Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Friday, July 02, 2021, 16:00 (27 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I never said DNA is a computer code. Algorithms are specific answers to specific issues.

dhw: For 13 years, you have offered us two explanations for evolution: every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago by your God, or he dabbled them. A specific answer to a specific problem would not cover the whole of life’s history, and you now reject the computer image, so please just tell us what sort of programme your God might have installed in the first cells.

There was a code to form structure and basic function for each evolutionary advance. Above is my thought about everyday automatic responses to everyday stimuli by DNA coded algorithm. Two separate types of coding.


Big brain evolution

DAVID: As usual, wrong. Cells are not the source of consciousness, but the receivers. Smaller aerials can still receive large signals. Why a crust of brain works.

d hw: At a stroke you claim to have resolved centuries of debate between materialists and dualists. Congratulations. May I ask how you know that cells are not the source of consciousness?

Because of the concept of receivership. It doesn't take lots of cells to receive a consciousness. No specific number required. Shown by shell brains. Also NDE evidence

dhw: I am not equating the two actions. I am saying that both actions may illustrate the same principle: that God sets things in motion, and then leaves them to do their own thing. A fine-tuned-for-life universe runs on its own; a finely designed living cell runs on its own.

DAVID: You are equating the material universe actions with living actions. True, but I noted the truer issue is control over directions of evolution, not life after it evolved!!!

dhw: Directions of evolution ARE life after it evolved. And what do you mean by the “truer” issue?
You accept that your God can create a system (the mechanics of the universe) in which he does not control the consequences of his design. I have proposed the same for evolution: once he has set the process in motion, he leaves it to run itself.

As usual a directionless purposeless God not in exact control of evolution, which is required to achieve purpose. "Truer" refers to this. A mechanical universe can run itself, but living evolution must have specific goals.


Ant raft movements

dhw: Why are you so averse to the idea of your God giving ants the intelligence to analyze, create and pass on concepts? We have no idea how such strategies originated, but there is no reason to suppose that ants did not combine their intelligences, just as human teams collaborate to solve problems. What is your alternative? Preprogramming 3.8 billion years ago, or God popping in to give courses in bridge-building?

Ignores the 'swarming concept of limited automatic individual actions producing the swarm, as the experts note.

Heme
dhw: I have no idea how much of the mechanism was in place right from the start, but as always, you have presented the strongest possible case for design.

DAVID: And you refuse to accept the need for a designing mind, which some of us call God.

dhw: As usual, you choose to ignore the factors that make me agnostic. They are summarized above: I find a sourceless conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as an infinite, eternal universe of energy and matter eventually combining them to produce consciousness.

Why can't you accept the concept that the complexity of living designs must require a designing mind? Nothing cannot precede our reality.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum