Let's study ID (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Saturday, July 24, 2021, 16:28 (1216 days ago)
A complete passage explaining design from the ID viewpoint:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-design-argument-from-a-mechanics-perspective/
"Inspiring conversations with fellow ID folks has made me think about what constitutes a good argument for ID, and more importantly to whom. It has come to my attention that arguments I find so compelling, that I actually need no further evidence to make a design inference, is far from convincing to others Having renovated, modified and maintained engines for historic car racing, seeing the drawing or an animation of a flagellum motor is sufficient for me to infer design. I don’t find it slightly convincing, I find the flagellum motor so convincing that no doubt is left in my mind, that nature is intelligently designed.
"It has dawned on me that this is far from the experience others are having. I recently was met with the argument, that if the flagellum motor or equal machine like objects from nature were that convincing as I claim, the discussion would be over and ID declared winner. “The facts do not speak for themselves” was repeated several times in one particular conversation I had, – the “facts” being that the flagellum motor has design like features.
"The disagreement circled around my claim that the flagellum motor is absolute proof of ID. My interlocutor justifiably claimed that if it were absolute proof everybody would be convinced, and since everybody is not convinced the flagellum motor as evidence for ID is simply not good enough. Now then my reply was and is, that it’s not the argument lacking quality, it’s people’s ability to appreciate the argument’s weight that constitutes the problem. The argument for design alone from the flagellum motor is so overwhelming that in fact everybody ought to be convinced.
"So why aren’t they? The problem here is, I’ll argue, that it requires real world experience with machinery to acquire the ability to appreciate the huge weight of the argument from the flagellum motor including Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity. A friend of mine who happens to be both a theologian and an electronics engineer recently had this amusing comment when we were talking about why the evolutionists don’t get it, he said:
"We can’t talk with these people until they have spent time in the shed disassembling and assembling a moped! He was referring to what we did as teenagers. And yes, this is the problem in a nut shell. If you haven’t had hands-on experience with assembling complex functional systems like a moped, you cannot, and I’m sorry to offend all you great thinkers out there, evaluate the argument around the flagellum and irreducible complexity. Why? Because machinery, functional systems and their inherent irreducible complexity are real world phenomena!
"The word “empirical” refers to having had experience (in German “Erfahrung”). The only true way to acquire experience is through physical interaction. Experience does not come through theoretical knowledge. In the world of abstraction all sorts of scenarios could be true, you can simply yourself decide what is true and what is not. Actual physical experience is the only thing that keeps thought constructions in check and can weed out wrong theories.
"If you understand through bodily experience how reality works, you will come to the conclusion that evolution is an unrealistic idea. In the realm of thought though, evolution works brilliantly because in the abstract you can choose the bits and pieces which make your theory work and ignore anything that contradicts. This is actually how Darwin’s theory is kept alive.
"Evaluating Behe's IC concept [irreducible complexity] is simply not possible on a theoretical level. You need hands-on experience with complex functional systems to fully understand that evolution is a thought experiment which could never work in reality.
"When Ken Miller purportedly debunked Behe’s mousetrap analogy he did so in the world of abstraction with no reference to how real stuff in the real world works. Evolutionist disciples bought it hook line and sinker because in the realm of thought everything you want to work works. Behe’s IC proves (yes proves!) that evolution is false, but the chance is that you aren’t able to realize it because you operate solely on a theoretical level and have no real world experience working on complex machinery. (my bold)
Comment: The reason this view appeals to me so much is my own experienced creation I've mentioned to you: 1) complex architectural flow design for medical and dialysis offices that worked! 2) household plumbing and electrical repair and new designs at the journeyman's level, as attested by a licensed plumber and an electrician. Unless you can fully appreciate the points in my bold in the last paragraph and the point of that last paragraph itself, the theoretical level at which you obviously analyze the ID arguments, you will never see the underlying ID reasons for their conclusions. Your Darwinist theory outburst in the 'possible God thread' today demonstrated your problem of buying unproven wishful thinking.
Let's study ID
QUOTE: "When Ken Miller purportedly debunked Behe’s mousetrap analogy he did so in the world of abstraction with no reference to how real stuff in the real world works.”
DAVID: The reason this view appeals to me so much is my own experienced creation I've mentioned to you: 1) complex architectural flow design for medical and dialysis offices that worked! 2) household plumbing and electrical repair and new designs at the journeyman's level, as attested by a licensed plumber and an electrician. Unless you can fully appreciate the points in my bold in the last paragraph and the point of that last paragraph itself, the theoretical level at which you obviously analyze the ID arguments, you will never see the underlying ID reasons for their conclusions. Your Darwinist theory outburst in the 'possible God thread' today demonstrated your problem of buying unproven wishful thinking.
Once again, I accept and have always accepted the argument for design, which is a major reason for my agnosticism (the other being psychic experiences). The acceptable designer theory, however, is counterbalanced by the difficulty I have in accepting the argument that complex life and consciousness require a designer, and so there must be a complex, conscious mind that did not require a designer. I accept that there must have been a first cause, and the alternative to the sourceless conscious mind is sourceless materials which chanced to produce the combination that has led to one habitable planet in countless billions, and to rudimentary life and intelligence that gradually evolved into the complexities we know today. I find both explanations equally unsatisfactory, and so my mind remains open to both. You can call this open-mindedness rigid if you like.
There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs. Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID? I find the theistic version of this theory far more convincing than your theory that your God preprogrammed every innovation etc. 3.8 billion years ago, or that he constantly dabbled with all the millions of organisms to engineer every single improvement (plus econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder) in life’s history, let alone that he did so with the one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food. And please don’t tell me that your theory is based on science.
Taken from: Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!
dhw: Stated with your usual authority, as if you knew that for some reason your God could not or would not provide cells with the intelligence to join together in communities and produce increasingly complex designs, building on the designs of their predecessors (= common descent, which you sometimes believe in and sometimes don’t).
DAVID: I accept the appearance of common descent. Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.
Why suddenly the “appearance”? Do you or do you not believe that all life forms except the first have descended from earlier life forms? And over and over again you harp on about design needing to foresee the future. You accept the human analogy, and even quote your own experience of design. So are you telling us that your designs were made to solve unknown problems that did not exist at that time? The new ID entry makes no reference to clairvoyance of any kind. The reasoning – with which I agree - is based purely on complexity. Like every other designer, you would have used your accumulated knowledge of PAST designs and problems, marrying this knowledge to current requirements, and anticipating the kind of problems which you knew about. But I doubt if your designs were meant to solve a non-existent problem. If all your experience was confined to living in permanent desert, you would never dream of taking precautions against floods, would you? But cell communities throughout evolution have been confronted by NEW problems, and even now what we see is their intelligent response to these. Once again: the ID case is built on complexity, not on clairvoyance.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, July 25, 2021, 15:14 (1215 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "When Ken Miller purportedly debunked Behe’s mousetrap analogy he did so in the world of abstraction with no reference to how real stuff in the real world works.”
dhw: Once again, I accept and have always accepted the argument for design, which is a major reason for my agnosticism (the other being psychic experiences). The acceptable designer theory, however, is counterbalanced by the difficulty I have in accepting the argument that complex life and consciousness require a designer, and so there must be a complex, conscious mind that did not require a designer. I accept that there must have been a first cause, and the alternative to the sourceless conscious mind is sourceless materials which chanced to produce the combination that has led to one habitable planet in countless billions, and to rudimentary life and intelligence that gradually evolved into the complexities we know today. I find both explanations equally unsatisfactory, and so my mind remains open to both. You can call this open-mindedness rigid if you like.
The bold is very unsatisfactory to me: if nothing existed before the BB, what MATERIALS? These materials became our minds? Wishful thinking. Design requires a designing mind, a statement you can't counter.
dhw: There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs. Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID? I find the theistic version of this theory far more convincing than your theory that your God preprogrammed every innovation etc. 3.8 billion years ago, or that he constantly dabbled with all the millions of organisms to engineer every single improvement (plus econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder) in life’s history, let alone that he did so with the one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food. And please don’t tell me that your theory is based on science.
The bold is more unproven wishful thinking. and my theory is taken from pure science and reason.
Taken from: Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!dhw: Stated with your usual authority, as if you knew that for some reason your God could not or would not provide cells with the intelligence to join together in communities and produce increasingly complex designs, building on the designs of their predecessors (= common descent, which you sometimes believe in and sometimes don’t).
DAVID: I accept the appearance of common descent. Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.
dhw: Why suddenly the “appearance”? Do you or do you not believe that all life forms except the first have descended from earlier life forms? And over and over again you harp on about design needing to foresee the future. You accept the human analogy, and even quote your own experience of design. So are you telling us that your designs were made to solve unknown problems that did not exist at that time? The new ID entry makes no reference to clairvoyance of any kind. The reasoning – with which I agree - is based purely on complexity. Like every other designer, you would have used your accumulated knowledge of PAST designs and problems, marrying this knowledge to current requirements, and anticipating the kind of problems which you knew about. But I doubt if your designs were meant to solve a non-existent problem. If all your experience was confined to living in permanent desert, you would never dream of taking precautions against floods, would you? But cell communities throughout evolution have been confronted by NEW problems, and even now what we see is their intelligent response to these. Once again: the ID case is built on complexity, not on clairvoyance.
You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! And the complexity. you see only a part of, is built to easily handle variations of circumstances. It has flexibility.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, July 25, 2021, 18:20 (1215 days ago) @ David Turell
I'm going to use an article as an example of what Darwinist's do to bring in purpose, but no idea how it was really achieved:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2284426-tomatoes-have-a-kind-of-nervous-system-tha...
"Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.
"The messages seem to help the plant muster defences such as releasing hydrogen peroxide, a reactive chemical that combats microbial infections of damaged tissues, a study has found.
***
"Previous work found that leaves that are physically damaged send electrical signals to other leaves. In a new study, Gabriela Niemeyer Reissig at the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil and her colleagues investigated if this could happen with fruit.
"They studied small cherry tomato plants (tomatoes are a fruit, botanically speaking) by placing them inside Faraday cages, which block external electric fields, and confined caterpillars of the moth Helicoverpa armigera on the surface of fruit within plastic bags.
"Electrodes placed in the fruit stalks showed that the patterns of electrical activity changed during and after the caterpillars started eating. They also varied depending on whether the fruits were ripe or green. “The electrical activity of the fruit is constantly changing every second,” says Niemeyer Reissig. “We can find a [distinct] pattern in the electrical activity when an insect attacks.”
"There was also a rise in levels of hydrogen peroxide produced by untouched fruit and leaves all over an attacked plant. “This is probably to avoid microbial infections of damaged plant tissue or as a strategy to cause cell death in the affected region, preventing the spread of pathogens,” says Niemeyer Reissig."
Comment: Note all the assumptions in the final paragraph. Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it
Let's study ID
dhw: [...] the alternative to the sourceless conscious mind is sourceless materials which chanced to produce the combination that has led to one habitable planet in countless billions, and to rudimentary life and intelligence that gradually evolved into the complexities we know today. I find both explanations equally unsatisfactory, and so my mind remains open to both. You can call this open-mindedness rigid if you like.
DAVID: The bold is very unsatisfactory to me: if nothing existed before the BB, what MATERIALS? These materials became our minds? Wishful thinking. Design requires a designing mind, a statement you can't counter.
I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts. Let me repeat: I FIND BOTH EXPLANATIONS EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY. You focus on the unsatisfactory alternative to your fixed belief, and do not even respond to the illogicality of claiming that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and the source is therefore a conscious being that does not have a source.
dhw: There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs.Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID?
DAVID: The bold is more unproven wishful thinking. and my theory is taken from pure science and reason.
You claimed that my post contradicted ID. The fact that you regard commonsense natural selection as “unproven” has nothing whatsoever to do with ID. I have no idea why you regard it as pure science and reason to claim that there is a God who either individually dabbled or 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every single life form, strategy, solution, natural wonder for the rest of life’s history. This becomes even less scientific and reasonable when you insist that every one was part of his sole goal of designing humans plus food, though the vast majority had no connection with humans and our food.
Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.
dhw: [...] over and over again you harp on about design needing to foresee the future. You accept the human analogy, and even quote your own experience of design. So are you telling us that your designs were made to solve unknown problems that did not exist at that time? The new ID entry makes no reference to clairvoyance of any kind. The reasoning – with which I agree - is based purely on complexity […] not on clairvoyance.
DAVID: You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! And the complexity. you see only a part of, is built to easily handle variations of circumstances. It has flexibility.
You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers. (My proposal: conditions changed, and when pre-whales entered the water, the result over time was that legs changed to flippers). Now, though, foreseeing the future apparently means avoiding the problems that might be caused by poor design. Nothing to do with future needs at all! Meanwhile, please point out where in the article you have discovered that ID is based on foreseeing the future and not on complexity.
DAVID: I'm going to use an article as an example of what Darwinist's do to bring in purpose, but no idea how it was really achieved:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2284426-tomatoes-have-a-kind-of-nervous-system-tha...
QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.”
DAVID: Note all the assumptions in the final paragraph. Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.
The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, July 26, 2021, 19:08 (1214 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts. Let me repeat: I FIND BOTH EXPLANATIONS EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY. You focus on the unsatisfactory alternative to your fixed belief, and do not even respond to the illogicality of claiming that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and the source is therefore a conscious being that does not have a source.
Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?
dhw: There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs.Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID?DAVID: The bold is more unproven wishful thinking. and my theory is taken from pure science and reason.
dhw: You claimed that my post contradicted ID. The fact that you regard commonsense natural selection as “unproven” has nothing whatsoever to do with ID.
Common sense, your crutch, proves nothing. Middle Age Europe thought the world was flat. Teh older Greeks knew better.
dhw: I have no idea why you regard it as pure science and reason to claim that there is a God who either individually dabbled or 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every single life form, strategy, solution, natural wonder for the rest of life’s history.
That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!
Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.DAVID: You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! And the complexity. you see only a part of, is built to easily handle variations of circumstances. It has flexibility.
dhw: You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers.
Glad you made the admission. The point is God had to consider the proper anatomy to allow those changes, as well as consider how they would breathe in a new way, have sex in a new way, give birth underwater, and handle predators that would be new to them, as very partial examples of the many considerations a designer must think about in advance of actual production.
DAVID: I'm going to use an article as an example of what Darwinist's do to bring in purpose, but no idea how it was really achieved:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2284426-tomatoes-have-a-kind-of-nervous-system-tha...QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.”
DAVID: Note all the assumptions in the final paragraph. Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.
dhw: The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.
You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms
Let's study ID
dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts. Let me repeat: I FIND BOTH EXPLANATIONS EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY. You focus on the unsatisfactory alternative to your fixed belief, and do not even respond to the illogicality of claiming that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and the source is therefore a conscious being that does not have a source.
DAVID: Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?
That is one of the alternatives that I find unsatisfactory, the other being the theory that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and therefore the source must be a conscious being without a source.
dhw: You claimed that my post contradicted ID. The fact that you regard commonsense natural selection as “unproven” has nothing whatsoever to do with ID.
DAVID: Common sense, your crutch, proves nothing. Middle Age Europe thought the world was flat. Teh older Greeks knew better.
See “A possible God” on natural selection and survival.
dhw: I have no idea why you regard it as pure science and reason to claim that there is a God who either individually dabbled or 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every single life form, strategy, solution, natural wonder for the rest of life’s history.
DAVID: That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!
I’m surprised that there are science books which make the above claims plus the rest of your anthropocentric theory of God's roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Or do you mean that you have read lots of science books and have come up with this theory all by yourself?
Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.
DAVID: You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! […]
dhw: You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers.
DAVID: Glad you made the admission. The point is God had to consider the proper anatomy to allow those changes, as well as consider how they would breathe in a new way, have sex in a new way, give birth underwater, and handle predators that would be new to them, as very partial examples of the many considerations a designer must think about in advance of actual production.
So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?
TOMATOES
QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.”
DAVID: Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.
dhw: The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.
DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.
What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 27, 2021, 15:53 (1213 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?
dhw: That is one of the alternatives that I find unsatisfactory, the other being the theory that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and therefore the source must be a conscious being without a source.
Do you believe in any first cause and do you accept a first cause must exist?
DAVID: That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!dhw: I’m surprised that there are science books which make the above claims plus the rest of your anthropocentric theory of God's roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Or do you mean that you have read lots of science books and have come up with this theory all by yourself?
All by myself
Taken from: Specific organs protectiondhw: You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers.
DAVID: Glad you made the admission. The point is God had to consider the proper anatomy to allow those changes, as well as consider how they would breathe in a new way, have sex in a new way, give birth underwater, and handle predators that would be new to them, as very partial examples of the many considerations a designer must think about in advance of actual production.
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?
I can't imagine a pre-whale landlubber floundering around in the water happily thinking to himself, "I'm going to be a whale". My God made each stage all at once at the start of each stage, fully prepared for a new style of life.
TOMATOES
QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.”DAVID: Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.
dhw: The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.
DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.
dhw: What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?
How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article, and please note I said nothing about Darwin, himself, who didn't know what he didn't know. My dislike is for his acolytes.
Let's study ID
DAVID: Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?
dhw: That is one of the alternatives that I find unsatisfactory, the other being the theory that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and therefore the source must be a conscious being without a source.
DAVID: Do you believe in any first cause and do you accept a first cause must exist?
For the thousandth time, I accept that a first cause must exist, and I have suggested two first causes but believe in neither of them, which is why I am an agnostic.
DAVID: That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!
dhw: I’m surprised that there are science books which make the above claims plus the rest of your anthropocentric theory of God's roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Or do you mean that you have read lots of science books and have come up with this theory all by yourself?
DAVID: All by myself.
And judging by the illogicality of your theory of evolution, I strongly suspect that you will remain all by yourself.
Taken from: Specific organs protection
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?
DAVID: I can't imagine a pre-whale landlubber floundering around in the water happily thinking to himself, "I'm going to be a whale". My God made each stage all at once at the start of each stage, fully prepared for a new style of life.
I imagine the pre-whale thinking to himself: “If I stay on land, I’m gonna starve to death. There’s food in the water, and I’m gonna get it.” Although not the best of swimmers, he could swim well enough to survive, and as time went by, the cell communities – as they so often do – restructured the legs of the increasingly maritime animal in order to adapt them to the new way of life. Ditto every other recorded stage in the evolution of the whale. I don’t know what you mean by “all at once at the start of each stage”. How can stages mean all at once? And how can each stage make the animal “fully” prepared if there are more stages to come?
TOMATOES
DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.
dhw: What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?
DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article, and please note I said nothing about Darwin, himself, who didn't know what he didn't know. My dislike is for his acolytes.
I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 18:57 (1212 days ago) @ dhw
Taken from: Specific organs protection
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?DAVID: I can't imagine a pre-whale landlubber floundering around in the water happily thinking to himself, "I'm going to be a whale". My God made each stage all at once at the start of each stage, fully prepared for a new style of life.
dhw: I imagine the pre-whale thinking to himself: “If I stay on land, I’m gonna starve to death. There’s food in the water, and I’m gonna get it.” Although not the best of swimmers, he could swim well enough to survive, and as time went by, the cell communities – as they so often do – restructured the legs of the increasingly maritime animal in order to adapt them to the new way of life. Ditto every other recorded stage in the evolution of the whale. I don’t know what you mean by “all at once at the start of each stage”. How can stages mean all at once? And how can each stage make the animal “fully” prepared if there are more stages to come?
Remember I have god is charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full function al whales.
TOMATOES
DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.dhw: What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?
DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article, and please note I said nothing about Darwin, himself, who didn't know what he didn't know. My dislike is for his acolytes.
dhw: I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?
Not ignored. Elsewhere I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember? Once insects are here, God didn't make them choose to eat tomatoes. They did it on their own. What God did was give the tomatoes some protection .
Let's study ID
Taken from: Specific organs protection
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems? […]
DAVID: Remember I have god is charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full functional whales.
I do indeed remember, and I remember that you have your God performing all these operations in anticipation of new problems – e.g. he changes legs to flippers before the pre-whale enters the water. So as I said above, he keeps popping in before they have any trouble breathing, copulating, giving birth and fighting new enemies. And he had to do all that before he could fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans plus lunch. And all these improvements (e.g. in ways of producing offspring and fighting enemies) apparently had nothing to do with the survival of the species. So please remember the alternative: that all these changes took place because each of them was a RESPONSE to existing conditions and enabled successive pre-whales to survive more efficiently in their watery home.
TOMATOES
DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article […]
dhw: I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?
DAVID: Not ignored. Elsewhere I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember?
And why do they have to eat/have energy, if the reason is not to survive? And when food is short, why do you think they look elsewhere, and develop new means of acquiring food, and why do you think their potential foods devise ways of defending themselves, if not to survive? Do you really think God says to himself: “I gotta change all these organisms ‘cos otherwise I shan’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch?”
DAVID: Once insects are here, God didn't make them choose to eat tomatoes. They did it on their own. What God did was give the tomatoes some protection.
And God said: “Them insects is out of my control – though I have total control over everything – so I’m gonna protect them tomatoes, because otherwise I won’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch.”
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, July 29, 2021, 17:03 (1211 days ago) @ dhw
Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Remember I have God in charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full functional whales.
dhw: I do indeed remember, and I remember that you have your God performing all these operations in anticipation of new problems – e.g. he changes legs to flippers before the pre-whale enters the water. So as I said above, he keeps popping in before they have any trouble breathing, copulating, giving birth and fighting new enemies. And he had to do all that before he could fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans plus lunch. And all these improvements (e.g. in ways of producing offspring and fighting enemies) apparently had nothing to do with the survival of the species. So please remember the alternative: that all these changes took place because each of them was a RESPONSE to existing conditions and enabled successive pre-whales to survive more efficiently in their watery home.
I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do. Your approach is that old species can make new ones on their own. I view it as a weak theory since design must have extensive mental work.
TOMATOESDAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article […]
dhw: I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?
DAVID: Not ignored. Elsewhere I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember?
dhw: And why do they have to eat/have energy, if the reason is not to survive? And when food is short, why do you think they look elsewhere, and develop new means of acquiring food, and why do you think their potential foods devise ways of defending themselves, if not to survive? Do you really think God says to himself: “I gotta change all these organisms ‘cos otherwise I shan’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch?”
Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.
DAVID: Once insects are here, God didn't make them choose to eat tomatoes. They did it on their own. What God did was give the tomatoes some protection.dhw: And God said: “Them insects is out of my control – though I have total control over everything – so I’m gonna protect them tomatoes, because otherwise I won’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch.”
God doesn't design how we all eat each other. He had provided meals for all, as required.
Let's study ID: death is built in
by David Turell , Thursday, July 29, 2021, 18:26 (1211 days ago) @ David Turell
Survival is necessary to live long enough, but death is primarily built in to all organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-small-proteins-aging.html
"Scientists have discovered that the protein ubiquitin plays an important role in the regulation of the aging process. Ubiquitin was previously known to control processes such as signal transduction and metabolism. Prof. Dr. David Vilchez and his colleagues at the CECAD Cluster of Excellence for Aging Research at the University of Cologne performed a comprehensive quantitative analysis of ubiquitin signatures during aging in the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode worm broadly used for aging research. This method—called ubiquitin proteomics—measures all changes in ubiquitination of proteins in the cell.
"The resulting data provide site-specific information and define quantitative changes in ubiquitin changes across all proteins in a cell during aging. A comparison with the total protein content of a cell (proteome) showed which changes have functional consequences in protein turnover and actual protein content during aging. The scientists thus discovered new regulators of lifespan and provide a comprehensive dataset that helps to understand aging and longevity. The article, "Rewiring of the ubiquitinated proteome determines aging in C. elegans," has now been published in Nature.
***
"'We discovered that aging leads to changes in the ubiquitination of thousands of proteins in the cell, whereas longevity measures such as reduced food intake and reduced insulin signaling prevent these changes." Specifically, the researchers found that aging causes a general loss of ubiquitination. This is caused by the enzymes that remove ubiquitin from proteins become more active during aging. Normally, ubiquitinated proteins are recognized and destroyed by the proteasome, the cell's garbage truck. The scientists showed that the longevity of organisms is determined by age-related changes in the degradation of structural and regulatory proteins by the proteasome.
***
"In addition to providing a comprehensive data set, the investigators showed that defining changes in the ubiquitin-modified proteome can lead to the discovery of new regulators of lifespan and aging traits. They focused their follow-up analyses on two specific proteins that lacked ubiquitin labeling during aging. IFB-2, a protein important for cell structure, and EPS-8, a modulator of a signaling pathway that regulates a variety of cellular processes. These proteins, which are no longer adequately labeled in aged organisms, affect longevity in a variety of tissues. Increased protein levels of IFB-2, for example, cause the intestine to fail to digest properly or absorb nutrients and also make it more susceptible to bacterial infections, which is a characteristic of aging animals.
"'Remarkably, knockdown of IFB-2 in adult C. elegans was enough to restore normal gut function," Koyuncu says. Too much EPS-8 in cells over-activates a specific signaling pathway (RAC) in muscle and brain cells. The team discovered here that the RAC signaling pathway determines longevity, muscle integrity and motility."
Comment: Makes my survival view quite clear. Death is built in for all life, although longevity varies. Of course all organisms have protective measures. It seems to me very short life spans would not allow for adaptive mechanism to have a role and then perhaps reduce the chances for evolution designs to appear from God. He may need a specific time table.
Let's study ID
DAVID: Remember I have God in charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full functional whales.
dhw: I do indeed remember, and I remember that you have your God performing all these operations in anticipation of new problems – e.g. he changes legs to flippers before the pre-whale enters the water. So as I said above, he keeps popping in before they have any trouble breathing, copulating, giving birth and fighting new enemies. And he had to do all that before he could fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans plus lunch. And all these improvements (e.g. in ways of producing offspring and fighting enemies) apparently had nothing to do with the survival of the species. So please remember the alternative: that all these changes took place because each of them was a RESPONSE to existing conditions and enabled successive pre-whales to survive more efficiently in their watery home.
DAVID: I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do.
You have no sense of when, and yet you know it’s before any changes are needed. You now have your God, who on alternate days is not human in any way, designing like humans, and you have him and all human designers needing a crystal ball to gaze into the future. In your own designing career, did your work only relate to unknown future events that had never happened before, or were your designs for current use to tackle existing problems?
Transferred from “Miscellany”:
DAVID: Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.`
dhw: Thank you for this excellent summary of the process I have been describing. […] At last you have cottoned on.
DAVID: Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.
Will you never realize that there is no design “in advance of existence”. As you so rightly explain, we learn, we retain the protections invented in the past, and we create new responses to every new invasion. We make our new answers “de novo” when the problem is there – not before it is there!
dhw: ...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. bbThis autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.
DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.
Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.
DAVID: Your approach is that old species can make new ones on their own. I view it as a weak theory since design must have extensive mental work.
Of course design requires mental work. That is the basis of Shapiro’s theory that cells are intelligent. And the theistic version of this theory would be that your God gave them their intelligence.
