with the show? None of these speculations make your predictable 3.7-billion-year computer programme (or direct dabble) for the monarch butterfly's life cycle any more likely than my unpredictable inventive mechanism (possibly created by your God). Why do you insist that only a planned and predictable spectacle can constitute a purpose?-dhw: You have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. Atheists have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. That's why agnostics sit on the fence. DAVID: You don't like my use of 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt'? A reasonable solution to the issue of 'why' is to reason to the best solution to the question. If you accept cause and effect, and understand the question of 'why is there anything?', there has to be a first cause, which must, per force, be supernatural. Just because you cannot get yourself to image that possibility, does not mean that it is illogical. Show me a fallacy in my line of reasoning.-You cannot leave out consciousness. The fallacy is that the first cause must be (a) supernatural, and (b) conscious. You quite rightly, in my view, base your evidence on the complexities of life and consciousness, which seem inconceivable without conscious design. But if life and consciousness have to be designed, it is a logical fallacy to say that in God's case they do not have to be designed - they are simply there. You and I reached agreement that the first cause may be energy. But why would eternal energy be conscious of itself? An evolving consciousness through the mindless transformation of energy into matter into energy is just as possible/impossible as a consciousness that has simply existed for ever.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 17:57 (3660 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You did not answer my question. People who watch sport and who watch films also do so for a purpose. And the makers of the games and the films plan for unpredictability.-You keep equating God's motives or personality with human behavior. I specifically try not to do that, since we cannot know about Him except to look at what He produces. Yes, I ignored your supposition. I use inference to the best solution in logic. He produced humans against all odds of chance, therefore I interpret that result as His intent. > > I have no doubt that if God exists, he had a purpose in creating life. But I'm not convinced that WE are that purpose, or even if we are, I don't know his purpose for creating us. .... Why do you insist that only a planned and predictable spectacle can constitute a purpose?-I don't know why He created us either. But it required planning and control to do it against all odds. You also reject chance. you just can't imagine a designer so you invent unreasonable ways around one. I find a purposeful designer a reasonable result.- > DAVID: You don't like my use of 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt'? A reasonable solution to the issue of 'why' is to reason to the best solution to the question. If you accept cause and effect, and understand the question of 'why is there anything?', there has to be a first cause, which must, per force, be supernatural. Just because you cannot get yourself to image that possibility, does not mean that it is illogical. Show me a fallacy in my line of reasoning. > > dhw: You cannot leave out consciousness. The fallacy is that the first cause must be (a) supernatural, and (b) conscious. You quite rightly, in my view, base your evidence on the complexities of life and consciousness, which seem inconceivable without conscious design. But if life and consciousness have to be designed, it is a logical fallacy to say that in God's case they do not have to be designed - they are simply there. You and I reached agreement that the first cause may be energy. But why would eternal energy be conscious of itself? An evolving consciousness through the mindless transformation of energy into matter into energy is just as possible/impossible as a consciousness that has simply existed for ever.-I'll accept that energy in some form or state always existed. That is a logical first cause, but to postulate that amorphous energy can somehow organize itself into conscious energy is beyond my reasoning capacity. Therefore, I can accept only conscious energy as a first cause. Yu have rejected chance as the cause for the appearance of the universe and life, but injected it again at a prior level of development. You are not consistent. Try leaving out random chance in your thinking and see what happens.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: You did not answer my question. People who watch sport and who watch films also do so for a purpose. And the makers of the games and the films plan for unpredictability. DAVID: You keep equating God's motives or personality with human behavior. I specifically try not to do that, since we cannot know about Him except to look at what He produces. Yes, I ignored your supposition. I use inference to the best solution in logic. He produced humans against all odds of chance, therefore I interpret that result as His intent.-He also produced the monarch butterfly, the tyrannosaurus, the trilobite and the duck-billed platypus against all odds of chance. Life itself is against all odds of chance. You say God thinks like us, you insist that he had a particular purpose, but when I challenge that purpose and offer you a different one, you claim I'm anthropomorphizing God! Dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he had a purpose in creating life. But I'm not convinced that WE are that purpose, or even if we are, I don't know his purpose for creating us. .... Why do you insist that only a planned and predictable spectacle can constitute a purpose? DAVID: I don't know why He created us either. But it required planning and control to do it against all odds. You also reject chance. you just can't imagine a designer so you invent unreasonable ways around one. I find a purposeful designer a reasonable result.-I invent hypotheses that are no more and no less unreasonable than yours. If I thought one hypothesis was reasonable enough to believe in, I would climb down off my picket fence!-dhw: You and I reached agreement that the first cause may be energy. But why would eternal energy be conscious of itself? An evolving consciousness through the mindless transformation of energy into matter into energy is just as possible/impossible as a consciousness that has simply existed for ever. DAVID: I'll accept that energy in some form or state always existed. That is a logical first cause, but to postulate that amorphous energy can somehow organize itself into conscious energy is beyond my reasoning capacity. -Mine too. And to postulate that energy was somehow organized into consciousness from no beginning is also beyond my reasoning capacity. DAVID: Therefore, I can accept only conscious energy as a first cause. Yu have rejected chance as the cause for the appearance of the universe and life, but injected it again at a prior level of development. You are not consistent. Try leaving out random chance in your thinking and see what happens.-You insist that consciousness could only have been designed, and you insist that consciousness was always there. You are not consistent. Both hypotheses are beyond anyone's reasoning capacity, and you admit as much when you acknowledge that belief in conscious first cause energy is a matter of faith. So try applying reason to your faith and see what happens.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Saturday, November 15, 2014, 14:46 (3659 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: He also produced the monarch butterfly, the tyrannosaurus, the trilobite and the duck-billed platypus against all odds of chance. Life itself is against all odds of chance. You say God thinks like us, you insist that he had a particular purpose, but when I challenge that purpose and offer you a different one, you claim I'm anthropomorphizing God!-My background in Adler's "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes" is where we part ways. Life does look like a miracle, but when compared to the amazing bush, we humans stand out as something apart. Your thinking equates us with the duck-bills as just another twig. That amazing separation is what tells me His purpose. Our consciousness and our much more agile and useful body form is light-years apart from the apes or anything else. And evolutionary theory tells me for no good driving reason or challenging change in nature . > > dhw: I invent hypotheses that are no more and no less unreasonable than yours. If I thought one hypothesis was reasonable enough to believe in, I would climb down off my picket fence!-Your IM hypothesis as an extension of epigenetic mechanisms is certainly reasonable. But you don't describe where the IM came from, other than to point to cooperating cells conjuring it up. What your theory lacks is the recognition that such a mechanism requires initial information at some stage in the development of complex life, and there is no evidence that living forms can self-develop such a complex bundle of information. A code carries information, but in and of itself, it cannot supply information it does not have. If a code is modified and a new result appears, it only means that a previous supply of hidden information was brought to the forefront. As Spetner implies, it was all implanted at the beginning. -> > dhw: ...to postulate that energy was somehow organized into consciousness from no beginning is also beyond my reasoning capacity.-I understand that. That is why your rump is on the pickets. > > DAVID: Therefore, I can accept only conscious energy as a first cause. Yu have rejected chance as the cause for the appearance of the universe and life, but injected it again at a prior level of development. You are not consistent. Try leaving out random chance in your thinking and see what happens. > > dhw: You insist that consciousness could only have been designed, and you insist that consciousness was always there. You are not consistent. Both hypotheses are beyond anyone's reasoning capacity, and you admit as much when you acknowledge that belief in conscious first cause energy is a matter of faith. So try applying reason to your faith and see what happens.-One more time. Amorphous energy particles as a first cause have no impetus to self-organize into a designing consciousness. You accept cause and effect, but then your initial energy proposal is chance organization into something constructive. Therefore to me your approach makes no sense. Rationally, there has to be organized energy as first cause to start any meaningful sequence, for me a universal consciousness. I don't need faith to get to that conclusion. My faith is my conclusion that I am right. No other approach makes sense to me.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: He also produced the monarch butterfly, the tyrannosaurus, the trilobite and the duck-billed platypus against all odds of chance. Life itself is against all odds of chance. You say God thinks like us, you insist that he had a particular purpose, but when I challenge that purpose and offer you a different one, you claim I'm anthropomorphizing God! DAVID: My background in Adler's "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes" is where we part ways. Life does look like a miracle, but when compared to the amazing bush, we humans stand out as something apart. Your thinking equates us with the duck-bills as just another twig. That amazing separation is what tells me His purpose [...]-So there are two things that “look like a miracle”: life and humans. I agree, and would add a huge number of other miracle look-alikes (Nature's Wonders), but in the context of evolution that still doesn't mean humans were God's aim right from the start. I'll summarize the major problems which I pointed out in my earlier post: if your God directed evolution so purposefully, leaving nothing to chance, and organisms could not control their own development, he must have specially created every species (broader though sometimes also narrower sense, as with the monarch butterfly) - whether related to humans or not - or preprogrammed the first cells 3.7 billion years ago. Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans. -DAVID: I have arrived at a conclusion that is easing the dilemma. God started life with a vast input of information on how to create the emergent phenomenon of life itself. Then patterns were setup in a basic set of organismal families, and adaptive modifications created the bush. God did put an IM into the basic mechanisms of life. The IM follows constraints in the initial information programs. Recognizing there are thousands of natural niches in nature, which must stay in balance, it is no surprise there is a bush of life with many inventive results.-Your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the inventive mechanism. You have glossed over all my arguments, mainly through the term “adaptive modifications”. Your last sentence is a good summary of why the inventive mechanism may have INVENTED so many totally different, and also miraculous-seeming forms of life, but you exclude invention because it doesn't fit in with God preprogramming human beings into the very first cells. A dabble is feasible - but that means either he didn't know how to get to humans (hence the higgledy-piggledy), or he suddenly had a bright idea. To add to your convolutions, I forgot to mention that he would have had to preprogramme every environmental change as well. dhw: I invent hypotheses that are no more and no less unreasonable than yours. If I thought one hypothesis was reasonable enough to believe in, I would climb down off my picket fence! DAVID: Your IM hypothesis as an extension of epigenetic mechanisms is certainly reasonable. But you don't describe where the IM came from, other than to point to cooperating cells conjuring it up.-The IM is an explanation of evolution, and I have repeatedly said the source might or might not have been your designer God. The other no more/no less unreasonable hypothesis I was referring to is first cause energy evolving consciousness through matter (see below). DAVID: ...there is no evidence that living forms can self-develop such a complex bundle of information. -There is plenty of evidence that living forms can (a) acquire information, and (b) use it to change various parts of themselves. We have never witnessed the formation of new species (broad sense), so we don't know how much they can change. There is no evidence of a 3.7-billion-year computer programme or of God dabbling.-DAVID: You are not consistent. Try leaving out random chance in your thinking and see what happens. dhw: You insist that consciousness could only have been designed, and you insist that consciousness was always there. You are not consistent. Both hypotheses are beyond anyone's reasoning capacity, and you admit as much when you acknowledge that belief in conscious first cause energy is a matter of faith. So try applying reason to your faith and see what happens. DAVID: One more time. Amorphous energy particles as a first cause have no impetus to self-organize into a designing consciousness. -So you argue that amorphous energy has always been conscious!-DAVID: You accept cause and effect, but then your initial energy proposal is chance organization into something constructive. Therefore to me your approach makes no sense. Rationally, there has to be organized energy as first cause to start any meaningful sequence, for me a universal consciousness. I don't need faith to get to that conclusion. My faith is my conclusion that I am right. No other approach makes sense to me.-I see no difference between irrational faith in energy somehow being consciously organized and irrational faith in energy somehow organizing itself into consciousness. The only rational element in both hypotheses is that consciousness exists, so it must have come into existence “somehow”. Of course you have faith that your “somehow” is right. So do atheists.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Sunday, November 16, 2014, 21:38 (3658 days ago) @ dhw
>dhw: Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans.-Not at all. I am accepting Tony's pattern approach which is similar to my pattern approach. Set the original stages in patterns, and let variation by the organisms supply the bushy look. > > dhw: Your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the inventive mechanism.....a dabble is feasible - but that means either he didn't know how to get to humans (hence the higgledy-piggledy), or he suddenly had a bright idea. To add to your convolutions, I forgot to mention that he would have had to preprogramme every environmental change as well.-But I am settled on an interpretation of an inventive mechanism within guidelines. working off initial patterns. This gets rid of the dabble. I think the environment and the evolution of the universe follows physical principals, and God doesn't need to intervene. Chicxulub speeded up the appearance of mammals as dominant, but that would have eventually occurred anyway, just later.-> > dhw: The IM is an explanation of evolution, and I have repeatedly said the source might or might not have been your designer God. -Spetner calls the IM by another name, but he thoroughly believes in it. Our only argument is the degree of constraints on the adaptations. We still don't know how speciation occurs. Spetner doesn't accept common descent. And he is right, even though evolution looks like common descent, there is no proof of it, only appearance.-> > dhw: There is plenty of evidence that living forms can (a) acquire information, and (b) use it to change various parts of themselves. We have never witnessed the formation of new species (broad sense), so we don't know how much they can change. There is no evidence of a 3.7-billion-year computer programme or of God dabbling.-Acquiring information about one's environment is obvious, but you cannot tell me how the genome acquires new information for speciation, because that is all Darwinian pipedream, and no one knows. It is entirely a different type of information, and mutations generally subtract information, not add to it. The research studies make that quite clear, as Spetner, quoting them repeatedly points out. > > dhw: So you argue that amorphous energy has always been conscious!-Of course. First cause is God > > dhw: I see no difference between irrational faith in energy somehow being consciously organized and irrational faith in energy somehow organizing itself into consciousness. The only rational element in both hypotheses is that consciousness exists, so it must have come into existence “somehow”. Of course you have faith that your “somehow” is right. So do atheists.-It is not irrational that consciousness somehow appeared and it came from energy. That is the history we are dealing with. I fully doubt that natural events created consciousness, the point of Nagel's book. There must be a first cause. The stream of contingent of events must start somewhere and somehow.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans. DAVID: Not at all. I am accepting Tony's pattern approach which is similar to my pattern approach. Set the original stages in patterns, and let variation by the organisms supply the bushy look.-The monarch butterfly is one of 15-20,000 species of butterfly, but according to you (2 November at 21.37) “complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM.” Since according to you the purpose of evolution was to produce humans, and the IM is capable of nothing more than “minor adaptations”, it follows that all species (broad sense) plus specially programmed “variations” like this one, plus a few million others, must be necessary for the existence of humans. dhw: Your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the inventive mechanism.....a dabble is feasible - but that means either he didn't know how to get to humans (hence the higgledy-piggledy), or he suddenly had a bright idea. To add to your convolutions, I forgot to mention that he would have had to preprogramme every environmental change as well.-DAVID: But I am settled on an interpretation of an inventive mechanism within guidelines. working off initial patterns. This gets rid of the dabble. I think the environment and the evolution of the universe follows physical principals, and God doesn't need to intervene. Chicxulub speeded up the appearance of mammals as dominant, but that would have eventually occurred anyway, just later.-So now we have the first cells preprogrammed with every single innovation leading from bacteria to humans, along with millions of Nature's Wonders like the monarch's lifestyle and the spider's silk. These intricate programmes had to be passed down through billions of years and generations and different organisms to produce the migratory monarch and the silky spider as vital steps along the way to humans. To add to the improbability, Chicxulub was not preprogrammed after all, and so these programmes depended on chance coming up with the right environment. Luckily for us there wasn't a Chicxulub right at the start to destroy those first cells with all their programmes! I'm surprised that your God was/is such a gambler.-dhw: The IM is an explanation of evolution, and I have repeatedly said the source might or might not have been your designer God. DAVID: Spetner calls the IM by another name, but he thoroughly believes in it. Our only argument is the degree of constraints on the adaptations. -Which is another way of saying that your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the IM.-DAVID: We still don't know how speciation occurs. Spetner doesn't accept common descent. And he is right, even though evolution looks like common descent, there is no proof of it, only appearance.-I look forward to your report on Spetner's ideas, and especially to hearing his alternative to common descent. Speciation will look like whatever you want it to look like - evolution by mutation, IM, divine programming or dabbling, or separate creation. The different species are the dots, and the explanation depends on how we choose to join them (or not join them). But presumably Spetner does not believe that all forms of life, apart from the first, descended from earlier forms. -dhw: There is plenty of evidence that living forms can (a) acquire information, and (b) use it to change various parts of themselves. We have never witnessed the formation of new species (broad sense), so we don't know how much they can change. There is no evidence of a 3.7-billion-year computer programme or of God dabbling.-DAVID: Acquiring information about one's environment is obvious, but you cannot tell me how the genome acquires new information for speciation, because that is all Darwinian pipedream, and no one knows. -Of course no-one knows, and that's why all the theories are “pipedreams”. Your divine, 3.7-billion-year computer programme for all those organs, wonders and species geared to us humans is as dreamy as any pipe-smoker has ever dreamt.-dhw: I see no difference between irrational faith in energy somehow being consciously organized and irrational faith in energy somehow organizing itself into consciousness. The only rational element in both hypotheses is that consciousness exists, so it must have come into existence “somehow”. Of course you have faith that your “somehow” is right. So do atheists. DAVID: It is not irrational that consciousness somehow appeared and it came from energy. That is the history we are dealing with. I fully doubt that natural events created consciousness, the point of Nagel's book. There must be a first cause. The stream of contingent of events must start somewhere and somehow.-If energy is the first cause, then clearly consciousness “somehow appeared and it came from energy” and the stream of contingent events “must start somewhere and somehow.” That's what the discussion is about: whether consciousness was always there, or emerged through some form of evolution. The fact that you “fully doubt” the latter does not make your beliefs any more rational or irrational than anyone else's.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Monday, November 17, 2014, 21:30 (3657 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Since according to you the purpose of evolution was to produce humans, and the IM is capable of nothing more than “minor adaptations”, it follows that all species (broad sense) plus specially programmed “variations” like this one, plus a few million others, must be necessary for the existence of humans.-I think that is the case. See the Spetner review > > dhw: So now we have the first cells preprogrammed with every single innovation leading from bacteria to humans, along with millions of Nature's Wonders.... To add to the improbability, Chicxulub was not preprogrammed after all, and so these programmes depended on chance coming up with the right environment. Luckily for us there wasn't a Chicxulub right at the start to destroy those first cells with all their programmes! I'm surprised that your God was/is such a gambler.-You appear to be describing Spetner's view. My own view is close to Spetner, but I've gone further than he has in theorizing about the IM (NREH)mechanisms and its abilities.-> dhw: Which is another way of saying that your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the IM.-True. Perhaps it is better to follow Spetner and not guess as to how it works. > > dhw: I look forward to your report on Spetner's ideas, and especially to hearing his alternative to common descent. -He is a believer in God, who thinks life was set up from the beginning to adapt from the basic 365 life forms quoted in the Talmud. He challenges the Darwinists to prove their 'chance' approach by producing probability calculations, which he states can be done with the currently available information about the structure of proteins. Matt should take notice, as he claims it can't be done.- > dhw: Of course no-one knows, and that's why all the theories are “pipedreams”. Your divine, 3.7-billion-year computer programme for all those organs, wonders and species geared to us humans is as dreamy as any pipe-smoker has ever dreamt.-Spetner doesn't dream. He believes. Note that he clearly shows the scientific literature finds deletion of information with current adaptations. This means the information was there at the beginning of life. -> > dhw: If energy is the first cause, then clearly consciousness “somehow appeared and it came from energy” and the stream of contingent events “must start somewhere and somehow.” That's what the discussion is about: whether consciousness was always there, or emerged through some form of evolution. The fact that you “fully doubt” the latter does not make your beliefs any more rational or irrational than anyone else's.-I'm sorry, but for me it is irrational to think amorphous energy somehow by chance organized itself into a constructive consciousness.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
Dhw (16 November): Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans. DAVID (16 November): Not at all... Dhw (17 November): Since according to you the purpose of evolution was to produce humans, and the IM is capable of nothing more than “minor adaptations”, it follows that all species (broad sense) plus specially programmed “variations” like this one, plus a few million others, must be necessary for the existence of humans. DAVID (17 November): I think that is the case. See the Spetner review.-Gratifying though it is to have converted you from “not at all” on Sunday to “I think that is the case” on Monday, I can't help wondering what you will believe on Tuesday.-dhw: So now we have the first cells preprogrammed with every single innovation leading from bacteria to humans, along with millions of Nature's Wonders.... To add to the improbability, Chicxulub was not preprogrammed after all, and so these programmes depended on chance coming up with the right environment. Luckily for us there wasn't a Chicxulub right at the start to destroy those first cells with all their programmes! I'm surprised that your God was/is such a gambler. DAVID: You appear to be describing Spetner's view. My own view is close to Spetner, but I've gone further than he has in theorizing about the IM (NREH)mechanisms and its abilities.-I was actually describing your view, and am surprised that both you and Spetner should agree that your God relied on pot luck to produce the right conditions for his carefully planned, 3.7-billion-year programme from bacteria to humans via the monarch butterfly. I'm also surprised that anyone could go less far than you in theorizing about the IM, since you believe it to be capable of nothing more than minor adaptations. dhw: Which is another way of saying that your dilemma lies in not knowing how much autonomy your God gave to the IM. DAVID: True. Perhaps it is better to follow Spetner and not guess as to how it works.-And yet you are prepared to guess that is it only capable of minor adaptations. Perish the thought that it might be better to follow dhw and keep an open mind! -dhw: I look forward to your report on Spetner's ideas, and especially to hearing his alternative to common descent. DAVID: He is a believer in God, who thinks life was set up from the beginning to adapt from the basic 365 life forms quoted in the Talmud. He challenges the Darwinists to prove their 'chance' approach by producing probability calculations, which he states can be done with the currently available information about the structure of proteins. Matt should take notice, as he claims it can't be done.