Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Friday, July 23, 2021, 10:42 (93 days ago) @ David Turell

Humans correcting errors
dhw: My agnosticism is irrelevant. I accept the reasonableness of your design argument, and I question the logic behind your belief that humans were his only purpose, and therefore he designed billions of years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Your constant illogical analysis of my thoughts.

Calling my analysis “illogical” does not provide a logical explanation for an all-powerful God with a single purpose designing life forms etc. that had no connection with his purpose.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Why do you think it is impossible for your God to have given cells the intelligence to work out each solution as each new problem arose?

DAVID: Cells cannot design for the future. The immune cells can analyze a present problems b ecaue their instructions tell them how.

dhw: Firstly, in my theory cells do not design for the future. They respond to new requirements. You always forget that existing responses are passed on, but they must have been new at one time.

DAVID: A good designer foresees how a new system will handle the problems in the future.

If your God designed cellular intelligence, he might well gaze into his crystal ball and “foresee” how his intelligent invention would cope. That does not mean he gave his invention a list of instructions to solve every problem for the rest of time.

dhw: I find it hard to accept your belief that your God pops in with new instructions to counter every new problem. (Have you permanently dropped the idea that he provided the first cells with a list of instructions 3.8 billion years ago to cover every problem for the rest of time?)

DAVID: My entries in immunity show the cells are programmed to respond to new infections, with general antibodies and the ability to create new ones. See article on how T cells are specialized.

So is this the 3.8-billion-year-old programme, or is it the one personally delivered by God whenever there’s a problem? Your entries show that cells respond. Your entries do not show that cells are following a list of instructions laid out for them by your God. Known infections were once new infections, and so the antibodies will already have been produced, whereas new infections will require the production of new antibodies, as you say. It is an ongoing process of cellular RESPONSE to new situations – the same, I suggest, as for evolution itself.

T-cells
QUOTE: We discuss these features from an evolutionary perspective to provide insights into the development and function of unconventional T cells.

This might be interesting, since cellular development and changes of function are integral to Shapiro’s theory.

DAVID: […] this describes how specialized T cells create special ligands, receptor molecular receivers of foreign molecules, which increases the ability to sense invaders and respond. (dhw's bold)

This is interesting too, since it supports the (obvious) proposal that cells constantly RESPOND to new conditions, as opposed to your theory of anticipation.

Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The brain is so important it should have immediate strong protections, built-in all around it. Chance mutations are not going to find this necessary, since they are not drive by designing thoughts. Only purposeful design creates this.

Total agreement on the subject of random mutations and on purposeful design. We should note that this applies to all brains – not just human brains. As so many of your posts demonstrate, design applies to all the organs of all organisms. Our own disagreements are not over random mutations but over your insistence that every single innovation and modification in every organism is directly designed by your God as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, as opposed to - theistic theory – his having given the cells the ability to do their own designing.

Theistic evolution vs Darwinism [...]
dhw: The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” […] Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

You have not responded.

...agnostics & atheists leaving
dhw: Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

DAVID: My point is real research of ID's theories changes minds. I can't answer your rhetorical questions.

They are not rhetorical. You stated that agnostics and atheists were leaving, and I have asked for clarification, since such a statement could imply that atheists and agnostics are now abandoning Darwin’s whole theory, and also that they are turning to God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum