Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)
Under "Geese fly over Everest":
“'The bar-heads have done that migration for millions of years before the Himalayas were as tall as they are now, and the birds have been pushed as the mountains have moved up to go higher and higher,” says coauthor Julia York [...]
DAVID: this certainly could have been a slow adaptation through epigenetics as mountains rose.
Precisely. It provides evidence that the cell communities of which all organisms are composed are able to make changes to themselves in response to changing conditions. Do you believe that your God preprogrammed or dabbled these particular changes in advance, or do you believe that the ability to make these particular changes is autonomous (and in the theistic version, designed by your God)? They are of course comparatively minor changes, but as I keep pointing out, there is no clear borderline between adaptation and innovation – the pre-whale’s legs and the whale’s flippers being a good example, with the accumulation of adaptations leading to speciation.
Under "New ediacaran fossils"
"Some Ediacaran organisms have been recognized as animals despite their peculiar anatomy, which suggests that animal life began millions of years before the Cambrian explosion.
DAVID: Certainly this animal is an early 'real animal', compared to the weird Ediacaran forms that might be animals. It is nowhere as complex as Cambrian species despite efforts of the author to close the Cambrian Explosion gap. I would suspect some early transitional forms between Ediacaran and Cambrian eras, as this simple one appears to be.
Transitional forms are precisely what would close the gap. And a major change to environmental conditions (e.g. a sudden increase in the amount of oxygen) may have resulted in a sudden burst of innovation among all existing “transitional” forms. The suggestion, then, is that new species did not appear from nowhere, but the process of innovation was accelerated (not started) by environmental change.
Under "sea snake"
QUOTE: H. cyanocinctus has managed to evolve a respiratory system that works in much the same way as gills, despite the vast evolutionary distance between these two groups of species. Truly, these snakes are indeed creatures of the sea."
DAVID: Same problem as with whales. Why bother to change environments when it complicates physiology so much?
dhw: So what is your answer? Did your God preprogramme or dabble the snake’s respiratory system because if he hadn’t, he would not have been able to cover the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens? The snake has survived, so maybe, like the pre-whale, its local environment made marine life more desirable than life on land and so its cell communities adapted accordingly.
DAVID: I don't have an answer other than to propose God helped with the newly required designs for aquatic life. For example how did the snake handle the extra salt? Like the whales? There is more to jumping into salt water, with the new physiological requirements. I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.
Why “helped” with designs? Do you think he popped in to give these creatures a poke and a prod as their cell communities struggled to obey the sea-snake-respiratory-system-instructions you seriously believe he had implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago? Yes, we know you seriously doubt the whole concept of intelligent cell communities, just as I also seriously doubt your fixed belief that your God turned the pre-whale’s legs into flippers before pushing it into the water because otherwise life could not have gone on until he designed H. sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell 
, Friday, September 06, 2019, 22:25 (1903 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Under "Geese fly over Everest":
“'The bar-heads have done that migration for millions of years before the Himalayas were as tall as they are now, and the birds have been pushed as the mountains have moved up to go higher and higher,” says coauthor Julia York [...]
DAVID: this certainly could have been a slow adaptation through epigenetics as mountains rose.
dhw: Precisely. It provides evidence that the cell communities of which all organisms are composed are able to make changes to themselves in response to changing conditions. Do you believe that your God preprogrammed or dabbled these particular changes in advance, or do you believe that the ability to make these particular changes is autonomous (and in the theistic version, designed by your God)? They are of course comparatively minor changes, but as I keep pointing out, there is no clear borderline between adaptation and innovation – the pre-whale’s legs and the whale’s flippers being a good example, with the accumulation of adaptations leading to speciation.
Your problem is you don't understand the distinction between minor adaptation as in the geese and major structural and physiological changes as in the whales requiring major design changes.
dhw: Under "New ediacaran fossils""Some Ediacaran organisms have been recognized as animals despite their peculiar anatomy, which suggests that animal life began millions of years before the Cambrian explosion.
DAVID: Certainly this animal is an early 'real animal', compared to the weird Ediacaran forms that might be animals. It is nowhere as complex as Cambrian species despite efforts of the author to close the Cambrian Explosion gap. I would suspect some early transitional forms between Ediacaran and Cambrian eras, as this simple one appears to be.
dhw: Transitional forms are precisely what would close the gap. And a major change to environmental conditions (e.g. a sudden increase in the amount of oxygen) may have resulted in a sudden burst of innovation among all existing “transitional” forms. The suggestion, then, is that new species did not appear from nowhere, but the process of innovation was accelerated (not started) by environmental change.
Agree. Environment can allow, but not cause.
dhw; Under "sea snake"
QUOTE: H. cyanocinctus has managed to evolve a respiratory system that works in much the same way as gills, despite the vast evolutionary distance between these two groups of species. Truly, these snakes are indeed creatures of the sea."
DAVID: Same problem as with whales. Why bother to change environments when it complicates physiology so much?
dhw: So what is your answer? Did your God preprogramme or dabble the snake’s respiratory system because if he hadn’t, he would not have been able to cover the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens? The snake has survived, so maybe, like the pre-whale, its local environment made marine life more desirable than life on land and so its cell communities adapted accordingly.
DAVID: I don't have an answer other than to propose God helped with the newly required designs for aquatic life. For example how did the snake handle the extra salt? Like the whales? There is more to jumping into salt water, with the new physiological requirements. I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.
dhw: Why “helped” with designs? Do you think he popped in to give these creatures a poke and a prod as their cell communities struggled to obey the sea-snake-respiratory-system-instructions you seriously believe he had implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago? Yes, we know you seriously doubt the whole concept of intelligent cell communities, just as I also seriously doubt your fixed belief that your God turned the pre-whale’s legs into flippers before pushing it into the water because otherwise life could not have gone on until he designed H. sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design.
H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, September 06, 2019, 22:28 (1903 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Under "Geese fly over Everest":
“'The bar-heads have done that migration for millions of years before the Himalayas were as tall as they are now, and the birds have been pushed as the mountains have moved up to go higher and higher,” says coauthor Julia York [...]
DAVID: this certainly could have been a slow adaptation through epigenetics as mountains rose.
dhw: Precisely. It provides evidence that the cell communities of which all organisms are composed are able to make changes to themselves in response to changing conditions. Do you believe that your God preprogrammed or dabbled these particular changes in advance, or do you believe that the ability to make these particular changes is autonomous (and in the theistic version, designed by your God)? They are of course comparatively minor changes, but as I keep pointing out, there is no clear borderline between adaptation and innovation – the pre-whale’s legs and the whale’s flippers being a good example, with the accumulation of adaptations leading to speciation.
Your problem is you don't understand the distinction between minor adaptation as in the geese and major structural and physiological changes as in the whales requiring major design changes. Fossil records have never shown other than new species appearing de novo with occasional widely different transient forms.
dhw: Under "New ediacaran fossils""Some Ediacaran organisms have been recognized as animals despite their peculiar anatomy, which suggests that animal life began millions of years before the Cambrian explosion.
DAVID: Certainly this animal is an early 'real animal', compared to the weird Ediacaran forms that might be animals. It is nowhere as complex as Cambrian species despite efforts of the author to close the Cambrian Explosion gap. I would suspect some early transitional forms between Ediacaran and Cambrian eras, as this simple one appears to be.
dhw: Transitional forms are precisely what would close the gap. And a major change to environmental conditions (e.g. a sudden increase in the amount of oxygen) may have resulted in a sudden burst of innovation among all existing “transitional” forms. The suggestion, then, is that new species did not appear from nowhere, but the process of innovation was accelerated (not started) by environmental change.
Agree. Environment can allow, but not cause.
dhw; Under "sea snake"
QUOTE: H. cyanocinctus has managed to evolve a respiratory system that works in much the same way as gills, despite the vast evolutionary distance between these two groups of species. Truly, these snakes are indeed creatures of the sea."
DAVID: Same problem as with whales. Why bother to change environments when it complicates physiology so much?
dhw: So what is your answer? Did your God preprogramme or dabble the snake’s respiratory system because if he hadn’t, he would not have been able to cover the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens? The snake has survived, so maybe, like the pre-whale, its local environment made marine life more desirable than life on land and so its cell communities adapted accordingly.
DAVID: I don't have an answer other than to propose God helped with the newly required designs for aquatic life. For example how did the snake handle the extra salt? Like the whales? There is more to jumping into salt water, with the new physiological requirements. I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.
dhw: Why “helped” with designs? Do you think he popped in to give these creatures a poke and a prod as their cell communities struggled to obey the sea-snake-respiratory-system-instructions you seriously believe he had implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago? Yes, we know you seriously doubt the whole concept of intelligent cell communities, just as I also seriously doubt your fixed belief that your God turned the pre-whale’s legs into flippers before pushing it into the water because otherwise life could not have gone on until he designed H. sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design.
H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw (re geese flying over Everest):They are of course comparatively minor changes, but as I keep pointing out, there is no clear borderline between adaptation and innovation – the pre-whale’s legs and the whale’s flippers being a good example, with the accumulation of adaptations leading to speciation.
DAVID: Your problem is you don't understand the distinction between minor adaptation as in the geese and major structural and physiological changes as in the whales requiring major design changes.
Your problem is you don’t seem to register what I write. I have actually stated that the changes to the geese are minor (now bolded), and I keep repeating that we do not know if intelligent cells are capable of major changes – it is a theory. And you have totally ignored the problem of distinguishing between adaptation and innovation. Legs turning into flippers is clearly a case of adaptation, and the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations. These adaptations, however, are so major that they result in new species.
DAVID: (Under "New ediacaran fossils") I would suspect some early transitional forms between Ediacaran and Cambrian eras, as this simple one appears to be.
dhw: Transitional forms are precisely what would close the gap. And a major change to environmental conditions (e.g. a sudden increase in the amount of oxygen) may have resulted in a sudden burst of innovation among all existing “transitional” forms. The suggestion, then, is that new species did not appear from nowhere, but the process of innovation was accelerated (not started) by environmental change.
DAVID: Agree. Environment can allow, but not cause.
Not just allow. Organisms must change their structures in order to cope with environmental changes, which therefore become the trigger for adaptation and innovation. But of course the mechanism for adaptation and innovation must already be in place, which is where your God comes in: all changes preprogrammed, or dabbled, or the result of autonomous (possibly God-given) intelligence?
DAVID: (under "sea snake") […] I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.
dhw: Yes, we know you seriously doubt the whole concept of intelligent cell communities, just as I also seriously doubt your fixed belief that your God turned the pre-whale’s legs into flippers before pushing it into the water because otherwise life could not have gone on until he designed H. sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.
You say “a” as opposed to “the” final goal. Good. Now apparently your God desired to evolve (by which you mean specially design) ALL of life’s bush. Until now, H. sapiens has been his one and only goal, and he “had to” design the rest of the bush to keep life going, because he had decided not to start fulfilling his only goal for 3.X billion years. “Desire”, of course, is a humanization by your standards, but do please tell us why you think your God “desired” to specially design all of life’s bush, since apparently you now think his purpose was not just to keep life going until he could fulfil THE goal of designing H. sapiens.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, September 07, 2019, 19:04 (1902 days ago) @ dhw
dhw (re geese flying over Everest):They are of course comparatively minor changes, but as I keep pointing out, there is no clear borderline between adaptation and innovation – the pre-whale’s legs and the whale’s flippers being a good example, with the accumulation of adaptations leading to speciation.
DAVID: Your problem is you don't understand the distinction between minor adaptation as in the geese and major structural and physiological changes as in the whales requiring major design changes.
dhw: Your problem is you don’t seem to register what I write. I have actually stated that the changes to the geese are minor (now bolded), and I keep repeating that we do not know if intelligent cells are capable of major changes – it is a theory. And you have totally ignored the problem of distinguishing between adaptation and innovation. Legs turning into flippers is clearly a case of adaptation, and the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations. These adaptations, however, are so major that they result in new species.
Of course I understand your writing! My comment was about your blurring the lines between minor adaptation and major engineering requirements. Yes the foot to flipper is technically an adaptation. But this change requires major design changes of bones and muscle attachments. Ankle bones cannot make movements like wrist bones. Think if your own. Swimming requires very different movements than walking. As for the physiologic changes they require major chemical design changes which are organic really large alterations, not simple adjustments, as you again blur lines.
DAVID: (under "sea snake") […] I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.dhw: Yes, we know you seriously doubt the whole concept of intelligent cell communities, just as I also seriously doubt your fixed belief that your God turned the pre-whale’s legs into flippers before pushing it into the water because otherwise life could not have gone on until he designed H. sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.
dhw: You say “a” as opposed to “the” final goal. Good. Now apparently your God desired to evolve (by which you mean specially design) ALL of life’s bush. Until now, H. sapiens has been his one and only goal, and he “had to” design the rest of the bush to keep life going, because he had decided not to start fulfilling his only goal for 3.X billion years. “Desire”, of course, is a humanization by your standards, but do please tell us why you think your God “desired” to specially design all of life’s bush, since apparently you now think his purpose was not just to keep life going until he could fulfil THE goal of designing H. sapiens.
You've tortured my theory into a one-purpose God "apparition". My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing and what He 'desires' to do. And 'desire' is not necessarily a humanizing word, just because you want to be. He certainly wanted the entire bush of life before arriving at humans, as God is the creator of reality and history tells what He did.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: […] I keep repeating that we do not know if intelligent cells are capable of major changes – it is a theory. And you have totally ignored the problem of distinguishing between adaptation and innovation. Legs turning into flippers is clearly a case of adaptation, and the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations. These adaptations, however, are so major that they result in new species.
DAVID: […] My comment was about your blurring the lines between minor adaptation and major engineering requirements. Yes the foot to flipper is technically an adaptation. But this change requires major design changes of bones and muscle attachments. […] As for the physiologic changes they require major chemical design changes which are organic really large alterations, not simple adjustments, as you again blur lines.
I did not say they were simple adjustments! Again you have not registered what I have written. I have now bolded the relevant comments. All the whale changes are “technically” adaptations, since they all make adjustments to existing features. We know that cell communities can make minor adjustments, but we do not know if the same mechanism is capable of major adjustments. It is a theory, but it is based on the existence of an autonomous mechanism which even you have apparently begun to acknowledge: “As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability”.