TOMATOES
DAVID: I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember?
dhw: And why do they have to eat/have energy, if the reason is not to survive? And when food is short, why do you think they look elsewhere, and develop new means of acquiring food, and why do you think their potential foods devise ways of defending themselves, if not to survive? Do you really think God says to himself: “I gotta change all these organisms ‘cos otherwise I shan’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch?”
DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.
You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Friday, July 30, 2021, 16:28 (1210 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do.
dhw: You have no sense of when, and yet you know it’s before any changes are needed. You now have your God, who on alternate days is not human in any way, designing like humans, and you have him and all human designers needing a crystal ball to gaze into the future. In your own designing career, did your work only relate to unknown future events that had never happened before, or were your designs for current use to tackle existing problems?
I designed with an understanding of current usages, but also of possible new adaptive uses. In our current house which exactly fits our current needs and desires the back hallway ends at a closet for Susan's study. A future owner (which must happen) can extend the hallway and add extra rooms easily, if he desires. To directly answer, both current needs and future possible needs were considered and provided for. God design and human design must use the same considerations. Until you understand the needs for a designer, ID will be Greek to you.
Transferred from “Miscellany”:DAVID: Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.
dhw: Will you never realize that there is no design “in advance of existence”. As you so rightly explain, we learn, we retain the protections invented in the past, and we create new responses to every new invasion. We make our new answers “de novo” when the problem is there – not before it is there!
But how to respond is already information in the genome of the anticipatory immune system.
dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.
dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.
You really get it!!!
TOMATOESDAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.
dhw: You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.
Same lame comment. A simple concept you refuse to accept. God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes. I might ask, assuming your theologian's hat is on, how does hour God produce humans?
Let's study ID
DAVID: I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do.
dhw: You have no sense of when, and yet you know it’s before any changes are needed. You now have your God, who on alternate days is not human in any way, designing like humans, and you have him and all human designers needing a crystal ball to gaze into the future. In your own designing career, did your work only relate to unknown future events that had never happened before, or were your designs for current use to tackle existing problems?
DAVID: I designed with an understanding of current usages, but also of possible new adaptive uses. In our current house which exactly fits our current needs and desires the back hallway ends at a closet for Susan's study. A future owner (which must happen) can extend the hallway and add extra rooms easily, if he desires. To directly answer, both current needs and future possible needs were considered and provided for. God design and human design must use the same considerations. Until you understand the needs for a designer, ID will be Greek to you.
You designed your house for current purposes, and for purposes that you knew already existed – a future owner might want to build additional rooms. Do you really think additional rooms are a step into the unknown, comparable, say, to pre-whales encountering and having to adapt to a new habitat they have never known before? Until you understand that changes to existing life forms occur as RESPONSES to new conditions (admirably illustrated by your account of how the immune system works) and not as anticipations of conditions not yet known or existing, your interpretation of ID will indeed be Greek to me.
Transferred from “Miscellany”:
DAVID: Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.
dhw: Will you never realize that there is no design “in advance of existence”. As you so rightly explain, we learn, we retain the protections invented in the past, and we create new responses to every new invasion. We make our new answers “de novo” when the problem is there – not before it is there!
DAVID: But how to respond is already information in the genome of the anticipatory immune system.
HOW to respond is the solution to each new problem! As you keep agreeing, we create NEW responses to every new invasion. What is already there is the ABILITY to create new responses.
dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.
DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.
dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.
DAVID: You really get it!!!
Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.
TOMATOES
DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.
dhw: You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: Same lame comment. A simple concept you refuse to accept. God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes.
And you continue to ignore the very heart of your theory, which is that humans plus their food were his one and only purpose, and yet according to you, in countless series of designed steps he “evolved” (= designed) millions of now extinct life forms, econiches (food supplies), strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. And you have no idea why. Please stop playing this dodging game.
DAVID: I might ask, assuming your theologian's hat is on, how does hour God produce humans?
Do you really want me to repeat all my alternative theistic theories (experimentation, learning as he goes along, new ideas, part of the great free-for-all – although he can dabble if he chooses). You have already acknowledged that all of them are logical, whereas you have no idea how to explain your own bolded theory above.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, July 31, 2021, 15:15 (1209 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I designed with an understanding of current usages, but also of possible new adaptive uses. In our current house which exactly fits our current needs and desires the back hallway ends at a closet for Susan's study. A future owner (which must happen) can extend the hallway and add extra rooms easily, if he desires. To directly answer, both current needs and future possible needs were considered and provided for. God design and human design must use the same considerations. Until you understand the needs for a designer, ID will be Greek to you.
dhw: You designed your house for current purposes, and for purposes that you knew already existed – a future owner might want to build additional rooms. Do you really think additional rooms are a step into the unknown, comparable, say, to pre-whales encountering and having to adapt to a new habitat they have never known before? Until you understand that changes to existing life forms occur as RESPONSES to new conditions (admirably illustrated by your account of how the immune system works) and not as anticipations of conditions not yet known or existing, your interpretation of ID will indeed be Greek to me.
You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory
Transferred from “Miscellany”:dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.
DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.
dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.
DAVID: You really get it!!!
dhw: Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.
No you don't with this response. At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?
TOMATOES
DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.dhw: You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: Same lame comment. A simple concept you refuse to accept. God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes.
dhw: And you continue to ignore the very heart of your theory, which is that humans plus their food were his one and only purpose, and yet according to you, in countless series of designed steps he “evolved” (= designed) millions of now extinct life forms, econiches (food supplies), strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. And you have no idea why. Please stop playing this dodging game.
Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint
Let's study ID
dhw: Until you understand that changes to existing life forms occur as RESPONSES to new conditions (admirably illustrated by your account of how the immune system works) and not as anticipations of conditions not yet known or existing, your interpretation of ID will indeed be Greek to me.
DAVID: You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory.
I “fully do not understand” why you have suddenly switched from your theory that your God provides all solutions before the problems occur to the subject of missing fossils and gradualism. First of all, back to your theory: I have coupled adaptations and innovations together, because it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between them. Our prime example has been whale legs changing to whale flippers (adaptation or innovation?). You insist that your God performed an operation on pre-whales BEFORE they entered the water, and that is your so-called “design theory” – that your God either preprogrammed every single adaptation/innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to perform operations or to give courses for every innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., ranging from whale flippers to the weaverbird’s nest (thank you for the latest "Kalahari" post referring to the latter). My design theory is that pre-whale legs turned into flippers AS A RESULT of the animals using their legs for different purposes, with the various cell communities RESPONDING to the new requirements. I extend these examples to the whole of evolution: it advances through new designs which cope with or exploit new conditions. Gould’s theory has nothing to do with how the flippers and nests are designed, but it explains why there are gaps – because there are long periods of stasis when nothing changes, and speciation only occurs when conditions change. I find this perfectly logical. The time scale of change, however, remains open: how sudden is sudden, how gradual is gradual?
The immune system
dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.
DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.
dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.
DAVID: You really get it!!!
dhw: Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.
DAVID: No you don't with this response. At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?
I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.
TOMATOES
DAVID: God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes.
dhw: And you continue to ignore the very heart of your theory, which is that BBBhumans plus their food were his one and only purpose, and yet according to you, in countless series of designed steps he “evolved” (= designed) millions of now extinct life forms, econiches (food supplies), strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. And you have no idea why. Please stop playing this dodging game.
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.
Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, August 01, 2021, 16:14 (1208 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory.
dhw:....My design theory is that pre-whale legs turned into flippers AS A RESULT of the animals using their legs for different purposes, with the various cell communities RESPONDING to the new requirements. I extend these examples to the whole of evolution: it advances through new designs which cope with or exploit new conditions. Gould’s theory has nothing to do with how the flippers and nests are designed, but it explains why there are gaps – because there are long periods of stasis when nothing changes, and speciation only occurs when conditions change. I find this perfectly logical. The time scale of change, however, remains open: how sudden is sudden, how gradual is gradual?
It is only theory that changes in conditions causes speciation. Again no proof. It is a weak branch of survival of the fittest empty theory. Gould did recognize huge gaps in gradualform changes in the fossil record, still most notably the Cambrian and the appearance of blooming plants is also totally unexplained by fossils. I'll stick with teh need for a designing ind running the show
The immune systemdhw: Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.
DAVID: No you don't with this response. At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?
dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.
That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.
TOMATOESDAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.
dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.
Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?
Let's study ID
DAVID: You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory.
dhw:....My design theory is that pre-whale legs turned into flippers AS A RESULT of the animals using their legs for different purposes, with the various cell communities RESPONDING to the new requirements. I extend these examples to the whole of evolution: it advances through new designs which cope with or exploit new conditions. Gould’s theory has nothing to do with how the flippers and nests are designed, but it explains why there are gaps – because there are long periods of stasis when nothing changes, and speciation only occurs when conditions change. I find this perfectly logical. The time scale of change, however, remains open: how sudden is sudden, how gradual is gradual?
DAVID: It is only theory that changes in conditions causes speciation. Again no proof.
That applies to every theory, including yours, because nobody knows the truth.
DAVID: It is a weak branch of survival of the fittest empty theory. Gould did recognize huge gaps in gradualform changes in the fossil record, still most notably the Cambrian and the appearance of blooming plants is also totally unexplained by fossils. I'll stick with teh need for a designing mind running the show.
It is only theory that a designing mind runs the show. Again no proof. It is a weak branch of the God runs everything empty theory. (But NB, the theory that speciation is caused by organisms responding to changing conditions does not exclude the theory that God exists and engineered the whole process.)
The immune system
dhw: The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.
DAVID: […] At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?
dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.
DAVID: That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.
It “fits” major modifications theoretically, since each stage in the whale series improves the whale’s chances of survival by creating a more efficient way to cope with the requirements of life in the water. Your version raises the question of why your all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t perform all the operations straight away, since he knew they would one day be necessary. Your theoretical answer?
TOMATOES
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.
dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.
DAVID: Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?
There you go again, ignoring both my answer (first bold) and the anomaly that makes your theory totally illogical (second bold).
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, August 02, 2021, 16:02 (1207 days ago) @ dhw
The immune system
dhw: The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.DAVID: […] At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?
dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.
DAVID: That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.
dhw: It “fits” major modifications theoretically, since each stage in the whale series improves the whale’s chances of survival by creating a more efficient way to cope with the requirements of life in the water. Your version raises the question of why your all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t perform all the operations straight away, since he knew they would one day be necessary. Your theoretical answer?
God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.
TOMATOES
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.
DAVID: Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?
dhw: There you go again, ignoring both my answer (first bold) and the anomaly that makes your theory totally illogical (second bold).
You constantly ignore the error in your illogical complaint. If 'all He wanted was humans', your complaint, that infers He should have directly done just that. But that is not history You are inferring a tunnel-visioned God, who could see nothing but humans. You imagine weird Gods constantly. Thinking of God as having a goal of humans after periods of time is quite reasonable. And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply. Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population. Do you see your tunnel vision of God?
Let's study ID: retinal design allows prediction of movement
by David Turell , Monday, August 02, 2021, 19:50 (1207 days ago) @ David Turell
How the study shows this:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-retina-hardwired-path.html
"Neural circuits in the primate retina can generate the information needed to predict the path of a moving object before visual signals even leave the eye, UW Medicine researchers demonstrate in a new paper.
"'The ability to predict where moving objects will go is so important for survival that it's likely hardwired into all sighted animals," said Michael Manookin, an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He led the research team with Fred Rieke, professor of physiology and biophysics.
***
"To evaluate how effectively the cells were transmitting predictive information, the researchers compared the performance of the ganglion cells to computer programs created to solve such problems. They found that the ganglion cells were nearly as effective at transmitting this predictive information as the best performing computer programs.
"'That the retina, with such simple hardware, is doing these calculations so efficiently is just remarkable," Manookin said.
***
"The researchers found that the circuits can extract this information because of crosstalk between the bipolar cells. Bipolar cells are in close contact with adjacent bipolar cells. If one becomes excited by signals from its photoreceptor cells, in addition to sending a signal to the ganglion cell, it also passes some of that excitement along to its neighboring bipolar cells.
"The neighboring cells are then "primed" so that, if they also receive signals from their photoreceptor cells, they are more likely to send a strong signal to the ganglion cell. In this way, as a moving object passes over the visual field, the information about that movement "ripples" through the network of bipolar cells.
"The ganglion cell ultimately collects the incoming information from the bipolar cells and encodes it in signals that provides the brain with information about the motion of the object. With information from many thousands of these ganglion cells about the path of the object, the brain can then quickly predict its trajectory.
"'A 90 or 100 mile per hour fastball can travel more than seven feet before the signals gets out of your retina," Manookin said. "To hit the baseball, you have to be able to predict where it will be in the future. This ability to predict the movement of objects in our environment is also needed in everyday activities like driving a car or even walking. It's an ability so important to survival that evolution has hardwired it into our nervous system.'"
Comment: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process.
Let's study ID
The immune system
dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.
DAVID: That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.
dhw: It “fits” major modifications theoretically, since each stage in the whale series improves the whale’s chances of survival by creating a more efficient way to cope with the requirements of life in the water. Your version raises the question of why your all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t perform all the operations straight away, since he knew they would one day be necessary. Your theoretical answer?
DAVID: God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.
We agree that the history is that all living things developed in stages. It is your theory that your God chose to design each and every stage individually (although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food). I asked WHY you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God chose this method, rather than design each species straight away, but you can’t give me a reason. You just expect me to accept your theory as a fact, and I have offered a number of alternative theistic explanations, all of which you accept as logical but reject because they offer a different view of God from your own.
TOMATOES
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.
dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.
DAVID: Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?
dhw: There you go again, ignoring both my answer (first bold) and the anomaly that makes your theory totally illogical (second bold).
DAVID: You constantly ignore the error in your illogical complaint. If 'all He wanted was humans', your complaint, that infers He should have directly done just that. But that is not history.
No, it’s not history, and that is why I ask you to provide a logical reason why he chose not to fulfil directly what you believe to have been his one and only reason for creating life.
DAVID: You are inferring a tunnel-visioned God, who could see nothing but humans.
But that is your tunnel vision. It is you who insist that his one and only purpose was humans plus their food! I have proposed different reasons for the vast bush of life, all of which you accept as being logical.
DAVID: You imagine weird Gods constantly. Thinking of God as having a goal of humans after periods of time is quite reasonable.
Thank you. That is one of my various explanations: that God learned from his experiences, and “after periods of time” had new ideas as he went along. What is weird about that?
DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.
Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.
DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.
What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?
DAVID: Do you see your tunnel vision of God?
No. I have offered several visions of your God and of evolution, all of which you agree fit in logically with the history. Only your tunnel vision (your all-powerful God’s only goal was humans plus food, and therefore he designed lots of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their food) remains inexplicable.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 03, 2021, 17:32 (1206 days ago) @ dhw
The immune system
DAVID: God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.
We agree that the history is that all living things developed in stages. It is your theory that your God chose to design each and every stage individually (although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food). I asked WHY you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God chose this method, rather than design each species straight away, but you can’t give me a reason.
The bold is yo0ur totally illogical thought. History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.
TOMATOESDAVID: You constantly ignore the error in your illogical complaint. If 'all He wanted was humans', your complaint, that infers He should have directly done just that. But that is not history.
dhw: No, it’s not history, and that is why I ask you to provide a logical reason why he chose not to fulfil directly what you believe to have been his one and only reason for creating life.
History shows us that every aspect of our reality evolved from a start. Therefore God prefers to evolve His goals. I can't explain His preference, can you?
DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.dhw: Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.
You are still denying we evolved, so that is what God did.
DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.dhw: What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?
Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.
DAVID: Do you see your tunnel vision of God?dhw: No. I have offered several visions of your God and of evolution, all of which you agree fit in logically with the history. Only your tunnel vision (your all-powerful God’s only goal was humans plus food, and therefore he designed lots of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their food) remains inexplicable.
Inexplicable to only you. God used stepwise evolution as a method, obviously.
Let's study ID
This post is a glaring example of how to dodge the subject. Each exchange is a variation on the same dodge.
DAVID: God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.
dhw:We agree that the history is that all living things developed in stages. It is your theory that your God chose to design each and every stage individually (although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food). I asked WHY you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God chose this method, rather than design each species straight away, but you can’t give me a reason.
DAVID: The bold is your totally illogical thought. History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.
I am not questioning evolution! I am questioning your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose!
DAVID: History shows us that every aspect of our reality evolved from a start. Therefore God prefers to evolve His goals. I can't explain His preference, can you?
There can be no doubt that if God exists, he chose evolution to achieve his goals, and I am not questioning his preference. I am questioning your interpretation of his goal (according to you, he only had one, which was humans and their food supply) and his method of achieving that goal (to individually design vast numbers of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and their food supply). I have offered you several alternative explanations of why and how God used evolution to achieve his goal(s), you have agreed that they are all logical, you cannot explain the combination of goal and method that you believe in, and so you continue to dodge.
DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.
dhw: Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.
DAVID: You are still denying we evolved, so that is what God did.
Of course I’m not denying that we evolved!
DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.
dhw: What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?
DAVID: Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.
How can every single extinct life branch have led to our current food supply? Why do you constantly ignore your own observations? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.
If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food) and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 04, 2021, 16:27 (1205 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The bold is your totally illogical thought. History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.
dhw: I am not questioning evolution! I am questioning your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose!
How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal..
DAVID: History shows us that every aspect of our reality evolved from a start. Therefore God prefers to evolve His goals. I can't explain His preference, can you?dhw: There can be no doubt that if God exists, he chose evolution to achieve his goals, and I am not questioning his preference. I am questioning your interpretation of his goal (according to you, he only had one, which was humans and their food supply) and his method of achieving that goal (to individually design vast numbers of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and their food supply). I have offered you several alternative explanations of why and how God used evolution to achieve his goal(s), you have agreed that they are all logical, you cannot explain the combination of goal and method that you believe in, and so you continue to dodge.
I don't see a difference between us except your strange ideas in the red parentheses which describes evolutionary history. I fully believe humans are so different and exceptional we are God's goal. Adler's point.
DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.dhw: Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.
DAVID: You are still denying we evolved, so that is what God did.
dhw: Of course I’m not denying that we evolved!
DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.
dhw: What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?
DAVID: Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.
dhw: How can every single extinct life branch have led to our current food supply? Why do you constantly ignore your own observations? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
It is amazing how much you distort those logical points about timing of evolutionary events, which is exactly what those comments state. You know evolution is a continuum, or not?.
Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.dhw: If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food) and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.
If you accept the exceptionality of humans, which philosophically makes us the goal, it is all logical.
Let's study ID
DAVID: History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.
dhw: I am not questioning evolution! I am questioning your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose!
DAVID: How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal.
If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, why did he specially design vast numbers of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food? THAT is the question you cannot answer and therefore keep dodging, and you have rejected all my alternative theistic interpretations of God’s possible purpose and method (all of which are based on our joint belief that evolution happened) on the grounds that my “humanizing” views of a possible God are different from your own “humanizing” views of your God.
DAVID: I don't see a difference between us except your strange ideas in the red parentheses which describes evolutionary history. I fully believe humans are so different and exceptional we are God's goal. Adler's point.
The red parenthesis is your claim that your God designed all the individual life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only goal. Their existence is evolutionary history. It is not evolutionary history that your all-powerful God designed them all individually, and it makes no sense to say that he designed them all individually although the only life forms and foods that he wanted to design were us humans and our foods.
DAVID: Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.
dhw: How can every single extinct life branch have led to our current food supply? Why do you constantly ignore your own observations? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
DAVID: It is amazing how much you distort those logical points about timing of evolutionary events, which is exactly what those comments state. You know evolution is a continuum, or not?
Dealt with over and over again. Evolution is a continuum in so far as all life forms except the first are descended from earlier life forms. It is NOT a single continuum from the first life forms to humans and their food. There were vast numbers of branches that did NOT lead to humans and their foods. As you so rightly say, the foods of the past were for past forms, not for humans, and extinct life has no role in current time. The only distortion here is your attempt to gloss over the great gap between your interpretation of your God’s purpose (humans plus food) and your interpretation of evolution’s history: namely, that all life forms and foods were ”part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”, although the vast majority had no connection with humans.
Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.
dhw: If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.
DAVID: If you accept the exceptionality of humans, which philosophically makes us the goal, it is all logical.
How on earth do you come to the “philosophical”, “logical” conclusion that our exceptional brains mean that your all-powerful God specially designed all forms of life and food in order to design us, although the vast majority of them had no connection with us?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, August 05, 2021, 22:13 (1204 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal.
dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, why did he specially design vast numbers of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food? THAT is the question you cannot answer and therefore keep dodging,
I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.
Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.dhw: If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.
DAVID: If you accept the exceptionality of humans, which philosophically makes us the goal, it is all logical.
dhw: How on earth do you come to the “philosophical”, “logical” conclusion that our exceptional brains mean that your all-powerful God specially designed all forms of life and food in order to design us, although the vast majority of them had no connection with us?
As above, your brain is refusing to accept our logic derived from recognizing how very special we are compared to everything else alive or dead. Bed on Darwin-think evolution we don't belong here. We had to be specially designed.
Let's study ID
DAVID: How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal.
dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, why did he specially design vast numbers of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food? THAT is the question you cannot answer and therefore keep dodging.
DAVID: I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.
You simply WILL not face up to "my" problem. First of all, you do not say that humans are “a main goal or purpose”. You consistently tell us that humans are THE goal, as in your statement that all life forms were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. Secondly, yet again, you persist in leaving out your belief that your God individually designed every life form and food supply that ever existed, and so “my problem” is why would he specially design all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food supply? You have said that you have no idea why, and it’s not surprising, because it is totally illogical. And so now you pretend that the only issue is whether God’s sole purpose (which keeps changing to “a” purpose) was to design humans, and you leave out the part of your theory that does not fit in with this sole purpose.
You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.
You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Friday, August 06, 2021, 20:40 (1203 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.
dhw: You simply WILL not face up to "my" problem. First of all, you do not say that humans are “a main goal or purpose”. You consistently tell us that humans are THE goal, as in your statement that all life forms were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. Secondly, yet again, you persist in leaving out your belief that your God individually designed every life form and food supply that ever existed, and so “my problem” is why would he specially design all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food supply?
I've faced your problem and find your reasoning totally confused. Let's try once again. God, in charge of creating our reality wished to have humans exist. He chose to evolve them by designing many increasingly complex stages from Archaea to humans. That is a completely satisfactory answer to your bolded question. God is allowed, as you have admitted previously, to chose any method He wishes to create us. That theory is exactly what history tells us.
dhw: You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.
I fully reject your vision of the God you imagine.
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.dhw: You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.
You are still totally muddled about God's use of an evolutionary process to finally form humans by His design. Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.
Let's study ID
DAVID: I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.
dhw: You simply WILL not face up to "my" problem. First of all, you do not say that humans are “a main goal or purpose”. You consistently tell us that humans are THE goal, as in your statement that all life forms were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. Secondly, yet again, you persist in leaving out your belief that your God individually designed every life form and food supply that ever existed, and so “my problem” is why would he specially design all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food supply?
DAVID: I've faced your problem and find your reasoning totally confused. Let's try once again. God, in charge of creating our reality wished to have humans exist. He chose to evolve them by designing many increasingly complex stages from Archaea to humans. That is a completely satisfactory answer to your bolded question. God is allowed, as you have admitted previously, to chose any method He wishes to create us. That theory is exactly what history tells us.
This is getting beyond a joke. According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.
dhw: You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.
DAVID: I fully reject your vision of the God you imagine.
There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.
You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and
Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.
DAVID: You are still totally muddled about God's use of an evolutionary process to finally form humans by His design.
The muddle is entirely yours, since your version of God uses an evolutionary process to design countless extinct life forms and foods that have no connection with the only life forms and foods he wants to design.
DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.
The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting. This whole discussion can end if you simply repeat what you have told us in earlier posts: you have no idea why your God would choose the method you believe in (specially designing every single life form plus food) in order to fulfil the one and only goal you believe in (to specially design one life form plus food).
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, August 07, 2021, 16:32 (1202 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I've faced your problem and find your reasoning totally confused. Let's try once again. God, in charge of creating our reality wished to have humans exist. He chose to evolve them by designing many increasingly complex stages from Archaea to humans. That is a completely satisfactory answer to your bolded question. God is allowed, as you have admitted previously, to chose any method He wishes to create us. That theory is exactly what history tells us.
dhw: This is getting beyond a joke. According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.
I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.
dhw: You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.DAVID: I fully reject your vision of the God you imagine.
dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.
Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.>
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.dhw: You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and
Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.
It is your illogical absurdity. God chose to evolve everything He wished to create. A simple concept which explains every question, just as your humanized God fits reality or different reasons.
DAVID: You are still totally muddled about God's use of an evolutionary process to finally form humans by His design.dhw: The muddle is entirely yours, since your version of God uses an evolutionary process to design countless extinct life forms and foods that have no connection with the only life forms and foods he wants to design.
One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.
DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting. This whole discussion can end if you simply repeat what you have told us in earlier posts: you have no idea why your God would choose the method you believe in (specially designing every single life form plus food) in order to fulfil the one and only goal you believe in (to specially design one life form plus food).
I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.
Let's study ID
dhw: According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.
DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.
We both believe that all life evolved from its earliest forms. Since you believe in God, then obviously you believe that God chose evolution as his method of producing all that exists. But you also believe that his one and only purpose was to create humans and their food, and you also believe that he specially designed every single life form that ever existed. And you are twisted all out of shape because you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.
dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.
DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.
Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.
dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.
DAVID: It is your illogical absurdity. God chose to evolve everything He wished to create. A simple concept which explains every question, just as your humanized God fits reality or different reasons.
Once again you have left out the logical absurdity of your combined theories: your God only wanted to evolve (= design) humans and their food, and therefore he evolved (= designed) countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.
Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.
DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.
dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.
DAVID: I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.
Not quite. You have no idea why your God would have made the methodology choices you insist he made (individual design of every life form) in order to fulfil what you insist was his one and only purpose (humans and their food). You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, August 08, 2021, 15:21 (1201 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.
dhw: We both believe that all life evolved from its earliest forms. Since you believe in God, then obviously you believe that God chose evolution as his method of producing all that exists. But you also believe that his one and only purpose was to create humans and their food, and you also believe that he specially designed every single life form that ever existed. And you are twisted all out of shape because you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.
You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.
dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.
dhw: Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.
When have you ever explained your God? You don't.
Haldane’s dilemmaDAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.
dhw: Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.
One stage led to the next.
DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.
DAVID: I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.
dhw: Not quite. You have no idea why your God would have made the methodology choices you insist he made (individual design of every life form) in order to fulfil what you insist was his one and only purpose (humans and their food). You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.
We don't know which theory is correct, but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.
Let's study ID
dhw: …you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.
DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.
You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.
DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.
dhw: Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.
DAVID: When have you ever explained your God? You don't.
What do you mean by “explaining” God? I have offered you logical theistic explanations of evolution that present God as having different purposes/methods from those you believe in.
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.
dhw: Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.
DAVID: One stage led to the next.
Yes, on all branches of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so it is absurd to argue that all stages of all life forms were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food. Please stop dodging.
DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.
dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.
dhw: […] You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.
DAVID: We don't know which theory is correct……
Then please stop pretending that your theory is the only possible truth.
DAVID:…but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.
All my theories present God as purposeful, and I have no idea why you sarcastically dismiss as “bumbling” a God who wants and deliberately creates a free-for-all, or a God who experiments, or who – like any creative artist – gets new ideas as he goes along. Please stick to the fact that you do not know which theory is correct, stop pretending that your own theory is the only truth, and stop imposing your preconceptions on my alternatives. Then we can end this discussion.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, August 09, 2021, 14:52 (1200 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.
dhw: You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.
You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants
Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.dhw: Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.
DAVID: One stage led to the next.
Yes, on all branches of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so it is absurd to argue that all stages of all life forms were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food. Please stop dodging.
DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.
dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.
dhw: […] You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.
DAVID: We don't know which theory is correct……
dhw: Then please stop pretending that your theory is the only possible truth.
DAVID:…but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.
dhw: All my theories present God as purposeful, and I have no idea why you sarcastically dismiss as “bumbling” a God who wants and deliberately creates a free-for-all, or a God who experiments, or who – like any creative artist – gets new ideas as he goes along. Please stick to the fact that you do not know which theory is correct, stop pretending that your own theory is the only truth, and stop imposing your preconceptions on my alternatives. Then we can end this discussion.
I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of courses we won't agree and can stop this discussion.
Let's study ID; leaving atheism
by David Turell , Monday, August 09, 2021, 23:54 (1200 days ago) @ David Turell
Egnor did:
Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
“My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”
Let's study ID; leaving atheism
by David Turell , Friday, September 24, 2021, 18:59 (1154 days ago) @ David Turell
Another person:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/atheists-need-faith-christianity-science-reason-physics-ma...
"Atheism’s central conceit is that it is a worldview grounded in logic and scientific evidence. That it has nothing to do with faith, which it associates with weakness. In reality, faith is central to atheism, logic and even science.
***
"...I set off to explore alternatives—beginning with Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism. This turned into a decades-long intellectual-spiritual journey. Ultimately I became a Christian, but along the way I discovered fascinating differences and similarities among humanity’s many religions and philosophies. I learned that all views of the world differ in three essential ways.
"First, foundation. All worldviews are built on core beliefs that cannot be proved. Axioms from which everything else about a person’s perception of reality is derived. They must be accepted on faith.
"Even reason itself—the vaunted foundation of atheism—depends on faith. Every logical argument begins with premises that are assumed to be true. Euclid’s geometry, the epitome of logical reasoning, is based on no fewer than 33 axiomatic, unprovable articles of faith.
"Second, size. Every worldview—that is, every person’s bubble of reality—has a certain diameter. That of atheism is relatively small, because it encompasses only physical reality. It has no room for other realities. Even humanity’s unique spirituality and creativity—all our emotions, including love—are reduced to mere chemistry.
"Third, deity. Without exception, every worldview is ruled over by a god or gods. It’s the who or what that occupies its center stage. Everything in a person’s life revolves around this.
***
"When I learned that 95% of the cosmos is invisible, consisting of “dark matter” and “dark energy,” names for things we don’t understand, that core assumption became untenable. As a scientist, I had to believe in a universe I mostly could not see. My core axiom became “believing is seeing.” Because what we hold to be true dictates how we understand everything—ourselves, others and our mostly invisible universe, including its origin. Faith precedes knowledge, not the other way around.
***
"Atheists commonly believe that science will ultimately demystify everything. But science’s worldview is becoming more mystical, not less. Witness supernatural-like concepts such as virtual particles, imaginary time and quantum entanglement. Even atheist Sam Harris admits: “I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, ‘not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.’ But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as ‘atheists,’ tend to represent while advocating atheism.”
"The overwhelming evidence, I’ve discovered, makes it crystal clear: Faith is the foundation of the entire human experience—the basis of both science and religion. Our faith in physical reality drives us to seek treatments for deadly diseases like Covid-19, to explore the depths of the sea, to invent the perfect source of energy. Our faith in spiritual reality drives us to create breathtaking works of art, music, and architecture; to see life as a divine creation, not an accident of nature; to be curious about things that are not of this world.
"For all those reasons and more, I’ve come to learn that atheists are greatly mistaken: Faith is anything but a weakness. It is the mightiest power in the universe.
"Mr. Guillen is author of “Believing is Seeing: A Physicist Explains How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith,” just out from Tyndale Refresh."
Comment: So where does this place agnosticism? Faith in not knowing? How does he become a Christian , which requires faith in miracles? I am puzzled. I accept, as he does that science has found more puzzles in the reality of the universe than answers, but also amazing complexity in living biochemistry that he does not address. That is where I find God must exist.
Let's study ID; why atheism
by David Turell , Monday, May 02, 2022, 16:11 (934 days ago) @ David Turell
Viewed from the point only very unusual humans can think about God and have religions:
https://bigthink.com/the-well/atheism-rare-rational/
"You are a member of a very peculiar species. Of all our quirks, the human religious impulse may be our most distinctive one. We build skyscrapers? Big deal, bowerbirds construct ornate decorative nests and they have brains the size of almonds. We live in really big societies? Great, so do ants, whose brains are even tinier. We can do math problems? Wonderful, but so can slime molds, and they don’t even have brains!
***
"Most people who have ever lived believe in some sort of god; they are as certain of their gods as of their breath. But not a single organism outside our immediate evolutionary lineage has ever contemplated the existence of a god. Think about that for a moment: as far as we know, every single sentient being in the universe that has ever believed in a god is a member of our odd little species, and almost every member of our species has believed in a god. To scientists interested in evolution and human nature, religion is a puzzle that screams to be solved.
"On closer inspection, religion is not an evolutionary puzzle so much as two evolutionary puzzles. First is the puzzle of faith: the puzzle of how Homo sapiens — and Homo sapiens alone — came to be a religious species. Second, there is the puzzle of atheism: how disbelief in gods can exist within an otherwise religious species. If belief in god(s) is truly an evolved human universal, how is it that millions or maybe billions of people today don’t believe in any? How can a defining feature of our species (which religion most definitely is!) not be a defining feature of our entire species?
***
"Religion comes so intuitively and naturally, per this cognitive byproduct view, that atheism is a rare exception and must require cognitive effort to be sustained. In the words of Pascal Boyer, penned in a prominent summary:
“'Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.”
***
"There is little scientific reason to believe that rationality and science are key causal contributors to atheism in the aggregate. This makes it all the more ironic that public-facing atheists who speak so reverently of science tend to be the most vocal advocates of the faulty notion that rationality is a prime driver of atheism. They’ve got the science wrong.
***
"Religion is no less an evolutionary product than is a raptor or a ribosome, worthy of the same scientific awe. Through the processes of genetic evolution, we have been endowed with minds capable of imagining gods, and through the processes of cultural evolution, we have evolved intricate structures of beliefs and norms that have helped propel our species to greater and greater cooperative heights. The seemingly bizarre religious rituals that many deride as irrational may in fact be cultural evolutionary tricks that help create cooperative societies. (my bold)
"To me, this intricate cultural evolutionary play is infinitely more fascinating and fulfilling than the shallow, wholesale dismissal of religion offered by vocal public atheists. And to appreciate it, all you need to do is open yourself up to the possibility that over the millennia, religions may have survived and thrived in part because they served an evolutionary purpose. Of course, atheists need not subscribe to a given religious faith to appreciate it; one needn’t accept or praise something simply because it was useful in cultural evolution. But everyone — including atheists, which I am — can have a more mature, scientifically literate, and fulfilling relationship with religion if we are open to the possibility that it doesn’t poison everything."
Comment: so, the author, whose science research found no answers [not copied by me], thinks religion is a coercive scheme to control societies and atheism in an odd-ball outcome by some folks, who are no more rational than the rest of us. Agnosticism not considered. Why not?
Let's study ID
DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.
dhw: You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.
DAVID: You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants.
Your imagined version of God is an all-powerful being who has only one purpose: to design humans and their food. But he spends 3.X billion years designing life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food. This is illogical. When have I ever suggested that if God exists, he does NOT have a brilliant mind? Experimenting does not mean stupid or “bumbling” or not knowing what he wants. And maybe he wanted a free-for-all, which clearly explains ALL the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of non-human life forms, AND explains the mystery of theodicy – two problems which your imagined version of God cannot even begin to explain. As far as “other purposes” are concerned, my theories encompass your purpose of humans (experimentation), and the enjoyment of creation and watching his creations with interest, both of which you yourself have proposed; this means that he creates for the purpose of enjoyment, and for the purpose of having something interesting to watch, and this applies to ALL his creations, including humans, who would almost certainly be the most interesting of all to watch. (You don’t like to tell us his purpose for creating humans, except for the very human one of having them admire his work and forming a relationship with him).
DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.
Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.
Let's study ID; leaving atheism
DAVID: Egnor did:
QUOTE: Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
“My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”
I followed the same course - but turned from atheism to agnosticism – partly because of the sheer complexity of living things, and partly because of psychic experiences. But I’m afraid I find certain theistic arguments extremely hard to swallow, as you will have gathered from our own discussions and from my response to some of Egnor’s articles (e.g. on time).
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 15:26 (1199 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants.
dhw: Your imagined version of God is an all-powerful being who has only one purpose: to design humans and their food. But he spends 3.X billion years designing life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food. This is illogical. When have I ever suggested that if God exists, he does NOT have a brilliant mind? Experimenting does not mean stupid or “bumbling” or not knowing what he wants. And maybe he wanted a free-for-all, which clearly explains ALL the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of non-human life forms, AND explains the mystery of theodicy – two problems which your imagined version of God cannot even begin to explain. As far as “other purposes” are concerned, my theories encompass your purpose of humans (experimentation), and the enjoyment of creation and watching his creations with interest, both of which you yourself have proposed; this means that he creates for the purpose of enjoyment, and for the purpose of having something interesting to watch, and this applies to ALL his creations, including humans, who would almost certainly be the most interesting of all to watch. (You don’t like to tell us his purpose for creating humans, except for the very human one of having them admire his work and forming a relationship with him).
You have reviewed all your imagined humanizing forms of God. What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans. In my view God creates the history and does it His way for His reasons. I cannot debate them, but just accept them, a vast difference from your approach, in which God should follow your human logic.
DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.dhw: Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.
Same illogical questioning of God's history.
Let's study ID; leaving atheism
DAVID: Egnor did:QUOTE: Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
“My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”dhw: I followed the same course - but turned from atheism to agnosticism – partly because of the sheer complexity of living things, and partly because of psychic experiences. But I’m afraid I find certain theistic arguments extremely hard to swallow, as you will have gathered from our own discussions and from my response to some of Egnor’s articles (e.g. on time).
Notice taken.
Let's study ID
MY COMPUTER KEEPS BREAKING DOWN. I WILL TRY TO KEEP UP, BUT MY POSTS MAY BE SPORADIC UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS SORTED OUT.
DAVID: You have reviewed all your imagined humanizing forms of God.
No point in repeating them here, but it’s worth reminding you of your agreement that ALL of them provide a logical explanation for the course of evolution, unlike your own imagined humanizing form of God.
DAVID: What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans.
You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.
DAVID: In my view God creates the history and does it His way for His reasons. I cannot debate them, but just accept them, a vast difference from your approach, in which God should follow your human logic.
Of course if God exists he created the history and did it his way for his reasons. But what you “accept” is your own illogical theory of how and why he created the history we both accept. I have no idea why you think your human illogicality, as summarized above but continually distorted by you, must be the truth, whereas my human logicality (accepted by you) must be wrong.
DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.
dhw: Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.
DAVID: Same illogical questioning of God's history.
Same illogical assumption that your illogical view of God’s history is the only possible view.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, August 12, 2021, 18:11 (1197 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans.
dhw: You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.
What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful. My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.
DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.dhw: Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.
DAVID: Same illogical questioning of God's history.
dhw: Same illogical assumption that your illogical view of God’s history is the only possible view.
Your wild imagination continues. My belief is based upon the appearance of most unusual humans with consciousness, not by accident. We are unique, and you deny the most logical reason. We are here on purpose, by design..
Let's study ID
DAVID: What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans.
dhw: You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.
DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.
And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.
DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.
How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?
DAVID: Your wild imagination continues. My belief is based upon the appearance of most unusual humans with consciousness, not by accident. We are unique, and you deny the most logical reason. We are here on purpose, by design.
Yes, we are unusual, and I have no problem with your design theory. But you claim that every single life form was individually designed, and so every single life form must have been designed on purpose, but you insist that even all those life forms which had no connection with humans were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That doesn’t make sense, and you know it.
Denisovan DNA in Southeast Asia
DAVID: Found in Siberia and now everywhere in Asia. Hum an evolution is a large complex bush. To forestall dhw, I have no idea why God wanted so many forms before we conquered all.
And you have no idea why your God wanted (and specially designed) all the other life forms that had no connection with sapiens. If you have no idea, it means you cannot find any logical reason for what you believe to have been your God’s way of fulfilling what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Regardless of my alternatives, the fact that you cannot find any logic in your theory ought to alert you to the possibility that your theory might be wrong.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Friday, August 13, 2021, 17:39 (1196 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.
DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.
dhw: And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.
Your wandering God theories only fit a very humanized version of God. As usual, you have forgotten we all eat. Without the huge bush humans would be starving. Your narrow vision of facts is confusing you.
DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?
Once again you have created an image of very humanized God. I don't accept that image as reasonable. And as usual you want mean to explain God's choices. It is obvious from facts you well know that every aspect of our reality has appeared through a process of evolution. It is easy to see God prefers to evolve His projects. Look at His works
DAVID: Your wild imagination continues. My belief is based upon the appearance of most unusual humans with consciousness, not by accident. We are unique, and you deny the most logical reason. We are here on purpose, by design.dhw: Yes, we are unusual, and I have no problem with your design theory. But you claim that every single life form was individually designed, and so every single life form must have been designed on purpose, but you insist that even all those life forms which had no connection with humans were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That doesn’t make sense, and you know it.
With God in charge, knowing exactly what He wants, it all is logical. I'm sorry you are so confused about images of God that fit the evidence from His works.
Denisovan DNA in Southeast AsiaDAVID: Found in Siberia and now everywhere in Asia. Hum an evolution is a large complex bush. To forestall dhw, I have no idea why God wanted so many forms before we conquered all.
dhw: And you have no idea why your God wanted (and specially designed) all the other life forms that had no connection with sapiens. If you have no idea, it means you cannot find any logical reason for what you believe to have been your God’s way of fulfilling what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Regardless of my alternatives, the fact that you cannot find any logic in your theory ought to alert you to the possibility that your theory might be wrong.
I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.
Let's study ID
dhw: I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food.
DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.
dhw: And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.
DAVID: Your wandering God theories only fits a very humanized version of God. As usual, you have forgotten we all eat. Without the huge bush humans would be starving. Your narrow vision of facts is confusing you.
You are determined to flit from one discredited dodge to another rather than face up to the illogicality of the bolded theory. All our theories “humanize” God, and that fits in with your repeated acknowledgement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you are “sure we mimic Him in many ways.” The huge bush of past foods has no connection with the present huge bush of foods, as you have acknowledged repeatedly: “The current bush of foods is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “extinct life has no role in present time”. Please stop trotting out these silly, discredited irrelevancies, as if they somehow justify the illogicality of your theory bolded above.
DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.
dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?
DAVID: Once again you have created an image of very humanized God.
Who is different from your humanized God. Dealt with above and at least a hundred times before that.
DAVID: I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.
According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, August 14, 2021, 21:15 (1195 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?
DAVID: I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.
dhw: According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.
I've boiled down this aspect of our discussion to end it once and for all from my viewpoint. I view God as an all-powerful creator. I view all we know about our reality as a direct result of His intentions for creation. I view Him as fully purposeful and never meandering from His goals. I cannot know (but I can guess if I wished to do so) why He chose the methods He chose to reach His intended goals. But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it.
You can imagine all the dithering humanized Gods you wish to imagine, and I admit they fit the history of evolution in a general way generally from your God's standpoint. We see totally different Gods. As for your contrived boded query about past evolution, you are simply complaining about past real stages in earlier evolution. why you don't accept that view is really beyond my comprehension. Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage. My position is quite clear and firm. I don't accept your puzzling over different God's personalities, but go on puzzling all you want..
Let's study ID
dhw: According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.
DAVID: I've boiled down this aspect of our discussion to end it once and for all from my viewpoint. I view God as an all-powerful creator. I view all we know about our reality as a direct result of His intentions for creation. I view Him as fully purposeful and never meandering from His goals. I cannot know (but I can guess if I wished to do so) why He chose the methods He chose to reach His intended goals.
If God exists, this is exactly how I see him. But already you have introduced your first dodge. You do not say he has “goals”. You say he has one goal, which is to create humans and their food. This is what leads to the subsequent illogicality.
DAVID: But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it. (dhw' bold)
And so once more you gloss over the fact that ALL species are not just from bacteria to the latest species (humans). ALL species encompass the vast range of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. And so you are faced with the question: why, if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, did he specially design all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food?
DAVID: You can imagine all the dithering humanized Gods you wish to imagine, and I admit they fit the history of evolution in a general way generally from your God's standpoint.
There is no dithering. All my alternatives explain the bolded illogicality which you continually dodge.
DAVID: We see totally different Gods. As for your contrived bolded query about past evolution, you are simply complaining about past real stages in earlier evolution. why you don't accept that view is really beyond my comprehension.
I am not complaining about all the real life forms that have made up the ever changing bush of life! I am pointing out that they contradict your theory, and if the logical clash between these aspects of your theory is beyond your comprehension, then why don’t you accept that there may be something wrong with your theory?
DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.
It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.
DAVID: My position is quite clear and firm. I don't accept your puzzling over different God's personalities, but go on puzzling all you want.
Your position is firm, and what is clear from this post is that you remain determined to ignore the illogicality of your theory. Even if you disagree with my different explanations, that still doesn’t provide you with any defence of your own belief, which you cannot explain. I’m not sure what you mean by “puzzling” here. I offer different theistic interpretations of evolution, all of which explain what you cannot explain.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, August 15, 2021, 15:38 (1194 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I've boiled down this aspect of our discussion to end it once and for all from my viewpoint. I view God as an all-powerful creator. I view all we know about our reality as a direct result of His intentions for creation. I view Him as fully purposeful and never meandering from His goals. I cannot know (but I can guess if I wished to do so) why He chose the methods He chose to reach His intended goals.
dhw: If God exists, this is exactly how I see him. But already you have introduced your first dodge. You do not say he has “goals”. You say he has one goal, which is to create humans and their food. This is what leads to the subsequent illogicality.
DAVID: But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it. (dhw' bold)
dhw: And so once more you gloss over the fact that ALL species are not just from bacteria to the latest species (humans). ALL species encompass the vast range of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. And so you are faced with the question: why, if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, did he specially design all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food?
And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.
DAVID: We see totally different Gods. As for your contrived bolded query about past evolution, you are simply complaining about past real stages in earlier evolution. why you don't accept that view is really beyond my comprehension.dhw: I am not complaining about all the real life forms that have made up the ever changing bush of life! I am pointing out that they contradict your theory, and if the logical clash between these aspects of your theory is beyond your comprehension, then why don’t you accept that there may be something wrong with your theory?
As above, you create clashes that exist only in your mind.
DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.dhw: It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.
Back to your view of a tunnel-visioned God. Humans and the huge bush of food are an historical fact showing God's intentions.
DAVID: My position is quite clear and firm. I don't accept your puzzling over different God's personalities, but go on puzzling all you want.dhw: Your position is firm, and what is clear from this post is that you remain determined to ignore the illogicality of your theory. Even if you disagree with my different explanations, that still doesn’t provide you with any defence of your own belief, which you cannot explain. I’m not sure what you mean by “puzzling” here. I offer different theistic interpretations of evolution, all of which explain what you cannot explain.
By 'puzzling' I am referring to your various interpretations of what God is as a personage. I have fully explained my belief in the God I've described above and how I interpret the history He has created. You may say so, but you do not see the God I see.
Let's study ID
DAVID: But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it. (dhw' bold)
dhw: And so once more you gloss over the fact that ALL species are not just from bacteria to the latest species (humans). ALL species encompass the vast range of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. And so you are faced with the question: why, if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, did he specially design all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food?
DAVID: And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.
Of course if he exists, he can do anything he wants and his works reflect his intentions. My objection is to the fact that if his one and only intention was to create humans and their food, as you claim, it makes no sense that he should also have wanted to create countless branches of life forms that had no connection with humans! Either humans were NOT his one and only intention, or if they were, there has to be a reason for all the countless other forms that had no connection with humans. You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue. I offer you explanations for all the other forms, two of which even allow for humans being “very special and a desired goal” (experimentation, and God getting new ideas as he goes along), plus the theory that he wanted a free-for-all (but reserved the right to dabble). You accept that these theories solve the problem you cannot solve, and your only objection to all of them is that any such “humanized” view of God does not correspond to your own humanized view.
DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.
dhw: It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.
DAVID: Back to your view of a tunnel-visioned God. Humans and the huge bush of food are an historical fact showing God's intentions.
It is YOUR vision that is tunnelled: God has one purpose, and so he creates forms that are irrelevant to his one purpose. Humans and their food, and countless life forms and their foods are also historical facts, but you have no idea why he would have specially designed all of the latter if his one and only purpose was the former.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, August 16, 2021, 18:11 (1193 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.
dhw: Of course if he exists, he can do anything he wants and his works reflect his intentions. My objection is to the fact that if his one and only intention was to create humans and their food, as you claim, it makes no sense that he should also have wanted to create countless branches of life forms that had no connection with humans! Either humans were NOT his one and only intention, or if they were, there has to be a reason for all the countless other forms that had no connection with humans.
You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated. I view humans as His final goal in creation, giving them control of the Earth. But everything we see on Earth is obviously required and must be created before they arrive in dominance. You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes.
dhw: You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue.
There is no dodge in the statement above. Your objections are illogical inventions by distorting the view of God I have given over the years here. To briefly repeat, I see a very purposeful God who knows what He wants and creates it by evolving it.
DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.
dhw: It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.
DAVID: Back to your view of a tunnel-visioned God. Humans and the huge bush of food are an historical fact showing God's intentions.
dhw:It is YOUR vision that is tunnelled: God has one purpose, and so he creates forms that are irrelevant to his one purpose. Humans and their food, and countless life forms and their foods are also historical facts, but you have no idea why he would have specially designed all of the latter if his one and only purpose was the former.
Same repeated distortion. God has created what is absolutely required before humans appear.
Let's study ID
DAVID: And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.
dhw: Of course if he exists, he can do anything he wants and his works reflect his intentions. My objection is to the fact that if his one and only intention was to create humans and their food, as you claim, it makes no sense that he should also have wanted to create countless branches of life forms that had no connection with humans! Either humans were NOT his one and only intention, or if they were, there has to be a reason for all the countless other forms that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated.
Once again you use plural goals, whereas your theory has always been that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. For those who believe in God and who also believe in the theory of evolution, of course his works show that he used evolution for his goals. How does that come to mean that his one and only goal was humans and their food, when the vast majority of his “works” (you say he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder) had no connection with humans?
DAVID: I view humans as His final goal in creation, giving them control of the Earth. But everything we see on Earth is obviously required and must be created before they arrive in dominance.
And later:
God has created what is absolutely required before humans appear.
Please explain why your God absolutely had to create all the extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with humans before he could create humans and their foods, which were his one and only purpose.
DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)
Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.
dhw: You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue.
DAVID: There is no dodge in the statement above. Your objections are illogical inventions by distorting the view of God I have given over the years here. To briefly repeat, I see a very purposeful God who knows what He wants and creates it by evolving it.
If God exists, then that is precisely the God I would see. All of my alternative theories have him knowing what he wants and creating it by means of evolution, and all of them explain what you cannot explain: namely, the past existence of countless life forms that had no connection with humans.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 14:51 (1192 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated.
dhw: Once again you use plural goals, whereas your theory has always been that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. For those who believe in God and who also believe in the theory of evolution, of course his works show that he used evolution for his goals. How does that come to mean that his one and only goal was humans and their food, when the vast majority of his “works” (you say he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder) had no connection with humans?
Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.
DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)
dhw: Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.
All connected in the concept of a continuous evolution from simple to complex.
dhw: You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue.DAVID: There is no dodge in the statement above. Your objections are illogical inventions by distorting the view of God I have given over the years here. To briefly repeat, I see a very purposeful God who knows what He wants and creates it by evolving it.
dhw: If God exists, then that is precisely the God I would see. All of my alternative theories have him knowing what he wants and creating it by means of evolution, and all of them explain what you cannot explain: namely, the past existence of countless life forms that had no connection with humans.
You distort the concept of evolving to create your totally illogical criticism.
Let's study ID
DAVID: You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated.
dhw: Once again you use plural goals, whereas your theory has always been that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. For those who believe in God and who also believe in the theory of evolution, of course his works show that he used evolution for his goals. How does that come to mean that his one and only goal was humans and their food, when the vast majority of his “works” (you say he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder) had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.
I'm not sure how my unanswered questions concerning the logic of your tunnel view can become my tunnel view! “All is connected” by the fact that all life forms descended from the first. But all life forms are not connected with one another, because life branched out into countless different forms, the vast majority of which, by your own admission, had no connection with humans and their food. It is therefore illogical to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” and their food. You have continued to dodge this issue for what seems like years.
DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)
dhw: Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.
DAVID: All connected in the concept of a continuous evolution from simple to complex.
But not “all connected” with your God’s one and only goal of specially designing humans and their food.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 18:05 (1191 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.
dhw: I'm not sure how my unanswered questions concerning the logic of your tunnel view can become my tunnel view! “All is connected” by the fact that all life forms descended from the first. But all life forms are not connected with one another, because life branched out into countless different forms, the vast majority of which, by your own admission, had no connection with humans and their food. It is therefore illogical to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” and their food. You have continued to dodge this issue for what seems like years
Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life. And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch. All life must have new energy so necessary food supply is present as God planned it. You just don't like God's planning for the huge present human population He saw coming. Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments
DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)dhw: Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.
DAVID: All connected in the concept of a continuous evolution from simple to complex.
dhw: But not “all connected” with your God’s one and only goal of specially designing humans and their food.
My God knows what He is doing and His plan is obvious to me.
Let's study ID
DAVID: Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.
dhw: I'm not sure how my unanswered questions concerning the logic of your tunnel view can become my tunnel view! “All is connected” by the fact that all life forms descended from the first. But all life forms are not connected with one another, because life branched out into countless different forms, the vast majority of which, by your own admission, had no connection with humans and their food. It is therefore illogical to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” and their food. You have continued to dodge this issue for what seems like years
DAVID: Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life.
Thank you for agreeing with my first bold.
DAVID: And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch.
Where do you get that from? Have you forgotten that the history of life comprises countless branches, most of which are extinct? Are you once more trying to twist language to show that every branch in life’s history provided food for humans? Please don’t even try.
DAVID: All life must have new energy so necessary food supply is present as God planned it. You just don't like God's planning for the huge present human population He saw coming.
How does planning food for all the life forms that had no connection with humans suddenly become planning food for humans? FOOD FOR THE PAST WAS FOR THE PAST, AND EXTINCT LIFE HAS NO ROLE IN CURRENT TIME. How often must I repeat your own statements? Please stop playing these silly games.
DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.
Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, August 19, 2021, 15:19 (1190 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life.
dhw: Thank you for agreeing with my first bold.
DAVID: And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch.
dhw: Where do you get that from? Have you forgotten that the history of life comprises countless branches, most of which are extinct? Are you once more trying to twist language to show that every branch in life’s history provided food for humans? Please don’t even try.
Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.
DAVID: All life must have new energy so necessary food supply is present as God planned it. You just don't like God's planning for the huge present human population He saw coming.dhw: How does planning food for all the life forms that had no connection with humans suddenly become planning food for humans? FOOD FOR THE PAST WAS FOR THE PAST, AND EXTINCT LIFE HAS NO ROLE IN CURRENT TIME. How often must I repeat your own statements? Please stop playing these silly games.
My statement is correct. From above: " We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms."
DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.dhw: Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.
You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.
Let's study ID
DAVID: Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life.
dhw: Thank you for agreeing with my first bold.
DAVID: And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch.
dhw: Where do you get that from? Have you forgotten that the history of life comprises countless branches, most of which are extinct? Are you once more trying to twist language to show that every branch in life’s history provided food for humans? Please don’t even try.
DAVID: Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.
It is YOU who keep trying to dodge the past! There is no dispute over the fact that current branches feed current forms. The dispute, which you continue to gloss over, concerns your claim that ALL forms of life and food, extant and extinct, were specially designed by your God in order to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans and their food, although the vast majority of past life forms and foods had no connection with humans and their food.
DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.
dhw: Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.
DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.
It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans? (I’m not going to forecast what evolution will come up with in the next few billion years.)
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Friday, August 20, 2021, 18:31 (1189 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.
dhw: It is YOU who keep trying to dodge the past! There is no dispute over the fact that current branches feed current forms. The dispute, which you continue to gloss over, concerns your claim that ALL forms of life and food, extant and extinct, were specially designed by your God in order to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans and their food, although the vast majority of past life forms and foods had no connection with humans and their food.
The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it..
DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.dhw: Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.
DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.
dhw: It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans? (I’m not going to forecast what evolution will come up with in the next few billion years.)
Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.
Let's study ID
DAVID: Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.
dhw: It is YOU who keep trying to dodge the past! There is no dispute over the fact that current branches feed current forms. The dispute, which you continue to gloss over, concerns your claim that ALL forms of life and food, extant and extinct, were specially designed by your God in order to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans and their food, although the vast majority of past life forms and foods had no connection with humans and their food.
DAVID: The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it.
What do you mean by “the past created the future”? According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to design (create) sapiens and his food, but he designed (created) countless life forms and foods in the past which had no connection with present sapiens and his food. Please stop this endless dodging.
DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.
dhw: It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.
More obfuscation. Since you now want to compare God’s pursuit of his goal(s) to our human pursuit (yippee for your “humanization”!), supposing I tell you that my one and only goal is to write a book about agnosticism and I then proceed to write twenty books about gardening, wouldn’t you find that “strange”? According to you, your God’s one and only goal was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food. Don’t you find that “strange”?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, August 21, 2021, 16:07 (1188 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it.
dhw: What do you mean by “the past created the future”? According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to design (create) sapiens and his food, but he designed (created) countless life forms and foods in the past which had no connection with present sapiens and his food. Please stop this endless dodging.
I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.
DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.dhw: It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.
dhw: More obfuscation. Since you now want to compare God’s pursuit of his goal(s) to our human pursuit (yippee for your “humanization”!), supposing I tell you that my one and only goal is to write a book about agnosticism and I then proceed to write twenty books about gardening, wouldn’t you find that “strange”? According to you, your God’s one and only goal was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food. Don’t you find that “strange”?
God has goals in that He knows what He wishes to produce. We are forced to make Him seem human because of the verbiage we are forced to employ in discussing Him. We in no sense ever try to humanize Him as you do.
Let's study ID
DAVID: The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it.
dhw: What do you mean by “the past created the future”? According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to design (create) sapiens and his food, but he designed (created) countless life forms and foods in the past which had no connection with present sapiens and his food. Please stop this endless dodging.
DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.
How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.
DAVID: Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.
dhw: More obfuscation. Since you now want to compare God’s pursuit of his goal(s) to our human pursuit (yippee for your “humanization”!), supposing I tell you that my one and only goal is to write a book about agnosticism and I then proceed to write twenty books about gardening, wouldn’t you find that “strange”? According to you, your God’s one and only goal was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food. Don’t you find that “strange”?
DAVID: God has goals in that He knows what He wishes to produce.
You say he only has one goal. But of course he knows what he wishes to produce. And according to you, he spends 3.X billion years producing what he does not wish to produce.
DAVID: We are forced to make Him seem human because of the verbiage we are forced to employ in discussing Him. We in no sense ever try to humanize Him as you do.
Your usual non-argument against the logic of my alternative theories. At various times you have him interested in and enjoying his creations, and you insist that he is all good, wants to be in total control, is all-knowing (and therefore never learns or experiments), and you try desperately to avoid the fact that you have stated categorically that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we mimic him in many ways. And in any case, neither your humanizing nor mine can explain why your all-powerful God would have fulfilled his one and only goal (creating humans plus food) by spending 3.X billion years not fulfilling his one and only goal (specially designing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans). Don't you ever get tired of dodging?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, August 22, 2021, 15:24 (1187 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.
dhw: How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.
Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise. Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history. It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria. Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion. From your humanized God viewpoint, you are blind to the obvious.
DAVID: God has goals in that He knows what He wishes to produce.dhw: You say he only has one goal. But of course he knows what he wishes to produce. And according to you, he spends 3.X billion years producing what he does not wish to produce.
You same God-blind humanizing reasoning.
DAVID: We are forced to make Him seem human because of the verbiage we are forced to employ in discussing Him. We in no sense ever try to humanize Him as you do.dhw: Your usual non-argument against the logic of my alternative theories. At various times you have him interested in and enjoying his creations, and you insist that he is all good, wants to be in total control, is all-knowing (and therefore never learns or experiments), and you try desperately to avoid the fact that you have stated categorically that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we mimic him in many ways. And in any case, neither your humanizing nor mine can explain why your all-powerful God would have fulfilled his one and only goal (creating humans plus food) by spending 3.X billion years not fulfilling his one and only goal (specially designing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans). Don't you ever get tired of dodging?
Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do? I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.
Let's study ID
DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.
dhw: How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.
DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.
Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.
DAVID: Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history.
No problem so far, assuming God exists.
DAVID: It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria.
But it is perfectly logical that if God designed every species, he wanted EVERY species to appear and did it starting with bacteria. What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!
DAVID: Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion.
No, this is the point which I have constantly made and which you constantly try to dodge. Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.
DAVID: Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?
When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)
DAVID: I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.
Your descriptions of him are preconceptions (always in control, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and your insistence that humans were his one and only purpose for creating life is inconsistent with your belief that he proceeded to create millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Your conclusions are therefore based on the ways YOU have him act, and you are then forced to tell us that God doesn’t reason as we humans do – apart from one dear friend of mine, who firmly believes that his view of God’s reasoning is incomprehensibly illogical but we must accept it.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, August 23, 2021, 15:20 (1186 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.
dhw: Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.
I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.
DAVID: Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history.dhw: No problem so far, assuming God exists.
DAVID: It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria.
dhw: But it is perfectly logical that if God designed every species, he wanted EVERY species to appear and did it starting with bacteria. What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!
You just left the logic above. Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.
DAVID: Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion.dhw: No, this is the point which I have constantly made and which you constantly try to dodge. Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.
Your discussion is using a human example and fails. Gardening has certainly nothing to do with agnosticism. I agree. That God chose to evolve us is fact if one believes in God as I do.
DAVID: Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?dhw: When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)
All I admit is I have no idea why He chose evolution as his means of all progress, but history tells us the universe evolved after the BB, the Earth evolved, and after life started it evolved. You remain confused as you deal with your very human form of God.
DAVID: I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.dhw: Your descriptions of him are preconceptions (always in control, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and your insistence that humans were his one and only purpose for creating life is inconsistent with your belief that he proceeded to create millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Your conclusions are therefore based on the ways YOU have him act, and you are then forced to tell us that God doesn’t reason as we humans do – apart from one dear friend of mine, who firmly believes that his view of God’s reasoning is incomprehensibly illogical but we must accept it.
Again we are back to having to review your very humanized concept of God. Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.
Let's study ID
DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.
dhw: Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.
DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.
And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).
dhw: What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!
DAVID: You just left the logic above. Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.
Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.
dhw: Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.
DAVID: Your discussion is using a human example and fails. Gardening has certainly nothing to do with agnosticism. I agree. That God chose to evolve us is fact if one believes in God as I do.
It was you who tried to draw comparisons between humans and God pursuing their goal, and so I gave you the analogy. You have agreed with it. And what you call a fact leaves out the “fact” that your God also chose to evolve (= specially design) countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans (= 20 books on gardening).
DAVID: […] When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?
dhw: When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)
DAVID: All I admit is I have no idea why He chose evolution as his means of all progress, but history tells us the universe evolved after the BB, the Earth evolved, and after life started it evolved. You remain confused as you deal with your very human form of God.
Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.
DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.
I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, August 29, 2021, 15:49 (1180 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.
dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).
Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary
dhw: What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!DAVID: You just left the logic above. Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.
dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.
Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.
DAVID: […] When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?dhw: When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)
DAVID: All I admit is I have no idea why He chose evolution as his means of all progress, but history tells us the universe evolved after the BB, the Earth evolved, and after life started it evolved. You remain confused as you deal with your very human form of God.
dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.
Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.
DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.
Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.
Let's study ID
DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.
dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).
DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary
The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?
DAVID: […] Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.
dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.
DAVID: Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.
How can I have misinterpreted your constantly repeated belief that humans and their food were your God’s goal in creating life? If humans and their food were his one and only goal, why do you think all the life forms and foods which you say he wanted to create “had to come before”, if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? You simply cannot face the fact that it is totally illogical to claim that your God only had one purpose but wanted to create life forms and food that had no connection with his one purpose. And you know it.
dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.
DAVID: Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.
For the sake of argument, I am accepting the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate the illogicality of your theistic interpretation of evolution. I have also offered alternative theistic explanations, which you agree are logical.
DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.
dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.
DAVID: Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.
Food supply for all the life forms that had no connection with your God’s one and only purpose! Hence the countless irrelevant characters and stories that would make sheer nonsense of the play in your analogy.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, August 30, 2021, 14:34 (1179 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.
dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).
DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary
dhw: The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?
The bold is your illogical thought that runs in circles. Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.
DAVID: […] Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.
DAVID: Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.
dhw: How can I have misinterpreted your constantly repeated belief that humans and their food were your God’s goal in creating life? If humans and their food were his one and only goal, why do you think all the life forms and foods which you say he wanted to create “had to come before”, if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? You simply cannot face the fact that it is totally illogical to claim that your God only had one purpose but wanted to create life forms and food that had no connection with his one purpose. And you know it.
Again denying God the privilege of evolving humans from bacteria. They were a final goal while making sure of a huge food supply. Please stick to your correct bolded interpretation un less you didn't really mean it.
dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.DAVID: Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.
dhw: For the sake of argument, I am accepting the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate the illogicality of your theistic interpretation of evolution. I have also offered alternative theistic explanations, which you agree are logical.
Same distortion. Your theistic explanations only fit an extremely humanized God.
DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.
DAVID: Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.
dhw: Food supply for all the life forms that had no connection with your God’s one and only purpose! Hence the countless irrelevant characters and stories that would make sheer nonsense of the play in your analogy.
Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.
Let's study ID
DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wished to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.
dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).
DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary
dhw: The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?
DAVID: The bold is your illogical thought that runs in circles. Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.
But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!
DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.
dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.
DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.
The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. How can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply? That’s four dodges (three of them “food”) in one post!
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 16:17 (1178 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The bold is your illogical thought that runs in circles. Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.
dhw: But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!
No dodge. God in charge evolved humans from bacteria. I don't know why you have accepted that premise in the past and then become so confused when I state I think humans were God's intended final endpoint of His management of the process of evolution.
DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.
DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.
dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. How can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply? That’s four dodges (three of them “food”) in one post!
You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.
Let's study ID
DAVID: [...] Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.
dhw: But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!
DAVID: No dodge. God in charge evolved humans from bacteria. I don't know why you have accepted that premise in the past and then become so confused when I state I think humans were God's intended final endpoint of His management of the process of evolution.
There is no confusion on my part. According to you, God in charge evolved humans and every other life form, natural wonder, econiche, lifestyle etc. from bacteria. But by “evolve” you mean specially design. And so it makes no sense to claim, as you do, that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve humans and their food, if he also specially designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. In your attempt to sow confusion, you then pretend that all the past life forms etc. were part of the necessary food supply for current humans, as below:
DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.
dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.
DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.
dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. Once again: how can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply?
DAVID: You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.
Your final dodge is to ignore the question.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 20:20 (1177 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: [...] Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.
dhw: But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!
DAVID: No dodge. God in charge evolved humans from bacteria. I don't know why you have accepted that premise in the past and then become so confused when I state I think humans were God's intended final endpoint of His management of the process of evolution.
dhw: There is no confusion on my part. According to you, God in charge evolved humans and every other life form, natural wonder, econiche, lifestyle etc. from bacteria. But by “evolve” you mean specially design. And so it makes no sense to claim, as you do, that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve humans and their food, if he also specially designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. In your attempt to sow confusion, you then pretend that all the past life forms etc. were part of the necessary food supply for current humans, as below:
DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.
dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.
DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.
dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. Once again: how can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply?
DAVID: You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.
dhw: Your final dodge is to ignore the question.
You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent. Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now. It is all connected through God's actions/ designs. This is no dodge. You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.
Let's study ID
dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.
DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.
dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. Once again: how can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply?
DAVID: You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.
dhw: Your final dodge is to ignore the question.
DAVID: You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent.
So far, so good.
DAVID: Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now.
In your theory, each huge bush was necessary for the countless OTHER past life forms which he designed while designing the one line from bacteria to humans, and the question which you continue to ignore (because you know you can’t answer it) is: why did he specially design all the OTHER past life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans if humans were his one and only purpose?
DAVID: It is all connected through God's actions/ designs. This is no dodge.
Of course it’s a dodge! The only connection you are offering is that God designed them all! You cannot answer the bolded question above, and so you go on dodging it.
DAVID: You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.
(Made humans plus their food.) If your theory is correct, then of course he should! And according to the Bible that’s what he did. But – assuming he even exists – evolution shows that he didn’t, and that’s why Darwin’s theory caused such an uproar and why you have to keep dodging the bolded question above. You can’t find an answer, which clearly suggests that there is something wrong with your theory. Maybe he DIDN’T design all the other life forms. Or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design humans.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, September 02, 2021, 18:12 (1176 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent.
dhw: So far, so good.
DAVID: Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now.
dhw: In your theory, each huge bush was necessary for the countless OTHER past life forms which he designed while designing the one line from bacteria to humans, and the question which you continue to ignore (because you know you can’t answer it) is: why did he specially design all the OTHER past life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans if humans were his one and only purpose?
Same nutty argument. Why do you switch gears from your agreement above? Evolution from bacteria can only work in one way, one stage at a time, and food supply is necessary all along the way.
DAVID: It is all connected through God's actions/ designs. This is no dodge.dhw: Of course it’s a dodge! The only connection you are offering is that God designed them all! You cannot answer the bolded question above, and so you go on dodging it.
It is your invented dodge.
DAVID: You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.dhw: (Made humans plus their food.) If your theory is correct, then of course he should! And according to the Bible that’s what he did. But – assuming he even exists – evolution shows that he didn’t, and that’s why Darwin’s theory caused such an uproar and why you have to keep dodging the bolded question above. You can’t find an answer, which clearly suggests that there is something wrong with your theory. Maybe he DIDN’T design all the other life forms. Or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design humans.
You are stuck with my theology: in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent. And His purpose was to finally create us by that process. It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. You have every right to your opinion. You are not dodging and neither am I.
Let's study ID
DAVID: You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent.
dhw: So far, so good.
DAVID: Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now.
dhw: In your theory, each huge bush was necessary for the countless OTHER past life forms which he designed while designing the one line from bacteria to humans, and the question which you continue to ignore (because you know you can’t answer it) is: why did he specially design all the OTHER past life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans if humans were his one and only purpose?
DAVID: Same nutty argument. Why do you switch gears from your agreement above? Evolution from bacteria can only work in one way, one stage at a time, and food supply is necessary all along the way.
Correct, but that applies to EVERY LIFE FORM THAT EVER LIVED. And that leads to the bolded question above, which once more you attempt to dodge.
DAVID: You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.
dhw: (Made humans plus their food.) If your theory is correct, then of course he should! And according to the Bible that’s what he did. But – assuming he even exists – evolution shows that he didn’t, and that’s why Darwin’s theory caused such an uproar and why you have to keep dodging the bolded question above. You can’t find an answer, which clearly suggests that there is something wrong with your theory. Maybe he DIDN’T design all the other life forms. Or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design humans.
DAVID: You are stuck with my theology: in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.
If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.
DAVID: And His purpose was to finally create us by that process.
Hence your claim that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. But that leaves the bolded question unanswered.
DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. You have every right to your opinion. You are not dodging and neither am I.
I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question. And so I will repeat it: why do you think your God specially designed all the life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, September 04, 2021, 00:16 (1175 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Same nutty argument. Why do you switch gears from your agreement above? Evolution from bacteria can only work in one way, one stage at a time, and food supply is necessary all along the way.
dhw: Correct, but that applies to EVERY LIFE FORM THAT EVER LIVED. And that leads to the bolded question above, which once more you attempt to dodge.
No dodge. Each population with each proper food supply at each stage finally leads to our stage. The dodge is we are discussing past each other. I think your complaint is totally irrational while I am convinced my interpretation fits history and makes perfect sense especially when our exceptionality is accepted.
DAVID: You are stuck with my theology: in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.
We differ on how design appears. I prefer direct hands-on while you propose God offering second-hand instructions making cells appear intelligent.
DAVID: And His purpose was to finally create us by that process.Hence your claim that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. But that leaves the bolded question unanswered.
DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. You have every right to your opinion. You are not dodging and neither am I.
dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question. And so I will repeat it: why do you think your God specially designed all the life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans?
Because He used the process of evolution by design of stages, creating the illusion of a natural common descent. Fits history.
Let's study ID
Transferred from “Theodicy”, as the argument culminates in the same question.
dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.
DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.
We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Each population with each proper food supply at each stage finally leads to our stage.
You are forgetting that we both believe ALL life forms descended from bacteria, and the vast majority of extinct life forms and food supplies had no connection with humans. And so each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.
DAVID: […] in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.
dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.
DAVID: We differ on how design appears. I prefer direct hands-on while you propose God offering second-hand instructions making cells appear intelligent.
One of my alternative theistic proposals is that your God created cellular intelligence to do its own first-hand designing. This would explain all the life forms that had no connection with humans – and that is the problem you continue to dodge if you insist that all life forms were “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans”.
DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. […]
dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.
DAVID: Because He used the process of evolution by design of stages, creating the illusion of a natural common descent. Fits history.
We agree that he used evolution, which takes place by stages. I don’t know why you call common descent an “illusion”, and “because he used evolution” does not explain why he used it to create life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of producing humans and their food!
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, September 04, 2021, 18:20 (1174 days ago) @ dhw
Transferred from “Theodicy”, as the argument culminates in the same question.
dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.
DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.
We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?
Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.
DAVID: Each population with each proper food supply at each stage finally leads to our stage.dhw: You are forgetting that we both believe ALL life forms descended from bacteria, and the vast majority of extinct life forms and food supplies had no connection with humans. And so each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.
Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.
DAVID: […] in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.
DAVID: We differ on how design appears. I prefer direct hands-on while you propose God offering second-hand instructions making cells appear intelligent.
dhw: One of my alternative theistic proposals is that your God created cellular intelligence to do its own first-hand designing. This would explain all the life forms that had no connection with humans – and that is the problem you continue to dodge if you insist that all life forms were “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans”.
That is your proposal, that I have countered by explaining secondhand design is cumbersome, inefficient, and as I result, I think you are wrong about how God decided to create things..
DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. […]dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.
I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.
DAVID: Because He used the process of evolution by design of stages, creating the illusion of a natural common descent. Fits history.dhw: We agree that he used evolution, which takes place by stages. I don’t know why you call common descent an “illusion”, and “because he used evolution” does not explain why he used it to create life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of producing humans and their food!
Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.
Let's study ID
dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.
DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.
dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.
That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.
dhw: […] each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.
DAVID: Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.
So the reason your God created the countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans was that in all forms of life, one step leads to another. The logic is rather hard to follow.
[See “Miscellany” on the subject of “secondhand design”]
dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.
DAVID: I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.
Let us not forget that by “evolve” you mean specially design, but thank you for repeating the premise which makes nonsense of your theory: why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” humans (plus food), would he have “evolved” ALL his creations, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.
Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong. After all, as you once wrote: “We can only know his logic is like ours.”
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, September 05, 2021, 15:14 (1173 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.
DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.
dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.
dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.
Our exceptionality is why I say humans ere God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.
dhw: […] each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.DAVID: Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.
dhw: So the reason your God created the countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans was that in all forms of life, one step leads to another. The logic is rather hard to follow.
So is yours. The logic is God chose to evolve us.
[See “Miscellany” on the subject of “secondhand design”]dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.
DAVID: I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.
dhw: Let us not forget that by “evolve” you mean specially design, but thank you for repeating the premise which makes nonsense of your theory: why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” humans (plus food), would he have “evolved” ALL his creations, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans?
Because God prefers stepwise design.
DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong. After all, as you once wrote: “We can only know his logic is like ours.”
Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.
Let's study ID
dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?
DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.
dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.
DAVID: Our exceptionality is why I say humans were God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.
That IS the problem. I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]
DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.
dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong.
DAVID: Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.
You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, September 06, 2021, 16:03 (1172 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.
DAVID: Our exceptionality is why I say humans were God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.
dhw: That IS the problem. I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]
DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.
dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong.
DAVID: Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.
dhw: You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!
It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.
Let's study ID
dhw: I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]
DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.[…]
dhw: You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!
DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.
No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 07, 2021, 15:41 (1171 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]
DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.[…]
dhw: You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!
DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.
dhw: No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?
It needs no explanation. He chose to evolve us in designed stages as history shows. Your complaint has no basis assuming God in action.
Let's study ID
DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.
dhw: No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?
DAVID: It needs no explanation. He chose to evolve us in designed stages as history shows.
That is not what needs to be explained. What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 15:26 (1170 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.
dhw: No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?
DAVID: It needs no explanation. He chose to evolve us in designed stages as history shows.
dhw: That is not what needs to be explained. What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.
I have answered many times: God chose the method of sequential design from Archaea to humans as His way of finally creating us. I cannot know His underlying thoughts/reasons for doing it that way. It is a perfectly logical assumption about an all-powerful God. Why does the inability to read His mind make my conclusion illogical? As usual your bolded query implies He should have directly created us. 
Let's study ID
dhw: What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.
DAVID: I have answered many times: God chose the method of sequential design from Archaea to humans as His way of finally creating us. I cannot know His underlying thoughts/reasons for doing it that way. It is a perfectly logical assumption about an all-powerful God. Why does the inability to read His mind make my conclusion illogical? As usual your bolded query implies He should have directly created us.
You have dodged the question the same way countless times, and I suppose you think the more times you do so, the more convincing it becomes. Anyone who believes in evolution will accept that humans evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. And they will also believe that all other multicellular organisms evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. But if God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [by which you mean design] humans plus food, why would he have evolved [= designed] countless life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Of course one would have expected an all-powerful God who has a single purpose to fulfil it directly, but he didn't, so where is the logic in your answer that you don’t know why, and I should ask God? If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours,then maybe your theory is wrong.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, September 09, 2021, 16:26 (1169 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.
DAVID: I have answered many times: God chose the method of sequential design from Archaea to humans as His way of finally creating us. I cannot know His underlying thoughts/reasons for doing it that way. It is a perfectly logical assumption about an all-powerful God. Why does the inability to read His mind make my conclusion illogical? As usual your bolded query implies He should have directly created us.
dhw: You have dodged the question the same way countless times, and I suppose you think the more times you do so, the more convincing it becomes. Anyone who believes in evolution will accept that humans evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. And they will also believe that all other multicellular organisms evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. But if God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [by which you mean design] humans plus food, why would he have evolved [= designed] countless life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Of course one would have expected an all-powerful God who has a single purpose to fulfil it directly, but he didn't, so where is the logic in your answer that you don’t know why, and I should ask God? If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours,then maybe your theory is wrong.
Once again you demand a tunnel-visioned God who must leap to producing us simple because He wants us. Maybe in your human way, if you were God, you would jump immediately to creating us. But my God who creates everything created a history which fits my thinking, not what you suggest. I don't need to know God's reasoning in how He went about His creating job. Having a goal doesn't make your strange complaint about God in any way realistic. All I do is look at God's works (creation history). Repeat your strange bolded complaint countless times, I won't change my very logical view of how God did it. I'll turn it around. You tell me how you would have God produce us. If you don't like how my God works, give us your version confined to making humans, nothing more.
Let's study ID
dhw: If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours, then maybe your theory is wrong.
DAVID: Once again you demand a tunnel-visioned God who must leap to producing us simple because He wants us. Maybe in your human way, if you were God, you would jump immediately to creating us. But my God who creates everything created a history which fits my thinking, not what you suggest.
But the history does not fit your thinking! You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!
DAVID: I don't need to know God's reasoning in how He went about His creating job. Having a goal doesn't make your strange complaint about God in any way realistic. All I do is look at God's works (creation history).
You agree that your God’s work is a history containing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.
DAVID: I'll turn it around. You tell me how you would have God produce us. If you don't like how my God works, give us your version confined to making humans, nothing more.
If God exists, I am perfectly happy with the way he works. I am not complaining about all the species that lived and died and had no connection with humans! I’m a fan of evolution, with all its vast variety of life forms. I just don’t like your theory that he only had one purpose and therefore spent all those billions of years designing all those life forms etc. that had nothing to do with his purpose! However, if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Friday, September 10, 2021, 17:29 (1168 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours, then maybe your theory is wrong.
DAVID: Once again you demand a tunnel-visioned God who must leap to producing us simple because He wants us. Maybe in your human way, if you were God, you would jump immediately to creating us. But my God who creates everything created a history which fits my thinking, not what you suggest.
dhw: But the history does not fit your thinking! You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!
What are you smoking? My theory follows history exactly. It is obvious God chose to evolve/design us starting with bacteria. That resulted in the present food supply and countless forms alive and extinct.
DAVID: I don't need to know God's reasoning in how He went about His creating job. Having a goal doesn't make your strange complaint about God in any way realistic. All I do is look at God's works (creation history).dhw: You agree that your God’s work is a history containing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans,
God's designed evolution means each new stage comes from the last stage. Evolution is a continuum in which all parts are connected even if many branchings occurred..
dhw: you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.
I cannot know why God chose to do it this way. I simply accept His works as presented.
DAVID: I'll turn it around. You tell me how you would have God produce us. If you don't like how my God works, give us your version confined to making humans, nothing more.dhw: If God exists, I am perfectly happy with the way he works. I am not complaining about all the species that lived and died and had no connection with humans! I’m a fan of evolution, with all its vast variety of life forms. I just don’t like your theory that he only had one purpose and therefore spent all those billions of years designing all those life forms etc. that had nothing to do with his purpose! However, if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.
In Genesis humans came last and everything else first day by day. But we know Hebrew scholars translate 'day' as meaning a length of time. It is exactly how our science says it happened.
Your complaint is baseless. Humans were His eventual goal is how I view it and will not change because you complain.
Let's study ID
dhw: You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!
DAVID: What are you smoking? My theory follows history exactly. It is obvious God chose to evolve/design us starting with bacteria. That resulted in the present food supply and countless forms alive and extinct.
Dodge, dodge, dodge. You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
DAVID: God's designed evolution means each new stage comes from the last stage. Evolution is a continuum in which all parts are connected even if many branchings occurred.
All parts are connected to the first root, but that does not mean that all branches are connected to one another! Yet again: Why did your God need to design all the extinct branches that did NOT lead to humans and their food, if the only branch he wanted to design was humans and their food?
dhw: you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.
DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to do it this way. I simply accept His works as presented.
But you don’t “know” that your God chose to design humans by first designing all the forms that had no connection with humans, and you don’t even know that your God designed every life form. That is your theory. His works as presented are open to different interpretations of his purpose and his method, and you can see the logic behind each of the theistic alternatives I have suggested. It’s only your own that leaves you clueless – hence your proposal that I go and ask your God to explain it!
DAVID: You tell me how you would have God produce us.
dhw: […] if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.
DAVID: In Genesis humans came last and everything else first day by day. But we know Hebrew scholars translate 'day' as meaning a length of time. It is exactly how our science says it happened.
Genesis does not say God created every animal including humans stage by stage, or that we ourselves descended from earlier forms of animal. And we’re not arguing about the translation of a word. You asked me how I would have your God produce us, and I have answered: in a word, directly, as in Genesis.
DAVID: Your complaint is baseless. Humans were His eventual goal is how I view it and will not change because you complain.
I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Saturday, September 11, 2021, 15:40 (1167 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!
DAVID: What are you smoking? My theory follows history exactly. It is obvious God chose to evolve/design us starting with bacteria. That resulted in the present food supply and countless forms alive and extinct.
dhw: Dodge, dodge, dodge. You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.
dhw: you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to do it this way. I simply accept His works as presented.
dhw: But you don’t “know” that your God chose to design humans by first designing all the forms that had no connection with humans, and you don’t even know that your God designed every life form. That is your theory. His works as presented are open to different interpretations of his purpose and his method, and you can see the logic behind each of the theistic alternatives I have suggested. It’s only your own that leaves you clueless – hence your proposal that I go and ask your God to explain it!
Answer the issue: are we evolved from bacteria? If God is in charge, didn't He do it? If God is in charge, what He produces are evidence of His purpose?
DAVID: You tell me how you would have God produce us.dhw: […] if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.
DAVID: In Genesis humans came last and everything else first day by day. But we know Hebrew scholars translate 'day' as meaning a length of time. It is exactly how our science says it happened.
dhw: Genesis does not say God created every animal including humans stage by stage, or that we ourselves descended from earlier forms of animal. And we’re not arguing about the translation of a word. You asked me how I would have your God produce us, and I have answered: in a word, directly, as in Genesis.
DAVID: Your complaint is baseless. Humans were His eventual goal is how I view it and will not change because you complain.
dhw: I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.
And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population, fueled by intricate ecosystems populated by the branched diversity created by God's evolution. Do you ever consider all the ramifications of God's planned designed evolution? To me a beautifully thought through example of planning, all from the evidence at hand..
Let's study ID
dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.
Your evasions are becoming increasingly desperate. For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.
DAVID: Answer the issue: are we evolved from bacteria? If God is in charge, didn't He do it? If God is in charge, what He produces are evidence of His purpose?
Yes to all three. All life forms are evolved from bacteria. If your God exists, he did it possibly by direct design, possibly through inventing a free-for-all process. What he produced through evolution was a vast variety of life forms, the latest of which is humans, but the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Therefore what he produced must have had some purpose other than the production of humans, unless he was experimenting to find the combination he was looking for.
dhw: I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.
DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population, fueled by intricate ecosystems populated by the branched diversity created by God's evolution.
Yet another repeat of another of your irrelevant dodges. Yes, we need a huge food supply. So did the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
DAVID: Do you ever consider all the ramifications of God's planned designed evolution? To me a beautifully thought through example of planning, all from the evidence at hand.
Do you ever consider all the ramifications of your God’s beautifully planned free-for-all, with its vast variety of life forms and all its unpredictable twists and turns, comings and goings, and almost infinite potentials (including those of humans), all “from the evidence at hand”?
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Sunday, September 12, 2021, 15:40 (1166 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.
dhw: Your evasions are becoming increasingly desperate. For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.
Good idea to ask God. I'm not desperate, only your constant badgering seems to be. Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.
DAVID: Answer the issue: are we evolved from bacteria? If God is in charge, didn't He do it? If God is in charge, what He produces are evidence of His purpose?dhw: Yes to all three. All life forms are evolved from bacteria. If your God exists, he did it possibly by direct design, possibly through inventing a free-for-all process. What he produced through evolution was a vast variety of life forms, the latest of which is humans, but the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Therefore what he produced must have had some purpose other than the production of humans, unless he was experimenting to find the combination he was looking for.
All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth. The bold is your imagination of a floundering God. It all depends upon one's vision of an all-powerful God. We differ in our views, a difference that cannot be solved. Since we have no solid proofs, God's personality must be deduced from His works by each person who thinks about it.
dhw: I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population, fueled by intricate ecosystems populated by the branched diversity created by God's evolution.
dhw: Yet another repeat of another of your irrelevant dodges. Yes, we need a huge food supply. So did the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.
DAVID: Do you ever consider all the ramifications of God's planned designed evolution? To me a beautifully thought through example of planning, all from the evidence at hand.dhw: Do you ever consider all the ramifications of your God’s beautifully planned free-for-all, with its vast variety of life forms and all its unpredictable twists and turns, comings and goings, and almost infinite potentials (including those of humans), all “from the evidence at hand”?
A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans
Let's study ID
dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.
dhw: For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.
DAVID: Good idea to ask God. I'm not desperate, only your constant badgering seems to be. Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.
We are not debating the existence of God here. In case you’ve forgotten – as you seem to do every day! – the subject is the bolded question above.
DAVID: All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth.
How do all the extinct life forms that had no connection with humans become connected to humans?
DAVID: It all depends upon one's vision of an all-powerful God. We differ in our views, a difference that cannot be solved. Since we have no solid proofs, God's personality must be deduced from His works by each person who thinks about it.
The all-powerful personality you’ve come up with is one who has a single purpose, but when we think about his works, we find that the vast majority of them are extinct and had no connection with the single purpose you attribute to him. You find your own view so incomprehensible that you tell me to go and ask God to explain it.
DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population […]
dhw: […] Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
DAVID: Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.
The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.
DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.
It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Monday, September 13, 2021, 16:08 (1165 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.
dhw: For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.
DAVID: Good idea to ask God. I'm not desperate, only your constant badgering seems to be. Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.
dhw: We are not debating the existence of God here. In case you’ve forgotten – as you seem to do every day! – the subject is the bolded question above.
That is you persistent constant badger that is illogical and makes no sense to me.
DAVID: All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth.dhw: How do all the extinct life forms that had no connection with humans become connected to humans?
Through the continuity of the stepwise evolutionary process with each earlier design ledading to teh next more advanced design.
DAVID: It all depends upon one's vision of an all-powerful God. We differ in our views, a difference that cannot be solved. Since we have no solid proofs, God's personality must be deduced from His works by each person who thinks about it.dhw: The all-powerful personality you’ve come up with is one who has a single purpose, but when we think about his works, we find that the vast majority of them are extinct and had no connection with the single purpose you attribute to him. You find your own view so incomprehensible that you tell me to go and ask God to explain it.
Still badgering illogically. Humans are a goal achieved by evolving them from bacteria
DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population […]dhw: […] Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
DAVID: Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.
dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.
Thank you.
DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.
Back to a God not in complete control.
Let's study ID
dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?
DAVID: […] Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.
dhw: We are not debating the existence of God here. In case you’ve forgotten – as you seem to do every day! – the subject is the bolded question above.
DAVID: That is you persistent constant badger that is illogical and makes no sense to me.
It is your own bolded theory that makes no sense to you, which is why you tell me to ask God to answer the bolded question.
DAVID: All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth.
dhw: How do all the extinct life forms that had no connection with humans become connected to humans?
DAVID: Through the continuity of the stepwise evolutionary process with each earlier design leading to the next more advanced design.
But there have been stepwise evolutionary processes with each design leading to new designs that have no connection with humans. Hence the bolded question, and your reply that I should ask God. Stop dodging!
DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population […]
dhw: […] Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.[/b]
DAVID: Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.
dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.
DAVID: Thank you.
Why are you thanking me? If extinct life and food have no role in current life, and had no connection with humans, it is clearly absurd to claim that extinct life and food were part of your God’s one and only goal to create humans and their food (= current life).
DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.
dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.
DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.
Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 16:45 (1164 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.
DAVID: Thank you.
dhw: Why are you thanking me? If extinct life and food have no role in current life, and had no connection with humans, it is clearly absurd to claim that extinct life and food were part of your God’s one and only goal to create humans and their food (= current life).
If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.
DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.
DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.
dhw: Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.
Of course I do. All you wish is a concept of a God who is not in control of His own goals, because they don't seem to have existed in your concept of Him. Thus we are a lucky accident.
Let's study ID: how a ribosome is assembled
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 18:52 (1164 days ago) @ David Turell
Be sure to see the one minute video:
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-reveals-ribosomes-human-cells.html
"All cells need ribosomes to make the proteins necessary for life. These multi-component molecular machines build complex proteins by stitching building blocks together according to instructions encoded in the cell's messenger RNAs. But ribosomes are themselves composed of small and large subunits, each of which is made up of ribosomal proteins and RNA. Before they can manufacture proteins, these subunits must be manufactured themselves.
"In a new study, scientists in the lab of Sebastian Klinge provide the most detailed view of how human small ribosomal subunits are put together by capturing their 3D portraits at three different stages of the assembly process. The findings are published in Science.
"'The assembly of a ribosome is like an origami," says Klinge, associate professor and head of the Laboratory of Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry. "Segments of RNA and other proteins have to be accurately folded in precise steps. The fundamental problem we are trying to understand is how proteins known as assembly factors work in concert to control each step of the assembly."
***
"The findings detail how some 70 assembly factors come together to create a scaffolding for the construction of the small subunit, and to guide each step of its maturation. Once their job is done, the assembly factors break apart, liberating the mature small subunit they held inside.
"The three stages captured in the study provide a better understanding of the key molecular mechanisms that bring about the formation of the small subunit. The findings also provide new insights into rare human diseases that result from mutations in ribosomal proteins or assembly factors during the assembly of ribosomes."
Comment: Not by chance. Note the recognition of possible errors.
Let's study ID
dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.
DAVID: Thank you.
dhw: Why are you thanking me? If extinct life and food have no role in current life, and had no connection with humans, it is clearly absurd to claim that extinct life and food were part of your God’s one and only goal to create humans and their food (= current life).
DAVID: If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.
Being all-powerful, wanting only one life form plus food, but designing countless other life forms and foods that have no connection with that one purpose makes perfect sense, but you can’t explain it so I should go and ask God!
DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.
dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.
DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.
dhw: Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.
DAVID: All you wish is a concept of a God who is not in control of His own goals, because they don't seem to have existed in your concept of Him. Thus we are a lucky accident.
I wish nothing. I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 15, 2021, 15:47 (1163 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.
dhw: Being all-powerful, wanting only one life form plus food, but designing countless other life forms and foods that have no connection with that one purpose makes perfect sense, but you can’t explain it so I should go and ask God!
You asked the impossible question as to why God chose to evolve us over time. I have no way to answer, so I asked you if you could.
DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.
DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.
dhw: Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.
DAVID: All you wish is a concept of a God who is not in control of His own goals, because they don't seem to have existed in your concept of Him. Thus we are a lucky accident.
dhw: I wish nothing. I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.
As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose, when we see the amazing accomplishments of God, who produced this universe, fine-tuned for life, started life itself and put life on a life-supporting planet with very precise mechanisms. Suddenly when He evolves us, He bumbles long. Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you. All we know about God must fit together as a whole, m y approach, but not yours.
Let's study ID
DAVID: If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.
dhw: Being all-powerful, wanting only one life form plus food, but designing countless other life forms and foods that have no connection with that one purpose makes perfect sense, but you can’t explain it so I should go and ask God!
DAVID: You asked the impossible question as to why God chose to evolve us over time. I have no way to answer, so I asked you if you could.
That is not the question I asked, though you keep pretending that it is. The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.
dhw: I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.
DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…
Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.
DAVID: ….when we see the amazing accomplishments of God, who produced this universe, fine-tuned for life, started life itself and put life on a life-supporting planet with very precise mechanisms.
If he exists, I have no hesitation in endorsing this view.
DAVID: Suddenly when He evolves us, He bumbles long.
No he doesn’t. See above for two precise goals.
DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.
There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.
DAVID: All we know about God must fit together as a whole, m y approach, but not yours.
You have agreed that my proposals are logical, which means they fit together with the history of life as we know it. Your approach, yet again, is that he had one purpose (us) and proceeded to design countless life forms that had no connection with us. These two premises do not fit together, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation!
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Thursday, September 16, 2021, 17:54 (1162 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You asked the impossible question as to why God chose to evolve us over time. I have no way to answer, so I asked you if you could.
dhw: That is not the question I asked, though you keep pretending that it is. The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.
My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.
dhw: I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…
dhw: Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.
Only if you envision a God who starts without purposes.
DAVID: ….when we see the amazing accomplishments of God, who produced this universe, fine-tuned for life, started life itself and put life on a life-supporting planet with very precise mechanisms.dhw: If he exists, I have no hesitation in endorsing this view.
Good.
DAVID: Suddenly when He evolves us, He bumbles long.No he doesn’t. See above for two precise goals.
DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.
dhw: There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.
A God without controls or plans is not the God I see.
DAVID: All we know about God must fit together as a whole, my approach, but not yours.dhw: You have agreed that my proposals are logical, which means they fit together with the history of life as we know it. Your approach, yet again, is that he had one purpose (us) and proceeded to design countless life forms that had no connection with us. These two premises do not fit together, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation!
Yes please, ask god. I don't know why He chose to evolve us. History tells me He did.
Let's study ID
dhw: The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.
DAVID: My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.
It is unacceptable because it does not answer the bolded question!
DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…
dhw: Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.
DAVID: Only if you envision a God who starts without purposes.
I have just given you two purposes, and you say I envision a God without purposes!
DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.
dhw: There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.
DAVID: A God without controls or plans is not the God I see.
There is no wandering. In your piece on theodicy you have him losing control (“Errors are spontaneous. Not God’s doing”), and if what he plans is a free-for-all, clearly he WANTS to cede control!
Let's study ID
by David Turell , Friday, September 17, 2021, 15:36 (1161 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.
DAVID: My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.
dhw: It is unacceptable because it does not answer the bolded question!
The bolded question is a totally unreasonable request. I can't read God's mind but history is obvious. God evolved us, so He must have chosen to do that for His own unknown reasons.
DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…dhw: Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.
DAVID: Only if you envision a God who starts without purposes.
dhw: I have just given you two purposes, and you say I envision a God without purposes!
Experimentation and free-for-all says your imagined God had no specific goals, so where is the purpose in creation? My God has goals to produce.
DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.dhw: There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.
DAVID: A God without controls or plans is not the God I see.
dhw: There is no wandering. In your piece on theodicy you have him losing control (“Errors are spontaneous. Not God’s doing”), and if what he plans is a free-for-all, clearly he WANTS to cede control!
Go look at that thread for my answer, God's system is full of editing mechanisms to prevent errors. You have trouble reading God's mind and intentions. Your skewed approach shows.
Let's study ID
dhw: The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.
DAVID: My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.
dhw: It is unacceptable because it does not answer the bolded question!
DAVID: The bolded question is a totally unreasonable request. I can't read God's mind but history is obvious. God evolved us, so He must have chosen to do that for His own unknown reasons.
History tells us that ALL life forms, including humans, evolved. It does not tell us that they were all individually designed, and it does not tell us that even those that had no connection with humans were designed as part of the plan to design humans. You can’t find a reason why he would pursue his single goal by not pursuing his single goal. So maybe we weren’t his single goal, and maybe he didn’t specially design all life forms. And maybe the fact that you can’t think of any reasons is due to the fact that there aren’t any, because your God thinks logically and you don’t!
DAVID: […] you envision a God who starts without purposes.
dhw: I have just given you two purposes, and you say I envision a God without purposes!
DAVID: Experimentation and free-for-all says your imagined God had no specific goals, so where is the purpose in creation? My God has goals to produce.
According to you, your God only had one goal: to produce us and our food, and you’d rather not discuss the purpose of that or of all the other life forms that had no connection with us. My God (one version) could experiment in order to produce a life form that would recognize him, admire his work, have a relationship with him etc., as you have proposed. Have you never heard of inventors who try different experiments to achieve their goal? The purpose of a free-for-all follows your very reasonable guess that your God enjoys creating and watches us with interest. The purpose could therefore be to create something he would enjoy creating and could watch with interest. And don’t forget you are sure that we mimic him over and over again with our own activities.
DAVID: You have trouble reading God's mind and intentions. Your skewed approach shows.
At least my approach makes sense. I don’t know why you call it “skewed”, since you have just admitted under "theodicy" that in the context of your own theories, you can’t read God’s mind, and he did what you think he did “for unknown reasons”.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2021, 15:19 (1160 days ago) @ dhw
From the review of a book: Pump. Pump,....:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pump-review-the-pulse-of-life-natural-history-heart-116312...
"Animal circulations vary enormously in their operating pressures. Giraffes have the highest blood pressures of any mammal, running around 280/180 mm Hg. (Ideal blood pressures in humans are around 110/80 mmHg.) This propulsive energy would wreck human brains and kidneys, but it is essential for giraffes, who need it “to force blood up to their treetop-level heads.” The long necks of giraffes enable them to feast on high vegetation, but also create hydraulic headaches. When giraffes stoop to drink, blood may pool in their heads from the effects of gravity. Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.
"Giraffe limbs are also under severe hemodynamic stress, and must withstand pressures as high as 350 mmHg. The reason that giraffes don’t get varicose veins is that their legs have taut sleeves of skin that act like compression stockings, and prevent them from swelling up."
Comment: I've mentioned most of this before. There is no way this can be developed stepwise. It must be designed. And as in all fossil gap stories, no precursors
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
Giraffe plumbing
QUOTE: Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.
DAVID: I've mentioned most of this before. There is no way this can be developed stepwise. It must be designed. And as in all fossil gap stories, no precursors.
Apparently fossils are rare,but there are enough to piece together the evolution of the species.
How Giraffes Evolved Such a Large Neck - This View Of Life
thisviewoflife.com/how-giraffes-evolved-such-a-large-neck/
QUOTES: The evolutionary history of the giraffe brings us back to approximately 50 million years ago. An animal similar to antelopes evolved into two species that are extant today. Many of these animals roamed across Eurasia and Africa until they went extinct or evolved into animals we see today. These surviving members of the Giraffidae family are the okapi and the giraffe, both of which (Whom?) inhabit Africa. Many other extinct predecessors of the giraffe existed, and their fossils remain. By using these fossils scientists were able to figure out how their necks evolved anatomically.
[…] If we compare vertebrae of the modern giraffe to its extinct ancestors we can begin to see when and where this elongation began to take place.
I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Sunday, September 19, 2021, 15:52 (1159 days ago) @ dhw
Giraffe plumbing
QUOTE: Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.
DAVID: I've mentioned most of this before. There is no way this can be developed stepwise. It must be designed. And as in all fossil gap stories, no precursors.
dhw: Apparently fossils are rare,but there are enough to piece together the evolution of the species.
How Giraffes Evolved Such a Large Neck - This View Of Life
thisviewoflife.com/how-giraffes-evolved-such-a-large-neck/QUOTES: The evolutionary history of the giraffe brings us back to approximately 50 million years ago. An animal similar to antelopes evolved into two species that are extant today. Many of these animals roamed across Eurasia and Africa until they went extinct or evolved into animals we see today. These surviving members of the Giraffidae family are the okapi and the giraffe, both of which (Whom?) inhabit Africa. Many other extinct predecessors of the giraffe existed, and their fossils remain. By using these fossils scientists were able to figure out how their necks evolved anatomically.
[…] If we compare vertebrae of the modern giraffe to its extinct ancestors we can begin to see when and where this elongation began to take place.
dhw: I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)
As you might expect I went back to the Darwinist-very-slanted article:
"These two ancestral families both had the beginnings of the extreme neck lengthening that is seen in the modern Giraffidae." Yes anatomically, lengthening must have happened at some point, but the discussion about the plumbing-production problems is totally unanswered!!! Your amazing skew is showing. With the giant gap in precursor neck length the problem is unanswered. Even if intermediate forms appeared with one-foot increases in neck size, the plumbing adaptations had to have been in place simultaneously. As a cardiologist the giraffe is dear to my heart. You have no answer as there is none known to man.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)
DAVID: As you might expect I went back to the Darwinist-very-slanted article:
As if somehow the very mention of Darwin means it couldn’t be true!
DAVID: "These two ancestral families both had the beginnings of the extreme neck lengthening that is seen in the modern Giraffidae." Yes anatomically, lengthening must have happened at some point, but the discussion about the plumbing-production problems is totally unanswered!!! Your amazing skew is showing. With the giant gap in precursor neck length the problem is unanswered. Even if intermediate forms appeared with one-foot increases in neck size, the plumbing adaptations had to have been in place simultaneously. As a cardiologist the giraffe is dear to my heart. You have no answer as there is none known to man.
Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Monday, September 20, 2021, 14:42 (1158 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)
DAVID: As you might expect I went back to the Darwinist-very-slanted article:
As if somehow the very mention of Darwin means it couldn’t be true!
DAVID: "These two ancestral families both had the beginnings of the extreme neck lengthening that is seen in the modern Giraffidae." Yes anatomically, lengthening must have happened at some point, but the discussion about the plumbing-production problems is totally unanswered!!! Your amazing skew is showing. With the giant gap in precursor neck length the problem is unanswered. Even if intermediate forms appeared with one-foot increases in neck size, the plumbing adaptations had to have been in place simultaneously. As a cardiologist the giraffe is dear to my heart. You have no answer as there is none known to man.
dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?
I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously. And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?
DAVID: I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously.
And I have agreed.
DAVID: And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!
Thank you for “platitudinous”. A platitude is something that is so obviously true that it’s not worth stating. I did not say “if God gave them the ability”. I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 14:57 (1157 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?
DAVID: I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously.
dhw: And I have agreed.
DAVID: And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!
dhw: Thank you for “platitudinous”. A platitude is something that is so obviously true that it’s not worth stating. I did not say “if God gave them the ability”. I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.
Still championing second-hand designing.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 15:12 (1157 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?
DAVID: I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously.
dhw: And I have agreed.
DAVID: And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!
dhw: Thank you for “platitudinous”. A platitude is something that is so obviously true that it’s not worth stating.
I was referring to your constant smart cell mantra that becomes your platitude over time.
dhw: I did not say “if God gave them the ability”. I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.
Still championing second-hand designing.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.
DAVID: Still championing second-hand designing.
I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?
Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.
As above, I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?
Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis."
Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 15:34 (1156 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.DAVID: Still championing second-hand designing.
dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?
I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.
Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.dhw: As above, I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?
Or, as always presented, the cooperating cells are simply following design instructions.
Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis."Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?
DAVID: I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.
“Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions. For example, pre-whales do not suddenly find themselves lying on the beach with a set of flippers that have replaced their legs overnight, and they do not say to themselves: “Let’s go into the water now.” In my theory, they go into the water – almost certainly to look for food – and as food is more plentiful there, the cells restructure themselves (over the requisite amount of time) into flippers, which improve their chances of survival in the water. In my theory, evolution is a process of responses to new conditions, not of preparations for the future. And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.
Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.
dhw: [...] I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?
Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis."
Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.
DAVID: Or, as always presented, the cooperating cells are simply following design instructions.
At the very least, such examples of intelligence should open your mind to the possibility that your God may have given cells autonomous intelligence instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled change.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Thursday, September 23, 2021, 15:03 (1155 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?
DAVID: I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.
dhw: “Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions. For example, pre-whales do not suddenly find themselves lying on the beach with a set of flippers that have replaced their legs overnight, and they do not say to themselves: “Let’s go into the water now.” In my theory, they go into the water – almost certainly to look for food – and as food is more plentiful there, the cells restructure themselves (over the requisite amount of time) into flippers, which improve their chances of survival in the water. In my theory, evolution is a process of responses to new conditions, not of preparations for the future. And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.
Asking cells to do what I can do makes the process secondhand. It is a fine term. Your last sentence is answered in the part of my original response above, now bolded. Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design
Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.dhw: [...] I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?
All we can say is they show intelligent activity
Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis."Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.DAVID: Or, as always presented, the cooperating cells are simply following design instructions.
dhw: At the very least, such examples of intelligence should open your mind to the possibility that your God may have given cells autonomous intelligence instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled change.
I'll stick with cells following intelligently designed instructions
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?
DAVID: I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.
dhw: “Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions […] And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.
DAVID: Asking cells to do what I can do makes the process secondhand. It is a fine term.
Since you believe you can do what you want to do, you clearly believe that your God is perfectly capable of creating a cellular combination that will lead to autonomous (not "second-hand") thought. So please answer my question: why do you think your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells?
DAVID: Your last sentence is answered in the part of my original response above, now bolded.
It only tells me that he is capable of supplying instructions. It doesn’t tell me why he is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells/cell communities in other forms than ours. (NB I am not comparing their intelligence to ours, which of course is vastly greater.)
DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.
Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form! And we are not arguing about design but about your theory – totally unsupported by the history of life - that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single evolutionary innovation, lifestyle, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, as opposed to creating a mechanism enabling cells to do their own designing.
Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.
dhw: [...] I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?
DAVID: All we can say is they show intelligent activity.
If that is all we can say, why do you go on and on about your God giving them instructions?
dhw: At the very least, such examples of intelligence should open your mind to the possibility that your God may have given cells autonomous intelligence instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled change.
DAVID: I'll stick with cells following intelligently designed instructions.
See what I mean?
Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.
DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.
But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Friday, September 24, 2021, 15:32 (1154 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: “Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions […] And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.
DAVID: Asking cells to do what I can do makes the process secondhand. It is a fine term.
dhw: Since you believe you can do what you want to do, you clearly believe that your God is perfectly capable of creating a cellular combination that will lead to autonomous (not "second-hand") thought. So please answer my question: why do you think your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells?
I never said God is incapable of creating autonomous intelligent cells. I said He would not choose to do so.
DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.
dhw: Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form!
A non-answer. New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.
dhw: But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: [..] why do you think your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells?
DAVID: I never said God is incapable of creating autonomous intelligent cells. I said He would not choose to do so.
Why not? Why do you think he would choose to provide the first cells with a programme for every single undabbled evolutionary change, econiche, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the whole of life’s history, rather than design a single mechanism that will go on and on producing new designs of its own? Especially bearing in mind that you think he actually only wanted to design one life form plus its food!
DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.
dhw: Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form!
DAVID: non-answer. New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.
Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!
Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.
DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.
dhw: But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.
Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Saturday, September 25, 2021, 15:48 (1153 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I never said God is incapable of creating autonomous intelligent cells. I said He would not choose to do so.
dhw:Why not? Why do you think he would choose to provide the first cells with a programme for every single undabbled evolutionary change, econiche, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the whole of life’s history, rather than design a single mechanism that will go on and on producing new designs of its own? Especially bearing in mind that you think he actually only wanted to design one life form plus its food!
I've explained progressively complex design is best done firsthand. Designing a system to replace one's self mental inputs is way more complex than simply doing it yourself. The bold is you constant misinterpretation of my theory. God had humans as His ultimate goal. We were not 'his only want'. Everything He produced from our BB onward was part of His overall plan.
DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.dhw: Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form!
DAVID: non-answer. New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.
dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!
Same old non-answer. Even Gould accepted the gaps as real!!! And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?
Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.
dhw: But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.dhw: Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?
He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: Why do you think he would choose to provide the first cells with a programme for every single undabbled evolutionary change, econiche, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the whole of life’s history, rather than design a single mechanism that will go on and on producing new designs of its own? Especially bearing in mind that you think he actually only wanted to design one life form plus its food!
DAVID: I've explained progressively complex design is best done firsthand.
And I’ve explained that progressively complex design, including that of our progressively complex, autonomously intelligent brain, is “best done” firsthand by autonomously intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God). That would save you all the trouble of having to explain why he specially designed all the life forms unconnected with humans, and all the “mistakes” that lead to disease and death (as discussed under “Theodicy”).
DAVID: Designing a system to replace one's self mental inputs is way more complex than simply doing it yourself. The bold is you constant misinterpretation of my theory.
See the “Theodicy” thread.
DAVID: New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.
dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!
DAVID: Same old non-answer. Even Gould accepted the gaps as real!!! And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?
Of course the gaps are real! How could you possibly NOT have gaps in the fossil record? The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted millions of years – ample time for intelligent cells to adapt to or exploit new conditions, and thereby design the same innovations you believe your God dabbled, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. This is not a Darwinian castle. He never thought of intelligent cells doing their own designing.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.
(NB Good to see you acknowledging that cells change IN RESPONSE to new challenges, as opposed to your usual anticipation of them.)
dhw: Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?
DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.
So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Sunday, September 26, 2021, 15:41 (1152 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I've explained progressively complex design is best done firsthand.
dhw: And I’ve explained that progressively complex design, including that of our progressively complex, autonomously intelligent brain, is “best done” firsthand by autonomously intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God). That would save you all the trouble of having to explain why he specially designed all the life forms unconnected with humans, and all the “mistakes” that lead to disease and death (as discussed under “Theodicy”).
And what you don't seem to realize is your imagined God created an uncontrolled system which resulted in all the unwanted errors God wouldn't want. Not rational. My God created the only working system He could, recognized it was open to errors and built in editing systems.
DAVID: New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!
DAVID: Same old non-answer. Even Gould accepted the gaps as real!!! And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?
dhw: Of course the gaps are real! How could you possibly NOT have gaps in the fossil record? The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted millions of years – ample time for intelligent cells to adapt to or exploit new conditions, and thereby design the same innovations you believe your God dabbled, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. This is not a Darwinian castle. He never thought of intelligent cells doing their own designing.
Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species. Same non-answer. Gaps demonstrate large design changes intelligent cells can not create.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.
dhw: (NB Good to see you acknowledging that cells change IN RESPONSE to new challenges, as opposed to your usual anticipation of them.)
Strange misinterpretation. Cells don't 'change'. They are prepared in advance by design to to respond to all challenges as they appear.
dhw: Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.
dhw: So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.
Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms. FYI: Current man-made vaccines are a shorthand way of helping us by showing our cells the cell-damaging spike Covid-19 uses. It is actually not as good as presenting the whole attenuated virus body itself. That style vaccine takes much longer to develop and prove.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
I’ve transferred the “errors” discussion to “Theodicy”.
DAVID: New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.
dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!
DAVID: […] And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?
dhw: […] The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted millions of years – ample time for intelligent cells to adapt to or exploit new conditions, and thereby design the same innovations you believe your God dabbled, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. This is not a Darwinian castle. He never thought of intelligent cells doing their own designing.
DAVID: Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species. Same non-answer. Gaps demonstrate large design changes intelligent cells can not create.
Gaps demonstrate the absence of fossils, or a period when there were no new species (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). How itty-bitty is itty-bitty? It might take many generations for large design changes to perfect themselves (I’m thinking of legs becoming flippers), but even the Cambrian offers millions of years and generations for such changes to take place. And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.
DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.
dhw: (NB Good to see you acknowledging that cells change IN RESPONSE to new challenges, as opposed to your usual anticipation of them.)
DAVID: Strange misinterpretation. Cells don't 'change'. They are prepared in advance by design to respond to all challenges as they appear.
Of course they change! How else could you get new species? And if they change in response to challenges, I'd have thought that meant the challenges come before the changes. Of course you are free to believe that your God looks into his crystal ball and changes the cells beforehand – but please don’t tell me that cells don’t ‘change’.
dhw: (RE God’s “instructions”): Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?
DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.
dhw: So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.
DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.
I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Monday, September 27, 2021, 15:03 (1151 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species. Same non-answer. Gaps demonstrate large design changes intelligent cells can not create.
dhw: Gaps demonstrate the absence of fossils, or a period when there were no new species (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). How itty-bitty is itty-bitty? It might take many generations for large design changes to perfect themselves (I’m thinking of legs becoming flippers), but even the Cambrian offers millions of years and generations for such changes to take place.
Strange illogical point in bold: the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.
dhw: And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.
Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: (RE God’s “instructions”): Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?
DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.
dhw: So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.
DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.
dhw: I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.
Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species.
dhw: Gaps demonstrate the absence of fossils, or a period when there were no new species (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). How itty-bitty is itty-bitty? It might take many generations for large design changes to perfect themselves (I’m thinking of legs becoming flippers), but even the Cambrian offers millions of years and generations for such changes to take place.
DAVID: Strange illogical point in bold: the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.
Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”? Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
QUOTES: “Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record."
“Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian.”
“The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.”
“Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).”
Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.
dhw: And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.
DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
“Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.
dhw: I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.
Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 14:59 (1150 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Strange illogical point in bold: the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.
dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”? Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.htmlQUOTES: “Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record."
“Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian.”
“The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.”“Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).”
Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.
Only if you purposely avoid the obvious, which Darwin recognized, and now you and the article ignore. The line between Edicaran and Cambrian is obviously blurred geologically, but the early advanced forms at end Edicaran had NO obvious close-in-form precursors and are the gradual start of the explosion. Of course anyone can find Darwinist articles written to blur the obvious.
dhw: And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?
By God's design
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.dhw: I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.
dhw: Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?
Once a system evolves/is designed, no dabbling necessary.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: […] the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.
dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”?
You have not answered this question.
dhw: Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.
dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.
DAVID: Only if you purposely avoid the obvious, which Darwin recognized, and now you and the article ignore. The line between Edicaran and Cambrian is obviously blurred geologically, but the early advanced forms at end Edicaran had NO obvious close-in-form precursors and are the gradual start of the explosion. Of course anyone can find Darwinist articles written to blur the obvious.
It is not unreasonable to propose that instead of your God preprogramming every new organ and organism 3.8 billion years ago (plus the changing conditions which presumably switched on the relevant programmes), or popping in to create brand new species from scratch (what happened to common descent?), the absence of precursors from 570+ million years ago is due to the fact that dead bodies tend to disintegrate over time, leaving no trace behind!
dhw: I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.
DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?
AVID: By God's design.
Are you saying that, despite your belief in common descent (except for when you don’t believe in it) your God does not design new species by changing the jobs that existing cells do?
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.
dhw: Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?
DAVID: Once a system evolves/is designed, no dabbling necessary.
Once again you dodge my question. No dabbling would be necessary once your God had designed the system of the intelligent cell which autonomously works out how to deal with new invaders.But you say your God issued the cells with instructions on how to deal with every new invader. Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 15:47 (1149 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: […] the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.
dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”?
dhw: You have not answered this question.
Yes I did. In the Grand Canyon layers were precisely demarked. New fossils do not follow that preciseness. The new phyla (as quoted below) appear around the rock change. The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?
dhw: Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.htmlNo need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.
dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.
DAVID: Only if you purposely avoid the obvious, which Darwin recognized, and now you and the article ignore. The line between Edicaran and Cambrian is obviously blurred geologically, but the early advanced forms at end Edicaran had NO obvious close-in-form precursors and are the gradual start of the explosion. Of course anyone can find Darwinist articles written to blur the obvious.
dhw: It is not unreasonable to propose that instead of your God preprogramming every new organ and organism 3.8 billion years ago (plus the changing conditions which presumably switched on the relevant programmes), or popping in to create brand new species from scratch (what happened to common descent?), the absence of precursors from 570+ million years ago is due to the fact that dead bodies tend to disintegrate over time, leaving no trace behind!
You keep ignoring the new discoveries. In China many soft forms, even brains and eyes, are newly found. The gap never narrows!!! Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.
dhw: I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?
DAVID: By God's design.
dhw: Are you saying that, despite your belief in common descent (except for when you don’t believe in it) your God does not design new species by changing the jobs that existing cells do?
Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.dhw: Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?
DAVID: Once a system evolves/is designed, no dabbling necessary.
dhw: Once again you dodge my question. No dabbling would be necessary once your God had designed the system of the intelligent cell which autonomously works out how to deal with new invaders. But you say your God issued the cells with instructions on how to deal with every new invader. Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?
A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors..
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: […] the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.
dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”?
dhw: You have not answered this question.
DAVID: Yes I did. In the Grand Canyon layers were precisely demarked. New fossils do not follow that preciseness. The new phyla (as quoted below) appear around the rock change. The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?
Of course I accept the gaps! But the Grand Canyon is not the only source of fossils, as you point out below, and there are two problems: 1) the absence of fossils to fill the gaps, and 2) the apparent suddenness of the appearance of some new species. I am proposing that 1) it is unreasonable to expect a full fossil record of every species, and 2) “suddenness” is relative. You say the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms (the article I quoted made it sound rather less prolific), and I asked a simple question: how many millions of years do you regard as being the “start”?
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
dhw: No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.
dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.
DAVID: You keep ignoring the new discoveries. In China many soft forms, even brains and eyes, are newly found. The gap never narrows!!! Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.
As I understand it, Gould’s gaps are the long periods of stasis in which species remain unchanged, and instead of Darwin’s gradualism, he argues for sudden bursts of creativity. What is there not to accept? I don’t know his views on the mechanisms, but it seems reasonable to propose that new species came into being – possibly just locally (hence the different sites of discovery) – through responses to changes in the environment. If you add Shapiro’s theory that these changes are made by intelligent cells, you have a complete explanation of how evolution happens. I would add that your God may have designed cellular intelligence.
DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place? […]
DAVID: Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.
So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?
Magic embryology
QUOTE: "A system with many switches ensures that the system does not easily fail," says Zuniga. "And it gives evolution room for change." Therefore, individual switches have been able to change without significant pressure, and this has played a part in the development of a wide range of extremities during the history of evolution."
DAVID: This system keeps errors to an extreme minimum. The study fits my theory that God sets up programs early in anticipation of future designs of future evolutionary stages.
This is another way of saying that the system allows for both stability and flexibility. Stability preserves species, and flexibility allows for the production of new species. Please tell us if by “programs” you mean your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old individual programmes for every single undabbled evolutionary change (plus econiche, natural wonder etc.) for the whole history of life, or could the system and its many switches refer to a mechanism whereby cell communities could autonomously maintain themselves (stasis) or restructure themselves (speciation)?
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.
dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?
DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)
So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Thursday, September 30, 2021, 15:57 (1148 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes I did. In the Grand Canyon layers were precisely demarked. New fossils do not follow that preciseness. The new phyla (as quoted below) appear around the rock change. The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?
dhw: Of course I accept the gaps! But the Grand Canyon is not the only source of fossils, as you point out below, and there are two problems: 1) the absence of fossils to fill the gaps, and 2) the apparent suddenness of the appearance of some new species. I am proposing that 1) it is unreasonable to expect a full fossil record of every species, and 2) “suddenness” is relative. You say the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms (the article I quoted made it sound rather less prolific), and I asked a simple question: how many millions of years do you regard as being the “start”?
The Grand Canyon is just a geology example. The true gap is bolded above in my comment. It is the key point you continue avoid and talk around.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.htmldhw: No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.
dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.DAVID: You keep ignoring the new discoveries. In China many soft forms, even brains and eyes, are newly found. The gap never narrows!!! Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.
dhw: As I understand it, Gould’s gaps are the long periods of stasis in which species remain unchanged, and instead of Darwin’s gradualism, he argues for sudden bursts of creativity. What is there not to accept?
The large changes show new complex designs. Th at is my point abut gaps.
DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place? […]
DAVID: Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.
dhw: So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?
Same cells do many things, others just one, all assigned
Magic embryology
QUOTE: "A system with many switches ensures that the system does not easily fail," says Zuniga. "And it gives evolution room for change." Therefore, individual switches have been able to change without significant pressure, and this has played a part in the development of a wide range of extremities during the history of evolution."DAVID: This system keeps errors to an extreme minimum. The study fits my theory that God sets up programs early in anticipation of future designs of future evolutionary stages.
This is another way of saying that the system allows for both stability and flexibility. Stability preserves species, and flexibility allows for the production of new species. Please tell us if by “programs” you mean your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old individual programmes for every single undabbled evolutionary change (plus econiche, natural wonder etc.) for the whole history of life,
Answered above. Programs for the future are set in advance.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?
DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)
dhw: So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.
The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?
dhw: Of course I accept the gaps! But the Grand Canyon is not the only source of fossils, as you point out below, and there are two problems: 1) the absence of fossils to fill the gaps, and 2) the apparent suddenness of the appearance of some new species. I am proposing that 1) it is unreasonable to expect a full fossil record of every species, and 2) “suddenness” is relative. You say the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms (the article I quoted made it sound rather less prolific), and I asked a simple question: how many millions of years do you regard as being the “start”?
DAVID: The Grand Canyon is just a geology example. The true gap is bolded above in my comment. It is the key point you continue avoid and talk around.
When I say I accept the gaps, and then try to explain them as being due to a possible absence of fossils and also to a misconception of “suddenness” (i.e. there is plenty of time for new phyla to evolve during the Cambrian), I am not avoiding or talking round the subject of the gaps. As regards “suddenness”, I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.
DAVID: […] Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.
dhw: As I understand it, Gould’s gaps are the long periods of stasis in which species remain unchanged, and instead of Darwin’s gradualism, he argues for sudden bursts of creativity. What is there not to accept?
DAVID: The large changes show new complex designs. That is my point abut gaps.
And I don’t dispute it. You think your God popped in to dabble the changes, and I suggest that intelligent communities may have designed the changes themselves.
DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.
dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place? […]
DAVID: Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.
dhw: So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?
DAVID: Same cells do many things, others just one, all assigned.
Same problem: you have your God preprogramming, manipulating or instructing cells to change, and I suggest that if he exists, he gave them the power to change themselves. Either way, they clearly have potential to do different jobs.
Magic embryology
DAVID: The study fits my theory that God sets up programs early in anticipation of future designs of future evolutionary stages.
dhw: This is another way of saying that the system allows for both stability and flexibility. Stability preserves species, and flexibility allows for the production of new species. Please tell us if by “programs” you mean your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old individual programmes for every single undabbled evolutionary change (plus econiche, natural wonder etc.) for the whole history of life,
DAVID: Answered above. Programs for the future are set in advance.
So either these are the 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for every change throughout life’s history, or every time your God foresees a change in conditions, he pops in and inserts a programme for all the different organisms to cope with or exploit the change (apart from those he doesn’t want to survive). But see below.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.
dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?
DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)
dhw: So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.
But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Friday, October 01, 2021, 14:46 (1147 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The Grand Canyon is just a geology example. The true gap is bolded above in my comment. It is the key point you continue avoid and talk around.
When I say I accept the gaps, and then try to explain them as being due to a possible absence of fossils and also to a misconception of “suddenness” (i.e. there is plenty of time for new phyla to evolve during the Cambrian), I am not avoiding or talking round the subject of the gaps. As regards “suddenness”, I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.
It is not years of geology!!! When they look at the layers the early Cambrians are suddenly there on both sides of the demarcation. The gap is in the massive jump in forms. This is what you avoid discussing.
DAVID: The large changes show new complex designs. That is my point abut gaps.dhw: And I don’t dispute it. You think your God popped in to dabble the changes, and I suggest that intelligent communities may have designed the changes themselves.
Creating the gaps in form?
dhw: So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?DAVID: Same cells do many things, others just one, all assigned.
dhw: Same problem: you have your God preprogramming, manipulating or instructing cells to change, and I suggest that if he exists, he gave them the power to change themselves. Either way, they clearly have potential to do different jobs.
God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions. Some cells may have more than one assigned function.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?
DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)
dhw: So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.
dhw: But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?
At some point in evolution immune cells were created in multicellular organisms to act as I have described.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.
DAVID: It is not years of geology!!! When they look at the layers the early Cambrians are suddenly there on both sides of the demarcation. The gap is in the massive jump in forms. This is what you avoid discussing.
Please explain what you mean by “both sides of the demarcation”. (Are you just talking about the Grand Canyon?) Of course the gap is the massive jump in forms, but why “suddenly” if the appearance of all the different forms covers, let’s say, a million years? “Geological time” masks the fact that we are dealing with biology. Even if each generation needs, say, twenty years between reproductions (most need far fewer), you have 50,000 generations, and do we know precisely how stable local conditions were 550 million years ago? And how many fossils do you expect to have survived from 550 million years ago? This is what you “avoid discussing”. I’m not saying that this solves the Cambrian mystery. Nobody has solved it. But for those of us who believe in common descent, these factors alone – without even considering the possibility that cell communities respond intelligently to new conditions (i.e. they may well have produced comparatively sudden innovations) – make the mystery a little less mysterious. This explanation is certainly no more mysterious than that of an unknown and sourceless conscious mind “suddenly” popping in specially to invent new forms of life, the majority of which had no connection with humans although its only goal was to design humans.
DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.
How do you know?
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.
dhw: But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?
DAVID: At some point in evolution immune cells were created in multicellular organisms to act as I have described.
I have suggested that cells have an autonomous intelligence which recognizes new invaders and (sometimes) works out how to combat them. What you have described is cells being able to build up a library of antibodies throughout the life of the organism (which fits in with my suggestion), and yet your God has provided the cells with a “set of instructions to recognize each invader and to devise antibodies to fit that invader”. You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Saturday, October 02, 2021, 15:18 (1146 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.
DAVID: It is not years of geology!!! When they look at the layers the early Cambrians are suddenly there on both sides of the demarcation. The gap is in the massive jump in forms. This is what you avoid discussing.
dhw: Please explain what you mean by “both sides of the demarcation”. (Are you just talking about the Grand Canyon?) Of course the gap is the massive jump in forms, but why “suddenly” if the appearance of all the different forms covers, let’s say, a million years? “Geological time” masks the fact that we are dealing with biology. Even if each generation needs, say, twenty years between reproductions (most need far fewer), you have 50,000 generations, and do we know precisely how stable local conditions were 550 million years ago? And how many fossils do you expect to have survived from 550 million years ago? This is what you “avoid discussing”. I’m not saying that this solves the Cambrian mystery. Nobody has solved it. But for those of us who believe in common descent, these factors alone – without even considering the possibility that cell communities respond intelligently to new conditions (i.e. they may well have produced comparatively sudden innovations) – make the mystery a little less mysterious. This explanation is certainly no more mysterious than that of an unknown and sourceless conscious mind “suddenly” popping in specially to invent new forms of life, the majority of which had no connection with humans although its only goal was to design humans.
The various geological ages are sharply demarcated all over the world. The key point that you palaver around is the sharp sudden appearance of the Cambrians without any type of even partial precursors. China has revealed many new Edicaran forms, nothing close to the first Cambrians. And yes, the biological forms don't adhere exactly to the demarcations. Doesn't change the obvious huge gap in form and function.
DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.dhw: How do you know?
Todays' cells don't change.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.dhw: But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?
DAVID: At some point in evolution immune cells were created in multicellular organisms to act as I have described.
dhw: I have suggested that cells have an autonomous intelligence which recognizes new invaders and (sometimes) works out how to combat them. What you have described is cells being able to build up a library of antibodies throughout the life of the organism (which fits in with my suggestion), and yet your God has provided the cells with a “set of instructions to recognize each invader and to devise antibodies to fit that invader”. You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.
In a general way I view immune systems as starting with bacteria and their CRISPR defense. As evolution advanced in designed stages the multicellular immune systems developed also. Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific. Our responses to various vaccines is in the same general way. Reactions to whole body live attenuated vaccines match natural events. (Polio). Pfizer RNA is totally manmade and unnatural but the same automatic response with antibodies occurs. God's immune cell system is a generalized response. No Britannica of different ways to do it!!! All the same and very direct.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: The various geological ages are sharply demarcated all over the world. The key point that you palaver around is the sharp sudden appearance of the Cambrians without any type of even partial precursors. China has revealed many new Edicaran forms, nothing close to the first Cambrians. And yes, the biological forms don't adhere exactly to the demarcations. Doesn't change the obvious huge gap in form and function.
I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions). 4) It is perfectly conceivable that intelligent cell communities are capable of making major as well as minor changes to their anatomy. Nobody knows how speciation took place, but this theory is at least as plausible as your own “palaver”, which has an unknown and sourceless conscious mind “suddenly” popping in specially to invent new forms of life, the majority of which had no connection with humans although its only goal was to design humans.
DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.
dhw: How do you know?
DAVID: Todays' cells don't change.
There is no new speciation happening today, and nobody knows how it happened in the past. But scientists keep revealing how certain cells, e.g. stem cells, are capable of an almost infinite variety of changes to their structure and function.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.[…]
dhw: […] You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.
DAVID: In a general way I view immune systems as starting with bacteria and their CRISPR defense. As evolution advanced in designed stages the multicellular immune systems developed also.
If the systems developed stage by stage, the process was ongoing, i.e. accumulative. And yet your God did NOT dabble, and instructions were not programmed 3.8 bya.
DAVID: Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific.
So your God did not issue specific instructions on how to recognize every new invader and how to devise the necessary antibodies. He just told the cells that they must recognize the invader and add XYZ to one of their proteins, then left it to them to do the necessary. And how would they know which XYZ to add, in order to fight an enemy they had never seen before, with “no thought involved”?
DAVID: […] God's immune cell system is a generalized response. No Britannica of different ways to do it!!! All the same and very direct.
Hardly direct if you have an unknown number of unknown invaders, and all your God has done is tell the cells to find the right solution to the problem! You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Sunday, October 03, 2021, 16:23 (1145 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The various geological ages are sharply demarcated all over the world. The key point that you palaver around is the sharp sudden appearance of the Cambrians without any type of even partial precursors. China has revealed many new Edicaran forms, nothing close to the first Cambrians. And yes, the biological forms don't adhere exactly to the demarcations. Doesn't change the obvious huge gap in form and function.
dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions).
Your explanation for sudden appearance, which you say you accept, then devolves into a mish mosh of why it can't be sudden. You have not explained Darwin's gap, because it hasn't gone away. The gap in form and function from simple Edicarans to the first Cambrians is entirely unexplained and quite real. Active research in the very complete Chinese shale beds has not reduced the gap.
DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.dhw: How do you know?
DAVID: Todays' cells don't change.
dhw: There is no new speciation happening today, and nobody knows how it happened in the past. But scientists keep revealing how certain cells, e.g. stem cells, are capable of an almost infinite variety of changes to their structure and function.
Stem cells are designed with a purposeful function to create cells with purposeful function. Without them there is no embryology from fertilized egg. What is your point, if any?
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.[…]dhw: […] You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.
DAVID: In a general way I view immune systems as starting with bacteria and their CRISPR defense. As evolution advanced in designed stages the multicellular immune systems developed also.
dhw: If the systems developed stage by stage, the process was ongoing, i.e. accumulative. And yet your God did NOT dabble, and instructions were not programmed 3.8 bya.
DAVID: Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific.
dhw: So your God did not issue specific instructions on how to recognize every new invader and how to devise the necessary antibodies. He just told the cells that they must recognize the invader and add XYZ to one of their proteins, then left it to them to do the necessary. And how would they know which XYZ to add, in order to fight an enemy they had never seen before, with “no thought involved”?
The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. Your immune system recognized Covid vaccine just like all the vaccines you took in the past. Yet they are nothing like any previous vaccines invented by man. Same natural response to an unnatural vaccine. All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary
DAVID: […] God's immune cell system is a generalized response. No Britannica of different ways to do it!!! All the same and very direct.dhw: Hardly direct if you have an unknown number of unknown invaders, and all your God has done is tell the cells to find the right solution to the problem! You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?
Again, the cells recognize a foreign protein, simply because it is foreign, and add a killer segment to it. Always the same segment. It is a complexly designed system that keeps it
simple!!! That is how immunity works
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions). [You left out the fourth factor, which is the theory of cellular intelligence.]
DAVID: Your explanation for sudden appearance, which you say you accept….
I did NOT say I accepted it! I described it as “a possible explanation”, and went on to say that “nobody knows how speciation took place, but this theory is at least as plausible as your own “palaver”.
DAVID: ...then devolves into a mish mosh of why it can't be sudden.
It is the sudden appearance of new species that constitutes your major argument!
DAVID: You have not explained Darwin's gap, because it hasn't gone away. The gap in form and function from simple Edicarans to the first Cambrians is entirely unexplained and quite real. Active research in the very complete Chinese shale beds has not reduced the gap.
The gap is the sudden appearance of new forms without any known precursors. I have agreed that no one knows the answer, but I have offered a 4-point list of factors that might explain it, and your only response is to say that it is a “mish mosh”. Why don’t you respond to the points themselves?
DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.
dhw: How do you know?
DAVID: Todays' cells don't change.
dhw: There is no new speciation happening today, and nobody knows how it happened in the past. But scientists keep revealing how certain cells, e.g. stem cells, are capable of an almost infinite variety of changes to their structure and function.
DAVID: Stem cells are designed with a purposeful function to create cells with purposeful function. Without them there is no embryology from fertilized egg. What is your point, if any?
Cells do change their form and functions. If they didn’t, there could be no evolution. If your God can change their form and functions, then he is perfectly capable of giving them the means to do it themselves.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific.
dhw: So your God did not issue specific instructions on how to recognize every new invader and how to devise the necessary antibodies. He just told the cells that they must recognize the invader and add XYZ to one of their proteins, then left it to them to do the necessary. And how would they know which XYZ to add, in order to fight an enemy they had never seen before, with “no thought involved”?
DAVID: The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. […] All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary.
How can the XYZ additions all be the same if the invaders are different? What is there to develop if the solution to the problem is always the same? If the cells obey instructions which were not preprogrammed from the very beginning, how can your God develop his design without dabbling? Yes, the PROCESS is the same: new invader, new antibodies. But the details have to change, and if your God has not issued instructions for every single detail and does not dabble, then the cell community has to work out the details by itself. Impossible without thought.
dhw […] You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?
DAVID: Again, the cells recognize a foreign protein, simply because it is foreign, and add a killer segment to it. Always the same segment. It is a complexly designed system that keeps it simple!!! That is how immunity works.
In order to recognize something as foreign, you have to be aware of the difference between it and you. Sometimes cells make mistakes. Isn’t that often the problem with transplants? Recognition is a cognitive process. And as I understand it, the immune system must produce a specific new antibody to kill each specific new antigen. So what do you mean by the same killer segment?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Monday, October 04, 2021, 18:55 (1144 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions). [You left out the fourth factor, which is the theory of cellular intelligence.]
DAVID: ...then devolves into a mish mosh of why it can't be sudden.
dhw: It is the sudden appearance of new species that constitutes your major argument!
DAVID: You have not explained Darwin's gap, because it hasn't gone away. The gap in form and function from simple Edicarans to the first Cambrians is entirely unexplained and quite real. Active research in the very complete Chinese shale beds has not reduced the gap.
dhw: The gap is the sudden appearance of new forms without any known precursors. I have agreed that no one knows the answer, but I have offered a 4-point list of factors that might explain it, and your only response is to say that it is a “mish mosh”. Why don’t you respond to the points themselves?
Each point avoids the obvious gap in precursors, not recognizing the 50+ years of new findings in Chinese shale all of which reinforce the gap. It is Darwin's gap, unchanged since he noted it.
DAVID: Stem cells are designed with a purposeful function to create cells with purposeful function. Without them there is no embryology from fertilized egg. What is your point, if any?dhw: Cells do change their form and functions. If they didn’t, there could be no evolution. If your God can change their form and functions, then he is perfectly capable of giving them the means to do it themselves.
True without an evidence, just supposition of impractical secondhand design
Immunity system complexityDAVID: The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. […] All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary.
dhw: How can the XYZ additions all be the same if the invaders are different? What is there to develop if the solution to the problem is always the same? If the cells obey instructions which were not preprogrammed from the very beginning, how can your God develop his design without dabbling? Yes, the PROCESS is the same: new invader, new antibodies. But the details have to change, and if your God has not issued instructions for every single detail and does not dabble, then the cell community has to work out the details by itself. Impossible without thought.
Don't believe me if that is your opinion. Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades. No new instructions from God are required to have the system work from birth onward. The system is built in to recognize all new invasions, like Covid 19, which never existed more than three + years ago. Yet we all make antibodies against it!!! God dabble not required.
dhw […] You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?DAVID: Again, the cells recognize a foreign protein, simply because it is foreign, and add a killer segment to it. Always the same segment. It is a complexly designed system that keeps it simple!!! That is how immunity works.
dhw: In order to recognize something as foreign, you have to be aware of the difference between it and you. Sometimes cells make mistakes. Isn’t that often the problem with transplants? Recognition is a cognitive process. And as I understand it, the immune system must produce a specific new antibody to kill each specific new antigen. So what do you mean by the same killer segment?
What immune cells add to recognized foreign protein is a killer protein, always by the same process. Knowing self from non-self is built in. Transplants are always foreign if genetically close in HLA, so anti-immune drugs must be used to protect the transplant. I see you floundering to find objections to the idea our immune cells know exactly what to do each and every time. Fabulous design!!! No cell thought required
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species!
DAVID: Each point avoids the obvious gap in precursors, not recognizing the 50+ years of new findings in Chinese shale all of which reinforce the gap. It is Darwin's gap, unchanged since he noted it.
Each point contributes to a possible explanation of the gap. We are talking about a period that could cover vast numbers of generations, and about innovations that took place in different locations where changing conditions could trigger different responses. Most importantly, the possibility of cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God) allows for the jumps that Darwin considered impossible, and we cannot expect to find fossils of every innovation from 550+ million years ago. I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).
DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.
dhw: How do you know?
DAVID Today’s cells don’t change.
dhw: Cells do change their form and functions. If they didn’t, there could be no evolution. If your God can change their form and functions, then he is perfectly capable of giving them the means to do it themselves.
DAVID: True without an evidence, just supposition of impractical secondhand design.
So you agree that cells do change their form and function, and your only objection is that you happen to know that your God didn’t give them the power to do it themselves.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. […] All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary.
dhw: How can the XYZ additions all be the same if the invaders are different? What is there to develop if the solution to the problem is always the same? If the cells obey instructions which were not preprogrammed from the very beginning, how can your God develop his design without dabbling? Yes, the PROCESS is the same: new invader, new antibodies. But the details have to change, and if your God has not issued instructions for every single detail and does not dabble, then the cell community has to work out the details by itself. Impossible without thought.
DAVID: Don't believe me if that is your opinion. Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades.
I have just stated (now bolded) that the process is the same! It’s the details that change.
DAVID: No new instructions from God are required to have the system work from birth onward. The system is built in to recognize all new invasions, like Covid 19, which never existed more than three + years ago. Yet we all make antibodies against it!!! God dabble not required.
Thank you for confirming that cells recognize invasions and make NEW antibodies without any dabbling from your God. How they can possibly do so without thought is beyond me. And still we wait to hear exactly what your God’s “instructions” consist of, if they do not specify what new XYZs are required to kill off the new invaders. Meanwhile, please note that millions of people have died from Covid-19. The system failed.
DAVID: Knowing self from non-self is built in.
What does “built in” mean, if it is not the cognitive faculty of recognition?
DAVID: I see you floundering to find objections to the idea our immune cells know exactly what to do each and every time. Fabulous design!!! No cell thought required.
They don’t know what to do each and every time. They have to work it out! Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders? “I see you floundering” to find objections to the idea that if your God has not preprogrammed or dabbled specific antibodies to counter specific invaders, then the only possibility left is that (if he exists) he has given cells the ABILITY to work out how to do it themselves – and that requires thought. (Not, of course, to be confused or compared with human thought.) In your own words, referring to a baby: “The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along.” You have agreed that the cells make the library without "instructions" from your God, in which case they must autonomously compile each volume as and when it is needed.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 15:49 (1143 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 16:19
dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species!
DAVID: Each point avoids the obvious gap in precursors, not recognizing the 50+ years of new findings in Chinese shale all of which reinforce the gap. It is Darwin's gap, unchanged since he noted it.
dhw: Each point contributes to a possible explanation of the gap. We are talking about a period that could cover vast numbers of generations, and about innovations that took place in different locations where changing conditions could trigger different responses...I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).
A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal. Your hopeful theories about the gap does not get rid of its current unexplained state.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: Don't believe me if that is your opinion. Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades.
dhw: I have just stated (now bolded) that the process is the same! It’s the details that change.
Automatically by the cells singular process.
DAVID: No new instructions from God are required to have the system work from birth onward. The system is built in to recognize all new invasions, like Covid 19, which never existed more than three + years ago. Yet we all make antibodies against it!!! God dabble not required.dhw: Thank you for confirming that cells recognize invasions and make NEW antibodies without any dabbling from your God. How they can possibly do so without thought is beyond me. And still we wait to hear exactly what your God’s “instructions” consist of, if they do not specify what new XYZs are required to kill off the new invaders. Meanwhile, please note that millions of people have died from Covid-19. The system failed.
What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required
DAVID: I see you floundering to find objections to the idea our immune cells know exactly what to do each and every time. Fabulous design!!! No cell thought required.dhw: They don’t know what to do each and every time. They have to work it out!
Just respond according it plan.
dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?
Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.
dhw: “I see you floundering” to find objections to the idea that if your God has not preprogrammed or dabbled specific antibodies to counter specific invaders, then the only possibility left is that (if he exists) he has given cells the ABILITY to work out how to do it themselves – and that requires thought. (Not, of course, to be confused or compared with human thought.) In your own words, referring to a baby: “The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along.” You have agreed that the cells make the library without "instructions" from your God, in which case they must autonomously compile each volume as and when it is needed.
Your fertile mind distorts what I tell you constantly as the bold. The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory. You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system. Read it for yourself on Google, your usual attempt to learn outside of me.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
Yesterday, I repeated a four-point theory concerning the “gap” between species.
dhw: I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).
DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.
Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.
DAVID: Your hopeful theories about the gap does not get rid of its current unexplained state.
If we had a definitive explanation, we would not need to theorize. Your own “hopeful theories about the gap” do not “get rid of its current unexplained state”. Perhaps you could now explain any logical flaws you find in the argument.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades.
dhw: I have just stated [...] that the process is the same! It’s the details that change.
DAVID: Automatically by the cells singular process.
So you agree that the details change. Thank you.
DAVID: What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required.
First you agree that the details change, but they do so automatically, and now you say no extra details are required. So when a new invader arrives, you think the immune system produces exactly the same antibody as for every previous invader!
dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.
In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.
dhw: In your own words, referring to a baby: “The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along.” You have agreed that the cells make the library without "instructions" from your God, in which case they must autonomously compile each volume as and when it is needed.
DAVID: Your fertile mind distorts what I tell you constantly as the bold. The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.
So now you agree that extra details (appropriate antibodies) are required, but although from birth onwards the cells build their own memory and are able to make a library of antibodies, there are no new volumes to add, because all we need is God to say: “Make appropriate antibodies for this new invader”. (Or can you tell us what other instructions he delivers without dabbling?) The cells automatically know exactly how to make the new antibody because no extra details are required beyond those it already has in the library which it builds up from birth onwards, as and when it creates new (but exactly the same) antibodies to fight off new invaders.
DAVID: You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system.
No, I don’t. I find them full of contradictions.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 06, 2021, 15:36 (1142 days ago) @ dhw
Yesterday, I repeated a four-point theory concerning the “gap” between species.
dhw: I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).
DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.
dhw: Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.
We have covered all of the possible reasons God wanted to produce life that recognized He existed. No need to repeat the guesswork as you have the facility to quote the guesses.
DAVID: Your hopeful theories about the gap does not get rid of its current unexplained state.dhw: If we had a definitive explanation, we would not need to theorize. Your own “hopeful theories about the gap” do not “get rid of its current unexplained state”. Perhaps you could now explain any logical flaws you find in the argument.
All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required.
dhw: First you agree that the details change, but they do so automatically, and now you say no extra details are required. So when a new invader arrives, you think the immune system produces exactly the same antibody as for every previous invader!
No, each new antibody is conformed to attack the new invader recognizing the invader as such.
dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.
dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.
You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!
DAVID: Your fertile mind distorts what I tell you constantly as the bold. The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.
dhw: So now you agree that extra details (appropriate antibodies) are required, but although from birth onwards the cells build their own memory and are able to make a library of antibodies, there are no new volumes to add, because all we need is God to say: “Make appropriate antibodies for this new invader”. (Or can you tell us what other instructions he delivers without dabbling?) The cells automatically know exactly how to make the new antibody because no extra details are required beyond those it already has in the library which it builds up from birth onwards, as and when it creates new (but exactly the same) antibodies to fight off new invaders.
DAVID: You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system.
dhw: No, I don’t. I find them full of contradictions.
Comment: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference. Or read it on your own and learn.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.
dhw: Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.
DAVID: We have covered all of the possible reasons God wanted to produce life that recognized He existed. […]
I was not asking about his reasons for producing humans who would recognize his existence. You implied that humans were not your God’s sole purpose, so I asked for other reasons why he would have designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.
Your whole point about the Cambrian is negative: there are no known precursors. How does that prove that there were no precursors, and that there is a God who stepped in and created new species out of nothing? Now let us consider the implications of this theory for your overall theory of evolution. You believe your God created life with the purpose of creating humans (plus our food). And you believe he “evolved” us (by which you mean designed us) in stage after stage, starting with bacteria. But all of a sudden, he started designing species from scratch – not descended from bacteria at all. So now what do you believe? 3+ billion years of special designs, all wasted, since the human line only began with brand new species designed 550 million years ago? Food? Was every single species he designed before the Cambrian, including all those that had no connection with humans and our food, part of the goal of designing humans and our food? Your theory about the Cambrian directly contradicts your theory about our descent from bacteria – unless you now wish to argue that the new species were NOT the precursors of humans, in which case, why did he bother to design them?
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required.
dhw: First you agree that the details change, but they do so automatically, and now you say no extra details are required. So when a new invader arrives, you think the immune system produces exactly the same antibody as for every previous invader!
DAVID: No, each new antibody is conformed to attack the new invader recognizing the invader as such.
Thank you. New extra details are required.
dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.
dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.
DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!
So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.
DAVID: […] The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.
dhw: So now you agree that extra details (appropriate antibodies) are required, but although from birth onwards the cells build their own memory and are able to make a library of antibodies, there are no new volumes to add, because all we need is God to say: “Make appropriate antibodies for this new invader”. (Or can you tell us what other instructions he delivers without dabbling?) The cells automatically know exactly how to make the new antibody because no extra details are required beyond those it already has in the library which it builds up from birth onwards, as and when it creates new (but exactly the same) antibodies to fight off new invaders.
DAVID: You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system.
dhw: No, I don’t. I find them full of contradictions.
DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.
Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Thursday, October 07, 2021, 18:44 (1141 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.
dhw: Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.
DAVID: We have covered all of the possible reasons God wanted to produce life that recognized He existed. […]
I was not asking about his reasons for producing humans who would recognize his existence. You implied that humans were not your God’s sole purpose, so I asked for other reasons why he would have designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.
dhw: Your whole point about the Cambrian is negative: there are no known precursors. How does that prove that there were no precursors, and that there is a God who stepped in and created new species out of nothing? Now let us consider the implications of this theory for your overall theory of evolution. You believe your God created life with the purpose of creating humans (plus our food). And you believe he “evolved” us (by which you mean designed us) in stage after stage, starting with bacteria. But all of a sudden, he started designing species from scratch – not descended from bacteria at all. So now what do you believe?
Not differently. Don't forget God is a designer. What was the precursor for life? The Cambrian is at a point where God was ready for sexual reproduction to appear a much more complex way to evolve more new organisms. The single cells had been designed with perfected processes to be used in the next stages.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.
dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.
DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!
dhw: So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.
No, a weak response is not enough antibodies to eradicate the invader's reproduction rate.
DAVID: […] The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.
dhw: Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?
Because the cells don't think. They automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process. Similar with virus in that the ability to take over DNA for reproduction is damaged. The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library. The newborn also comes with generalized defenses that last a lifetime and are early protection before specific antibodies are made. Immunity varies with the attacker: a cold is two months, covid about 3-6 months, measles and polio lifetime.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.
dhw: Your whole point about the Cambrian is negative: there are no known precursors. How does that prove that there were no precursors, and that there is a God who stepped in and created new species out of nothing? Now let us consider the implications of this theory for your overall theory of evolution. You believe your God created life with the purpose of creating humans (plus our food). And you believe he “evolved” us (by which you mean designed us) in stage after stage, starting with bacteria. But all of a sudden, he started designing species from scratch – not descended from bacteria at all. So now what do you believe?
DAVID: Not differently. Don't forget God is a designer. What was the precursor for life? The Cambrian is at a point where God was ready for sexual reproduction to appear a much more complex way to evolve more new organisms. The single cells had been designed with perfected processes to be used in the next stages.
You have ignored the problem. Previously you have told us that evolution was a continuous process, and your God “evolved” humans in stage after stage from bacteria. Now you tell us that your God created new species with no precursors. Do you believe that we are descended from the new species with no precursors, or from bacteria? Please answer directly, so that we can discuss the implications.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.
dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.
DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!
dhw: So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.
DAVID: No, a weak response is not enough antibodies to eradicate the invader's reproduction rate.
And that’s supposed to be a positive, is it?
DAVID: […] The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.
DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.
dhw: Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?
DAVID: Because the cells don't think.
That is your belief. Please don’t state it as a fact
DAVID: They automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process.
You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!
DAVID: The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary. Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library.
You keep repeating what I told you. The process is the same, but the process entails producing ADDITIONS to the library which cells build up AUTONOMOUSLY. You can argue that your God set up the process, but the details change from one invasion to the next, and cells must tailor their response to each new threat. You have agreed that your God does not do it for them. You parrot words like “automatically” and “God’s instructions”, and simply ignore the obvious fact that recognizing something new and then producing something new to counter it requires thought.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Friday, October 08, 2021, 23:36 (1140 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Not differently. Don't forget God is a designer. What was the precursor for life? The Cambrian is at a point where God was ready for sexual reproduction to appear a much more complex way to evolve more new organisms. The single cells had been designed with perfected processes to be used in the next stages.
dhw: You have ignored the problem. Previously you have told us that evolution was a continuous process, and your God “evolved” humans in stage after stage from bacteria. Now you tell us that your God created new species with no precursors. Do you believe that we are descended from the new species with no precursors, or from bacteria? Please answer directly, so that we can discuss the implications.
You have jumped into a big nothing. Your definition of continuous means every step followed the the last, but always with obvious precursors. I always say the Cambrian is a gap with no precursors. What have you suddenly discovered? Nothing. God is a designer: life has no precursors (BIG DEAL); the universe has no precursor (BIG DEAL). The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. As before, the background underlying living processes had been established sufficient for the jump to the Cambrian.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.
DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!
dhw: So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.
DAVID: No, a weak response is not enough antibodies to eradicate the invader's reproduction rate.
dhw: And that’s supposed to be a positive, is it?
My point which you always deride is some folks are naturally weak. It's standard biology of the bell curve.
DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.dhw: Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?
DAVID: Because the cells don't think.
dhw: That is your belief. Please don’t state it as a fact
You can't tell me they do.
DAVID: They automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process.dhw: You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!
Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer. As a full invasion the same similar inflammatory process always happens in the same way.
DAVID: The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary. Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library.dhw: You keep repeating what I told you. The process is the same, but the process entails producing ADDITIONS to the library which cells build up AUTONOMOUSLY. You can argue that your God set up the process, but the details change from one invasion to the next, and cells must tailor their response to each new threat. You have agreed that your God does not do it for them. You parrot words like “automatically” and “God’s instructions”, and simply ignore the obvious fact that recognizing something new and then producing something new to counter it requires thought.
If the producti9n of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
dhw: Do you believe that we are descended from the new species with no precursors, or from bacteria?
DAVID: You have jumped into a big nothing. Your definition of continuous means every step followed the the last, but always with obvious precursors. I always say the Cambrian is a gap with no precursors.
Why have you stuck in the word “obvious”? I agree that the Cambrian gap is a mystery, to which I have offered a possible solution, but that is not the problem here. This is the problem:
DAVID: The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. As before, the background underlying living processes had been established sufficient for the jump to the Cambrian.
You have suddenly changed your mind: instead of us humans and our food being descended from bacteria, starting 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God apparently stepped in only 550 million years ago to dabble brand new lines of life (including ours and trilobites) from scratch. So if humans and our food were your God’s sole purpose right from the start, what was the point of all the extinct life forms that preceded the Cambrian (let alone all the extinct Cambrian [e.g. trilobites] and post-Cambrian forms [e.g. brontosaurus]) and had no connection with us and our food? Could it be that your God was experimenting, learning as he went along, getting new ideas? After all, producing brand new creations out of nothing, with no precursors, hardly suggests the continuity which is a constant theme in your assertion that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: They [cells] automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process.
dhw: You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!
DAVID: Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.
You’ve got it. I am confronted with a new problem, I recognize it, and I produce the means of dealing with it. I agree that my feeling the pain is automatic. But my recognition of the cause of the pain and my working out a solution to nullify the cause require autonomous THOUGHT.
DAVID: The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary. Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library.
dhw: You keep repeating what I told you. The process is the same, but the process entails producing ADDITIONS to the library which cells build up AUTONOMOUSLY. You can argue that your God set up the process, but the details change from one invasion to the next, and cells must tailor their response to each new threat. You have agreed that your God does not do it for them. You parrot words like “automatically” and “God’s instructions”, and simply ignore the obvious fact that recognizing something new and then producing something new to counter it requires thought.
DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.
How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before? You seem to be going back to your God’s list of instructions for every new problem and solution, and all the cells have to do is pick out the right volume from the vast library God provided 3.8 billion years ago. The PROCESS is the same, but with every new invader, there has to be a new addition to the library that is built up after birth, so please tell us what is added. As with your image of the splinter and the tweezers, there has to be AUTONOMOUS recognition (= conscious cognition) and the AUTONOMOUS finding of a solution, and that requires AUTONOMOUS thought. (Repeat: You have agreed that your God does not have to dabble.)
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Saturday, October 09, 2021, 16:28 (1139 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. As before, the background underlying living processes had been established sufficient for the jump to the Cambrian.
dhw: You have suddenly changed your mind: instead of us humans and our food being descended from bacteria, starting 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God apparently stepped in only 550 million years ago to dabble brand new lines of life (including ours and trilobites) from scratch. So if humans and our food were your God’s sole purpose right from the start, what was the point of all the extinct life forms that preceded the Cambrian (let alone all the extinct Cambrian [e.g. trilobites] and post-Cambrian forms [e.g. brontosaurus]) and had no connection with us and our food? Could it be that your God was experimenting, learning as he went along, getting new ideas? After all, producing brand new creations out of nothing, with no precursors, hardly suggests the continuity which is a constant theme in your assertion that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.
Same response: God stated all life from no precursors. The Cambrian is just another example of His powers. Yes we see discontinuity. Your exploration of God's mind constantly humanizes Him in your analysis as in the bold. In my view God knows exactly what to do and does it.
Immunity system complexitydhw: You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!
DAVID: Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.
dhw: You’ve got it. I am confronted with a new problem, I recognize it, and I produce the means of dealing with it. I agree that my feeling the pain is automatic. But my recognition of the cause of the pain and my working out a solution to nullify the cause require autonomous THOUGHT.
Your brain is not your cells. The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.
DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.dhw: How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before?
They know non-self!!!
dhw: You seem to be going back to your God’s list of instructions for every new problem and solution, and all the cells have to do is pick out the right volume from the vast library God provided 3.8 billion years ago.
No I haven't, and perhaps my explanations are not clear enough to get through your imposed belief in cell innate intelligence. Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library. The baby starts with no library, only some generalized ones, interferon, IGG, neutrophiles which engulf, etc. which we use all during our lives. B and T cells are born with the instructions to make antibodies when stimulated by recognition of foreign proteins.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. […]
dhw: You have suddenly changed your mind: instead of us humans and our food being descended from bacteria, starting 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God apparently stepped in only 550 million years ago to dabble brand new lines of life (including ours and trilobites) from scratch. So if humans and our food were your God’s sole purpose right from the start, what was the point of all the extinct life forms that preceded the Cambrian (let alone all the extinct Cambrian [e.g. trilobites] and post-Cambrian forms [e.g. brontosaurus]) and had no connection with us and our food? Could it be that your God was experimenting, learning as he went along, getting new ideas? After all, producing brand new creations out of nothing, with no precursors, hardly suggests the continuity which is a constant theme in your assertion that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.
DAVID: Same response: God started all life from no precursors.
Of course the very first life would by definition have had no precursors!
DAVID: The Cambrian is just another example of His powers. Yes we see discontinuity.
Just over a week ago, you wrote: “Designed Evolution means we are directly connected to bacteria by progressive designed stages.” But now: “The Cambrian start all of our current phyla” (which must include humans), and there are no precursors. You can’t have it both ways!
DAVID: Your exploration of God's mind constantly humanizes Him in your analysis as in the bold. In my view God knows exactly what to do and does it.
If he exists, then of course he knows what to do and does it. But even he can hardly design humans step by step starting from bacteria, and also design them step by step starting 3.X billion years later from the Cambrian. So maybe there is something wrong with your view of what he wants to do and how he does it.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!
DAVID: Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.
dhw: You’ve got it. I am confronted with a new problem, I recognize it, and I produce the means of dealing with it. I agree that my feeling the pain is automatic. But my recognition of the cause of the pain and my working out a solution to nullify the cause require autonomous THOUGHT.
DAVID: Your brain is not your cells.
It was you who gave us the analogy! My brain automatically feels the pain, consciously recognizes the cause (splinter), and consciously produces the antidote (the tweezer)
DAVID: The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.
Yes, the inflammation is automatic. Why have you left out the conscious recognition of the splinter and the conscious use of the tweezer?
DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.
dhw: How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before?
DAVID: They know non-self!!!
Of course they do. Recognizing the non-self (splinter) is itself a conscious act of cognition, but it doesn’t provide the answer to the problem!
dhw: You seem to be going back to your God’s list of instructions for every new problem and solution, and all the cells have to do is pick out the right volume from the vast library God provided 3.8 billion years ago.
DAVID: No I haven't, and perhaps my explanations are not clear enough to get through your imposed belief in cell innate intelligence. Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library.
You are merely repeating what I keep saying to you! Same process, but matching protein to protein is the addition to the library, and this accumulates throughout life. Each new invader requires a new antibody, and since your God does not intervene, the recognition and the production of the new antibody can only take place through autonomous thought.
DAVID: B and T cells are born with the instructions to make antibodies when stimulated by recognition of foreign proteins.
The “instructions” are the process. Once again: your God did not issue cells with instructions on how to produce every new antibody in anticipation of every new invader throughout life’s history. Hence the need for autonomous thought.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Sunday, October 10, 2021, 16:25 (1138 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Same response: God started all life from no precursors.
dhw: Of course the very first life would by definition have had no precursors!
Thanks!!! God can create from no precursors, can't He?
DAVID: The Cambrian is just another example of His powers. Yes we see discontinuity.dhw: Just over a week ago, you wrote: “Designed Evolution means we are directly connected to bacteria by progressive designed stages.” But now: “The Cambrian start all of our current phyla” (which must include humans), and there are no precursors. You can’t have it both ways!
Why not? Life's origin and the Cambrian show God's powers. Outside of these two events my designed evolution fits.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.
dhw: Yes, the inflammation is automatic. Why have you left out the conscious recognition of the splinter and the conscious use of the tweezer?
That is at your brain level. The point I was trying to make is inflammation is the same automatic reaction to all invasion whether you react or your cells do.
DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.dhw: How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before?
DAVID: They know non-self!!!
dhw: Of course they do. Recognizing the non-self (splinter) is itself a conscious act of cognition, but it doesn’t provide the answer to the problem!
Don't you read my answers? Immune cells recognize non-self and make killer or modifying proteins attached to the foreign antigens; the same answers always are under standard instructions. See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.
DAVID: Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library.dhw: You are merely repeating what I keep saying to you! Same process, but matching protein to protein is the addition to the library, and this accumulates throughout life. Each new invader requires a new antibody, and since your God does not intervene, the recognition and the production of the new antibody can only take place through autonomous thought.
The response is programmed and always the same, no thought required.