-Yeah, yeah, let's flog the dead horse of chance again. Does Spetner think God created 365 basic forms in the beginning, or is he working on the assumption that these all appeared gradually? And does he think humans were (a) God's purpose for creating life in the first place, and (b) one of the 365 basic forms, or an adaptation?-(Thank you for the review. I really appreciate the way you keep updating us on the latest research and publications - and I'm sure there are plenty of others who follow these posts of yours.)-dhw: Of course no-one knows, and that's why all the theories are “pipedreams”. Your divine, 3.7-billion-year computer programme for all those organs, wonders and species geared to us humans is as dreamy as any pipe-smoker has ever dreamt. DAVID: Spetner doesn't dream. He believes. Note that he clearly shows the scientific literature finds deletion of information with current adaptations. This means the information was there at the beginning of life.-Since the earliest forms of life were able to reproduce and must have contained the potential for evolution, it stands to reason that the information (I'd prefer to call it mechanism) for life and evolution must have been there at the beginning of life and evolution. But that doesn't mean God preprogrammed every conceivable innovation and millions of natural wonders right from the beginning! dhw: If energy is the first cause, then clearly consciousness “somehow appeared and it came from energy” and the stream of contingent events “must start somewhere and somehow.” That's what the discussion is about: whether consciousness was always there, or emerged through some form of evolution. The fact that you “fully doubt” the latter does not make your beliefs any more rational or irrational than anyone else's. DAVID: I'm sorry, but for me it is irrational to think amorphous energy somehow by chance organized itself into a constructive consciousness.-Of course it is. Just as irrational as energy having always had a constructive consciousness that came from nowhere and knew how to make universes and living cells before universes and living cells had ever existed.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 01:29 (3656 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID (17 November): I think that is the case. See the Spetner review. > > dhw: Gratifying though it is to have converted you from “not at all” on Sunday to “I think that is the case” on Monday, I can't help wondering what you will believe on Tuesday.-Sunday: -> dhw: Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans.-> David: Not at all. I am accepting Tony's pattern approach as well as Spetner's which is similar to my pattern approach. Set the original stages in patterns, and let variation by the organisms supply the bushy look. -I have misled your thinking. My answer was obtuse. Under my thinking, much of the bush is created by variation from the original patterns. If the IM or the NREH is guided and controlled as I think, then monarchs were not completely planned in the beginning of life, but developed at the right moment in time again under implanted guidance in the genome. It is the balance in nature that is necessary to have humans as the custodians, as Genesis states, as well as having life last for 3.8 billion years until our arrival. > > dhw: I'm also surprised that anyone could go less far than you in theorizing about the IM, since you believe it to be capable of nothing more than minor adaptations.-Once the basic patterns are established adaptations will make the bush, as pointed out by Tony, in his progressive computer program analysis. I agreed with that in the past as you noted then.-> > dhw: (Thank you for the review. I really appreciate the way you keep updating us on the latest research and publications - and I'm sure there are plenty of others who follow these posts of yours.)-Thank you. > > dhw: Since the earliest forms of life were able to reproduce and must have contained the potential for evolution, it stands to reason that the information (I'd prefer to call it mechanism) for life and evolution must have been there at the beginning of life and evolution. But that doesn't mean God preprogrammed every conceivable innovation and millions of natural wonders right from the beginning!-Codes contain information. I don't know why you want to use the term mechanism. The information runs the mechanisms that create life and evolutions changes in phenotype. I'm into I'll repeat. God planned and created the basic patterns. The rest was later modifications of the basics. Pentadactyl limbs, livers, kidneys, lungs in all mammals as an example. -> DAVID: for me it is irrational to think amorphous energy somehow by chance organized itself into a constructive consciousness.[/i] > > Of course it is. Just as irrational as energy having always had a constructive consciousness that came from nowhere and knew how to make universes and living cells before universes and living cells had ever existed.-Something started all of this. Why is there anything? There has to be a first cause which is capable of 'doing'. Amorphous energy cannot do anything, but exist.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
Dhw (16 November): Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans. DAVID (16 November): Not at all. DAVID (17 November): I think that is the case. See the Spetner review. dhw: Gratifying though it is to have converted you from “not at all” on Sunday to “I think that is the case” on Monday, I can't help wondering what you will believe on Tuesday. -DAVID: I have misled your thinking. My answer was obtuse. Under my thinking, much of the bush is created by variation from the original patterns. If the IM or the NREH is guided and controlled as I think, then monarchs were not completely planned in the beginning of life, but developed at the right moment in time again under implanted guidance in the genome. It is the balance in nature that is necessary to have humans as the custodians, as Genesis states, as well as having life last for 3.8 billion years until our arrival.-Your thinking is becoming harder and harder for me to follow. Clearly the bush is created by variations. However, you have discounted the possibility that the monarch could be an IM variation: “Complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM.” (2 November) If it was not completely planned in the beginning (what does that mean? God planned two lives and half a journey?), but developed “again under implanted guidance” at the right moment, God must have implanted the guidance later, which means he must have dabbled, but you have now discounted dabbling. If God started evolution with the intention of producing humans, why did he have to specially half preprogramme and then do a new dabble just to get the monarch to produce four generations and migrate within a year? I don't understand how the custodian reference fits in. Are you saying God had to produce the monarch so that humans could be its guardians? Or are you saying Nature had to be balanced in order to produce humans so that humans could preserve the balance of Nature? If so, what does that have to do with the monarchic half preprogramme and half dabble? I don't understand the relevance of “having life last for 3.8 billion years etc.” either. I'm sure this new theory must somehow make sense to you, so do forgive me if I am the one who is being obtuse, but perhaps you could formulate it a little more clearly?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 22:14 (3655 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Your thinking is becoming harder and harder for me to follow. Clearly the bush is created by variations. However, you have discounted the possibility that the monarch could be an IM variation: “Complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM.”-Remember I'm still developing a coherent pattern of thought. In the Tony/ Spetner approach there are basic patterns produced initially. In the case of the monarch, one can suppose that basic pattern butterflies came first with migration as part of the pattern. Then the nuances of complicated migration added later by variation. That would fit the step-wise concept of evolution that Tony and Spetner endorse. And it is interesting that both come from very fundamentalist religious backgrounds. And they solve my issue of how complex the IM might be. Again it revolves around how much information is implanted in the beginning of life, and perhaps in early stages. And I think probably most of the information is implanted early, since latter developments (mutations) reduce information, while causing adaptation.-> dhw: I don't understand the relevance of “having life last for 3.8 billion years etc.” I'm sure this new theory must somehow make sense to you, so do forgive me if I am the one who is being obtuse, but perhaps you could formulate it a little more clearly?-I discussed it in my previous entry. Life requires balance to provide the energy for everyone and everything. Note the production of CO2 by animals and the use of it by plants who produce O2 and food. Note the many species who fill different niches to contribute to the balance, and the wolf/deer balance I introduced from Spetner. Some type of balance is returned to or developed, each time it is disrupted, because it is very necessary. It all has to do with energy production and consumption which life requires.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: Your thinking is becoming harder and harder for me to follow. Clearly the bush is created by variations. However, you have discounted the possibility that the monarch could be an IM variation: “Complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM.”-DAVID: Remember I'm still developing a coherent pattern of thought. In the Tony/ Spetner approach there are basic patterns produced initially. In the case of the monarch, one can suppose that basic pattern butterflies came first with migration as part of the pattern. Then the nuances of complicated migration added later by variation. That would fit the step-wise concept of evolution that Tony and Spetner endorse. I don't have a problem with any of this. Step-wise evolution from basic patterns makes perfect sense, as do variations on basic patterns, but your scenario leaves out the environment. Migration, for instance, would not be necessary if the climate was stable. Our main question concerning the monarch, however, remains the extent to which it and every other “natural wonder” works out its own lifestyle. Until now you have been adamant that it was ALL planned or the result of a dabble. Are you now prepared to reconsider the statement quoted above, and accept the possibility that initially the creative mechanism of the monarch enabled it - unpreprogrammed and undabbled with - to create its own ”complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations? DAVID: And it is interesting that both come from very fundamentalist religious backgrounds. And they solve my issue of how complex the IM might be. Again it revolves around how much information is implanted in the beginning of life, and perhaps in early stages. And I think probably most of the information is implanted early, since latter developments (mutations) reduce information, while causing adaptation.-I don't think they have solved the issue at all, though you can try to gloss it over by focusing on the word “information”. If evolution proceeds through the interaction between organisms and their changing environments, the inventive mechanism will need to work out ways of dealing with new information from outside itself. Unless it has been given ALL the information (preprogrammed) right at the very beginning to cope with or exploit (= adapt or innovate) every single conceivable environmental change, either it has to exercise its own inventiveness, or your God has to dabble. -dhw: I don't understand the relevance of “having life last for 3.8 billion years etc.” I'm sure this new theory must somehow make sense to you, so do forgive me if I am the one who is being obtuse, but perhaps you could formulate it a little more clearly?-DAVID: I discussed it in my previous entry. Life requires balance to provide the energy for everyone and everything. Note the production of CO2 by animals and the use of it by plants who produce O2 and food. Note the many species who fill different niches to contribute to the balance, and the wolf/deer balance I introduced from Spetner. Some type of balance is returned to or developed, each time it is disrupted, because it is very necessary. It all has to do with energy production and consumption which life requires.-I dealt with this in my earlier post on Spetner. I have noted all these factors, and have pointed out that the whole concept is a tautology, in that “the survival of every organism depends on Nature being balanced in such a way that the organism can survive.” Yes, some type of balance is returned to or developed, but it may be a DIFFERENT balance, according to the conditions offered by the new environment, and when these conditions change again, you will again have disruption followed by a new balance, and so on till the end of life. What does all this prove? That if you don't have conditions conducive to certain forms of life, you won't have those forms of life. I'm afraid that won't get us to Stockholm
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 21, 2014, 01:34 (3654 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Step-wise evolution from basic patterns makes perfect sense, as do variations on basic patterns, but your scenario leaves out the environment.-I understand about environment. Of course it an other factors are involved.-> dhw: Are you now prepared to reconsider the statement quoted above, and accept the possibility that initially the creative mechanism of the monarch enabled it - unpreprogrammed and undabbled with - to create its own ”complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations?-I think it is best to state that a pattern of migration was established in the beginning of patterns for birds and butterflies. Each species then made its own adaptations of the exact routes, etc. > > DAVID: And it is interesting that both come from very fundamentalist religious backgrounds. And they solve my issue of how complex the IM might be. Again it revolves around how much information is implanted in the beginning of life, and perhaps in early stages. And I think probably most of the information is implanted early, since latter developments (mutations) reduce information, while causing adaptation. > > dhw: I don't think they have solved the issue at all, though you can try to gloss it over by focusing on the word “information”. If evolution proceeds through the interaction between organisms and their changing environments, the inventive mechanism will need to work out ways of dealing with new information from outside itself. -My focus on information is a key issue. Of course the organisms receive information about the environment. They respond using information in the genome. > dhw: Yes, some type of balance is returned to or developed, but it may be a DIFFERENT balance, according to the conditions offered by the new environment, and when these conditions change again, you will again have disruption followed by a new balance, and so on till the end of life. What does all this prove? That if you don't have conditions conducive to certain forms of life, you won't have those forms of life. I'm afraid that won't get us to Stockholm-Nothing I read gets anyone to Stockholm. Wagner very briefly alludes to the fact that the code carries information, has no suggestion as to where it comes from. I'm about 1/3 through his book and gritting my teeth. He admits a 100 amino acid protein has 10^130 possibilities, in a search for new protein function but proceeds to show that there are patterns in the DNA which allow for the appearance of new protein function with simple DNA change. It is a masterful setup according to him, all arriving by chance of course. I'll give a review of what he glosses over in a few days. I don't speed read. My view so far is that he has found that a masterful amount of planning went into the genome.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: Are you now prepared to [...] accept the possibility that initially the creative mechanism of the monarch enabled it - unpreprogrammed and undabbled with - to create its own ”complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations? DAVID: I think it is best to state that a pattern of migration was established in the beginning of patterns for birds and butterflies. Each species then made its own adaptations of the exact routes, etc.-Some birds and butterflies migrate and others don't, depending on the climate. Therefore the only basic pattern is the butterfly/bird deciding for itself whether to migrate or not, and deciding for itself where to go. In other words, your God provided the butterflies and the birds with an inventive mechanism which enabled them to create their own “complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations. Give in! DAVID: They solve my issue of how complex the IM might be. Again it revolves around how much information is implanted in the beginning of life, and perhaps in early stages. And I think probably most of the information is implanted early, since latter developments (mutations) reduce information, while causing adaptation.-dhw: I don't think they have solved the issue at all, though you can try to gloss it over by focusing on the word “information”. If evolution proceeds through the interaction between organisms and their changing environments, the inventive mechanism will need to work out ways of dealing with new information from outside itself. DAVID: My focus on information is a key issue. Of course the organisms receive information about the environment. They respond using information in the genome.-You have left out the main thrust of my argument! I repeat: Unless it has been given ALL the information (preprogrammed) right at the very beginning to cope with or exploit (= adapt or innovate) every single conceivable environmental change, either it has to exercise its own inventiveness, or your God has to dabble. dhw: Yes, some type of balance is returned to or developed, but it may be a DIFFERENT balance, according to the conditions offered by the new environment, and when these conditions change again, you will again have disruption followed by a new balance, and so on till the end of life. What does all this prove? That if you don't have conditions conducive to certain forms of life, you won't have those forms of life. I'm afraid that won't get us to Stockholm-DAVID: Nothing I read gets anyone to Stockholm. Wagner very briefly alludes to the fact that the code carries information, has no suggestion as to where it comes from. I'm about 1/3 through his book and gritting my teeth...-My point here was that the balance of life argument is a tautology, which is a different subject. Sorry Wagner is proving to be a struggle. You deserve a medal.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Saturday, November 22, 2014, 01:16 (3653 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Some birds and butterflies migrate and others don't, depending on the climate. Therefore the only basic pattern is the butterfly/bird deciding for itself whether to migrate or not, and deciding for itself where to go. In other words, your God provided the butterflies and the birds with an inventive mechanism which enabled them to create their own “complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations. -How do you know that God only developed generic butterflies, and not two kinds of butterflies, ones that migrate and ones that don't. Note that Mexico is mild. why should the monarchs fly north at all? > > dhw: You have left out the main thrust of my argument! I repeat: Unless it has been given ALL the information (preprogrammed) right at the very beginning to cope with or exploit (= adapt or innovate) every single conceivable environmental change, either it has to exercise its own inventiveness, or your God has to dabble.-That is the point of Spetner and my view: most of the information is on board from the beginning. An IM or NREH can provide adaptations as nature and environment challenge because they have the information and guidelines to do so. I'm accepting the idea that God doesn't have to dabble.-> dhw; My point here was that the balance of life argument is a tautology, which is a different subject. -You view the 'balance of life' issue differently than I do. Of course it goes in and out of balance, but the balance is required for life to continue. Tautological, not really, required since all but the highest forms eat or are eaten, and the lower forms must be available in proper ratios. -Still working on Wagner. He writes with broad knowledge of everything not really related, with a conversational tone that makes for easy perusing, and glibly ignores what he needs to ignore to declare that his approach is wonderful and will answer Darwin's dilemmas, faster mutation rates being the major problem faced. More later.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: Some birds and butterflies migrate and others don't, depending on the climate. Therefore the only basic pattern is the butterfly/bird deciding for itself whether to migrate or not, and deciding for itself where to go. DAVID: How do you know that God only developed generic butterflies, and not two kinds of butterflies, ones that migrate and ones that don't. Note that Mexico is mild. why should the monarchs fly north at all?-Do you really believe that the decision to migrate is unconnected with changing climates and is simply the result of God preprogramming the first cells with two kinds of birds/butterflies (along with countless millions of other organisms and lifestyles) - migratory and non-migratory, regardless of conditions? Butterflies have been around for at least 40 million years. Do you think the climate has remained stable in all that time? (Parts of Mexico still have severe winters.) -dhw: Unless it has been given ALL the information (preprogrammed) right at the very beginning to cope with or exploit (= adapt or innovate) every single conceivable environmental change, either it has to exercise its own inventiveness, or your God has to dabble. DAVID: That is the point of Spetner and my view: most of the information is on board from the beginning. An IM or NREH can provide adaptations as nature and environment challenge because they have the information and guidelines to do so. I'm accepting the idea that God doesn't have to dabble.-Yesterday you agreed that no one knows how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have. Today you're back to your adaptations prescribed by your usual nebulous “information” and “guidelines”. Before your semi-conversion to the concept of cells containing the equivalent of a brain, you used to accuse me of entering the realms of fantasy. Do you not find the concept of the very first cells being preprogrammed with every single species (broad sense), innovation and “complex lifestyle” - along with all the information necessary to cover every environmental change that chance throws at them - just a teeny bit fanciful?-dhw; My point here was that the balance of life argument is a tautology, which is a different subject. DAVID: You view the 'balance of life' issue differently than I do. Of course it goes in and out of balance, but the balance is required for life to continue. Tautological, not really, required since all but the highest forms eat or are eaten, and the lower forms must be available in proper ratios.-Not “the” balance, but “a” balance. A balance is indeed required for life to continue, and that balance is constantly changing. Humans need the right amount of oxygen in order to survive. We have it, so we survive. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't survive, whereas other organisms would. The history of life is the history of changing conditions, whereby some species survive and some don't, because there is no constant balance. What does that prove?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Saturday, November 22, 2014, 22:11 (3652 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Do you really believe that the decision to migrate is unconnected with changing climates and is simply the result of God preprogramming the first cells with two kinds of birds/butterflies (along with countless millions of other organisms and lifestyles) - migratory and non-migratory, regardless of conditions? Butterflies have been around for at least 40 million years. Do you think the climate has remained stable in all that time? (Parts of Mexico still have severe winters.)-What you seem to forget is that migration is not entirely related to climate. Turtles migrate around the Atlantic and return to Florida, salmon migrate back and forth from ocean to inland streams. Migration ability is part of the original patterns IMHO. And I don't think you know Mexico. I've toured all over and except for the high mountain ranges it is quite warm and tropical in many areas. > > dhw: Yesterday you agreed that no one knows how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have. Today you're back to your adaptations prescribed by your usual nebulous “information” and “guidelines”. ... Do you not find the concept of the very first cells being preprogrammed with every single species (broad sense), innovation and “complex lifestyle” - along with all the information necessary to cover every environmental change that chance throws at them - just a teeny bit fanciful?-You are the one that does not understand 'information', which is not nebulous and is accepted by all Darwin and non-Darwin commentators. I've discovered that even Wagner has two brief sentences mentioning it, stating that the code contains the information needed to make phenotypes and function. I'll repeat this until you recognize that DNA imparts information and instructions, just like when you got your computer and set it up. That we have only a partial glimmer of all that information is very obvious from the current state of research.-> > dhw: Not “the” balance, but “a” balance. A balance is indeed required for life to continue, and that balance is constantly changing..... If we didn't have it, we wouldn't survive, whereas other organisms would. The history of life is the history of changing conditions, whereby some species survive and some don't, because there is no constant balance. What does that prove?-I realize I have not explained clearly that I view the balance in nature as requiring a vast number the organisms, both animal and plant. When I wrote about the need for life to have a constant supply of energy, I was pointing out that the top of the heap, humans, eat those that are not at the top, and those eat others below until one gets down to bacteria at the bottom. Plants of course don't eat each other, but there must be a large variety to supply animal needs. We don't make vitamin C, but the Royal Navy discovered the need to carry limes to take care of that, hence the nickname. There are many examples. The bush has purpose through balance. You keep looking at climate balance and catastrophic events and that is a side issue.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DAVID: What you seem to forget is that migration is not entirely related to climate. Turtles migrate around the Atlantic and return to Florida, salmon migrate back and forth from ocean to inland streams. Migration ability is part of the original patterns IMHO. And I don't think you know Mexico. I've toured all over and except for the high mountain ranges it is quite warm and tropical in many areas. -I will gladly yield to your superior knowledge of migration, turtles, salmon and Mexico. But do you really believe that your God preprogrammed the very first cells so that billions of years and organisms later their descendants would produce two types of bird and butterfly to migrate or not migrate, irrespective of conditions? Is it not possible that each species in its own environment took its own decisions for its own particular reasons, and passed the lifestyle on to subsequent generations? -dhw: Yesterday you agreed that no one knows how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have. Today you're back to your adaptations prescribed by your usual nebulous “information” and “guidelines”. ... DAVID: You are the one that does not understand 'information', which is not nebulous and is accepted by all Darwin and non-Darwin commentators. [...] I'll repeat this until you recognize that DNA imparts information and instructions, just like when you got your computer and set it up. That we have only a partial glimmer of all that information is very obvious from the current state of research.