DAVID: H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.
dhw: You say “a” as opposed to “the” final goal. Good. Now apparently your God desired to evolve (by which you mean specially design) ALL of life’s bush […] do please tell us why you think your God “desired” to specially design all of life’s bush, since apparently you now think his purpose was not just to keep life going until he could fulfil THE goal of designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: You've tortured my theory into a one-purpose God "apparition".
I don’t know what you mean by “apparition”. Do you really want me to compile a list of the occasions when you have insisted that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens?
DAVID: My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing and what He 'desires' to do.
If God exists, then of course he is purposeful and knows what he desires.
DAVID: […] He certainly wanted the entire bush of life before arriving at humans, as God is the creator of reality and history tells what He did.
Until now you have insisted that your God “had to” create the bush in order to keep life going for 3.X billion years until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design, which was H. sapiens. (I will provide quotes if you want me to.) If you are now saying that the bush was a purpose in itself (he wanted/desired it), then at last we have reached common ground. We can jettison the whole idea that he started out with just the one purpose of producing H. sapiens. Bush and humans were all designed for the same purpose – to satisfy his desire. I would go further than you, and suggest that his desire was for something to fill the great void of his existence (if he exists), but you may have other ideas or you may prefer not to speculate on his motives. That’s fine, so long as we now agree that humans were not his one and only purpose. The second area of disagreement is the likelihood of his specially designing everything, as opposed to creating a mechanism that would do its own designing, but that is a different issue.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, September 08, 2019, 15:15 (1901 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: […] I keep repeating that we do not know if intelligent cells are capable of major changes – it is a theory. And you have totally ignored the problem of distinguishing between adaptation and innovation. Legs turning into flippers is clearly a case of adaptation, and the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations. These adaptations, however, are so major that they result in new species.
DAVID: […] My comment was about your blurring the lines between minor adaptation and major engineering requirements. Yes the foot to flipper is technically an adaptation. But this change requires major design changes of bones and muscle attachments. […] As for the physiologic changes they require major chemical design changes which are organic really large alterations, not simple adjustments, as you again blur lines.
dhw: I did not say they were simple adjustments! Again you have not registered what I have written. I have now bolded the relevant comments. All the whale changes are “technically” adaptations, since they all make adjustments to existing features. We know that cell communities can make minor adjustments, but we do not know if the same mechanism is capable of major adjustments. It is a theory, but it is based on the existence of an autonomous mechanism which even you have apparently begun to acknowledge: “As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability”.
You are missing my insistence that foot to flipper is a very major alteration requiring intensive design by glossing over it as the now bolded phrase shows! It requires more than 'adjustments'.
DAVID: H.sapiens was a final goal of all of God's desires to evolve all of life's bush topped by humans.dhw: You say “a” as opposed to “the” final goal. Good. Now apparently your God desired to evolve (by which you mean specially design) ALL of life’s bush […] do please tell us why you think your God “desired” to specially design all of life’s bush, since apparently you now think his purpose was not just to keep life going until he could fulfil THE goal of designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: You've tortured my theory into a one-purpose God "apparition".
dhw; I don’t know what you mean by “apparition”. Do you really want me to compile a list of the occasions when you have insisted that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens?
You know full well the word apparition. You present a very strange God. It is just your intentional misinterpretation of my repeated statements that humans were His eventual goal.
DAVID: My God is purposeful and knows exactly what He is doing and what He 'desires' to do.dhw: If God exists, then of course he is purposeful and knows what he desires.
DAVID: […] He certainly wanted the entire bush of life before arriving at humans, as God is the creator of reality and history tells what He did.
dhw: Until now you have insisted that your God “had to” create the bush in order to keep life going for 3.X billion years until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design, which was H. sapiens. (I will provide quotes if you want me to.) If you are now saying that the bush was a purpose in itself (he wanted/desired it), then at last we have reached common ground. We can jettison the whole idea that he started out with just the one purpose of producing H. sapiens. Bush and humans were all designed for the same purpose – to satisfy his desire. I would go further than you, and suggest that his desire was for something to fill the great void of his existence (if he exists), but you may have other ideas or you may prefer not to speculate on his motives. That’s fine, so long as we now agree that humans were not his one and only purpose. The second area of disagreement is the likelihood of his specially designing everything, as opposed to creating a mechanism that would do its own designing, but that is a different issue.
The whole of the evolutionary theory shows God's purpose, but I will not leave the point to your interpretation. Remember I'm with Adler and we are different in kind which means we were God's final goal. You admit to our specialness and then ignore its importance in your final conclusions.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: All the whale changes are “technically” adaptations, since they all make adjustments to existing features. We know that cell communities can make minor adjustments, but we do not know if the same mechanism is capable of major adjustments. It is a theory, but it is based on the existence of an autonomous mechanism which even you have apparently begun to acknowledge: “As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability”. (David’s bold)
DAVID: You are missing my insistence that foot to flipper is a very major alteration requiring intensive design by glossing over it as the now bolded phrase shows! It requires more than 'adjustments'.
Prior to the above quote, I wrote that “the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations”. I don’t know why you think a “very major alteration” is different from a “major physiological change”, and my point was that the changes were adaptations, not innovations, because the leg already existed and the flipper did not appear out of nowhere. That is why the borderline between adaptation and innovation as the cause of speciation may be blurred.
DAVID: You've tortured my theory into a one-purpose God "apparition".
dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “apparition”. Do you really want me to compile a list of the occasions when you have insisted that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens?
DAVID: You know full well the word apparition.
An apparition is something unreal which you imagine you can actually see. I have no idea why you have suddenly introduced the term here. We are discussing your God’s purpose.
DAVID: You present a very strange God. It is just your intentional misinterpretation of my repeated statements that humans were His eventual goal.
You have repeatedly stated that your God’s goal was H. sapiens, and that he decided to take 3.X billion years to start fulfilling that goal, and therefore he had to create all the other non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to cover that time. All summed up by your statement: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” Please tell me what I have misinterpreted.
DAVID: My God knows exactly what he is doing and what He ‘desires’ to do. […] He certainly wanted the entire bush of life before arriving at humans, as God is the creator of reality and history tells what He did.
dhw: […] If you are now saying that the bush was a purpose in itself (he wanted/desired it), then at last we have reached common ground. We can jettison the whole idea that he started out with just the one purpose of producing H. sapiens. Bush and humans were all designed for the same purpose – to satisfy his desire.
DAVID: The whole of the evolutionary theory shows God's purpose, but I will not leave the point to your interpretation. Remember I'm with Adler and we are different in kind which means we were God's final goal. You admit to our specialness and then ignore its importance in your final conclusions.
All species are different in kind, and yes our level of consciousness is special. Now please explain what you meant by your God wanting/desiring the entire bush of life. You appear at last to be jettisoning your earlier belief that he had to specially design all branches of the bush only in order to provide the food to cover the time he had decided to take in order to specially design the life form which was his “final goal”.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, September 09, 2019, 18:10 (1900 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: All the whale changes are “technically” adaptations, since they all make adjustments to existing features. We know that cell communities can make minor adjustments, but we do not know if the same mechanism is capable of major adjustments. It is a theory, but it is based on the existence of an autonomous mechanism which even you have apparently begun to acknowledge: “As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability”. (David’s bold)
DAVID: You are missing my insistence that foot to flipper is a very major alteration requiring intensive design by glossing over it as the now bolded phrase shows! It requires more than 'adjustments'.
dhw: Prior to the above quote, I wrote that “the major physiological changes to the whale could also be classed as adaptations to existing organs, not innovations”. I don’t know why you think a “very major alteration” is different from a “major physiological change”, and my point was that the changes were adaptations, not innovations, because the leg already existed and the flipper did not appear out of nowhere. That is why the borderline between adaptation and innovation as the cause of speciation may be blurred.
We differ widely in view: Any alteration of foot to flipper requires major design changes and from air to water exquisite physiologic changes. These are not adaptations, but major alterations of form and biochemistry.
DAVID: You present a very strange God. It is just your intentional misinterpretation of my repeated statements that humans were His eventual goal.dhw: You have repeatedly stated that your God’s goal was H. sapiens, and that he decided to take 3.X billion years to start fulfilling that goal, and therefore he had to create all the other non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to cover that time. All summed up by your statement: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” Please tell me what I have misinterpreted.
How you overemphasize the concept of 'goal', giving my God only one supreme purpose and thereby distorting my theory that He chose to use an evolution method, just as history tells us, as I assume God created our reality.
DAVID: My God knows exactly what he is doing and what He ‘desires’ to do. […] He certainly wanted the entire bush of life before arriving at humans, as God is the creator of reality and history tells what He did.dhw: […] If you are now saying that the bush was a purpose in itself (he wanted/desired it), then at last we have reached common ground. We can jettison the whole idea that he started out with just the one purpose of producing H. sapiens. Bush and humans were all designed for the same purpose – to satisfy his desire.
DAVID: The whole of the evolutionary theory shows God's purpose, but I will not leave the point to your interpretation. Remember I'm with Adler and we are different in kind which means we were God's final goal. You admit to our specialness and then ignore its importance in your final conclusions.
dhw: All species are different in kind, and yes our level of consciousness is special. Now please explain what you meant by your God wanting/desiring the entire bush of life. You appear at last to be jettisoning your earlier belief that he had to specially design all branches of the bush only in order to provide the food to cover the time he had decided to take in order to specially design the life form which was his “final goal”.
Again you purposely skip the point, we are different in kind, not degree. The point is, through evolution we are a giant step no other species exhibits, given above in my comment.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: We differ widely in view: Any alteration of foot to flipper requires major design changes and from air to water exquisite physiologic changes. These are not adaptations, but major alterations of form and biochemistry.
An alteration is not an innovation. Of course all the changes were adaptations to life in the water, and I keep saying they were major. Call them “exquisite” if you like, but that still doesn’t make them innovations. That is why I say the borderline between adaptation and innovation is not clear, and the mechanism which we know can produce minor alterations MAY (it’s a theory) also have been responsible for the major alterations that lead to speciation. Nobody knows the cause of speciation, and divine dabbling or preprogramming is your own unproven theory.
DAVID: You present a very strange God. It is just your intentional misinterpretation of my repeated statements that humans were His eventual goal.
dhw: You have repeatedly stated that your God’s goal was H. sapiens, and that he decided to take 3.X billion years to start fulfilling that goal, and therefore he had to create all the other non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to cover that time. All summed up by your statement: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” Please tell me what I have misinterpreted.
DAVID: How you overemphasize the concept of 'goal', giving my God only one supreme purpose and thereby distorting my theory that He chose to use an evolution method, just as history tells us, as I assume God created our reality.
What have I distorted? If he exists, and common descent is true, then of course he used evolution to produce all species and all realities. That is not the part of your theory that is in dispute! It is you who overemphasize the concept of ‘goal’ by constantly harping on about human specialness as being his one and only purpose! See below.
dhw: […] please explain what you meant by your God wanting/desiring the entire bush of life. You appear at last to be jettisoning your earlier belief that he had to specially design all branches of the bush only in order to provide the food to cover the time he had decided to take in order to specially design the life form which was his “final goal”.
DAVID: Again you purposely skip the point, we are different in kind, not degree. The point is, through evolution we are a giant step no other species exhibits, given above in my comment.
All species are different in kind, and yes we are special and our intelligence is a giant step no other species exhibits. No disagreement there. But from that fact you extrapolated your theory that we were God’s one and only purpose from the beginning, and he decided to wait 3.X billion years before designing us, and he had to design all the other life forms etc. to cover the time. However, at long last, you have conceded that your God may have actually wanted or desired the bush of life, most of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the special design of H. sapiens. This can only mean that he specially designed (your fixed belief) the whole bush, including humans, or he created an autonomous mechanism to design the whole bush, including humans (my alternative theory) in order to satisfy his wants or desires. Of course you don’t want to discuss what those wants or desires might be, though you did once suggest that your God might enjoy his work as a painter enjoys his paintings. I’d go along with that. We have (almost) made great progress!
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 17:29 (1899 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We differ widely in view: Any alteration of foot to flipper requires major design changes and from air to water exquisite physiologic changes. These are not adaptations, but major alterations of form and biochemistry.
dhw: An alteration is not an innovation. Of course all the changes were adaptations to life in the water, and I keep saying they were major. Call them “exquisite” if you like, but that still doesn’t make them innovations. That is why I say the borderline between adaptation and innovation is not clear, and the mechanism which we know can produce minor alterations MAY (it’s a theory) also have been responsible for the major alterations that lead to speciation. Nobody knows the cause of speciation, and divine dabbling or preprogramming is your own unproven theory.
I view your so-called alterations as major innovations , in example of the foot to flipper case. A wrist and an ankle are quite different, same bones, different shapes and muscle attachments, and very different motions as a result. But I agree the word alteration means innovation. My difference is the need for design at minor and major levels is quite different.
DAVID: How you overemphasize the concept of 'goal', giving my God only one supreme purpose and thereby distorting my theory that He chose to use an evolution method, just as history tells us, as I assume God created our reality.dhw: What have I distorted? If he exists, and common descent is true, then of course he used evolution to produce all species and all realities. That is not the part of your theory that is in dispute! It is you who overemphasize the concept of ‘goal’ by constantly harping on about human specialness as being his one and only purpose! See below.
Again I'm with Adler and our specialness. You won't accept that point, which is major to me.
dhw: […] please explain what you meant by your God wanting/desiring the entire bush of life. You appear at last to be jettisoning your earlier belief that he had to specially design all branches of the bush only in order to provide the food to cover the time he had decided to take in order to specially design the life form which was his “final goal”.DAVID: Again you purposely skip the point, we are different in kind, not degree. The point is, through evolution we are a giant step no other species exhibits, given above in my comment.
dhw: All species are different in kind, and yes we are special and our intelligence is a giant step no other species exhibits. No disagreement there. But from that fact you extrapolated your theory that we were God’s one and only purpose from the beginning, and he decided to wait 3.X billion years before designing us, and he had to design all the other life forms etc. to cover the time. However, at long last, you have conceded that your God may have actually wanted or desired the bush of life, most of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the special design of H. sapiens. This can only mean that he specially designed (your fixed belief) the whole bush, including humans, or he created an autonomous mechanism to design the whole bush, including humans (my alternative theory) in order to satisfy his wants or desires. Of course you don’t want to discuss what those wants or desires might be, though you did once suggest that your God might enjoy his work as a painter enjoys his paintings. I’d go along with that. We have (almost) made great progress!
