Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 07, 2021, 11:31 (1233 days ago) @ David Turell

Big brain evolution
Transferred to dualism v materialism again

Neutron star black hole merge
DAVID: The moment you make an attempt to assume God's intentions, you are assuming a God's possible personality, and yours is always humanized.

dhw: So when you say that your God only had one purpose, knew exactly how to fulfil his purpose, was always in full control, would never deliberately relinquish control, and deliberately designed “bad” viruses and bacteria, but “all his works are for the good”, you are not assuming a God’s possible personality with human traits?

DAVID: Of course I must discuss a non-human God in humans personality terms.

Then would you please stop criticizing me for using human personality terms when you do exactly the same, and instead focus on the logic of our respective theories.

Ant raft movements
DAVID: In bird flocks, bacterial colonies, or in ants the limited individual actions produce the swarm. We interpret it as a swarm as our concept. Again as in cell functions, we are on the outside making an observation/judgement. You have yours, I have mine.

dhw: Yes, a collection of individuals may be called a swarm. And collectively they produce intelligent solutions to problems which an individual might not be able to solve. We agree. But you insist that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago,... I propose that what looks like intelligence might actually be intelligence.

DAVID: God did not design/program swarms which are automatic results of specific individual action.

Swarms are simply collections of individuals! The article deals with “swarm intelligence”, which creates strategies, such as bridge and raft building, that would presumably be beyond the powers of individual ant intelligences. In other words, the ants collectively pool their intelligences to come up with solutions to new problems. You pooh-pooh the idea. Presumably you prefer the theory that your God preprogrammed the solutions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to give ants the appropriate lessons or algorithms?

Bacterial motors 1
DAVID: The point is not your reply. How does evolution add useless parts until the proper form of a useful motor is present?

dhw: We have no idea how or when these different parts evolved, but may I suggest that in whatever combination and at whatever time they evolved, they were not useless.

DAVID: Wishful Darwinist thought. A partially complete mechanism cannot be used!!! Be logical.

Neither you nor I can have the slightest idea what was or wasn’t useful. A light sensitive nerve may have been useful to its owner, even if it wasn’t an eye. A wheel is not a motor car. But I’m obviously in no position to make any kind of statement on the subject. I am merely querying the authority of the authors’ claim that the flagellum could not have evolved. Bearing in mind that there are different types of bacteria, here is a different view:
Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

QUOTEL Eubacterial flagellum is a multifunctional organelle. It’s also one of a range of motility systems in bacteria. The structure of the organelle appears like a motor, shaft and a propeller.[7] However, the structure of eubacterial flagellae varies based on whether their motor systems run on protons or sodium, and on the complexity of the flagellar whip.[8] The evolutionary origin of eubacterial flagellae is probably an example of indirect evolution. A hypothesis on the evolutionary pathway of the eubacterial flagellum argues that a secretory system evolved first, based around the SMC rod- and pore-forming complex. This is presumed to be the common ancestor of the type-III secretory system and the flagellar system. Then, an ion pump was introduced to this structure which improved secretion. The ion pump later became the motor protein. This was followed by the emergence of the proto-flagellar filament as part of the protein-secretion structure. Gliding-twitching motility arose at this stage or later and was then refined into swimming motility.[7]

Different writers, different theories.

Root microbiome helps plants
DAVID: All the branches of evolution are necessary cooperative organisms to maintain life during evolution's steps. dhw seems confused about the issue.

dhw: Such cooperation is necessary at all times and for all forms of life, but that does not mean that at all times every form of life and cooperation was individually designed by your God, or that every form of life and cooperation was part of his one and only goal of specially designing humans and their lunch. You seem confused about the issue that is in dispute, as you keep leaving it out.

DAVID: I leave out nothing. You object to my God as designing everything. If you accept the existence of design, a designer must exist.

The existence of a designer is not the issue we are discussing. I object to your theory that, although your God's sole purpose was to design humans and their lunch, he designed every life form, lunch, etc., 99% of which had no connection to humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose, and so you continue to edit your theory by leaving out the bits which do not fit together, or by changing the subject.