-I am not doubting that DNA imparts information and instructions. My point is that you use the terms “information” and “guidelines” to blur the issue of autonomy. The fact that we have only a “partial glimmer” should stop you from insisting that the scope of the IM is limited to minor adaptations. -dhw: Not “the” balance, but “a” balance. A balance is indeed required for life to continue, and that balance is constantly changing..... If we didn't have it, we wouldn't survive, whereas other organisms would. DAVID: I realize I have not explained clearly that I view the balance in nature as requiring a vast number the organisms, both animal and plant. When I wrote about the need for life to have a constant supply of energy, I was pointing out that the top of the heap, humans, eat those that are not at the top, and those eat others below until one gets down to bacteria at the bottom. [...] The bush has purpose through balance. You keep looking at climate balance and catastrophic events and that is a side issue.-Of course nature contains a vast number of organisms, and of course life requires energy, and of course they get it from one another. You have said that 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct. I don't know if the figure is correct, but it shows you that the bush and the balance keep changing as conditions change, climate and catastrophe being only two of the relevant factors. The latest is human intervention. Please tell me what you are trying to prove.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Sunday, November 23, 2014, 14:52 (3651 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But do you really believe that your God preprogrammed the very first cells so that billions of years and organisms later their descendants would produce two types of bird and butterfly to migrate or not migrate, irrespective of conditions? Is it not possible that each species in its own environment took its own decisions for its own particular reasons, and passed the lifestyle on to subsequent generations?-I won't repeat the very complex lifestyle of the monarch. Is it due to chance, law, or design? Considering the body changes, the long flight plan and the eating requirements (milkweed) chance seems entirely unreasonable. Does it follow a required law of nature? No, they could just as well live their entire lives in Mexico, as they thrive here in winter. If they originated in the USA and discovered Mexico why not make life easier and stay there? No, there appears to be a specified complexity to require this life style. From that reasoning it appears designed to me. Designed by God or his proxy, the IM or NREH. I accept nothing else, because it makes no sense.. > > dhw: I am not doubting that DNA imparts information and instructions. My point is that you use the terms “information” and “guidelines” to blur the issue of autonomy. The fact that we have only a “partial glimmer” should stop you from insisting that the scope of the IM is limited to minor adaptations.-I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above. -> > dhw: Of course nature contains a vast number of organisms, and of course life requires energy, and of course they get it from one another. You have said that 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct. I don't know if the figure is correct, but it shows you that the bush and the balance keep changing as conditions change, climate and catastrophe being only two of the relevant factors. The latest is human intervention. Please tell me what you are trying to prove.-Only the point I keep repeating: everyone who is an animal needs to eat something. Plants need to thrive and supply needed nutrients to the animals. A very large bush is needed to provide that requirement. It is obvious. There is nothing more to the concept. By the way, the 99% lost species comment is what the literature presents.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: But do you really believe that your God preprogrammed the very first cells so that billions of years and organisms later their descendants would produce two types of bird and butterfly to migrate or not migrate, irrespective of conditions? Is it not possible that each species in its own environment took its own decisions for its own particular reasons, and passed the lifestyle on to subsequent generations? DAVID: I won't repeat the very complex lifestyle of the monarch. Is it due to chance, law, or design? Considering the body changes, the long flight plan and the eating requirements (milkweed) chance seems entirely unreasonable. Does it follow a required law of nature? No, they could just as well live their entire lives in Mexico, as they thrive here in winter. If they originated in the USA and discovered Mexico why not make life easier and stay there? No, there appears to be a specified complexity to require this life style. From that reasoning it appears designed to me. Designed by God or his proxy, the IM or NREH. I accept nothing else, because it makes no sense.-I can't explain the monarch's decision to leave Mexico, but maybe when the lifestyle originated long ago, climate conditions were different, and once the successful routine was established, it stuck. Your conclusion suggests that instead of God preprogramming the very first cells with the monarch's lifestyle, you're prepared to accept the possibility that the inventive mechanism designed it (hallelujah). That would indeed be progress, but your next paragraph shows that there has been no progress at all: DAVID: I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above.-Not "in any way autonomous" but maybe "semi-autonomous" (whatever that means) is another example of linguistic blurring. Strangely, you believe your God can create autonomous intelligence (human free will), and you have posted many articles demonstrating the autonomous reasoning powers of other animals and birds, and yet you dismiss the idea that he could design an inventive mechanism with which migrating and non-migrating butterflies and birds might have worked out their own lifestyle. dhw: Of course nature contains a vast number of organisms, and of course life requires energy, and of course they get it from one another. [...] Please tell me what you are trying to prove. DAVID: Only the point I keep repeating: everyone who is an animal needs to eat something. Plants need to thrive and supply needed nutrients to the animals. A very large bush is needed to provide that requirement. It is obvious. There is nothing more to the concept.-You are right. The fact that organisms need food is obvious. I'm not sure why you felt the need to state the obvious.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Monday, November 24, 2014, 23:57 (3650 days ago) @ dhw
David: No, there appears to be a specified complexity to require this life style. From that reasoning it appears designed to me. Designed by God or his proxy, the IM or NREH. I accept nothing else, because it makes no sense.[/i] > > dhw: you're prepared to accept the possibility that the inventive mechanism designed it (hallelujah). That would indeed be progress, but your next paragraph shows that there has been no progress at all: > > DAVID: I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above.-What I have said in the past is more than likely God developed a pattern for migrating animals and they follow those patterns. Tony and I have both discussed this and it sets up an easy follow-up for modifications by an IM or an NREH. > > Not "in any way autonomous" but maybe "semi-autonomous" (whatever that means) is another example of linguistic blurring. .... and you dismiss the idea that he could design an inventive mechanism with which migrating and non-migrating butterflies and birds might have worked out their own lifestyle.-I'll keep repeating a complex migration requires advanced planning. It requires a conscious mind to work it out. An IM works on established patterns with some modification. Tell me how the first Arctic Tern decided to winter in Hawaii. How did he/she even knew that Hawaii existed? If I could explain this naturally I would. I know you can't > > dhw: You are right. The fact that organisms need food is obvious. I'm not sure why you felt the need to state the obvious.-Because the bushiness of life provides a constant source of energy throughout all sorts of environmental changes. Wagner points out that the lowly E. coli has about 40 different mechanisms to metabolize foods so as to handle all sorts of problems and changes. E. coli is that complex and more so, but all of that review later. I'm still working through his presentation.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DAVID: I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above.-Dhw: Not "in any way autonomous" but maybe "semi-autonomous" (whatever that means) is another example of linguistic blurring. .... and you dismiss the idea that he could design an inventive mechanism with which migrating and non-migrating butterflies and birds might have worked out their own lifestyle. -DAVID: [...] I'll keep repeating a complex migration requires advanced planning. It requires a conscious mind to work it out. An IM works on established patterns with some modification. Tell me how the first Arctic Tern decided to winter in Hawaii. How did he/she even knew that Hawaii existed? If I could explain this naturally I would. I know you can't-You are now implying that 3.7 billion years ago your God implanted the very first cells with all the innovations to turn bacteria into Arctic terns (as well as millions of other organisms), plus a route map from the Arctic to Hawaii. Your hypothesis is becoming more and more fantastic. It is not beyond the bounds of credibility that for whatever reason the first tern got fed up with its environment and went off exploring (just as humans must have done). dhw: You are right. The fact that organisms need food is obvious. I'm not sure why you felt the need to state the obvious. DAVID: Because the bushiness of life provides a constant source of energy throughout all sorts of environmental changes. Wagner points out that the lowly E. coli has about 40 different mechanisms to metabolize foods so as to handle all sorts of problems and changes-So 3.7 billion years ago your God designed 40 different mechanisms to enable the E. coli to enjoy life in the guts of animals that would appear a few billion years later, and this would provide a constant source of energy, much to the delight of the humans for whose benefit he created the E. coli in the first place. I wonder what Wagner (and victims of E. coli) will have to say about that hypothesis.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 23:50 (3649 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It is not beyond the bounds of credibility that for whatever reason the first tern got fed up with its environment and went off exploring (just as humans must have done).-You seem to forget that I used the tern in my book (chapter 8) to illustrate why natures wonders call guidance by God to mind. I was mixed up yesterday, but the tern flies from Arctic to Antarctic each year, the Golden Plover does the Alaska/Hawaii trip each winter. So the first bird just took off for warmer climes and kept flying until he found a nice spot thousands of ocean miles away, without any proper muscle or fat-storage preparation. It is beyond credibility which is why I used the fact. the entire chapter is beyond development by chance which is exactly what you are suggesting. -I repeat, migration is a part of the original patterns as life was programmed. > >dhw: So 3.7 billion years ago your God designed 40 different mechanisms to enable the E. coli to enjoy life in the guts of animals that would appear a few billion years later, and this would provide a constant source of energy, much to the delight of the humans for whose benefit he created the E. coli in the first place. I wonder what Wagner (and victims of E. coli) will have to say about that hypothesis.-What Wagner says is that life has many survival mechanisms so as to defeat challenges. Backup systems are present, not just a single inflexible approach. It all looks planned to me.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: It is not beyond the bounds of credibility that for whatever reason the first tern got fed up with its environment and went off exploring (just as humans must have done). DAVID: [...] So the first bird just took off for warmer climes and kept flying until he found a nice spot thousands of ocean miles away, without any proper muscle or fat-storage preparation. It is beyond credibility which is why I used the fact. the entire chapter is beyond development by chance which is exactly what you are suggesting. I repeat, migration is a part of the original patterns as life was programmed.-You had asked how the tern (or now the golden plover) knew of the whereabouts and existence of Hawaii, which suggests God programmed the first cells to pass on a route map. Now you are switching to body strength. Neither of us knows how this evolved (maybe explorations just went further and further afield). I'm NOT suggesting the migratory lifestyle is by chance. This is your constant escape route. The whole point of the inventive mechanism hypothesis is that organisms deliberately devise new ways of coping with or exploiting the environment. You claim that God preprogrammed the first cells with a route map for every single migratory organism. I suggest that the organisms found their routes by themselves. (It remains open whether a god designed the inventive mechanism.) dhw: So 3.7 billion years ago your God designed 40 different mechanisms to enable the E. coli to enjoy life in the guts of animals that would appear a few billion years later, and this would provide a constant source of energy, much to the delight of the humans for whose benefit he created the E. coli in the first place. I wonder what Wagner (and victims of E. coli) will have to say about that hypothesis.-DAVID: What Wagner says is that life has many survival mechanisms so as to defeat challenges. Backup systems are present, not just a single inflexible approach. It all looks planned to me.-I am not disputing the idea of planning, but am suggesting that the E.coli worked out its own digestive mechanisms as and when needed, instead of God preprogramming them 3.7 billion years ago. You have not commented on the 3.7-billion-year scenario I have outlined above. Do you or do you not find such a hypothesis pretty absurd?-DAVID (under Review of Spetner): We are arguing autonomous vs. semiautonomous. I prefer the latter. That is our only difference.-The difference between us is indeed the degree of autonomy, and I would like to pin you down. For instance, in the case of the golden plover, you have argued that the “first” plover was incapable of knowing where Hawaii was or if it even existed. This means God must have put a route map in the very first cells. Please explain in concrete terms which part of its migration process is semi-autonomous. (See also under Review of Spetner.)