Of course God wanted the bush. It was an absolute requirement to cover the time the whole process took. But I won't leave the concept that we are so special we were His goal. Certainly God knew what was required. And I still won't guess at His reasoning, much as you like to do it. Pure guessing if the Biblical writings are ignored.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: We differ widely in view: Any alteration of foot to flipper requires major design changes and from air to water exquisite physiologic changes. These are not adaptations, but major alterations of form and biochemistry.
dhw: An alteration is not an innovation. Of course all the changes were adaptations to life in the water, and I keep saying they were major. […] That is why I say the borderline between adaptation and innovation is not clear, and the mechanism which we know can produce minor alterations MAY (it’s a theory) also have been responsible for the major alterations that lead to speciation. […]
DAVID: I view your so-called alterations as major innovations , in example of the foot to flipper case. A wrist and an ankle are quite different, same bones, different shapes and muscle attachments, and very different motions as a result. But I agree the word alteration means innovation. My difference is the need for design at minor and major levels is quite different.
The word alteration does NOT mean innovation! Innovation is something new, whereas alteration means changing something that already exists. But sometimes it is difficult to draw a borderline between the two. The whale is a much clearer example than wrist and ankle, since we have a direct environmental link. Legs turned into flippers, as a means of adaptation from land life to water life. This, plus all the other adaptations, led to speciation. Of course there is a difference between major and minor adaptations, and you have conceded that minor “epigenetic” changes may be autonomous. My proposal is that the same autonomous mechanism may have been responsible for major adaptations/innovations. Your fixed beliefs will not allow for such a possibility. That’s it.
DAVID: How you overemphasize the concept of 'goal', giving my God only one supreme purpose and thereby distorting my theory that He chose to use an evolution method, just as history tells us, as I assume God created our reality.
dhw: What have I distorted? If he exists, and common descent is true, then of course he used evolution to produce all species and all realities. That is not the part of your theory that is in dispute! It is you who overemphasize the concept of ‘goal’ by constantly harping on about human specialness as being his one and only purpose! See below.
DAVID: Again I'm with Adler and our specialness. You won't accept that point, which is major to me.
I keep accepting our specialness! But that does not mean your God set out with the one and only purpose of designing us, had decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing the rest of the evolutionary bush, as you repeat below.
dhw: […] please explain what you meant by your God wanting/desiring the entire bush of life.
DAVID: Of course God wanted the bush. It was an absolute requirement to cover the time the whole process took. But I won't leave the concept that we are so special we were His goal. Certainly God knew what was required.
So you are confirming the above, and you have no idea why he chose this method of fulfilling his one and only purpose!
DAVID: And I still won't guess at His reasoning, much as you like to do it. Pure guessing if the Biblical writings are ignored.
It’s not that you won’t guess at his reasoning. You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” (See also under “Unanswered questions”): If you can’t see any logic behind this fixed belief of yours, maybe it’s just possible that the whole bush, including humans, was designed (or was given the means to design itself) to satisfy his wants/desires, as you suggested earlier on this thread!
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 20:14 (1898 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I view your so-called alterations as major innovations , in example of the foot to flipper case. A wrist and an ankle are quite different, same bones, different shapes and muscle attachments, and very different motions as a result. But I agree the word alteration means innovation. My difference is the need for design at minor and major levels is quite different.
dhw: The word alteration does NOT mean innovation! Innovation is something new, whereas alteration means changing something that already exists. But sometimes it is difficult to draw a borderline between the two. The whale is a much clearer example than wrist and ankle, since we have a direct environmental link. Legs turned into flippers, as a means of adaptation from land life to water life. This, plus all the other adaptations, led to speciation. Of course there is a difference between major and minor adaptations, and you have conceded that minor “epigenetic” changes may be autonomous. My proposal is that the same autonomous mechanism may have been responsible for major adaptations/innovations. Your fixed beliefs will not allow for such a possibility. That’s it.
I don't understand your definitions. An alteration is an innovation of small degree. Yes, that is it. Design requires complex mental input, as in God did it.
DAVID: Again I'm with Adler and our specialness. You won't accept that point, which is major to me.dhw: I keep accepting our specialness! But that does not mean your God set out with the one and only purpose of designing us, had decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing the rest of the evolutionary bush, as you repeat below.
No you don't. The degree of specialness you agree to is not what Adler proposes in his book. He shows that we are so special God created us and has to exist.
dhw: […] please explain what you meant by your God wanting/desiring the entire bush of life.DAVID: Of course God wanted the bush. It was an absolute requirement to cover the time the whole process took. But I won't leave the concept that we are so special we were His goal. Certainly God knew what was required.
dhw: So you are confirming the above, and you have no idea why he chose this method of fulfilling his one and only purpose!
Of course I have no idea. Why should I? I accept what God does what God does for His own reasons! You constantly want to analyze Him in as if you can in human terms.
DAVID: And I still won't guess at His reasoning, much as you like to do it. Pure guessing if the Biblical writings are ignored.dhw: It’s not that you won’t guess at his reasoning. You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” (See also under “Unanswered questions”): If you can’t see any logic behind this fixed belief of yours, maybe it’s just possible that the whole bush, including humans, was designed (or was given the means to design itself) to satisfy his wants/desires, as you suggested earlier on this thread!
I guessed because you asked me to and I politely did so. I have no idea because I don't question His motives, as you do in a humanizing way.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
I’m combining this thread with “Unanswered Questions” as the two are now overlapping.
dhw: Innovation is something new, whereas alteration means changing something that already exists. But sometimes it is difficult to draw a borderline between the two. […]
DAVID: I don't understand your definitions. An alteration is an innovation of small degree. […] Design requires complex mental input, as in God did it.
Neat! So the borderline between adaptation and innovation is not clear if all forms of change are innovations of some kind. Thank you. And yes, design requires complex mental input, as in the theory that intelligent cells/cell communities did it (and God may have designed their intelligence).
DAVID: Again I'm with Adler and our specialness. You won't accept that point, which is major to me.
dhw: I keep accepting our specialness! But that does not mean your God set out with the one and only purpose of designing us, had decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing the rest of the evolutionary bush…
DAVID: No you don't. The degree of specialness you agree to is not what Adler proposes in his book. He shows that we are so special God created us and has to exist.
Yes, yes, and you have devoted post after post after post to demonstrating that every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder is so special that God must have created them all and has to exist.
DAVID: Of course God wanted the bush. It was an absolute requirement to cover the time the whole process took. But I won't leave the concept that we are so special we were His goal. […]
dhw: […] and you have no idea why he chose this method of fulfilling his one and only purpose!
DAVID: Of course I have no idea. Why should I? I accept what God does what God does for His own reasons! You constantly want to analyze Him in as if you can in human terms.
You can’t know his reasons, but you insist that his reason for specially designing the evolutionary bush was to keep life going until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design - you and me! This is your “analysis” written in “human terms” – God wanted/desired/knew/is purposeful/decided…How can you or anyone else attempt to describe God’s thought processes other than “in human terms”?
dhw: You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” [..] If you can’t see any logic behind this fixed belief of yours, maybe it’s just possible that the whole bush, including humans, was designed (or was given the means to design itself) to satisfy his wants/desires, as you suggested earlier on this thread!
DAVID: I guessed because you asked me to and I politely did so. I have no idea because I don't question His motives, as you do in a humanizing way.
You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his motives, because you have a fixed belief – in human terms – that the only thing he wanted to design (his final purpose) was us. That is no less human than the proposal that he wanted to design a vast variety of life forms or an autonomous mechanism that would design a vast variety of life forms.
DAVID: There were at least six mass extinctions according to my recent entry. God may well have used them to control the course of evolution. I view Him as totally in charge.
dhw: “Totally in charge” would have to mean he engineered every single environmental change that triggered every single new life form.
DAVID: Since He created the universe and the Earth and evolved them, He may well have controlled all the environmental changes.
If he didn’t control them, he was not “totally in charge”, in which case he was perfectly capable of giving up control, as he did – according to you – by allowing free will.
DAVID: Free will is not the same level as God running evolution.
dhw: I keep giving free will only as an example of your God giving up control.
DAVID: My dog runs to the barn using his free will. God is not in control at that level. My walking to the barn by free will means God is not involved, but God is still fully in control of evolution! What God gave up is very minor, not the major point you are trying to make about degree of control of the universe, the Earth, and evolution.
So God does not control our behaviour, but he has to control the behaviour of microorganisms like bacteria! He “may well have controlled all the environmental changes” leaves open the option that he may well not have done so, and that is major! On a universal level, does he preprogramme or dabble every single change in every single solar system, and every single asteroid that crashes into some star billions of miles away or even into our own planet? If not, he has chosen not to be “totally in charge”. And finally, how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, September 12, 2019, 15:18 (1897 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again I'm with Adler and our specialness. You won't accept that point, which is major to me.
dhw: I keep accepting our specialness! But that does not mean your God set out with the one and only purpose of designing us, had decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing the rest of the evolutionary bush…
Your usual distortion. The decision to evolve is a stepwise, time-taking process.
DAVID: No you don't. The degree of specialness you agree to is not what Adler proposes in his book. He shows that we are so special God created us and has to exist.dhw: Yes, yes, and you have devoted post after post after post to demonstrating that every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder is so special that God must have created them all and has to exist.
You know, darn well, our consciousness is a different specialness.
dhw: […] and you have no idea why he chose this method of fulfilling his one and only purpose!
DAVID: Of course I have no idea. Why should I? I accept what God does what God does for His own reasons! You constantly want to analyze Him in as if you can in human terms.
dhw: You can’t know his reasons, but you insist that his reason for specially designing the evolutionary bush was to keep life going until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design - you and me! This is your “analysis” written in “human terms” – God wanted/desired/knew/is purposeful/decided…How can you or anyone else attempt to describe God’s thought processes other than “in human terms”?
Of course I have to use human terms, but still not humanize Him!
DAVID: I guessed because you asked me to and I politely did so. I have no idea because I don't question His motives, as you do in a humanizing way.dhw: You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his motives, because you have a fixed belief – in human terms – that the only thing he wanted to design (his final purpose) was us. That is no less human than the proposal that he wanted to design a vast variety of life forms or an autonomous mechanism that would design a vast variety of life forms.
God knew He had to make the bush to provide energy over the time involved. The God you imagine is not my God.
DAVID: Since He created the universe and the Earth and evolved them, He may well have controlled all the environmental changes.
If he didn’t control them, he was not “totally in charge”, in which case he was perfectly capable of giving up control, as he did – according to you – by allowing free will.
DAVID: Free will is not the same level as God running evolution.
dhw: I keep giving free will only as an example of your God giving up control.
DAVID: My dog runs to the barn using his free will. God is not in control at that level. My walking to the barn by free will means God is not involved, but God is still fully in control of evolution! What God gave up is very minor, not the major point you are trying to make about degree of control of the universe, the Earth, and evolution.
dhw: So God does not control our behaviour, but he has to control the behaviour of microorganisms like bacteria! He “may well have controlled all the environmental changes” leaves open the option that he may well not have done so, and that is major! On a universal level, does he preprogramme or dabble every single change in every single solar system, and every single asteroid that crashes into some star billions of miles away or even into our own planet? If not, he has chosen not to be “totally in charge”. And finally, how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?
Have you forgotten the universe, as created by God. is still a dangerous place, and He gave us the brains to protect ourselves? My God runs things as far as He wants to do so. My God created our reality. History tells us what He did. Free rein evolution is Darwinism!
Natural Wonders & Evolution
Dhw: (under “Horizontal gene transfer”) […] you refuse to accept the possibility that microorganisms are capable of mental activity. It’s not just major designs you discount. Your God has to preprogramme or dabble every bacterial response to every situation in the history of life past, present and future, and he even has to engineer midge adaptation. Billions of programmes and dabbles, all for the sole purpose of covering the time before he specially designed H. sapiens.
DAVID: You are describing the wrong God. My God understood the time He would need to evolve humans He did not have the sole purpose of filling time.
I don’t know how often you want me to repeat your own statements, but here we go again: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”
He had decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, and so the interim purpose of his specially designing every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was to cover the time he had decided to take. What is “wrong” with your own statement?
DAVID: Have you forgotten evolution is a stepwise process? He proceeded step by step in a logical fashion. Pre-programming made his work easier.
I thought you thought there were jumps, but it makes no difference either way. You have your God specially designing every step and every jump in life's history, even though H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to design! I don’t know why you think preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens. Please explain.
DAVID: The degree of specialness you agree to is not what Adler proposes in his book. He shows that we are so special God created us and has to exist.
And:
DAVID: You know, darn well, our consciousness is a different specialness.
I keep agreeing, but according to you EVERY life form shows that God created it and therefore has to exist. You’ve forgotten that you are not trying to prove that God exists, but that his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and everything else was an interim goal to cover the time he had decided to take! THAT is what we are discussing. You use the same dodge under “Hand signals”:
DAVID: It is not surprising that, as we are descended for earlier primates, we use hand signals as they do with the same parts of the brain involved. Still we speak words and they don't. We differ in spoken language and consciousness and that is a giant leap in evolution, which to my mind proves God exists as the source of that specialness.
Yes, you have offered us hundreds of examples (every single natural wonder) as proof that God exists. That is not the issue we are discussing.
dhw: […] and you have no idea why he chose this method of fulfilling his one and only purpose![…]
DAVID: I have no idea because I don't question His motives, as you do in a humanizing way.
dhw: You don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his motives, because you have a fixed belief – in human terms – that the only thing he wanted to design (his final purpose) was us. That is no less human than the proposal that he wanted to design a vast variety of life forms or an autonomous mechanism that would design a vast variety of life forms.
DAVID: God knew He had to make the bush to provide energy over the time involved.
So why is your proposal that he decided to take 3.X billion years to fulfil his one and only desire (humans), and therefore “had to” design billions of non-human life forms etc., less “humanizing” than the suggestion that he desired the creation of a vast variety of life forms? The same question applies to his being “totally in charge”:
Dhw: ….how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?
DAVID: Have you forgotten the universe, as created by God. is still a dangerous place, and He gave us the brains to protect ourselves? My God runs things as far as He wants to do so. (dhw's bold)
At last! Let the trumpets sound. Still wearing my theist hat, I also propose that he runs evolution as far as he wants to, and what he wanted was a vast variety of life forms. Once more: Why is this more humanizing than his wanting H. sapiens and therefore having to create a vast variety of non-human life forms to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one desire?
DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!
That does not mean it can’t be true.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, September 13, 2019, 15:39 (1896 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are describing the wrong God. My God understood the time He would need to evolve humans He did not have the sole purpose of filling time.
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat your own statements, but here we go again: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”
He had decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, and so the interim purpose of his specially designing every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was to cover the time he had decided to take. What is “wrong” with your own statement?
'Covering time' involves the necessary consideration of supplying a food supply, which is all that I implied. You don't like a God who, in your humanized view, dilly-dallies.
DAVID: Have you forgotten evolution is a stepwise process? He proceeded step by step in a logical fashion. Pre-programming made his work easier.dhw: I thought you thought there were jumps, but it makes no difference either way. You have your God specially designing every step and every jump in life's history, even though H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to design! I don’t know why you think preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens. Please explain.
Pre-programming involves a set DNA code which allows additions and subtractions as forms evolve.
DAVID: God knew He had to make the bush to provide energy over the time involved.
dhw: So why is your proposal that he decided to take 3.X billion years to fulfil his one and only desire (humans), and therefore “had to” design billions of non-human life forms etc., less “humanizing” than the suggestion that he desired the creation of a vast variety of life forms? The same question applies to his being “totally in charge”:
Dhw: ….how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?
You keep contorting my line of reasoning. I view our reality as created by God. Therefore, everything we know about our reality is the result of God's choices and actions. Nothing humanizing as I don't question the results, and our specialness indicates His goal.
DAVID: Have you forgotten the universe, as created by God. is still a dangerous place, and He gave us the brains to protect ourselves? My God runs things as far as He wants to do so. (dhw's bold)dhw:At last! Let the trumpets sound. Still wearing my theist hat, I also propose that he runs evolution as far as he wants to, and what he wanted was a vast variety of life forms.
Yes, but as a way to evolve humans.
dhw: Once more: Why is this more humanizing than his wanting H. sapiens and therefore having to create a vast variety of non-human life forms to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one desire?
God can want humans without being humanized in the interpretation of His motives. Don't wonder why He made that decision: God does what God wants to do, period.
DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!dhw: That does not mean it can’t be true.
I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: […] My God understood the time He would need to evolve humans He did not have the sole purpose of filling time.
dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat your own statements, but here we go again: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”
He had decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, and so the interim purpose of his specially designing every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was to cover the time he had decided to take. What is “wrong” with your own statement?
DAVID: 'Covering time' involves the necessary consideration of supplying a food supply, which is all that I implied. You don't like a God who, in your humanized view, dilly-dallies.
You didn’t “imply” anything. You stated categorically that the interim purpose of the food supply was to cover the time he himself had, for some unknown reason, decided to take before implementing his one and only goal (us). You are right – I don’t like an interpretation of your God’s purpose (us) and actions (designing anything but us) which makes no sense.
dhw: […] You have your God specially designing every step and every jump in life's history, even though H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to design! I don’t know why you think preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens. Please explain.
DAVID: Pre-programming involves a set DNA code which allows additions and subtractions as forms evolve.
According to your theory, it is not “as forms evolve”! You claim that your God had already built each addition and subtraction into the code! In my proposal, the “code” changes as intelligent cells adapt to or exploit new conditions. Much easier than your God having to work out in advance every single addition and subtraction in the history of life!
dhw: […] why is your proposal that he decided to take 3.X billion years to fulfil his one and only desire (humans), and therefore “had to” design billions of non-human life forms etc., less “humanizing” than the suggestion that he desired the creation of a vast variety of life forms? The same question applies to his being “totally in charge”:
And:
dhw: ….how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?
DAVID: You keep contorting my line of reasoning. I view our reality as created by God. Therefore, everything we know about our reality is the result of God's choices and actions.
If God exists, then I agree.
DAVID: Nothing humanizing as I don't question the results, and our specialness indicates His goal.
Yet again: Why is it more “humanizing” to propose (a) that he desired the vast variety of life forms which are an historical fact, rather than that he desired only one species, and (b) that he chose not to be in charge rather than that he chose to be in total charge?
DAVID: Have you forgotten the universe, as created by God. is still a dangerous place, and He gave us the brains to protect ourselves? My God runs things as far as He wants to do so. (dhw's bold)
dhw: At last! Let the trumpets sound. Still wearing my theist hat, I also propose that he runs evolution as far as he wants to, and what he wanted was a vast variety of life forms.
DAVID: Yes, but as a way to evolve humans.
And yet you have no idea why your God decided to spend 3.X billion years NOT designing humans but creating billions of non-human life forms etc. etc. Once more: Why is this idea of yours less humanizing than wanting a vast variety of forms, and designing an autonomous inventive mechanism to produce this variety?
DAVID: God can want humans without being humanized in the interpretation of His motives. Don't wonder why He made that decision: God does what God wants to do, period.
You have not answered my questions. Why is wanting a vast variety, or wanting to sacrifice control more humanizing than only wanting one species and wanting to have conmplete control? And why are you more qualified to say what he wants than I am?
DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!
dhw: That does not mean it can’t be true.
DAVID: I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?
We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, September 14, 2019, 19:40 (1895 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: 'Covering time' involves the necessary consideration of supplying a food supply, which is all that I implied. You don't like a God who, in your humanized view, dilly-dallies.
dhw: You didn’t “imply” anything. You stated categorically that the interim purpose of the food supply was to cover the time he himself had, for some unknown reason, decided to take before implementing his one and only goal (us). You are right – I don’t like an interpretation of your God’s purpose (us) and actions (designing anything but us) which makes no sense.
Of course cover the time it took. You imply filling time. No. No sense to you but Adler and I and many other believers.
DAVID: Pre-programming involves a set DNA code which allows additions and subtractions as forms evolve.
dhw: According to your theory, it is not “as forms evolve”! You claim that your God had already built each addition and subtraction into the code! In my proposal, the “code” changes as intelligent cells adapt to or exploit new conditions. Much easier than your God having to work out in advance every single addition and subtraction in the history of life!
Nothing is difficult for God. Only for your humanized God.
DAVID: You keep contorting my line of reasoning. I view our reality as created by God. Therefore, everything we know about our reality is the result of God's choices and actions.If God exists, then I agree.
dhw: At last! Let the trumpets sound. Still wearing my theist hat, I also propose that he runs evolution as far as he wants to, and what he wanted was a vast variety of life forms.
DAVID: Yes, but as a way to evolve humans.
dhw: And yet you have no idea why your God decided to spend 3.X billion years NOT designing humans but creating billions of non-human life forms etc. etc. Once more: Why is this idea of yours less humanizing than wanting a vast variety of forms, and designing an autonomous inventive mechanism to produce this variety?
God's choice is God's, and I don't question why, just accept His works as history describes.
DAVID: God can want humans without being humanized in the interpretation of His motives. Don't wonder why He made that decision: God does what God wants to do, period.You have not answered my questions. Why is wanting a vast variety, or wanting to sacrifice control more humanizing than only wanting one species and wanting to have complete control? And why are you more qualified to say what he wants than I am?
DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!
dhw: That does not mean it can’t be true.
DAVID: I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?
dhw: We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.
Depends on the definition of free rein: "freedom to act and make decisions without first getting permission"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-rein
My God does not allow that much freedom
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: 'Covering time' involves the necessary consideration of supplying a food supply, which is all that I implied. You don't like a God who, in your humanized view, dilly-dallies.
dhw: You didn’t “imply” anything. You stated categorically that the interim purpose of the food supply was to cover the time he himself had, for some unknown reason, decided to take before implementing his one and only goal (us). You are right – I don’t like an interpretation of your God’s purpose (us) and actions (designing anything but us) which makes no sense.
DAVID: Of course cover the time it took. You imply filling time. No. No sense to you but Adler and I and many other believers.
What on earth is the difference between covering time and filling time in the context of your God having only one purpose (humans), deciding to spend 3.X billion years not designing humans, and therefore having to design other non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another until he starts fulfilling that one goal?
DAVID: Pre-programming involves a set DNA code which allows additions and subtractions as forms evolve.
dhw: According to your theory, it is not “as forms evolve”! You claim that your God had already built each addition and subtraction into the code! In my proposal, the “code” changes as intelligent cells adapt to or exploit new conditions. Much easier than your God having to work out in advance every single addition and subtraction in the history of life!
DAVID: Nothing is difficult for God. Only for your humanized God.
You said “preprogramming made his work easier”, and I asked why “preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens”. You have not answered. Nor do you ever explain why you consider a God who decides not to fulfil his only purpose for 3.X billion years, and therefore has to specially design a bush of non-human forms etc., is less “human” than a God who decides to create a bush of all forms by designing an autonomous inventive mechanism.
DAVID: God's choice is God's, and I don't question why, just accept His works as history describes.
Of course his choice is his choice, but that does not mean your personal theory about his choice is correct! What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!
DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!
dhw: That does not mean it can’t be true.
DAVID: I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?
dhw: We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.
DAVID: Depends on the definition of free rein: "freedom to act and make decisions without first getting permission"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-rein
My God does not allow that much freedom
You are still playing games. “Permission” is clearly not relevant in this context. How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, September 15, 2019, 15:36 (1894 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course cover the time it took. You imply filling time. No. No sense to you but Adler and I and many other believers.
dhw: What on earth is the difference between covering time and filling time in the context of your God having only one purpose (humans), deciding to spend 3.X billion years not designing humans, and therefore having to design other non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another until he starts fulfilling that one goal?
Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.
DAVID: Nothing is difficult for God. Only for your humanized God.dhw: You said “preprogramming made his work easier”, and I asked why “preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens”. You have not answered. Nor do you ever explain why you consider a God who decides not to fulfil his only purpose for 3.X billion years, and therefore has to specially design a bush of non-human forms etc., is less “human” than a God who decides to create a bush of all forms by designing an autonomous inventive mechanism.
See this picture show of insect mimicry:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-the-best-snake-mimic-caterpillar...
What is wrong wrong with the idea of pre-programmed patterns which help in the process of evolution?
DAVID: God's choice is God's, and I don't question why, just accept His works as history describes.
dhw: Of course his choice is his choice, but that does not mean your personal theory about his choice is correct! What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!
Of course I don't question. The logic of our specialness, noting the hard problem of consciousness, is a prime consideration, which you constantly downplay as Shapiro's 'large organism chauvinism', a catch phrase of little philosophic meaning, but cuteness.
dhw: We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.DAVID: Depends on the definition of free rein: "freedom to act and make decisions without first getting permission"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-rein
My God does not allow that much freedomdhw: You are still playing games. “Permission” is clearly not relevant in this context. How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!
Calling him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.
As far as we know, evolution has been going on for about 3.8 billion years, which means it has taken time. The result has been a huge bush of life forms, including humans, extinct and extant. How does that come to mean that all the other life forms were specially designed in order to cover/fill in time until your God could design the only thing he wanted to design?
dhw: You said “preprogramming made his [God’s] work easier”, and I asked why “preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens”. You have not answered. Nor do you ever explain why you consider a God who decides not to fulfil his only purpose for 3.X billion years, and therefore has to specially design a bush of non-human forms etc., is less “human” than a God who decides to create a bush of all forms by designing an autonomous inventive mechanism.
DAVID: See this picture show of insect mimicry:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-the-best-snake-mimic-caterpillar...
DAVID: What is wrong with the idea of pre-programmed patterns which help in the process of evolution?
Patterns are inevitable if you believe in common descent, i.e. all forms of life descending from preceding forms. Please stop trying to dodge my repeated question why special design of every life form etc. is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than designing a mechanism which does its own designing?
dhw: What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!
DAVID: Of course I don't question. The logic of our specialness, noting the hard problem of consciousness, is a prime consideration, which you constantly downplay as Shapiro's 'large organism chauvinism', a catch phrase of little philosophic meaning, but cuteness.
Shapiro is referring to humans who refuse to consider the possibility that other life forms, including microorganisms, have a degree of consciousness. Our specialness is a prime consideration in the debate over whether God exists – and that is its only relevance to Adler, who you have said offers no support to the rest of your theory. (See “Cambrian Explosion”)
dhw: How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!
DAVID: Calling him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, September 16, 2019, 16:52 (1893 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.
dhw: As far as we know, evolution has been going on for about 3.8 billion years, which means it has taken time. The result has been a huge bush of life forms, including humans, extinct and extant. How does that come to mean that all the other life forms were specially designed in order to cover/fill in time until your God could design the only thing he wanted to design?
Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.
dhw: You said “preprogramming made his [God’s] work easier”, and I asked why “preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens”. You have not answered. Nor do you ever explain why you consider a God who decides not to fulfil his only purpose for 3.X billion years, and therefore has to specially design a bush of non-human forms etc., is less “human” than a God who decides to create a bush of all forms by designing an autonomous inventive mechanism.DAVID: See this picture show of insect mimicry:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-the-best-snake-mimic-caterpillar...
DAVID: What is wrong with the idea of pre-programmed patterns which help in the process of evolution?dhw: Patterns are inevitable if you believe in common descent, i.e. all forms of life descending from preceding forms. Please stop trying to dodge my repeated question why special design of every life form etc. is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than designing a mechanism which does its own designing?
I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.
dhw: What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!DAVID: Of course I don't question. The logic of our specialness, noting the hard problem of consciousness, is a prime consideration, which you constantly downplay as Shapiro's 'large organism chauvinism', a catch phrase of little philosophic meaning, but cuteness.
dhw: Shapiro is referring to humans who refuse to consider the possibility that other life forms, including microorganisms, have a degree of consciousness. Our specialness is a prime consideration in the debate over whether God exists – and that is its only relevance to Adler, who you have said offers no support to the rest of your theory.
I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point..
dhw: How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!DAVID: Calling Him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.
I still view your concept of God as over-humanized. God in total control is not illogical, as that is my view of God. You question His choices from a humanizing view, I don't.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.
dhw: As far as we know, evolution has been going on for about 3.8 billion years, which means it has taken time. The result has been a huge bush of life forms, including humans, extinct and extant. […]
DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.
You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.
DAVID: (later in this post) I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point.
You have told us that Adler uses the complexities of humans as his evidence that God exists. Although I remain agnostic, I have no quarrel with the logic of that argument, just as I have no quarrel with your own argument that the complexities of ALL life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders may be seen as evidence of your God’s existence. It is the illogicality of your “slight” extrapolation that is the issue between us.
DAVID: I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.
I know your view. Now please explain why your view is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than my alternative.
dhw: How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!
DAVID: Calling Him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.
DAVID: I still view your concept of God as over-humanized. God in total control is not illogical, as that is my view of God. You question His choices from a humanizing view, I don't.
I have never said that God in total control is illogical. What is illogical is the theory I have bolded above. I do not question his choices: I question your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and you are still refusing to tell us why your interpretation is less “humanizing” than mine. (See also “Cambrian Explosion”. I will eventually try to combine these threads.)
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 14:43 (1892 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.
You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.
DAVID: (later in this post) I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point.
dhw: You have told us that Adler uses the complexities of humans as his evidence that God exists. Although I remain agnostic, I have no quarrel with the logic of that argument, just as I have no quarrel with your own argument that the complexities of ALL life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders may be seen as evidence of your God’s existence. It is the illogicality of your “slight” extrapolation that is the issue between us.
My extension of Adler is not illogical to me. It is Adler's point that God created our brain and for him it proves God exists. Adler does not discuss earlier evolution, but that God is involved is implied. Adler's proof of God actually implies God maintains the universe
DAVID: I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.dhw: I know your view. Now please explain why your view is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than my alternative.
Your theory allows God to give an inventive mechanism its own controls. I see God as in full control.
dhw: How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!DAVID: Calling Him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.
DAVID: I still view your concept of God as over-humanized. God in total control is not illogical, as that is my view of God. You question His choices from a humanizing view, I don't.
dhw: I have never said that God in total control is illogical. What is illogical is the theory I have bolded above. I do not question his choices: I question your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and you are still refusing to tell us why your interpretation is less “humanizing” than mine. (See also “Cambrian Explosion”. I will eventually try to combine these threads.)
I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.
Dhw: You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.
DAVID: (later in this post) I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point.
dhw: You have told us that Adler uses the complexities of humans as his evidence that God exists. Although I remain agnostic, I have no quarrel with the logic of that argument, just as I have no quarrel with your own argument that the complexities of ALL life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders may be seen as evidence of your God’s existence. It is the illogicality of your “slight” extrapolation that is the issue between us.
DAVID: It is Adler's point that God created our brain and for him it proves God exists. Adler does not discuss earlier evolution, but that God is involved is implied. Adler's proof of God actually implies God maintains the universe.
Of course if God exists he is “involved” – but that does not mean his involvement is the illogical combination of purpose and method bolded above.
DAVID: I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.
dhw: I know your view. Now please explain why your view is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than my alternative.
DAVID: Your theory allows God to give an inventive mechanism its own controls. I see God as in full control.
Yes, I know. So once more, please tell us why your theory is “easier” and less “humanizing” than mine.
DAVID: […] I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.
DAVID: I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.
Most of this applies to anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution. As usual you omit the illogical areas of your theory that you yourself cannot explain and which I have summarized in bold above. And STILL you refuse to say why your theory is “easier” for God and is less “humanizing” than mine.
DAVID: (under “Cambrian Explosion”): As usual I simply accept this was God's choice to use evolution and provide a huge bush of life for a food supply. God is not human and has his own reasons. Your complaint about Him is from human reasoning applied to Him.
My complaint is not about Him but about your implied claim that despite the fact that you too are human, you are privy to divine reasoning, and you happen to know that God reasons in a manner which leaves you with “no idea” why he would reason that way, and this entitles you to reject any alternative and logical theistic interpretation of evolution.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 18, 2019, 19:17 (1891 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.
Dhw: You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.
DAVID: (later in this post) I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point.
dhw: You have told us that Adler uses the complexities of humans as his evidence that God exists. Although I remain agnostic, I have no quarrel with the logic of that argument, just as I have no quarrel with your own argument that the complexities of ALL life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders may be seen as evidence of your God’s existence. It is the illogicality of your “slight” extrapolation that is the issue between us.
DAVID: It is Adler's point that God created our brain and for him it proves God exists. Adler does not discuss earlier evolution, but that God is involved is implied. Adler's proof of God actually implies God maintains the universe.
dhw: Of course if God exists he is “involved” – but that does not mean his involvement is the illogical combination of purpose and method bolded above.
Does anyone else support your illogical view of my views? I'm sure religious believers would agree with me.
DAVID: I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.
dhw: I know your view. Now please explain why your view is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than my alternative.
DAVID: Your theory allows God to give an inventive mechanism its own controls. I see God as in full control.
Yes, I know. So once more, please tell us why your theory is “easier” and less “humanizing” than mine.
DAVID: […] I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.
dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.
DAVID: I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.
dhw: Most of this applies to anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution. As usual you omit the illogical areas of your theory that you yourself cannot explain and which I have summarized in bold above. And STILL you refuse to say why your theory is “easier” for God and is less “humanizing” than mine.
I don't question God's choices of action and I think He made it easier for Himself by inventing a DNA which contains pre-programming and patterns of gene control, evidence of which is constantly found in 'convergence'. I have no idea of God ever thinks 'humanly', but you constantly try to explain Him in human logic. God is concealed and doesn't let us know how He thinks, so all we can do is look at what He has done.
DAVID: (under “Cambrian Explosion”): As usual I simply accept this was God's choice to use evolution and provide a huge bush of life for a food supply. God is not human and has his own reasons. Your complaint about Him is from human reasoning applied to Him.dhw:My complaint is not about Him but about your implied claim that despite the fact that you too are human, you are privy to divine reasoning, and you happen to know that God reasons in a manner which leaves you with “no idea” why he would reason that way, and this entitles you to reject any alternative and logical theistic interpretation of evolution.
Your bolded comment is a constant misstatement of my declared position, that I cannot know His reasoning stated above.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.
dhw: You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.
DAVID: It is Adler's point that God created our brain and for him it proves God exists. Adler does not discuss earlier evolution, but that God is involved is implied. Adler's proof of God actually implies God maintains the universe.
dhw: Of course if God exists he is “involved” – but that does not mean his involvement is the illogical combination of purpose and method bolded above.
DAVID: Does anyone else support your illogical view of my views? I'm sure religious believers would agree with me.
I can’t even name anyone who knows your views as summarized above in bold, let alone shares or rejects them. But even if there are believers who share them, that doesn’t make them any more logical. Please stick to the argument, and do tell me why it is illogical of me to point out that your theory above, for which you can find no logical explanation, is illogical.
DAVID: I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.
dhw: Most of this applies to anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution. As usual you omit the illogical areas of your theory that you yourself cannot explain and which I have summarized in bold above. And STILL you refuse to say why your theory is “easier” for God and is less “humanizing” than mine.
DAVID: I don't question God's choices of action and I think He made it easier for Himself by inventing a DNA which contains pre-programming and patterns of gene control, evidence of which is constantly found in 'convergence'.
You don't question your interpretation of your God's choices of action. You believe that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. Why is specially designing each one (even if he keeps reusing patterns) easier for him than inventing cells which can do their own designing? And why is the latter more “humanizing” than the former?
DAVID: I have no idea of God ever thinks 'humanly', but you constantly try to explain Him in human logic. God is concealed and doesn't let us know how He thinks, so all we can do is look at what He has done.
True. But this is no answer to my next comment:
dhw: My complaint is not about Him but about your implied claim that despite the fact that you too are human, you are privy to divine reasoning, and you happen to know that God reasons in a manner which leaves you with “no idea” why he would reason that way, and this entitles you to reject any alternative and logical theistic interpretation of evolution.
DAVID: Your bolded comment is a constant misstatement of my declared position, that I cannot know His reasoning stated above.
Nobody can “know” it, but God’s “reasoning” according to you is: “All I want to design is H. sapiens, I have decided to delay doing so for 3.X billion years, and therefore I have to design other life forms to provide a food supply until I start designing all the different hominins and homos that will lead to H. sapiens.” Why do you pretend that this is not a form of reasoning? What it is NOT, is logical reasoning! I suggest that he might perhaps reason as follows: “I want to create a bush of life, and therefore I will design an autonomous inventive mechanism which will produce billions of different life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But I’ll dabble if I feel like it.” Why is this perfectly logical motive and method more “humanizing” than your own illogical interpretation of his reasoning?
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, September 19, 2019, 16:03 (1890 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.
dhw: Most of this applies to anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution. As usual you omit the illogical areas of your theory that you yourself cannot explain and which I have summarized in bold above. And STILL you refuse to say why your theory is “easier” for God and is less “humanizing” than mine.
DAVID: I don't question God's choices of action and I think He made it easier for Himself by inventing a DNA which contains pre-programming and patterns of gene control, evidence of which is constantly found in 'convergence'.
dhw: You don't question your interpretation of your God's choices of action. You believe that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. Why is specially designing each one (even if he keeps reusing patterns) easier for him than inventing cells which can do their own designing? And why is the latter more “humanizing” than the former?
It is loss of complete control. My God is pure purpose, knowing exactly what He wants. Also se the answers below.
DAVID: I have no idea of God ever thinks 'humanly', but you constantly try to explain Him in human logic. God is concealed and doesn't let us know how He thinks, so all we can do is look at what He has done.dhw: True. But this is no answer to my next comment:
dhw: My complaint is not about Him but about your implied claim that despite the fact that you too are human, you are privy to divine reasoning, and you happen to know that God reasons in a manner which leaves you with “no idea” why he would reason that way, and this entitles you to reject any alternative and logical theistic interpretation of evolution.
DAVID: Your bolded comment is a constant misstatement of my declared position, that I cannot know His reasoning stated above.
dhw: Nobody can “know” it, but God’s “reasoning” according to you is: “All I want to design is H. sapiens, I have decided to delay doing so for 3.X billion years, and therefore I have to design other life forms to provide a food supply until I start designing all the different hominins and homos that will lead to H. sapiens.” Why do you pretend that this is not a form of reasoning? What it is NOT, is logical reasoning! I suggest that he might perhaps reason as follows: “I want to create a bush of life, and therefore I will design an autonomous inventive mechanism which will produce billions of different life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But I’ll dabble if I feel like it.” Why is this perfectly logical motive and method more “humanizing” than your own illogical interpretation of his reasoning?
Your view of God's personality is not mine. In your theory God does not have a purposeful goal, just wanders along and lets evolution run itself. Mamby-pamby is your insecure wandering God. History of fossil specimens tells us new species arrive as beautiful new complete designs, which we recognize cannot happen without mental design input. Old species don't have the mental capacity to design their successors. Epigenetics produces only minor modifications or adaptations.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: You don't question your interpretation of your God's choices of action. You believe that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. Why is specially designing each one (even if he keeps reusing patterns) easier for him than inventing cells which can do their own designing? And why is the latter more “humanizing” than the former?
DAVID: It is loss of complete control. My God is pure purpose, knowing exactly what He wants. Also see the answers below.
And why do you refuse to countenance the possibility that your God did not WANT complete control? And why is WANTING complete control less humanizing that NOT wanting complete control?
DAVID: Your view of God's personality is not mine. In your theory God does not have a purposeful goal, just wanders along and lets evolution run itself. Mamby-pamby is your insecure wandering God.
Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human). That’s fine with me, though it still doesn’t explain why he would decide to spend 3.X billion years NOT designing us. And so I suggest that your God’s purposeful goal was NOT solely to design H. sapiens, but to design a mechanism which would produce a vast variety of things (including humans) for him to “watch with interest”, and I suggest that unpredictability is far more interesting to watch than predictability. Nothing namby-pamby or wandering or insecure. And all perfectly logical and completely purposeful. Unlike “I have no idea why….” The only objection you have raised so far is that, although you have suggested all this yourself when pushed, you just happen to know that your God doesn't think that way because he's not human.
DAVID: History of fossil specimens tells us new species arrive as beautiful new complete designs, which we recognize cannot happen without mental design input. Old species don't have the mental capacity to design their successors. Epigenetics produces only minor modifications or adaptations.
Yes, yes, nobody knows how speciation arose, and the theory that the cellular intelligence made evident by epigenetics might also be capable of major changes remains as unproven as the existence of God and as the theory that God preprogrammed the very first cells with every single undabbled species, lifestyle and natural wonder. We can only theorize.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, September 20, 2019, 18:40 (1889 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You don't question your interpretation of your God's choices of action. You believe that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. Why is specially designing each one (even if he keeps reusing patterns) easier for him than inventing cells which can do their own designing? And why is the latter more “humanizing” than the former?
DAVID: It is loss of complete control. My God is pure purpose, knowing exactly what He wants. Also see the answers below.
dhw: And why do you refuse to countenance the possibility that your God did not WANT complete control? And why is WANTING complete control less humanizing that NOT wanting complete control?
Many Humans do want complete control over their projects and are very purposeful, but that does make God a human-like personality if He is ot ally purposeful. Adler warns we cannot know His actual personality. But you jump right in with your humanizing suggestions.
DAVID: Your view of God's personality is not mine. In your theory God does not have a purposeful goal, just wanders along and lets evolution run itself. Namby-pamby is your insecure wandering God.dhw; Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).
My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with n o real substance.
dhw: That’s fine with me, though it still doesn’t explain why he would decide to spend 3.X billion years NOT designing us. And so I suggest that your God’s purposeful goal was NOT solely to design H. sapiens, but to design a mechanism which would produce a vast variety of things (including humans) for him to “watch with interest”, and I suggest that unpredictability is far more interesting to watch than predictability. Nothing namby-pamby or wandering or insecure. And all perfectly logical and completely purposeful. Unlike “I have no idea why….” The only objection you have raised so far is that, although you have suggested all this yourself when pushed, you just happen to know that your God doesn't think that way because he's not human.
Exactly. He is not human and probably doesn't think as we do.
DAVID: History of fossil specimens tells us new species arrive as beautiful new complete designs, which we recognize cannot happen without mental design input. Old species don't have the mental capacity to design their successors. Epigenetics produces only minor modifications or adaptations.dhw: Yes, yes, nobody knows how speciation arose, and the theory that the cellular intelligence made evident by epigenetics might also be capable of major changes remains as unproven as the existence of God and as the theory that God preprogrammed the very first cells with every single undabbled species, lifestyle and natural wonder. We can only theorize.
God is chosen as the need for a designer is obvious. You can't accept him, which is fine for you.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: And why do you refuse to countenance the possibility that your God did not WANT complete control? And why is WANTING complete control less humanizing that NOT wanting complete control?
DAVID: Many Humans do want complete control over their projects and are very purposeful, but that does make God a human-like personality if He is ot ally purposeful. Adler warns we cannot know His actual personality. But you jump right in with your humanizing suggestions.
We don’t need your demi-God Adler to tell us the blindingly obvious. Many humans want control, and many humans do not want control. Your God wants total control, but that apparently is not human; my alternative is that he does not want total control, and apparently that is human. You are twisting yourself in knots.
dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).
DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with n o real substance.
So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?
dhw: And so I suggest that your God’s purposeful goal was NOT solely to design H. sapiens, but to design a mechanism which would produce a vast variety of things (including humans) for him to “watch with interest”, and I suggest that unpredictability is far more interesting to watch than predictability. Nothing namby-pamby or wandering or insecure. And all perfectly logical and completely purposeful. Unlike “I have no idea why….” The only objection you have raised so far is that, although you have suggested all this yourself when pushed, you just happen to know that your God doesn't think that way because he's not human.
DAVID: Exactly. He is not human and probably doesn't think as we do.
Which means he “probably” adopted your means of fulfilling his one and only purpose because you have a fixed belief that he would act in a way that you as a human find illogical (since you have “no idea” why he would choose such a method).
DAVID: God is chosen as the need for a designer is obvious. You can't accept him, which is fine for you.
My theory does not exclude God as the designer of the mechanism. What I can’t accept is that God would choose your theory because he doesn’t think logically by human standards.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, September 21, 2019, 19:31 (1888 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We don’t need your demi-God Adler to tell us the blindingly obvious. Many humans want control, and many humans do not want control. Your God wants total control, but that apparently is not human; my alternative is that he does not want total control, and apparently that is human. You are twisting yourself in knots.
You are the twisted one with our humanized version of God.
dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with no real substance.
dhw: So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?
I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events.
dhw: And so I suggest that your God’s purposeful goal was NOT solely to design H. sapiens, but to design a mechanism which would produce a vast variety of things (including humans) for him to “watch with interest”, and I suggest that unpredictability is far more interesting to watch than predictability. Nothing namby-pamby or wandering or insecure. And all perfectly logical and completely purposeful. Unlike “I have no idea why….” The only objection you have raised so far is that, although you have suggested all this yourself when pushed, you just happen to know that your God doesn't think that way because he's not human.DAVID: Exactly. He is not human and probably doesn't think as we do.
dhw: Which means he “probably” adopted your means of fulfilling his one and only purpose because you have a fixed belief that he would act in a way that you as a human find illogical (since you have “no idea” why he would choose such a method).
I don't know (no idea) because I choose not to guess as you do. I accept his choices as demonstrated by historical events
DAVID: God is chosen as the need for a designer is obvious. You can't accept him, which is fine for you.dhw: My theory does not exclude God as the designer of the mechanism. What I can’t accept is that God would choose your theory because he doesn’t think logically by human standards.
None of us know how or why God thinks what He thinks. It must all be guesswork unless one follows the following logic: God is the Creator, and history tells us what He did, not why He decided to do it that way. Probe all you want. but nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: We don’t need your demi-God Adler to tell us the blindingly obvious. Many humans want control, and many humans do not want control. Your God wants total control, but that apparently is not human; my alternative is that he does not want total control, and apparently that is human. You are twisting yourself in knots.
DAVID: You are the twisted one with your humanized version of God.
Why is wanting total control not “humanizing”, and wanting only partial control “humanizing”?
dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).
DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with no real substance.
dhw: So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?
DAVID: I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events. And later: ….nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.
We agree on the history of events: there is a universe, there is Planet Earth, there is life, and life began with single cells and evolved into multicellular organisms, of which we are the latest and – with our special degree of consciousness – the most complex. If God exists, it was all his doing. The comment to which you have replied, now bolded, is the area of your woolly guesswork with no real substance.
The rest of this post is dealt with under “God and Evolution of the Universe”
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, September 22, 2019, 16:23 (1887 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We don’t need your demi-God Adler to tell us the blindingly obvious. Many humans want control, and many humans do not want control. Your God wants total control, but that apparently is not human; my alternative is that he does not want total control, and apparently that is human. You are twisting yourself in knots.
DAVID: You are the twisted one with your humanized version of God.
dhw: Why is wanting total control not “humanizing”, and wanting only partial control “humanizing”?
Because you are using humanized reasoning to question God's works and his reasoning behind the creation .
dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with no real substance.
dhw: So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?
DAVID: I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events. And later: ….nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.
dhw: We agree on the history of events: there is a universe, there is Planet Earth, there is life, and life began with single cells and evolved into multicellular organisms, of which we are the latest and – with our special degree of consciousness – the most complex. If God exists, it was all his doing. The comment to which you have replied, now bolded, is the area of your woolly guesswork with no real substance.
You forget, with faith, we accept God's work as God's work. We can only guess at His reasoning. You are perfectly describing my God and find it irrational, which is just your problem and why you are an agnostic.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: Why is wanting total control not “humanizing”, and wanting only partial control “humanizing”?
DAVID: Because you are using humanized reasoning to question God's works and his reasoning behind the creation.
I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.
dhw: Of course he has a purposeful goal, though you prefer not to discuss it, because if you do, you will find yourself agreeing with me! I have asked you what you think was his purpose in specially designing us. Your answers so far have been to have us admire his work and to have a relationship with us, and you have also said he watches us and the rest of his creations with interest (all nice and human).
DAVID: My guesses are responses to your probing for God's reasons, but I view them as pure guesses, with no real substance.
dhw: So what, if it is NOT a pure guess with no real substance, is your totally illogical guess that your all-purposeful God wanted total control, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to fill in the time he had decided to take before designing the only thing he wanted to design?
DAVID: I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events. And later: ….nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.
dhw: We agree on the history of events: there is a universe, there is Planet Earth, there is life, and life began with single cells and evolved into multicellular organisms, of which we are the latest and – with our special degree of consciousness – the most complex. If God exists, it was all his doing. The comment to which you have replied, now bolded, is the area of your woolly guesswork with no real substance.
DAVID: You forget, with faith, we accept God's work as God's work. We can only guess at His reasoning. You are perfectly describing my God and find it irrational, which is just your problem and why you are an agnostic.
YOU find it irrational, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve the purpose you impose on him! This has nothing to do with my agnosticism, since the rational alternatives I offer are all theistic!
DAVID (under “feedback loops”): I find nothing illogical in my theories. Pretending that I do is silly. It does not advance our discussion. (dhw’s bold)
I have also bolded your theory above, and you say to me: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” In that case, you cannot possibly find it logical. Indeed, you even go so far as to say that God’s logic must be different from human logic!
DAVID: Same tired mantra: I don't try to guess at God's reasoning. And I do fully feel His choice was logical and reasonable for Him. As you humanize god, you don't.
Same tired mantra. Nothing to do with humanizing God. YOU cannot understand his logic (“have no idea”), so once more, how can you possibly claim that you find nothing illogical in your theories, and how do you know that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans? This is indeed a tired mantra because so far you have never answered either question.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Monday, September 23, 2019, 19:16 (1886 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.
I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.
DAVID: I don't guess. I simply accept what God chose to do as demonstrated in the history of events. And later: ….nothing you suggest can be proven, so it is all woolly guesswork. Accept history as God's work. I do.dhw: We agree on the history of events: there is a universe, there is Planet Earth, there is life, and life began with single cells and evolved into multicellular organisms, of which we are the latest and – with our special degree of consciousness – the most complex. If God exists, it was all his doing. The comment to which you have replied, now bolded, is the area of your woolly guesswork with no real substance.
DAVID: You forget, with faith, we accept God's work as God's work. We can only guess at His reasoning. You are perfectly describing my God and find it irrational, which is just your problem and why you are an agnostic.
dhw: YOU find it irrational, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve the purpose you impose on him! This has nothing to do with my agnosticism, since the rational alternatives I offer are all theistic!
You keep calling my thoughts as irrational. I don't find them that way. The God you attempt to describe in your supposed theism mode is just a humanized form who acts irrationally.
DAVID (under “feedback loops”): I find nothing illogical in my theories. Pretending that I do is silly. It does not advance our discussion. (dhw’s bold)dhw: I have also bolded your theory above, and you say to me: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” In that case, you cannot possibly find it logical. Indeed, you even go so far as to say that God’s logic must be different from human logic!
I don't try to find God's choice of method as logical or illogical. I simply accept His choice.
DAVID: Same tired mantra: I don't try to guess at God's reasoning. And I do fully feel His choice was logical and reasonable for Him. As you humanize god, you don't.dhw: Same tired mantra. Nothing to do with humanizing God. YOU cannot understand his logic (“have no idea”), so once more, how can you possibly claim that you find nothing illogical in your theories, and how do you know that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans? This is indeed a tired mantra because so far you have never answered either question.
I don't try to understand His logic, as it is all guesses. That is logical. That is an answer.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
dhw: I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.
DAVID: I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.
I have no problem with the concept of God being all-powerful and non-human, and being fully purposeful in reaching his goals. I note the plural, which contradicts your theory that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and he “had to design” all the other earlier life forms because he had decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years. You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.
DAVID: You keep calling my thoughts as irrational. I don't find them that way. The God you attempt to describe in your supposed theism mode is just a humanized form who acts irrationally.
It is you who have no idea why your God would have chosen your interpretation of his goal and method, as bolded above. So of course it is your thoughts that are irrational. You have accepted that the alternatives I have offered are perfectly logical/rational and fit in with the history, but they do not fit in with your theory and so you reject them all!
DAVID: I don't try to find God's choice of method as logical or illogical. I simply accept His choice.
You simply accept your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and have no idea why he would act in such an illogical way!
DAVID: I don't try to understand His logic, as it is all guesses. That is logical. That is an answer.
So you would rather maintain your fixed belief in a guess which defies all human logic, and assume that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 24, 2019, 14:51 (1885 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am not questioning your God’s “works” but I am questioning your interpretation of his reasoning. I believe you are as human as I am, so do please tell me in your own human way why wanting total control is not “humanizing” but wanting only partial control is “humanizing”. If you can’t, then please say so, and we can move on.
DAVID: I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.
dhw; I have no problem with the concept of God being all-powerful and non-human, and being fully purposeful in reaching his goals. I note the plural, which contradicts your theory that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and he “had to design” all the other earlier life forms because he had decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years.
You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.
dhw: [/b] You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.
My God is not human and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want. He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.
DAVID: You keep calling my thoughts as irrational. I don't find them that way. The God you attempt to describe in your supposed theism mode is just a humanized form who acts irrationally.dhw: It is you who have no idea why your God would have chosen your interpretation of his goal and method, as bolded above. So of course it is your thoughts that are irrational. You have accepted that the alternatives I have offered are perfectly logical/rational and fit in with the history, but they do not fit in with your theory and so you reject them all!
I reject them as guesses not recognizing what history shows: if God is the creator, what we see is what and how He created it. Thus, God evolved life.
DAVID: I don't try to find God's choice of method as logical or illogical. I simply accept His choice.dhw: You simply accept your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and have no idea why he would act in such an illogical way!
DAVID: I don't try to understand His logic, as it is all guesses. That is logical. That is an answer.
dhw: So you would rather maintain your fixed belief in a guess which defies all human logic, and assume that your God does not think in a way that would be logical and reasonable to us humans.
See above. Again you apply human logic to a concealed God. God's works tell us what He did, and it is patently obvious that evolution is the way He chose. You are the illogical one.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: I view God as an all-powerful non-human Being considering what He has created. Why should He give up any of his control? He also is fully purposeful in reaching His goals.
dhw: I have no problem with the concept of God being all-powerful and non-human, and being fully purposeful in reaching his goals. I note the plural, which contradicts your theory that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and he “had to design” all the other earlier life forms because he had decided not to start designing H. sapiens for 3.X billion years.
DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.
I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.
dhw: You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.
DAVID: My God is not human…
Nobody imagines that God is human.
DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.
There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!
DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.
And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.
DAVID: […] if God is the creator, what we see is what and how He created it. Thus, God evolved life.
Of course if he exists he evolved life! And all the theistic alternatives I have offered you are on that basis, and you have agreed that all of them fit life’s history. But they are logical, and you fall back on your “humanizing” mantra, as if you know your God has no human characteristics (thereby ignoring the fact that we cannot know his thoughts or his nature) and, since you have no idea why he would have chosen the purpose and method you impose on him, you entrench yourself in the firm belief that his logic must be different from and and inaccessible to all human reason and logic.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 25, 2019, 19:32 (1884 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.
dhw: I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.
You might well ask why God waited 13.78 billion years to produce humans. Why not do it all at once?
dhw: You do not believe that your God would give evolution free rein, and claim that this “humanizes” him, but still you refuse to say why wanting full control is not humanizing whereas not wanting full control is humanizing.DAVID: My God is not human…
dhw: Nobody imagines that God is human.
DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.
dhw: There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!
And lose His full control? That is your humanized God.
DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.
I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.
DAVID: […] if God is the creator, what we see is what and how He created it. Thus, God evolved life.dhw: Of course if he exists he evolved life! And all the theistic alternatives I have offered you are on that basis, and you have agreed that all of them fit life’s history. But they are logical, and you fall back on your “humanizing” mantra, as if you know your God has no human characteristics (thereby ignoring the fact that we cannot know his thoughts or his nature) and, since you have no idea why he would have chosen the purpose and method you impose on him, you entrench yourself in the firm belief that his logic must be different from and and inaccessible to all human reason and logic.
It is not entirely inaccessible, as we can make logical human guesses as you have, but that is all they ever will be, guesses. Thus I accept His choices without question.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.
dhw: I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.