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Thursday, November 27, 2014, 01:01 (3648 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I'm NOT suggesting the migratory lifestyle is by chance. This is your constant escape route. The whole point of the inventive mechanism hypothesis is that organisms deliberately devise new ways of coping with or exploiting the environment. You claim that God preprogrammed the first cells with a route map for every single migratory organism. I suggest that the organisms found their routes by themselves. (It remains open whether a god designed the inventive mechanism.)-Thank you for accepting that chance does not work. The terns follow coast lines. They might have figured it out and from habit patterns taught their DNA to pass it on to the chicks. But the plover had to discover the specks of Hawaii in the midst of the Pacific, and by your theory without preparation. I envision, which you can't seem to do, that the ability to migrate in general is a pattern, but the exact routes may have been worked in part by hunt and peck. Again the issue is general starting patterns, as Tony points out in computer programing, and then refinement. The IM refines. Tony explained this to you very clearly. I hope he comes back to help pound it home. > > dhw: I am not disputing the idea of planning, but am suggesting that the E.coli worked out its own digestive mechanisms as and when needed, instead of God preprogramming them 3.7 billion years ago. You have not commented on the 3.7-billion-year scenario I have outlined above. Do you or do you not find such a hypothesis pretty absurd?-We are still at the same point. Wagner may be on to something in the protein search theory he has developed. It maybe that God incorporated such a search mechanism, but it had to contain information as to how to line up the molecules in order to carry out a function, since we know through Shapiro that organisms can modify their metabolism. Again, remember, all we know from DNA research at this juncture is how proteins are produced, what genes control what function, but we know nothing of how function is created. Lumber does not make a house function. It must have heat, water, electricity to function as a dwelling. > > DAVID (under Review of Spetner): We are arguing autonomous vs. semiautonomous. I prefer the latter. That is our only difference. > > dhw: The difference between us is indeed the degree of autonomy, and I would like to pin you down. For instance, in the case of the golden plover, you have argued that the “first” plover was incapable of knowing where Hawaii was or if it even existed. This means God must have put a route map in the very first cells. Please explain in concrete terms which part of its migration process is semi-autonomous. -I have no idea and neither do you how the plovers found it on their own, but my concept of the general pattern of migratory ability from the beginning allows for modifying routes later. Here's a way it could happen: God put a compass point into the plover. I've flown a route by compass during my flight lessons. It is easy if the plover can read the magnetic field ( and probably can). Think of all the animals I've pointed out that use a compass arrangement in travel. This is another initial pattern undoubtedly used in the first DNA programs. Once they found the islands, the establishment of instinct was easy. God does not do things the hard way.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DAVID: The terns follow coastlines. They might have figured it out and from habit patterns taught their DNA to pass it on to the chicks. But the plover had to discover the specks of Hawaii in the midst of the Pacific, and by your theory without preparation. -By my theory the plover, just like humans, felt the need for a change of scenery and went exploring. It didn't set out to discover Hawaii. Once it had found a suitable place to live, like the terns it passed the information on. DAVID: I envision, which you can't seem to do, that the ability to migrate in general is a pattern, but the exact routes may have been worked in part by hunt and peck.-”The ability to migrate” is no more than the ability to move from one place to another. If there's winter or no food in X, the organism may look for summer or food elsewhere. The trigger, I would suggest, is not some special programme built into the first cells, but the need for survival, which in the animal kingdom means using legs or wings to find liveable conditions. -dhw: I am suggesting that the E.coli worked out its own digestive mechanisms as and when needed, instead of God preprogramming them 3.7 billion years ago. -DAVID: ...Wagner may be on to something in the protein search theory he has developed. It maybe that God incorporated such a search mechanism, but it had to contain information as to how to line up the molecules in order to carry out a function, since we know through Shapiro that organisms can modify their metabolism. Again, remember, all we know from DNA research at this juncture is how proteins are produced, what genes control what function, but we know nothing of how function is created. -We know nothing of how function is created, Shapiro says that organisms can modify their metabolism, Wagner thinks the genome is self-organizing, but Turell knows that God preprogrammed every innovation and complex lifestyle. Do you still insist that God preprogrammed the first cells with 40 different mechanisms to enable the E.coli to live happily ever after in your gut when you appeared 3.7 billion years later?-dhw: Please explain in concrete terms which part of its migration process is semi-autonomous. DAVID: I have no idea and neither do you how the plovers found it on their own, but my concept of the general pattern of migratory ability from the beginning allows for modifying routes later. Here's a way it could happen: God put a compass point into the plover. For “general pattern of migratory ability” see above. You've forgotten that the plover didn't exist. Now apparently your God preprogrammed the first living cells not only to produce the plover and its mates, but also to give them all a compass. DAVID: Once they found the islands, the establishment of instinct was easy. God does not do things the hard way.-Which do you think would be harder for God? To provide the first living cells with a few billion programmes for every innovation from bacteria to humans, via the plover and its compass, the monarch and its four generations, and the E.coli and its 40 digestive mechanisms, or to provide the first living cells with mechanisms to do their own inventing as and when required?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 28, 2014, 00:07 (3647 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: By my theory the plover, just like humans, felt the need for a change of scenery and went exploring. It didn't set out to discover Hawaii. Once it had found a suitable place to live, like the terns it passed the information on.-You make a good travel agent. How did you supply the muscle power for the plover to fly over 3,000 miles over an uncharted ocean to have the plover find paradise? yours is a good non-answer.-> > dhw: ”The ability to migrate” is no more than the ability to move from one place to another. If there's winter or no food in X, the organism may look for summer or food elsewhere. The trigger, I would suggest, is not some special programme built into the first cells, but the need for survival. -You are ignoring that both the monarch and salmon go back to the same spot each migration. Not programmed, huh? -> dhw:Do you still insist that God preprogrammed the first cells with 40 different mechanisms to enable the E.coli to live happily ever after in your gut when you appeared 3.7 billion years later?-No, I think the E. coli was given basic genetic patterns in the beginning of its life and did some modest alterations of metabolism on its own. It also got some brotherly bacterial horizontal transfers to help out. God arranged for that transfer mechanism, remember? Horizontal transfers are part of the overall basic patterns.-> > dhw: You've forgotten that the plover didn't exist. Now apparently your God preprogrammed the first living cells not only to produce the plover and its mates, but also to give them all a compass.-So how do you explain the magnetic compasses in so many types of animals? Luck?-> > dhw: Which do you think would be harder for God? To provide the first living cells with a few billion programmes for every innovation from bacteria to humans,....or to provide the first living cells with mechanisms to do their own inventing as and when required?-I don't think God's programming ability is as weak as you seem to suppose. What is a major issue for your inventive proposals is the issue of 'search space' when looking for functional proteins to line up a sequence of cooperating molecules to create a new function or a new phenotype. A 100 amino acid protein (really a very small protein)has 10^700 shapes. Most enzymes which are necessary for every reaction are 1,200 amino acids or larger. I don't see how your fanciful IM's can do it without guidance.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DHW: Why do you think your God planned for all those species to “explode” onto the Cambrian scene and then depart so (relatively) soon? -TONY: Your primary question, and please correct me if I am mistaken, is: If God is knowledgeable and powerful enough to create all of this, why didn't he create it de nihilo plene in extremis (Out of nothing fully formed in its final state).-You are mistaken. You will find my primary questions at the end of this post.-TONY: First, I think the question deserves another question in response: If we can create a computer program from scratch, why don't we create them straight into their final state and just skip all that intermediary stuff?-I don't know why it “deserves” such a question (see next point). TONY: Your secondary question, which is causative related to the first, is: If God is knowledgeable and powerful enough to create all of this, why create intermediaries that he knew would have to be destroyed?-Your computer “intermediaries” have been designed for a clear purpose, which is why the analogy is unhelpful. (See below before you jump for joy). TONY: The simple answer is, you don't do it because you can't and it has nothing to do with power or knowledge. Without the laws of physics, the computer won't run [...] unless each stage is already in existence and running you can not implement the next stage. -Same again. Each stage of the computer programme is targeted towards a known purpose. My question concerns the purpose behind the “stages” of mass extinctions. You now offer two (for me) unsatisfactory answers.-1) TONY: Now, as it applies directly to Earth and living species, consider this. What if the end goal was not one lonely planet with a few million species in the middle of a vast and otherwise empty universe? What if the plan was a vast universe teaming with near infinite variety of life? The reason these two questions are of utmost importance is that it goes back to the order of the way things were created. IF the plan was to create just the Earth, and just the (relatively) few species that live on it, then why create the rest of the Universe at all? [...]-Good question. This hypothesis depends on there being life elsewhere in the universe, which no-one has (yet) found. Some folk say the universe is “fine tuned” to support life on Earth, which would answer the question but, just like your ET life hypothesis and your computer analogy, fails to explain the need for mass extinctions on Earth. 2) TONY: More tellingly, one of the things that happens when you turn on your computer is that it "sets the environmental variables". In the case of the earth, this would have been the microbial life that forms the foundation of all life on this planet. It acts as a interface layer, a conditioning layer, between higher lifeforms and the environment, and quite literally sets the environmental variables necessary to sustain higher life.-Microbial life was and remains essential to all life forms. Bacteria have survived since life began. I'm asking about life forms that were obliterated. Your computer analogy fits those elements essential to life, but doesn't tell me why your God had to create and destroy billions of species in order to come up with humans (David's “purpose”), or in order to fulfil whatever other purpose you think he had in mind. TONY: This is where evolution fails us. Instead of looking for WHY these things existed, what their purpose was, we try to understand HOW they existed. -Why “fails”? The theory of evolution does not seek to impose philosophical explanations on life (that's left to philosophers and would-be philosophers), but to understand how life has developed from the first few comparatively simple forms to the complexities we have today. So please tell us WHY you think mass extinctions were necessary, and above all what they were necessary for. In other words, what do you think was your God's purpose in creating life, and why does this depend on the creation and extinction of billions of species?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 10, 2014, 20:34 (3664 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Monday, November 10, 2014, 20:48
DHW: Your computer “intermediaries” have been designed for a clear purpose, which is why the analogy is unhelpful. (See below before you jump for joy). >-Not for a clear purpose. Computers are not purposed when they are constructed beyond their ability to perform calculations. The hardware itself is platform agnostic, much the same way planets are.- >DHW: Same again. Each stage of the computer programme is targeted towards a known purpose. My question concerns the purpose behind the “stages” of mass extinctions. You now offer two (for me) unsatisfactory answers. > -Wrong. See Above. The Hardware does not care what you do with it. The Bios does not care what you do with it. The Operating System does not care what you do with it. They simply serve as layers of interface for preparing the environment so that you can do whatever it is you are planning to do. They do not dictate, they facilitate and provide constraints.-> 1) TONY: What if the end goal was not one lonely planet with a few million species in the middle of a vast and otherwise empty universe? What if the plan was a vast universe teaming with near infinite variety of life? IF the plan was to create just the Earth, and just the (relatively) few species that live on it, then why create the rest of the Universe at all? [...][/i] > >DHW: Good question. This hypothesis depends on there being life elsewhere in the universe, which no-one has (yet) found. Some folk say the universe is “fine tuned” to support life on Earth, which would answer the question but, just like your ET life hypothesis and your computer analogy, fails to explain the need for mass extinctions on Earth.-No, the hypothesis depends on there being the INTENT to create/propagate life elsewhere in the Universe.- >DHW: Microbial life was and remains essential to all life forms. Bacteria have survived since life began. I'm asking about life forms that were obliterated. Your computer analogy fits those elements essential to life, but doesn't tell me why your God had to create and destroy billions of species in order to come up with humans (David's “purpose”), or in order to fulfil whatever other purpose you think he had in mind.-Because they were programmed to do a certain thing. When that thing was completed, their program was terminated. Their task, their purpose, there very reason for existing no longer existed. They were done, spent, finished. -There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, 3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, 4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, 5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, 6 a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, 7 a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, 8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace- Your basic assertion is that things should be "once made always made", and THAT comes from a rigid refusal to believe that creatures serve a purpose. If you saw that all things had a purpose, then the concept of what happens when something has served it's purpose would not be so alien to you.- > > TONY: This is where evolution fails us. Instead of looking for WHY these things existed, what their purpose was, we try to understand HOW they existed. > > Why “fails”? The theory of evolution does not seek to impose philosophical explanations on life (that's left to philosophers and would-be philosophers), but to understand how life has developed from the first few comparatively simple forms to the complexities we have today. So please tell us WHY you think mass extinctions were necessary, and above all what they were necessary for. In other words, what do you think was your God's purpose in creating life, and why does this depend on the creation and extinction of billions of species? > -I've already told you, but you aren't listening. They were created to prepare the way for future developments. To 'set up the environmental variables'. That was their purpose. Once that task was complete, they were no longer necessary. Further more, even you can not seriously be claiming the extinction of "billions of species". There are only an estimated 8.7 million species alive today. Certainly you do not think that the number of extinct species are several orders of magnitude greater than those currently in existence!? That would do more to damn Darwin than I ever could!
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DHW: Your computer “intermediaries” have been designed for a clear purpose, which is why the analogy is unhelpful. (See below before you jump for joy). TONY: Not for a clear purpose. Computers are not purposed when they are constructed beyond their ability to perform calculations. The hardware itself is platform agnostic, much the same way planets are.-Thank you for the correction. I'm afraid I'm now even more confused by the computer analogy, as I thought you were trying to prove to me that mass extinctions had a clear purpose. I don't understand computers anyway, so it would help me much more if you could explain the purpose of mass extinctions directly, without such analogies! -TONY: What if the end goal was not one lonely planet with a few million species in the middle of a vast and otherwise empty universe? What if the plan was a vast universe teaming with near infinite variety of life? IF the plan was to create just the Earth, and just the (relatively) few species that live on it, then why create the rest of the Universe at all? [...] DHW: Good question. This hypothesis depends on there being life elsewhere in the universe, which no-one has (yet) found. Some folk say the universe is “fine tuned” to support life on Earth, which would answer the question but, just like your ET life hypothesis and your computer analogy, fails to explain the need for mass extinctions on Earth.-TONY: No, the hypothesis depends on there being the INTENT to create/propagate life elsewhere in the Universe.-So God had to create and kill off millions (OK, not billions - fair comment) of species on Earth because you believe he intended/intends to create life elsewhere in the Universe. Sorry, but I can't see the logic.-DHW: Microbial life was and remains essential to all life forms. Bacteria have survived since life began. I'm asking about life forms that were obliterated. Your computer analogy fits those elements essential to life, but doesn't tell me why your God had to create and destroy billions [now corrected to millions] of species in order to come up with humans (David's “purpose”), or in order to fulfil whatever other purpose you think he had in mind. TONY: Because they were programmed to do a certain thing. When that thing was completed, their program was terminated. Their task, their purpose, there very reason for existing no longer existed. They were done, spent, finished. -You keep telling me that they had completed their certain thing, their task, their purpose, and you repeat this argument with the famous quote from Ecclesiastes and the following cart-before-horse observation: TONY: Your basic assertion is that things should be "once made always made", and THAT comes from a rigid refusal to believe that creatures serve a purpose. If you saw that all things had a purpose, then the concept of what happens when something has served it's purpose would not be so alien to you.-I don't know who you are quoting with your “once made always made”, but it's certainly not me. I accept the end of all things as a basic reality. If I saw that all things have a purpose, then I would indeed see that they are not needed once they've fulfilled that purpose, but when I ask you what that purpose is, you merely repeat that there is a purpose! Then comes the following variation on the theme:-TONY: I've already told you, but you aren't listening. They were created to prepare the way for future developments. To 'set up the environmental variables'. That was their purpose. Once that task was complete, they were no longer necessary.-What future developments? How do you expect me to believe that the extinction of millions of species was necessary for future developments if you don't tell me what those developments are? Your “basic assertion” is that “all things had a purpose”, and then all you tell me is that their purpose was to serve a future purpose! However, you have hypothesized as an end goal God's intention “to create/propagate life elsewhere in the Universe”, so is that it? If so, since I just can't see the logic (as above), please explain to me in plain language why it was necessary for God to create and kill off millions of species on Earth in order to prepare the way for life elsewhere in the universe.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 11, 2014, 20:54 (3663 days ago) @ dhw
DHW, three posts in a row now I have EXPLICITLY stated the purpose of earlier life forms, yet you keep saying I have not answered you. Why? So, since it seems to get missed in all the clutter:- The primary purpose for earlier life forms was the preparation of the environment for future life forms. They set up the environmental variables.- For some basic examples of tasks that had to be completed:-
- Atmospheric Conversion
- PH Balancing
- Soil Production and Conservation
- Early Plants to Conserve soil produced above.
- Early Plants as oxygen producers
- Early reptiles help speed up atmospheric balance
- Decomposition of early animal bodies for soil enrichment
- Initiation of the Carbon Cycle
- Early Plants as Climate Modifiers
-Dinosaurs are easy to understand. As reptiles, they would have needed far less oxygen and still would have produced carbon dioxide for early fauna. This would be the catalyst for the earths early atmosphere along with the initial build up of workable soil needed to support later creatures (i.e. Mammals). Yet, due to their size and nutrient requirements, Dinosaurs would have been incompatible with the advancement of life. Further, the oxygen rich new atmosphere likely would have been toxic to the early flora and fauna. So, after they completed their purpose, they were destroyed to make way for the next step.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
TONY: DHW, three posts in a row now I have EXPLICITLY stated the purpose of earlier life forms, yet you keep saying I have not answered you. Why? So, since it seems to get missed in all the clutter:-The primary purpose for earlier life forms was the preparation of the environment for future life forms. They set up the environmental variables.-For some basic examples of tasks that had to be completed: •	Atmospheric Conversion •	PH Balancing •	Soil Production and Conservation •	Early Plants to Conserve soil produced above. •	Early Plants as oxygen producers •	Early reptiles help speed up atmospheric balance •	Decomposition of early animal bodies for soil enrichment •	Initiation of the Carbon Cycle •	Early Plants as Climate Modifiers Dinosaurs are easy to understand. As reptiles, they would have needed far less oxygen and still would have produced carbon dioxide for early fauna. This would be the catalyst for the earths early atmosphere along with the initial build up of workable soil needed to support later creatures (i.e. Mammals). Yet, due to their size and nutrient requirements, Dinosaurs would have been incompatible with the advancement of life. Further, the oxygen rich new atmosphere likely would have been toxic to the early flora and fauna. So, after they completed their purpose, they were destroyed to make way for the next step.-My apologies for so sorely trying your patience, but language is not always the most efficient means of communication. I will observe in passing that nearly all your examples concern plant and microbial life, and you can have decomposing bodies without the mass extinction of whole species of fauna, which has been the subject of my questions. However, my main interest here is what, in the one example you do give of mass extinction, you call the “advancement of life” (previously called “future developments” and here also “future life forms”). This is what some of us would call evolution. If mass extinctions were random occurrences, you would still move from one stage to another, with surviving organisms adapting and innovating in accordance with prevailing conditions (advancement of life). The purpose? Life as an end in itself: to survive, to propagate, and to improve the quality of life where possible (hence innovations, in which I would include human inventions and advancements). That's it. (N.B. Such a scenario need not be atheistic.)-But you mean more than that, don't you? When pressed, you came up with this: “What if the end goal was not one lonely planet with a few million species in the middle of a vast and otherwise empty universe? What if the plan was a vast universe teaming with near infinite variety of life?” And so I asked why “it was necessary for God to create and kill off millions of species on Earth in order to prepare the way for life elsewhere in the universe”. You have not explained the connection. If, then, life on Earth is not an end in itself, as described above, perhaps you will tell us in your own words: advancement of life towards what?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 01:47 (3661 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: And so I asked why “it was necessary for God to create and kill off millions of species on Earth in order to prepare the way for life elsewhere in the universe”. You have not explained the connection. If, then, life on Earth is not an end in itself, as described above, perhaps you will tell us in your own words: advancement of life towards what?-For me, as you know, it is for the arrival of humans. I would again point out, we are way too advanced and complex and light-years beyond the apes we left behind, to find an excuse for us in a natural process of evolution. We were planned for!
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw (to Tony): And so I asked why “it was necessary for God to create and kill off millions of species on Earth in order to prepare the way for life elsewhere in the universe”. You have not explained the connection. If, then, life on Earth is not an end in itself, as described above, perhaps you will tell us in your own words: advancement of life towards what?-DAVID: For me, as you know, it is for the arrival of humans. I would again point out, we are way too advanced and complex and light-years beyond the apes we left behind, to find an excuse for us in a natural process of evolution. We were planned for!-I still want to know why Tony's God had to kill off millions of species on Earth to prepare the way for life elsewhere in the universe, but with your scenario, it's the 3.7-billion-year programme or direct dabble for every single innovation, including the monarch butterfly's four-generation life cycle, that beggars my belief. Maybe we were planned for, but God didn't know how to do it, or he improvised as he went along and suddenly had a great idea: “Let me create something that thinks like me. I'll dabble with that group of monkeys over there.” This still leaves us with life as a possible end in itself, as per evolution, or do you think there is some deeper purpose?
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 18:08 (3660 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I still want to know why Tony's God had to kill off millions of species on Earth to prepare the way for life elsewhere in the universe, but with your scenario, it's the 3.7-billion-year programme or direct dabble for every single innovation, including the monarch butterfly's four-generation life cycle, that beggars my belief. Maybe we were planned for, but God didn't know how to do it, or he improvised as he went along and suddenly had a great idea: “Let me create something that thinks like me. I'll dabble with that group of monkeys over there.” This still leaves us with life as a possible end in itself, as per evolution, or do you think there is some deeper purpose?-Tony makes quite clear there must be balance at each level of development. That is so obvious to me, as the results of imbalance are seen today and provide evidence of why balance is absolutely necessary. There is no evidence of improvisation in the clear picture of step-wise development from single cell to us. The problem in my mind, which creates the dilemma is I'm not sure how far to accept religion's view of God's infinite powers and omniscience. It may be due to my anti-organized religion bias. He may well be that powerful. If I accept that thought it solves my problem, and I'm then like Tony. I'm not far away as it is.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DAVID: Tony makes quite clear there must be balance at each level of development. That is so obvious to me, as the results of imbalance are seen today and provide evidence of why balance is absolutely necessary. -This is a matter of interpretation. You either say conditions were tailored to prepare for the different forms of life, or you say the different forms of life evolved in accordance with what the conditions demanded or allowed. Take your pick. When you talk of balance, you need to say what is balanced against what. Some species are more successful than others, so some go extinct, or a catastrophe obliterates 90% of them. Is that balance? Why (and by whom) should some species be regarded as more important than others?-DAVID: There is no evidence of improvisation in the clear picture of step-wise development from single cell to us. -Can you really trace a clear picture? If so, the Nobel Prize awaits you. No improvisation? What about the bush? Do bacteria to trilobite to dinosaur to mosquito to boa-constrictor to dodo to elephant to duck-billed platypus to gorilla to monarch butterfly suggest to you a clear, step-wise development from single cell to us?-DAVID: The problem in my mind, which creates the dilemma is I'm not sure how far to accept religion's view of God's infinite powers and omniscience. It may be due to my anti-organized religion bias. He may well be that powerful. If I accept that thought it solves my problem, and I'm then like Tony. I'm not far away as it is.-I think one of your dilemmas is that although you have reached the logical conclusion that life is too complex not to have been designed, you are aware that any attempt to characterize the designing power is a human fiction. However, your anthropocentric view of evolution leads to another dilemma, because if your God directed evolution so purposefully, leaving nothing to chance, you have to assume that he specifically planned or created every species (broad sense), extinct and extant, that had features in common with humans. And if organisms could not control their own development, every non-human-related species (broad but sometimes even narrow sense) also had to be specially programmed. Hence the monarch butterfly. Then you have to argue that all these species, extinct and extant, were necessary to create the right conditions for humans. And so your God must either have specially created the monarch butterfly's life cycle or preprogrammed it 3.7 billion years ago, although it was really only humans that he was specially interested in. The reasoning becomes more and more convoluted as you struggle to fit the historical bush of life to your anthropocentric theory. You said earlier that you were “bothered” by both the preprogramming theory and the dabbling theory, but any alternative clearly bothers you even more because it would cast doubts on your anthropocentrism. You don't get rid of the bother that easily, though. It will continue to give you a dilemma, no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Your dilemma, however, lies in the detail. Mine is on a far broader scale!
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Saturday, November 15, 2014, 15:13 (3659 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: When you talk of balance, you need to say what is balanced against what. Some species are more successful than others, so some go extinct, or a catastrophe obliterates 90% of them. Is that balance? Why (and by whom) should some species be regarded as more important than others?-"The term balance of nature is a recognized scientific concept: The balance of nature is a theory that proposes that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium (homeostasis), which is to say that a small change in some particular parameter (the size of a particular population, for example) will be corrected by some negative feedback that will bring the parameter back to its original "point of balance" with the rest of the system. It may apply where populations depend on each other, for example in predator/prey systems, or relationships between herbivores and their food source. It is also sometimes applied to the relationship between the Earth's ecosystem, the composition of the atmosphere, and the world's weather." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature-I view this concept as fitting Tony's comments and it fits Darwin's agony over the fact that cruel animals eat other animals. All life must consume energy to continue. It must be in balance, which is always restored after catastrophes. Dinosaurs, Chicxulub, us as examples. > > DAVID: There is no evidence of improvisation in the clear picture of step-wise development from single cell to us. > > dhw: Can you really trace a clear picture? If so, the Nobel Prize awaits you. No improvisation? What about the bush? Do bacteria to trilobite to dinosaur to mosquito to boa-constrictor to dodo to elephant to duck-billed platypus to gorilla to monarch butterfly suggest to you a clear, step-wise development from single cell to us?-Patterns at first, then adaptations that flair out in many directions, creating a living balance in each niche in nature. Spetner even quotes the Talmud on this point! More of that later as I finish the book. The rabbis had this figured out 300 years ago. .[/i] > > dhw: I think one of your dilemmas is that although you have reached the logical conclusion that life is too complex not to have been designed, you are aware that any attempt to characterize the designing power is a human fiction. However, your anthropocentric view of evolution leads to another dilemma, because if your God directed evolution so purposefully, leaving nothing to chance, you have to assume that he specifically planned or created every species (broad sense), extinct and extant, that had features in common with humans. And if organisms could not control their own development, every non-human-related species (broad but sometimes even narrow sense) also had to be specially programmed. .... The reasoning becomes more and more convoluted as you struggle to fit the historical bush of life to your anthropocentric theory.-I have arrived at a conclusion that is easing the dilemma. God started life with a vast input of information on how to create the emergent phenomenon of life itself. Then patterns were setup in a basic set of organismal families, and adaptive modifications created the bush. God did put an IM into the basic mechanisms of life. The IM follows constraints in the initial information programs. Recognizing there are thousands of natural niches in nature, which must stay in balance, it is no surprise there is a bush of life with many inventive results. > > dhw: You said earlier that you were “bothered” by both the preprogramming theory and the dabbling theory, but any alternative clearly bothers you even more because it would cast doubts on your anthropocentrism. You don't get rid of the bother that easily, though. It will continue to give you a dilemma, no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Your dilemma, however, lies in the detail. Mine is on a far broader scale!-My 'bother' is coming to an end as I mull. I'm sorry you are stuck in dead-end thinking. But your challenges have been very helpful.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
dhw: When you talk of balance, you need to say what is balanced against what. Some species are more successful than others, so some go extinct, or a catastrophe obliterates 90% of them. Is that balance? Why (and by whom) should some species be regarded as more important than others?-DAVID: "The term balance of nature is a recognized scientific concept: The balance of nature is a theory that proposes that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium (homeostasis), which is to say that a small change in some particular parameter (the size of a particular population, for example) will be corrected by some negative feedback that will bring the parameter back to its original "point of balance" with the rest of the system. It may apply where populations depend on each other, for example in predator/prey systems, or relationships between herbivores and their food source. It is also sometimes applied to the relationship between the Earth's ecosystem, the composition of the atmosphere, and the world's weather."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature-Perhaps you didn't notice that according to this article, the theory has been largely discredited, especially among ecologists.-DAVID: I view this concept as fitting Tony's comments and it fits Darwin's agony over the fact that cruel animals eat other animals. All life must consume energy to continue. It must be in balance, which is always restored after catastrophes. Dinosaurs, Chicxulub, us as examples.-There have always been periods of what you might call imbalance followed by what you might call balance followed by “imbalance” followed by “balance”, and this will continue until the Earth is destroyed, and “imbalance” wins the day. You might call it punctuated equilibrium. The concept tells us nothing except that life and/or Planet Earth will continue until life and/or Planet Earth ends.-DAVID: There is no evidence of improvisation in the clear picture of step-wise development from single cell to us. dhw: Can you really trace a clear picture? If so, the Nobel Prize awaits you. No improvisation? What about the bush? Do bacteria to trilobite to dinosaur to mosquito to boa-constrictor to dodo to elephant to duck-billed platypus to gorilla to monarch butterfly suggest to you a clear, step-wise development from single cell to us? DAVID: Patterns at first, then adaptations that flair out in many directions, creating a living balance in each niche in nature. Spetner even quotes the Talmud on this point! More of that later as I finish the book. The rabbis had this figured out 300 years ago.-So please describe the clear steps by which bacteria became humans. -dhw: You said earlier that you were “bothered” by both the preprogramming theory and the dabbling theory, but any alternative clearly bothers you even more because it would cast doubts on your anthropocentrism. You don't get rid of the bother that easily, though. It will continue to give you a dilemma, no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Your dilemma, however, lies in the detail. Mine is on a far broader scale! DAVID: My 'bother' is coming to an end as I mull. I'm sorry you are stuck in dead-end thinking. But your challenges have been very helpful.-It is far from dead-end thinking, as the quest has led to at least two hypotheses I had not considered when I wrote the brief guide: 1) a panpsychist alternative to God(s), 2) an inventive mechanism to explain the course of evolution. The discussions between us have always been very helpful and (for me) very instructive, but they will always culminate in dilemmas that can only be resolved by faith, no matter how hard you try to kid yourself that you have all the answers!
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Sunday, November 16, 2014, 22:11 (3658 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Perhaps you didn't notice that according to this article, the theory has been largely discredited, especially among ecologists.-You didn't parse the comment well. Note:-"The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited, as it has been found that chaotic changes in population levels are common, but nevertheless the idea continues to be popular.[1] During the later half of the twentieth century the theory was superseded by catastrophe theory and chaos theory".- I am not maintaining that balance is constant. It does go out of whack, but it always returns to balance because it is a necessary arrangement for life. I know you are aware of many out of balance examples. Elephants don't rampage in villages because they want to. It is loss of habitat. > > dhw: There have always been periods of what you might call imbalance followed by what you might call balance followed by “imbalance” followed by “balance”,.... The concept tells us nothing except that life and/or Planet Earth will continue until life and/or Planet Earth ends.-I find your comment completely off the mark. I'm simply pointing out that life requires balance and the bush supplies a large part of it.-> > dhw: You said earlier that you were “bothered” by both the preprogramming theory and the dabbling theory, but any alternative clearly bothers you even more because it would cast doubts on your anthropocentrism.-No it wouldn't.I'm leaving dabbling behind. I think a pre-planned IM with guidelines is the best approach.-> dhw: Your dilemma, however, lies in the detail. Mine is on a far broader scale!-You tend to reject anything that smells of a directed process.- > dhw: The discussions between us have always been very helpful and (for me) very instructive, but they will always culminate in dilemmas that can only be resolved by faith, no matter how hard you try to kid yourself that you have all the answers!-Of course one has to accept the final decision on faith. I can do that and I'm not kidding myself. I am satisfied, and you have helped me a great deal as I defend myself.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
DAVID (re the balance of nature): I am not maintaining that balance is constant. It does go out of whack, but it always returns to balance because it is a necessary arrangement for life. -You are describing the sequence I described in my reply to you: “There have always been periods of what you might call imbalance followed by what you might call balance followed by “imbalance” followed by “balance”.... The concept tells us nothing except that life and/or Planet Earth will continue until life and/or Planet Earth ends.”-DAVID: I find your comment completely off the mark. I'm simply pointing out that life requires balance and the bush supplies a large part of it.-And I am simply pointing out that the balance is constantly changing, and will continue to do so until the end (perhaps long after we humans have disappeared). Surprisingly you think all these changes of balance were planned to prepare the way for humans, though events like Chixculub were not. “Oops!” said God, “gee, oh well, them dinos would've vamoosed anyways.” dhw: You said earlier that you were “bothered” by both the preprogramming theory and the dabbling theory, but any alternative clearly bothers you even more because it would cast doubts on your anthropocentrism. DAVID: No it wouldn't. I'm leaving dabbling behind. I think a pre-planned IM with guidelines is the best approach.-But your IM cannot invent anything! According to you, it is capable only of minor adaptations, which do not even include the monarch butterfly's life cycle. And so if God's purpose from the outset was to produce humans, every organ, most of “Nature's Wonders”, every species (broad sense), extinct and extant, was/is NECESSARY for the existence of humans. The whole bush - trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the dodo, the spider's silk, your darling monarch butterfly - all specially preprogrammed because we couldn't be here without them, or we couldn't be here if they hadn't been here and then stopped being here. dhw: Your dilemma, however, lies in the detail. Mine is on a far broader scale DAVID: You tend to reject anything that smells of a directed process.-On the contrary, my IM hypothesis suggests that organisms direct themselves. You tend to reject anything (apart from human free will) that smells of autonomy. However, I keep having to remind you that ALL these hypotheses are full of ifs and buts. That's why you need faith to cling to one of them. dhw: The discussions between us have always been very helpful and (for me) very instructive, but they will always culminate in dilemmas that can only be resolved by faith, no matter how hard you try to kid yourself that you have all the answers! DAVID: Of course one has to accept the final decision on faith. I can do that and I'm not kidding myself. I am satisfied, and you have helped me a great deal as I defend myself.-The day when you are satisfied will be the day you stop thinking, and may that be many years from now.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Monday, November 17, 2014, 21:54 (3657 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: my IM hypothesis suggests that organisms direct themselves. You tend to reject anything (apart from human free will) that smells of autonomy. However, I keep having to remind you that ALL these hypotheses are full of ifs and buts. That's why you need faith to cling to one of them.-If Spetner is correct, it was all implanted from the beginning, including his NREH which simple provides adaptation if I interpret him properly, because he doesn't try to fully spell it out. > > dhw: The discussions between us have always been very helpful and (for me) very instructive, but they will always culminate in dilemmas that can only be resolved by faith, no matter how hard you try to kid yourself that you have all the answers! > DAVID: Of course one has to accept the final decision on faith. I can do that and I'm not kidding myself. I am satisfied, and you have helped me a great deal as I defend myself. > > dhw: The day when you are satisfied will be the day you stop thinking, and may that be many years from now.-You are right. Stop investigating the meanings in life is to reach a dead end. Pun intended.
DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW
by David Turell , Friday, November 14, 2014, 01:43 (3661 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: due to their size and nutrient requirements, Dinosaurs would have been incompatible with the advancement of life. Further, the oxygen rich new atmosphere likely would have been toxic to the early flora and fauna. So, after they completed their purpose, they were destroyed to make way for the next step.-You have defined very well some of the aspects of a "balance of nature" that IS required. Animals: oxygen in, CO2 out. Plans: CO2 in, O2 and water out. Perfect, must be present.