DAVID: You might well ask why God waited 13.78 billion years to produce humans. Why not do it all at once?
It is you who should be asking that question, since it is you who insist that he specially designed all the non-life-bearing solar systems in order to design one planet, and he designed all the living forms in order to design one species! Yet again, you take the history, acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would choose such a roundabout way of designing the only thing he wanted to design, but refuse to acknowledge that maybe he didn’t wait 13.78 billion years just in order to specially design Planet Earth, and maybe he didn’t wait 3.X billion years just in order to specially design a succession of hominids and homos before specially designing the only homo he wanted to design. As always, it is your theory about the purpose that makes the method inexplicable.
DAVID: My God is not human…
dhw: Nobody imagines that God is human.
DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.
dhw: There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!
DAVID: And lose His full control? That is your humanized God.
Yet again you refuse to say why you think a God who wishes to maintain full control is not human, whereas a God who deliberately sacrifices control is human.
DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.
dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.
DAVID: I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.
Of course you don’t know them, but you kid yourself that you do, because you insist that your combined choice of purpose (why have you left that out?) and method was his, as above. My God, just like yours, would definitely know his reasons for creating life, and you have absolutely no grounds for assuming that those reasons are not logical by human standards and are inaccessible to humans.
DAVID: It is not entirely inaccessible, as we can make logical human guesses as you have, but that is all they ever will be, guesses. Thus I accept His choices without question.
Of course they are guesses, but what you accept without question is that YOUR incomprehensible version of his “choices” is HIS version!
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, September 26, 2019, 19:48 (1883 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You've forgotten God had intermediate goals of producing a universe that is fine-tuned for life. evolved a special Earth, created life, and finally reached His endpoint of humans.
dhw: I haven’t forgotten that according to you he specially designed billions of stars and solar systems in order to produce one solar system with one planet which would sustain life, the sole purpose of which was to specially design H. sapiens….continued above in bold.
DAVID: You might well ask why God waited 13.78 billion years to produce humans. Why not do it all at once?
dhw: It is you who should be asking that question, since it is you who insist that he specially designed all the non-life-bearing solar systems in order to design one planet, and he designed all the living forms in order to design one species! Yet again, you take the history, acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would choose such a roundabout way of designing the only thing he wanted to design, but refuse to acknowledge that maybe he didn’t wait 13.78 billion years just in order to specially design Planet Earth, and maybe he didn’t wait 3.X billion years just in order to specially design a succession of hominids and homos before specially designing the only homo he wanted to design. As always, it is your theory about the purpose that makes the method inexplicable.
I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
DAVID: My God is not human…dhw: Nobody imagines that God is human.
DAVID:….and is not wishy-washy allowing organisms or invent what they want.
dhw: There is nothing wishy-washy about creating a mechanism to produce a constantly changing bush of life!
DAVID: And lose His full control? That is your humanized God.
Yet again you refuse to say why you think a God who wishes to maintain full control is not human, whereas a God who deliberately sacrifices control is human.
DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.
dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.
DAVID: I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.
dhw: Of course you don’t know them, but you kid yourself that you do, because you insist that your combined choice of purpose (why have you left that out?) and method was his, as above. My God, just like yours, would definitely know his reasons for creating life, and you have absolutely no grounds for assuming that those reasons are not logical by human standards and are inaccessible to humans.
Any supposition about His reasons care simply guesses.
DAVID: It is not entirely inaccessible, as we can make logical human guesses as you have, but that is all they ever will be, guesses. Thus I accept His choices without question.dhw: Of course they are guesses, but what you accept without question is that YOUR incomprehensible version of his “choices” is HIS version!
As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: He is in full control and fully purposeful. Of course certain of his wishes are like human wishes, but you constantly forget we cannot actually know his thoughts.
dhw: And yet you insist that you do know his thoughts: “Humans are my goal, and I have decided..." as bolded above. And STILL you do not tell us why wanting to be in full control is not human, whereas wanting to be in partial control is human.
DAVID: I DO NOT KNOW His thoughts. I recognize His choice of method, but cannot know His reasons for that choice, but your humanized God seems to know.
dhw: Of course you don’t know them, but you kid yourself that you do, because you insist that your combined choice of purpose (why have you left that out?) and method was his, as above. My God, just like yours, would definitely know his reasons for creating life, and you have absolutely no grounds for assuming that those reasons are not logical by human standards and are inaccessible to humans.
DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.
And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.
DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.
As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Friday, September 27, 2019, 22:32 (1882 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.
I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.
DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.dhw: And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.
You like guessing. I don't try.
DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.dhw: As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!
You still can't recognize I accept what god created a nd don't try to guess why.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.
It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.
DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.
dhw: And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.
DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.
Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.
DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.
dhw: As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!
DAVID You still can't recognize I accept what god created and don't try to guess why.
Your guesses are described above (in bold), and my agnosticism does not provide any explanation for what you yourself cannot explain.
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, September 28, 2019, 15:55 (1881 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.
dhw: It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.
Those exploding stars created the elements needed for life. God works through the processes built into the universe. I keep telling you God evolves His goals.
DAVID: Any supposition about His reasons are simply guesses.dhw: And that includes yours, but you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method in order to accomplish your idea of his purpose.
DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.
dhw: Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.
The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
DAVID: As a non-believer, of course you don't follow my reasoning.dhw: As a believer, you can’t explain your reasoning, whereas I have offered you a number of different theistic explanations which even you acknowledge to be perfectly logical. Please don’t argue that my agnosticism provides an explanation for what you cannot explain!
They are all human explanations for God we cannot know, except through His creations and the history of how those creations appeared.
DAVID You still can't recognize I accept what God created and don't try to guess why.dhw: Your guesses are described above (in bold), and my agnosticism does not provide any explanation for what you yourself cannot explain.
I don't try to explain and I recognize your agnosticism can't, especially as you humanize God..
Natural Wonders & Evolution
DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.
dhw: It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.
DAVID: Those exploding stars created the elements needed for life. God works through the processes built into the universe. I keep telling you God evolves His goals.
There are believed to be about 10 billion galaxies and a billion trillion stars in the observable universe (not to mention the unobservable universe). Do you honestly believe that every single one of them was specially designed to explode and create the elements needed for life on Planet Earth? And yes, you keep telling me that God evolves his goals, and for you “evolve” means specially designed, and for you his “goals” means everything he designed is for the single goal of producing H. sapiens. That is what we keep arguing about. It makes nonsense of the history.
DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.
dhw: Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.
DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
Your first statement is certainly true, if God exists, but history does not tell us that he did it your way! I do wish you hadn’t written your second statement. How can you, a human being, tell us that something is logical provided we do not apply human logic to it? You have spent years applying human logic to the case for design as evidence of a designer. What would you say to an atheist whose only answer to your logic was that blind chance is logically the creator provided we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history, because the impersonal universe cannot be “humanized”? (See also under “whale adaptation”.)
Natural Wonders & Evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, September 29, 2019, 19:07 (1880 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'll repeat: if God is the Creator what happened is what He chose to do. Again, you want your God to be in a hurry, very human-like.
dhw: Of course if he exists, what happened is what he chose to do. And I’m suggesting that what happened provides no support for the theory that a totally-in-control God chose to create billions of non-life-bearing solar systems, stars, planets etc., and billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens.
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't see the logic. God evolves what He wants.
dhw: It is of course logical that God, if he exists, does what he wants. However, I’m sorry you can’t see how illogical it is to have him “want” just one planet and just one life form, and yet specially design billions of other planets and life forms.
DAVID: Those exploding stars created the elements needed for life. God works through the processes built into the universe. I keep telling you God evolves His goals.
dhw: There are believed to be about 10 billion galaxies and a billion trillion stars in the observable universe (not to mention the unobservable universe). Do you honestly believe that every single one of them was specially designed to explode and create the elements needed for life on Planet Earth? And yes, you keep telling me that God evolves his goals, and for you “evolve” means specially designed, and for you his “goals” means everything he designed is for the single goal of producing H. sapiens. That is what we keep arguing about. It makes nonsense of the history.
If God created the universe the current universe tells us what He wanted. History is not a caricature, as you imp,ly , but what Her wanted.
DAVID: You like guessing. I don't try.dhw: Your whole theory is an illogical guess about God’s single purpose, total control, and needing to specially design every branch of the bush to “cover” his inexplicable delay. What you “don’t try” is to recognize that its illogicality could mean it is wrong, and to consider other explanations of your God and his work which ARE logical.
DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
dhw: Your first statement is certainly true, if God exists, but history does not tell us that he did it your way! I do wish you hadn’t written your second statement. How can you, a human being, tell us that something is logical provided we do not apply human logic to it? You have spent years applying human logic to the case for design as evidence of a designer. What would you say to an atheist whose only answer to your logic was that blind chance is logically the creator provided we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history, because the impersonal universe cannot be “humanized”? (See also under “whale adaptation”.)
You accept and then refuse to accept that God, as the Creator, can do what He wishes how He wishes. The argument for a designer is very clear in logic, but not related to God's decisions of methodology.
Natural Wonders & Evolution: grizzly bear hibernation
by David Turell , Monday, December 30, 2019, 17:33 (1788 days ago) @ David Turell
How did this evolve by chance. There is no way a b ear could try going to sleep for months and survive without preparation by a designer:
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-learning-from-the-bears.html
"Grizzly bears spend many months in hibernation, but their muscles do not suffer from the lack of movement.
"A grizzly bear only knows three seasons during the year. Its time of activity starts between March and May. Around September the bear begins to eat large quantities of food. And sometime between November and January, it falls into hibernation. From a physiological point of view, this is the strangest time of all. The bear's metabolism and heart rate drop rapidly. It excretes neither urine nor feces. The amount of nitrogen in the blood increases drastically and the bear becomes resistant to the hormone insulin.
"A person could hardly survive this four-month phase in a healthy state. Afterwards, he or she would most likely have to cope with thromboses or psychological changes. Above all, the muscles would suffer from this prolonged period of disuse. Anyone who has ever had an arm or leg in a cast for a few weeks or has had to lie in bed for a long time due to an illness has probably experienced this.
"Not so the grizzly bear. In the spring, the bear wakes up from hibernation, perhaps still a bit sluggish at first, but otherwise well. Many scientists have long been interested in the bear's strategies for adapting to its three seasons.
***
"For me, the beauty of our work was to learn how nature has perfected a way to maintain muscle functions under the difficult conditions of hibernation," says Mugahid. "If we can better understand these strategies, we will be able to develop novel and non-intuitive methods to better prevent and treat muscle atrophy in patients." ( my bold)
***
"As the researchers reported in the journal Scientific Reports, they found proteins in their experiments that strongly influence a bear's amino acid metabolism during hibernation. As a result, its muscle cells contain higher amounts of certain non-essential amino acids (NEAAs)."
Comment: Non-essential amino acids are an interesting observation. They must have been designed just for this very special process and therefore are required to be in these bears. There are 20 essential amino acids that are left-handed and must be present for life to exist. It is not known if these special proteins exist anywhere else. The grizzly DNA requires this behavior to happen each year. Bears did not just decide to require this process. Note my bold: "Nature perfected a way". Pure Darwin illogical thinking. How about a designer!
Natural Wonders & Evolution: grizzly bear hibernation
DAVID: How did this evolve by chance. There is no way a bear could try going to sleep for months and survive without preparation by a designer:
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-learning-from-the-bears.html
QUOTE: "Grizzly bears spend many months in hibernation, but their muscles do not suffer from the lack of movement."
DAVID: Non-essential amino acids are an interesting observation. They must have been designed just for this very special process and therefore are required to be in these bears. There are 20 essential amino acids that are left-handed and must be present for life to exist. It is not known if these special proteins exist anywhere else. The grizzly DNA requires this behavior to happen each year. Bears did not just decide to require this process. Note my bold: "Nature perfected a way". Pure Darwin illogical thinking. How about a designer!
Thank you for yet another fascinating “wonder”. Of course the argument applies to all creatures that hibernate, and to all creatures that adapt successfully to difficult conditions. And of course these adaptations do not develop by chance, and of course the bear didn’t “decide to require this process.” The conditions required this process, and we know that countless species have died out when they are unable to cope with new conditions. “Nature perfected a way” suggests to me that there is a mechanism at work (possibly designed by your God) which enables SOME species to survive while others go extinct. It is what Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering” carried out by intelligent cells. It’s just a theory, but it removes the need for your God to preprogramme or dabble every single adaptation in every single species that survives (while 90% or so die out), in anticipation of every environmental change, whether local or global, for 3.X thousand million years, all for the purpose of designing one species. Either the cells work out a solution, or the organism dies – hence the long, long history of changing life forms. So much simpler and so much more logical than your theory. Ockham would rejoice.
Natural Wonders & Evolution: grizzly bear hibernation
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 31, 2019, 14:48 (1787 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: How did this evolve by chance. There is no way a bear could try going to sleep for months and survive without preparation by a designer:
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-learning-from-the-bears.htmlQUOTE: "Grizzly bears spend many months in hibernation, but their muscles do not suffer from the lack of movement."
DAVID: Non-essential amino acids are an interesting observation. They must have been designed just for this very special process and therefore are required to be in these bears. There are 20 essential amino acids that are left-handed and must be present for life to exist. It is not known if these special proteins exist anywhere else. The grizzly DNA requires this behavior to happen each year. Bears did not just decide to require this process. Note my bold: "Nature perfected a way". Pure Darwin illogical thinking. How about a designer!
dhw: Thank you for yet another fascinating “wonder”. Of course the argument applies to all creatures that hibernate, and to all creatures that adapt successfully to difficult conditions. And of course these adaptations do not develop by chance, and of course the bear didn’t “decide to require this process.” The conditions required this process, and we know that countless species have died out when they are unable to cope with new conditions. “Nature perfected a way” suggests to me that there is a mechanism at work (possibly designed by your God) which enables SOME species to survive while others go extinct. It is what Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering” carried out by intelligent cells. It’s just a theory, but it removes the need for your God to preprogramme or dabble every single adaptation in every single species that survives (while 90% or so die out), in anticipation of every environmental change, whether local or global, for 3.X thousand million years, all for the purpose of designing one species. Either the cells work out a solution, or the organism dies – hence the long, long history of changing life forms. So much simpler and so much more logical than your theory. Ockham would rejoice.
Ockham as a priest would totally disagree with you, but your suggestion that doing without God is simpler than accepting him is an unreasonable denial of the need for very complex design as the bears demonstrate. This is why you cannot dismiss design arguments and sit on your fence. We cannot know how this appeared, since fossils don't talk, but design does. The climate these bears live in has no food supply for many months, but unlike birds they do not migrate, as the land to be covered is too far away. But animals can migrate as in Africa with the Wildebeest movements in Kenya with much shorter distances. Did the bears think we can't get that far so lets sleep? The bears did not know how far 'far' is without trying. Darwinists will say those that tried died but the smart ones stayed and slept. And skip over the very complex physiological design issue of no movement and no urine output as one set of examples of the problems to be overcome. Ockham would rejoice in the simple solution of God does it. As for smart cells, they can only make tiny adjustments , which is all we have demonstrated in the current science studies. The gaps in the fossil record don't fit the theory, as Gould noted. What is also known is the North Pole was tropical with palm trees at in ancient time. Bears or their forebears could have moved as the climate changed, but some stayed and achieved the changes. I'll stick with God speciates, simple!
Natural Wonders & Evolution: air flow in bird lungs
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 16, 2021, 20:38 (1346 days ago) @ David Turell
Only in one direction:
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-birds-discovery-loop.html
"Birds breathe with greater efficiency than humans due to the structure of their lungs—looped airways that facilitate air flows that go in one direction—a team of researchers has found through a series of lab experiments and simulations.
***
"'Unlike the air flows deep in the branches of our lungs, which oscillate back and forth as we breathe in and out, the flow moves in a single direction in bird lungs even as they inhale and exhale," explains Leif Ristroph, an associate professor at NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and the senior author of the paper. "This allows them to perform the most difficult and energetically costly activity of any animal: they can fly, and they can do so across whole oceans and entire continents and at elevations as high as Mount Everest, where the oxygen is extremely thin."
"'The key is that bird lungs are made of looped airways—not just the branches and tree-like structure of our lungs—and we found that this leads to one-way or directed flows around the loops," adds Ristroph. "This wind ventilates even the deep recesses of the lungs and brings in fresh air."
"The one-way flow of air in birds' breathing systems was discovered a century ago. But what had remained a mystery was an explanation of the aerodynamics behind this efficient breathing system.
***
"For the experiments, they built piping filled with water—to replicate air flow—and bent the piping to imitate the loop-like structure of birds' lungs—similar to the way freeways are connected by on-ramps and off-ramps. The researchers mixed microparticles into the water, which allowed them to track the direction of the water flow.
"These experiments showed that back-and-forth motions generated by breathing were transformed into one-way flows around the loops.
"'This is in essence what happens inside lungs, but now we could actually see and measure—and thus understand—what was going on," explains Ristroph, director of the Applied Mathematics Lab. "The way this plays out is that the network has loops and thus junctions, which are a bit like 'forks in the road' where the flows have a choice about which route to take."
***
"'Inertia tends to cause the flows to keep going straight rather than turn down a side street, which gets obstructed by a vortex," explains NJIT assistant professor and co-author Anand Oza. "This ends up leading to one-way flows and circulation around loops because of how the junctions are hooked up in the network."
"Ristroph points to several potential engineering uses for these findings.
"'Directing, controlling, and pumping fluids is a very common goal in many applications, from healthcare to chemical processing to the fuel, lubricant, and coolant systems in all sorts of machinery," he observes. "In all these cases, we need to pump fluids in specific directions for specific purposes, and now we've learned from birds an entirely new way to accomplish this that we hope can be used in our technologies.'"
Comment: The rate of breathing increases the caloric cost of breathing in increased exercise. The birds use lots of calories in flying, but their system of breathing is a great way to make is easier. A great design not by chance.
Natural Wonders & Evolution: 'seeing' without eyes:
by David Turell , Thursday, January 02, 2020, 18:45 (1785 days ago) @ dhw
With photoreceptors:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2228801-some-starfish-like-animals-see-without-eye...
Brittlestars, marine animals that look a little like starfish, may see without eyes by changing the colour of their bodies.
"While we already knew that brittlestars have photoreceptors all along their bodies, we didn’t know exactly how they worked until now. The discovery could help explain how other related marine creatures, like sea urchins, are also able to see without eyes.
***
"By looking at the two closely related species, Sumner-Rooney and her colleagues were able to surmise that O. wendtii was able to orientate itself towards differing contrasts of light, but O. pumila could not. Sumner-Rooney says this skill comes in handy as “it makes it easier to find somewhere to hide” in complex visual environments like a coral reef.
"The researchers put individuals from the two species in a 60-centimetre-diameter cylindrical tank. They coloured a narrow band of the tank’s wall black with a white border, and left the rest of the tank’s wall a uniform grey.
"Because the black and white bands were so close to one another, the light that reflected off them clashed to create a light intensity identical to that from the grey parts of the wall. This means an animal that can simply sense light wouldn’t be able to identify the black band. O. wendtii did tend to recognise the black band and crawl towards it to seek shelter, but O. pumila did not.
"Why one species has this ability and the other doesn’t may come down to the fact that O. wendtii changes colour, unlike O. pumila. O. wendtii is a deep, red-brown colour in the light and a pale beige in the dark.
"Using a combination of microscopic observations and RNA sequencing, the researchers speculate that in light, the animal’s pigment-containing cells constrict the photoreceptors. This means that they can only receive light from one direction, giving the brittlestars more detailed information about the contrast of their surroundings.
"Sea urchins that can “see” without eyes also have these pigment-containing cells."
Comment: Real eyes started this way.
Natural Wonders & Evolution: crickets hear bat ultrasound
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 20:26 (1576 days ago) @ David Turell
And hearing it they avoid being eaten by bats:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/cricket-avoids-being-bat-food-by-doi...
"Echolocation is great for hunting. But Holderied says it’s also a potential weakness for bats—because in the ultrasonic world, these calls are very, very loud.
“'And once you have cracked that, once you have evolved an ear that lets you hear these calls, you can simply fly away and escape into safety....”
"Which the cricket has learned to do.
“'Basically, they have a response threshold–that’s what we call it. So they only respond to sounds that are very loud.”
"And how do they respond? Well, they simply stop flying—and plummet toward the ground.
"The sword-tailed cricket can discern bats’ echolocation signals by only responding to calls of a certain volume—at which point it plummets out of their approach.
“'A rain forest is a very noisy environment. There’s insect sounds, bird sounds; there’s leaves rustling. And all of this makes it harder for you to detect something you want to hear.”
"Holderied is particularly interested in sounds from the ultrasonic range—these are frequencies our ears can’t detect. But they come in loud and clear for a sword-tailed cricket in Panama.
"Holderied and colleagues at the Universities of Bristol and Graz in Austria, recently discovered the sword-tailed cricket has a novel survival strategy when it comes to life in their noisy environment.
“'Up there, it’s mainly other insects that produce noises that stop you from detecting what you really want to detect—and that is a predator that might attack you.”
"Every night, hundreds of species of hungry bats fly around the rain forest and use echolocation to hunt for their meals, which can include the cricket.
“So we are talking neotropical rain forests, and they teem with different bat species. And most of them, or many of them, would be after insects. So the frequencies that they use to find the insect prey are covering pretty much a full echolocation-frequency range.”
"Echolocation is great for hunting. But Holderied says it’s also a potential weakness for bats—because in the ultrasonic world, these calls are very, very loud.
“'And once you have cracked that, once you have evolved an ear that lets you hear these calls, you can simply fly away and escape into safety....”
"Which the cricket has learned to do. (my bold)
“'Basically, they have a response threshold–that’s what we call it. So they only respond to sounds that are very loud.”
"And how do they respond? Well, they simply stop flying—and plummet toward the ground.
“'Sometimes they don’t even drop all the way to the ground. So if the calls are louder, they stop flying for a longer period of time–that means a longer drop. But if they stop for just a half a second, that might not be enough time for them to hit the ground. And after this half a second, they start flying again, but they’re never actually crashing. But they drop out of the bat’s approach vector.'”
Comment: How did crickets learn to do this? See the bold. It involves lots of analytic thought summarizing the sound, noting that bats appear for meals. Analysis by cricket survivors must be achieved and passed on to all crickets. How is that done? Not language. I'll stick with implanted instinct. Just as with the bees biting rose leaves causes more immediate flowering. Bee waggling dances transmit concrete ideas of distance and direction to good flowers, nothing more. Where did that come from? Only dhw knows: they think like we do.
Natural Wonders from life's information
by David Turell , Sunday, July 26, 2020, 00:45 (1580 days ago) @ dhw
How do slime molds learn; how do 100 pieces of a flatworm make 100 new worms?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/learning-without-a-brain-11595527115?mod=searchresults&...
"Slime molds, for example, are very large single-celled organisms that can agglomerate into masses, creeping across the forest floor and feeding on decaying plants. (One type is called dog vomit slime mold, which gives you an idea of what they look like.) They can also retreat into a sort of freeze-dried capsule form, losing much of their protein and DNA in the process, and stay that way for months. But just add water and the reconstituted slime mold is good as new.
"They are also fussy eaters. If you put them down on top of their favorite meal of agar and Quaker oats and add salt or quinine to one part of it, they’ll avoid that part, at least at first. The biologists Aurele Bousard and Audrey Dussutour at the University of Toulouse and colleagues used this fact to show that slime molds can learn in a simple way called habituation. If the only way to get the oats is to eat the salt too, the molds eventually get used to it and stop objecting. Remarkably, this information somehow persists for up to a month, even through their period of dessicated hibernation.
"Flatworms are equally weird. Cut one into a hundred pieces and each piece will regenerate into a perfect new worm.
***
"Santosh Manicka and Michael Levin of Tufts University argue in the special issue that regeneration involves a kind of cognition. The process is remarkably robust: You can move the cells that usually make a head to the tail location, and they will somehow figure out how to make a tail instead. The researchers argue that this ability to take multiple paths to achieve the same goal requires a kind of intelligence.
"Regeneration involves the standard mechanisms that allow the DNA in a cell to manufacture proteins. But Dr. Levin and his colleagues have shown that flatworm cells also communicate information through electricity, signaling to other nearby cells in much the way that neurons do. In experiments that would make Dr. Frankenstein proud, the researchers altered those electrical signals to produce a worm that consistently regenerates with two heads, or even one that grows the head of another related species of flatworm.
"This research has some practical implications: It would be great if human accident victims could grow back their limbs as easily as flatworms do. But the studies also speak to a profound biological and philosophical conundrum. Where do cognition and intelligence come from? How could natural selection turn single-celled amoebas into homo sapiens? Dr. Levin thinks that the electrical communications that help flatworms regenerate might have evolved into the subtler mechanisms of brain communication. Those creepy slime molds and flatworms might help to explain how humans got smart."
Comment: We have covered this material before. The bold is a good question if you are an atheist, but simple if you believe the intelligence is God's and given to the living organisms in cellular genomes. Such intelligence doesn't arise out of thin air or by chance, and it certainly can't evolve from simple one-celled starting life, whose start is still totally unknown to us.
Natural Wonders & Evolution of whales; new discovery
by David Turell , Friday, September 13, 2019, 18:36 (1896 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't have an answer other than to propose God helped with the newly required designs for aquatic life. For example how did the snake handle the extra salt? Like the whales? There is more to jumping into salt water, with the new physiological requirements. I seriously doubt cell committees can handle the design requirements, based on current epigenetic studies of adaptations.
dhw: Why “helped” with designs? Do you think he popped in to give these creatures a poke and a prod as their cell communities struggled to obey the sea-snake-respiratory-system-instructions you seriously believe he had implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago? Yes, we know you seriously doubt the whole concept of intelligent cell communities, just as I also seriously doubt your fixed belief that your God turned the pre-whale’s legs into flippers before pushing it into the water because otherwise life could not have gone on until he designed H. sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design. (my bold)
There is a new whale finding : possible dog= paddling style at early stages of aquatic life:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2216397-early-whales-swam-doggy-paddle-across-the-...
"Whales are descended from hoofed land animals similar to modern deer, so the first proto-whales to venture into the water presumably used all four limbs for propulsion, as four-legged animals do today. More modern whales swim by undulating their entire bodies and only use their front limbs – their flippers – for steering. This crucial evolutionary transition took place between 50 and 35 million years ago.
"We do not fully understand what happened to early whales’ arms during this time because we don’t have many fossils. “We only know the forelimbs for a few species,” says Vautrin.
His team has now found a new one. Vautrin and his colleagues unearthed a partial skeleton of an early whale called a protocetid in Senegal. The fossil includes two vertebrae, two ribs, fragments of the feet and tail – and most of an arm.
"Dated at between 43 and 41 million years old, it sits in the middle of whales’ transition to marine life. “We are far from the earliest whale, but we are a few million years before the real whales,” says Vautrin.
"Even at this relatively late stage in the evolution of early whales, it seems the animal was using its arms to propel itself. The bones show the protocetid’s arm had powerful muscles and the ability to bend at the elbow.
"This suggests the animal used it arms — and presumably legs too — to swim, in a way that could have resembled a modern dog. In truth, it is not clear exactly what ‘stroke’ the animal used. The shoulder bones have not been found, so we can’t tell whether the arm could move sideways or just forwards and backwards. “We don’t know if it’s just crawl or more like butterfly,” says Vautrin.
"These forms of swimming are not as efficient as that used by modern whales, but it does not seem to have stopped the protocetids travelling great distances. The first whale-like animals are only known from the vicinity of India, but the new fossil shows that the protocetids reached the west coast of Africa.
"Early whales probably tried many different ways of swimming, says Vautrin. He suggests that the first group to evolve the modern undulating mechanism may have out-competed the others."
Comment: What is new is an explanation that forelegs may have dog-paddled for propulsion before changing into steering mechanism, which changes the anatomic arrangements of bones and muscles. What is not known is whether these protowhales swam on the surface or were more aquatic, and developed the required complex physiological changes. I still view God doing the design changes which are obviously stepwise. My bold of your sentence is not as I have imagined arm to flipper changes. There were stages as designed by God from hoof to flipper. A pure hoof would have very little propulsion so I assume they entered the water with some early changes.