DAVID: B and T cells are born with the instructions to make antibodies when stimulated by recognition of foreign proteins.dhw: The “instructions” are the process. Once again: your God did not issue cells with instructions on how to produce every new antibody in anticipation of every new invader throughout life’s history. Hence the need for autonomous thought.
The response is always the same for every invasion: inflammation and the same antibodies added to all different foreign protein. My agenda is not to fool you but to teach you and you refuse to understand the facts. See the new entry.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: God started all life from no precursors.
dhw: Of course the very first life would by definition have had no precursors!
DAVID: Thanks!!! God can create from no precursors, can't He?
Yes. And that is your first problem: if your God’s only purpose was to produce humans plus food, and he can create whatever he likes from no precursors, why didn’t he do just that (as in Genesis)? Second problem, why did he first design all those other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer to both questions: No idea. Go and ask God.
dhw: Just over a week ago, you wrote: “Designed Evolution means we are directly connected to bacteria by progressive designed stages.” But now: “The Cambrian start all of our current phyla” (which must include humans), and there are no precursors. You can’t have it both ways!
DAVID: Why not? Life's origin and the Cambrian show God's powers. Outside of these two events my designed evolution fits.
The problem is not “God’s powers” but God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose. First you have him evolving humans in a direct line from bacteria, then you have him starting from scratch in the Cambrian. Outside of this blatant contradiction, what does your “designed evolution” fit? See second problem above.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: You get a splinter in your skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.
DAVID: The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.
dhw: Yes, the inflammation is automatic. Why have you left out the conscious recognition of the splinter and the conscious use of the tweezer?
DAVID: That is at your brain level. The point I was trying to make is inflammation is the same automatic reaction to all invasion whether you react or your cells do.
But unfortunately for you, your analogy went beyond inflammation to the thinking me recognizing that I had a splinter and finding a solution to the problem by using a tweezer. Yes, the inflammation is automatic, but the solution requires conscious recognition and thought in finding the solution.
DAVID: Don't you read my answers? Immune cells recognize non-self and make killer or modifying proteins attached to the foreign antigens; the same answers always are under standard instructions.
I read your answers, which include the following:
DAVID: Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library.
First, recognition is an act of cognition, and second, you have agreed that each new invader requires a NEW antibody, which is then added to the library, which accumulates NEW volumes throughout our lifetime. So why do you keep insisting that the answers are always the same? Please tell us what new volume is added to the library.
DAVID: The response is always the same for every invasion: inflammation and the same antibodies added to all different foreign protein. My agenda is not to fool you but to teach you.
What you teach me is that cells are automatons, as opposed to being “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (James A. Shapiro). I accept that you are not trying to fool me. I just don’t accept that your personal beliefs are the only possible conclusion one can draw from the known facts.
DAVID: See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.
The entry has nothing to do with vaccinations or invasions: it concerns “a neuromuscular disease...triggered by a genetic malfunction “ But even here, we have a thinking analogy: 'You can think of the RNA polymerase as a newspaper reporter and the spliceosomes as a very, very stringent editor that cuts 9 out of 10 paragraphs the reporter writes.” And the author acknowledges a mystery:
“The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.”
"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics—how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”
DAVID: All of this reads as automatically controlled reactions following instructions. No sign of cell thought involved.
So we still don’t know how cells make their decisions when there’s an error in the system your God designed (genetic malfunction) or nasty invaders attack the system from outside. But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them, or pops in to give them vague “instructions” although he doesn’t intervene. Mystery upon mystery!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Monday, October 11, 2021, 15:53 (1137 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Thanks!!! God can create from no precursors, can't He?
dhw: Yes. And that is your first problem: if your God’s only purpose was to produce humans plus food, and he can create whatever he likes from no precursors, why didn’t he do just that (as in Genesis)? Second problem, why did he first design all those other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer to both questions: No idea. Go and ask God.
God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.
dhw: The problem is not “God’s powers” but God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose. First you have him evolving humans in a direct line from bacteria, then you have him starting from scratch in the Cambrian. Outside of this blatant contradiction, what does your “designed evolution” fit? See second problem above.
God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: The response is always the same for every invasion: inflammation and the same antibodies added to all different foreign protein. My agenda is not to fool you but to teach you.
dhw: What you teach me is that cells are automatons, as opposed to being “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (James A. Shapiro). I accept that you are not trying to fool me. I just don’t accept that your personal beliefs are the only possible conclusion one can draw from the known facts.
DAVID: See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.
dhw: The entry has nothing to do with vaccinations or invasions: it concerns “a neuromuscular disease...triggered by a genetic malfunction “ But even here, we have a thinking analogy: 'You can think of the RNA polymerase as a newspaper reporter and the spliceosomes as a very, very stringent editor that cuts 9 out of 10 paragraphs the reporter writes.” And the author acknowledges a mystery:
“The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.”
Note the authors, like me, expect tight regulatory controls, i.e., automaticity.
"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics—how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”DAVID: All of this reads as automatically controlled reactions following instructions. No sign of cell thought involved.
dhw: So we still don’t know how cells make their decisions when there’s an error in the system your God designed (genetic malfunction) or nasty invaders attack the system from outside.
We do know: The protein molecules make a mistake from the proper action required in folding or joining. What is expected automatically turns out wrong.
dhw: But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them,
Yes He has programmed them!!! To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.
dhw: or pops in to give them vague “instructions” although he doesn’t intervene. Mystery upon mystery!
Pure invention of your rigid mind in this area of discussion. See clear statement above repeated for the nth time.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: God can create from no precursors, can't He?
dhw: Yes. And that is your first problem: if your God’s only purpose was to produce humans plus food, and he can create whatever he likes from no precursors, why didn’t he do just that (as in Genesis)? Second problem, why did he first design all those other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer to both questions: No idea. Go and ask God.
DAVID: God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.
Of course if he exists, God can do what he wants. And clearly if all he wanted was humans and their food, then logically he could have directly created humans and their food. It is you who can’t live with history, which shows that logically he must have wanted more than just humans and their food, since according to you he designed countless now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and their food.
DAVID: God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.
How do you know that yours is the only way to look at God? How do you know that God is not logical? On Monday March 30th 2020 (“David’s theory of evolution Part Two”) I asked you why you were trying to withdraw your earlier statement that your God probably had thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you replied: “We can only know his logic is like ours.” (You’ve repeated this several times since.) You yourself are a true champion of logic in your examination of life’s complexities, from which you logically conclude that there must be a designer. You only renounce logic when your own theory of evolution falls apart under scrutiny.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.
dhw: The entry has nothing to do with vaccinations or invasions: it concerns “a neuromuscular disease...triggered by a genetic malfunction “ But even here, we have a thinking analogy: 'You can think of the RNA polymerase as a newspaper reporter and the spliceosomes as a very, very stringent editor that cuts 9 out of 10 paragraphs the reporter writes.” And the author acknowledges a mystery:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.”
DAVID: Note the authors, like me, expect tight regulatory controls, i.e., automaticity.
I note that you have ignored Shapiro’s advocacy of cellular intelligence, and I note that the above statement and the one below both acknowledge that we do not know how the cell exercises control and makes its decisions:
QUOTE: "Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”
DAVID: All of this reads as automatically controlled reactions following instructions. No sign of cell thought involved.
dhw: So we still don’t know how cells make their decisions when there’s an error in the system your God designed (genetic malfunction) or nasty invaders attack the system from outside.
DAVID: We do know: The protein molecules make a mistake from the proper action required in folding or joining. What is expected automatically turns out wrong.
That is the cause of the problem. But we do not know how cells take the decisions to correct the mistakes.
dhw: But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them……
DAVID: Yes He has programmed them!!! To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.
You are again describing the general process, but each antibody is new and requires a new creation which is then added to the library. WHAT, then, has he preprogrammed? You simply throw in the word “automatically” as if it proved there was no thought involved, and you throw in the word “instructions” which, when I ask for clarification, turn out to be God saying “Recognize the invader and make a new antibody to kill it off.” You have said explicitly that he does not dabble, and so you are left with no alternative: the cells make their own decisions. (But your God may have given them the ABILITY to do so.)
dhw: ….or pops in to give them vague “instructions” although he doesn’t intervene. Mystery upon mystery!
DAVID: Pure invention of your rigid mind in this area of discussion. See clear statement above repeated for the nth time.
Not clear. Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 15:31 (1136 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 15:48
DAVID: God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.
dhw: Of course if he exists, God can do what he wants. And clearly if all he wanted was humans and their food, then logically he could have directly created humans and their food.
But He didn't!!! Accept the history God created.
DAVID: God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.dhw: How do you know that yours is the only way to look at God? How do you know that God is not logical?
All we know is God should be logical, but in each case He may differ from our thoughts, as you complain above..
Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.”
DAVID: Note the authors, like me, expect tight regulatory controls, i.e., automaticity.
dhw: I note that you have ignored Shapiro’s advocacy of cellular intelligence, and I note that the above statement and the one below both acknowledge that we do not know how the cell exercises control and makes its decisions:
QUOTE: "Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”
The obvious inference is that they are looking for tightly controlled processes, like all the cellular ones found so far.
DAVID: The protein molecules make a mistake from the proper action required in folding or joining. What is expected automatically turns out wrong.
dhw: That is the cause of the problem. But we do not know how cells take the decisions to correct the mistakes.
Yes we do, the discucsed editing system I presented.
dhw: But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them……DAVID: Yes He has programmed them!!! To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.
dhw: You are again describing the general process, but each antibody is new and requires a new creation which is then added to the library. WHAT, then, has he preprogrammed? You simply throw in the word “automatically” as if it proved there was no thought involved, and you throw in the word “instructions” which, when I ask for clarification, turn out to be God saying “Recognize the invader and make a new antibody to kill it off.” You have said explicitly that he does not dabble, and so you are left with no alternative: the cells make their own decisions. (But your God may have given them the ABILITY to do so.)
Please read what I write: Antibody creation is always the same automatic process: recognize the invader and add the same killer or modifier proteins. Non-self: if its not me it is foreign. All automatic as presented in medical text books..
dhw: Not clear. Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?
A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library. The immune cells always follow the same instructions to make antibodies, no variation except the finished product is new because each new invader is different. Thus a library is built for future reference if the new invader returns as they do.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.
dhw: Of course if he exists, God can do what he wants. And clearly if all he wanted was humans and their food, then logically he could have directly created humans and their food.
DAVID: But He didn't!!! Accept the history God created.
It is you who refuse to accept the history! You insist that your God's only purpose was to create us and our food, but although he could have created humans and their food directly, he chose instead to directly design countless other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food. Obvious conclusion: either we were NOT his only purpose, or he had to learn how to get what he wanted, or he did not directly design the countless other life forms.
DAVID: God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.
dhw: How do you know that yours is the only way to look at God? How do you know that God is not logical?
DAVID: All we know is God should be logical, but in each case He may differ from our thoughts, as you complain above.
I have no doubt that if God exists he is logical, as you have frequently said in the past though you have now backtracked. It is YOUR illogical thoughts, not his possible thoughts, that I complain about.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.”
"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”
DAVID: The obvious inference is that they are looking for tightly controlled processes, like all the cellular ones found so far.
Of course they are, but they don’t know the source of control, i.e. how the cells take their decisions.That is what Kinney calls the “mysteries”.
DAVID: Yes we do, the discussed editing system I presented.
The editing process is what we know. According to the article, we do not know what it is that makes the editorial decisions. That’s what they aim to find out. Whether the “level of molecular biophysics” will provide a complete answer we shall have to wait and see.
dhw: …according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them……
DAVID: Yes He has programmed them!!! [See later.)To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.
dhw: You are again describing the general process, but each antibody is new and requires a new creation which is then added to the library.[…] You have said explicitly that [God] does not dabble, and so you are left with no alternative: the cells make their own decisions. (But your God may have given them the ABILITY to do so.)
DAVID: Please read what I write: Antibody creation is always the same automatic process: recognize the invader and add the same killer or modifier proteins. Non-self: if its not me it is foreign. All automatic as presented in medical text books.
I have just said that you are describing the general process (bolded), and so you merely repeat the general process, shove in the word “automatic” (as if recognition itself was not an act of cognition) and leave out the question of how cells produce a NEW antibody without thought.
dhw: Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?
DAVID: A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library.
Thank you. The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed – see bold above). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?
DAVID: The immune cells always follow the same instructions to make antibodies, no variation except the finished product is new because each new invader is different. Thus a library is built for future reference if the new invader returns as they do.
Thank you again. Exactly as I have described […]: Your God apparently says: “Recognize the invader and make new antibodies.” That's all. There is no variation in the PROCESS but, hallelujah, the PRODUCT is new, and is added to the library. You say your God does not intervene, the "recipe" must be new or it wouldn't be added to the library, and so how do the cells work out what is required to construct the NEW antibody to fight the NEW invader if they can’t think?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 13, 2021, 15:07 (1135 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But He didn't!!! Accept the history God created.
dhw: It is you who refuse to accept the history! You insist that your God's only purpose was to create us and our food, but although he could have created humans and their food directly, he chose instead to directly design countless other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food. Obvious conclusion: either we were NOT his only purpose, or he had to learn how to get what he wanted, or he did not directly design the countless other life forms.
It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.”"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”
DAVID: The obvious inference is that they are looking for tightly controlled processes, like all the cellular ones found so far.
dhw: Of course they are, but they don’t know the source of control, i.e. how the cells take their decisions. That is what Kinney calls the “mysteries”.
The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID: Yes we do, the discussed editing system I presented.dhw: The editing process is what we know. According to the article, we do not know what it is that makes the editorial decisions. That’s what they aim to find out. Whether the “level of molecular biophysics” will provide a complete answer we shall have to wait and see.
DAVID: Please read what I write: Antibody creation is always the same automatic process: recognize the invader and add the same killer or modifier proteins. Non-self: if its not me it is foreign. All automatic as presented in medical text books.
dhw: I have just said that you are describing the general process (bolded), and so you merely repeat the general process, shove in the word “automatic” (as if recognition itself was not an act of cognition) and leave out the question of how cells produce a NEW antibody without thought.
That is what automatic means!!!
dhw: Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?DAVID: A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library.
dhw: Thank you. The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed – see bold above). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?
Repeat: By automatically adding killer or modifying proteins to the invader antigen.
DAVID: The immune cells always follow the same instructions to make antibodies, no variation except the finished product is new because each new invader is different. Thus a library is built for future reference if the new invader returns as they do.dhw: Thank you again. Exactly as I have described […]: Your God apparently says: “Recognize the invader and make new antibodies.” That's all. There is no variation in the PROCESS but, hallelujah, the PRODUCT is new, and is added to the library. You say your God does not intervene, the "recipe" must be new or it wouldn't be added to the library, and so how do the cells work out what is required to construct the NEW antibody to fight the NEW invader if they can’t think?
Because like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes. You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!! Accept it, even if you want cells to think to fit your pet theories. Kinney (above) is looking for what I describe. Many of my 'design entries' here is the result he is looking for: how the molecules do it.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: Accept the history God created.
dhw: It is you who refuse to accept the history! You insist that your God's only purpose was to create us and our food, but although he could have created humans and their food directly, he chose instead to directly design countless other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food. Obvious conclusion: either we were NOT his only purpose, or he had to learn how to get what he wanted, or he did not directly design the countless other life forms.
DAVID: It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.
If your God can do exactly what he wants when he wants, it makes no sense to say that he wants humans and their food and therefore designs countless life forms and foods that have no connection with what he wants. Hence your unenlightening responses: “Go and ask God”, and “God does not have to be logical”.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled […]
"[…] Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries […] — how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.” [dhw’s bolds]
DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
Thank you for acknowledging that HOW the cells take their decisions is a mystery. That is what our discussion is all about. You do not solve the mystery by repeating that recognition of invaders and design of new antibodies automatically follow your God’s instructions.
dhw: Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of. [...] And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?
DAVID: A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library.
dhw: The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed […]). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?
DAVID: Repeat: By automatically adding killer or modifying proteins to the invader antigen.
How do unthinking cells know what proteins or modifications will destroy the new invader? […]
DAVID: Because like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes.
But the product changes! If it didn’t, the antigen would have a free run!
DAVID: You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!!
Of course the vast majority of our cells work automatically until something goes wrong. Only then do cells have to take decisions on how to deal with the errors, whether the causes are internal or external. It is the decision-making that is the mystery.
You have posted two more articles on the same subject, also emphasizing the unknown (my bolds):
Controlling gut biome
QUOTE: The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains unknown.[dhw’s bold] […] These natural defense substances are part of the immune system, and recognize an exogenous pathogen very specifically according to the lock-and-key principle. (David’s bold)
We have agreed that cells recognize invaders. But you don’t recognize that recognition entails cognition.
QUOTE: “However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.”
Another mystery which you think you solve by calling the process automatic, thanks to God’s vague programming/instructions.
DAVID: I read the word 'simultaneous' to indicate automaticity of the immune responses. Note the cells can quickly identify the gut bugs and handle them immediately. […] The cells act intelligently because they are programmed that way. Sorry your pet theory doesn't fit this reality.
Another vague “programme”. We should distinguish between old and new threats. If the threat is familiar, no doubt the response will be “simultaneous”. The test comes when the invader is new. You seem to have forgotten that building the library is an on-going process, as immune cells mysteriously succeed in working out how to form NEW antibodies to combat NEW invaders. Once formed, these will become part of the available library. The mystery is how cells produce the NEW antibodies in the first place.
God’s editing system for new protein
DAVID: Molecules don't think. Chaperone molecules are following protein formation and know when it is wrong. How they know based on protein reactions is yet to be discovered. When that is thoroughly researched, there will be automaticity, no thought involved, as in all other studies previously described. (dhw’s bold)
You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share you erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Thursday, October 14, 2021, 18:56 (1134 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.
If your God can do exactly what he wants when he wants, it makes no sense to say that he wants humans and their food and therefore designs countless life forms and foods that have no connection with what he wants.
Same foolish response. You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that HOW the cells take their decisions is a mystery. That is what our discussion is all about. You do not solve the mystery by repeating that recognition of invaders and design of new antibodies automatically follow your God’s instructions.
But that is exactly what I believe. All biologic processes are the same. Fertilized egg makes a baby automatically. Homeostasis means automatic controls in liver and kidney, the cells following standard instructions.
dhw: The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed […]). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?DAVID: Repeat: By automatically adding killer or modifying proteins to the invader antigen.
dhw: How do unthinking cells know what proteins or modifications will destroy the new invader? […]
Genetic instructions describe the same process for appropriate protein killers added to the foreign proteins (antigens).
DAVID: Because like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes.dhw: But the product changes! If it didn’t, the antigen would have a free run!
Same killer proteins added to a different antigen. Same process over and over.
DAVID: You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!!Of course the vast majority of our cells work automatically until something goes wrong. Only then do cells have to take decisions on how to deal with the errors, whether the causes are internal or external. It is the decision-making that is the mystery.
You have posted two more articles on the same subject, also emphasizing the unknown (my bolds):
dhw: We have agreed that cells recognize invaders. But you don’t recognize that recognition entails cognition.
Remember transplant problems. They exist because we/our cells always automatically recognize non-self!!!
QUOTE: “However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.”DAVID: I read the word 'simultaneous' to indicate automaticity of the immune responses. Note the cells can quickly identify the gut bugs and handle them immediately. […] The cells act intelligently because they are programmed that way. Sorry your pet theory doesn't fit this reality.
dhw: The test comes when the invader is new. You seem to have forgotten that building the library is an on-going process, as immune cells mysteriously succeed in working out how to form NEW antibodies to combat NEW invaders. Once formed, these will become part of the available library. The mystery is how cells produce the NEW antibodies in the first place.
No mystery: the cells are programmed in the genome to always produce the same killer/ modifier proteins added to the antigen of the invader. Just like the automaticity seen in embryology, and liver, kidney homeostatic processes. No thought involved.
God’s editing system for new protein
DAVID: Molecules don't think. Chaperone molecules are following protein formation and know when it is wrong. How they know based on protein reactions is yet to be discovered. When that is thoroughly researched, there will be automaticity, no thought involved, as in all other studies previously described. (dhw’s bold)dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share you erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.
God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.
Let's study ID: a demonstration of molecular processes
by David Turell , Thursday, October 14, 2021, 23:07 (1134 days ago) @ David Turell
Working out the stepwise molecular reactions:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba5186
"Control by RNA polymerase II
Evidence indicates that yeast cells initiate DNA synthesis and transition from the G1 to the S phase of the cell cycle when cyclin 3 accumulates and causes phosphorylation of Whi5, a functional equivalent of the mammalian Rb (retinoblastoma) protein. Kõivomägi et al. now present evidence for a different cyclin-dependent kinase target (see the Perspective by Fisher). They found that the cyclin 3–cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk) 1 complex in yeast promoted phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II and thus increased transcription at genes that control entry into the cell cycle. Cdks that regulate the cell cycle can thus act by similar mechanisms to so-called “transcriptional Cdks,” which are known to act as transcriptional regulators but not to function in control of cell division.
—LBR
"Abstract
Cell division is thought to be initiated by cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks) inactivating key transcriptional inhibitors. In budding yeast, the G1 cyclin Cln3-Cdk1 complex is thought to directly phosphorylate the Whi5 protein, thereby releasing the transcription factor SBF and committing cells to division. We report that Whi5 is a poor substrate of Cln3-Cdk1, which instead phosphorylates the RNA polymerase II subunit Rpb1’s C-terminal domain on S5 of its heptapeptide repeats. Cln3-Cdk1 binds SBF-regulated promoters and Cln3’s function can be performed by the canonical S5 kinase Ccl1-Kin28 when synthetically recruited to SBF. Thus, we propose that Cln3-Cdk1 triggers cell division by phosphorylating Rpb1 at SBF-regulated promoters to promote transcription. Our findings blur the distinction between cell cycle and transcriptional Cdks to highlight the ancient relationship between these two processes."
Comment: Don't try to follow the steps. Just note how each step affects the next until a result is achieved. It is all automatic
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.
dhw: If your God can do exactly what he wants when he wants, it makes no sense to say that he wants humans and their food and therefore designs countless life forms and foods that have no connection with what he wants.
DAVID: Same foolish response. You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.
The known events are all forms of life, including those that had no connection with humans (plus our food). You interpret these as evidence that, although according to you your God designed them all individually, his only "wish" (previously known as purpose) was to design humans (plus our food). Your interpretation makes no sense even to you (“Go and ask God”).
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that HOW the cells take their decisions is a mystery. That is what our discussion is all about. You do not solve the mystery by repeating that recognition of invaders and design of new antibodies automatically follow your God’s instructions.
DAVID: But that is exactly what I believe. All biologic processes are the same. Fertilized egg makes a baby automatically. Homeostasis means automatic controls in liver and kidney, the cells following standard instructions.
Our example is the immune system, so why have you changed the subject? I already answered this point earlier. “Of course the vast majority of our cells work automatically until something goes wrong. Only then do cells have to take decisions on how to deal with the errors, whether the causes are internal or external. It is the decision-making that is the mystery.”
dhw: How do unthinking cells know what proteins or modifications will destroy the new invader? […]
DAVID: Genetic instructions describe the same process for appropriate protein killers added to the foreign proteins (antigens).
You keep harping on about the PROCESS. Yes, the process is recognizing invaders and producing antibodies, but recognizing each NEW foreign invader and concocting each NEW appropriate killer requires thought. Each antibody is NEW, and that is why it added to the existing library.
You now go on to produce lots of examples of automaticity, ignoring the point that it is when things go wrong that new thoughts are required. You even agree that recognition of what is wrong is itself a mystery:
DAVID: Molecules don't think. Chaperone molecules are following protein formation and know when it is wrong. How they know based on protein reactions is yet to be discovered. When that is thoroughly researched, there will be automaticity, no thought involved, as in all other studies previously described. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share your erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.
DAVID: God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.
You have agreed that your God did not preprogramme every single new antibody to kill every single new invader for the whole of life’s history. (Each new antibody is added to the library without your God’s intervention, remember?) If he exists, what he would have designed is the MEANS whereby cells recognize and counter the threat posed by new invaders. It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic. You adopt the same blinkered attitude in the articles “How T-cells kill” and “Molecular processes”:
DAVID: “The bold describes that the T cell knows non-self automatically and adds 'cytotoxic proteins' to kill. These specialized cells follow instructions activated in their DNA…”
“Don't try to follow the steps. Just note how each step affects the next until a result is achieved. It is all automatic.”
And see also your closing remark below.
dhw (under “Miscellany”): …when scientists in the field such as McLintock, Margulis (“I do think consciousness is a property of all living cells") and Shapiro champion the concept of cellular intelligence, you could perhaps be just a little more cautious in your dismissal of the idea. And once again, please note that it does NOT exclude your God as the possible designer, which was your original objection to my theory.
DAVID: All covered in previous entries. At the organ level all is automatic with intelligently programmed cells doing their work.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Friday, October 15, 2021, 16:18 (1133 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Same foolish response. You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.
dhw: The known events are all forms of life, including those that had no connection with humans (plus our food). You interpret these as evidence that, although according to you your God designed them all individually, his only "wish" (previously known as purpose) was to design humans (plus our food). Your interpretation makes no sense even to you (“Go and ask God”).
We do not know how many wishes God had. We know of the obvious human one. I am fully happy with my interpretations even if you tell me I don't make sense to myself. The lack of sense is yours.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share your erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.
DAVID: God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.
dhw: You have agreed that your God did not preprogramme every single new antibody to kill every single new invader for the whole of life’s history. (Each new antibody is added to the library without your God’s intervention, remember?) If he exists, what he would have designed is the MEANS whereby cells recognize and counter the threat posed by new invaders.
Exactly. Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.
dhw: It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic.
The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. I can't give you your strawman 'details' of God's antibody programmed process. I can simply tell you the immune system always recognizes invasion and always produces new antibodies in the same way by adding the same proteins to new antigens (invaders). The new difference is only the reference protein of the new invader. All constantly automatic.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.
dhw: The known events are all forms of life, including those that had no connection with humans (plus our food). You interpret these as evidence that, although according to you your God designed them all individually, his only "wish" (previously known as purpose) was to design humans (plus our food). Your interpretation makes no sense even to you (“Go and ask God”).
DAVID: We do not know how many wishes God had.
Then please stop telling us that his one and only goal from the very start was to design humans plus their food, and all other life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. (And please don’t mention plural “goals” or “wishes” unless you can tell us what they might have been.)
DAVID: We know of the obvious human one. I am fully happy with my interpretations even if you tell me I don't make sense to myself. The lack of sense is yours.
How can you make such a claim when you openly admit that you have no idea why, if your all-powerful God’s only goal from the start was to design humans plus food, he would design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food? You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!
Immunity system complexity
dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share your erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.
DAVID: God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.
dhw: You have agreed that your God did not preprogramme every single new antibody to kill every single new invader for the whole of life’s history. (Each new antibody is added to the library without your God’s intervention, remember?) If he exists, what he would have designed is the MEANS whereby cells recognize and counter the threat posed by new invaders.
DAVID: Exactly. Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.
There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.
dhw: It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic.
DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. I can't give you your strawman 'details' of God's antibody programmed process. I can simply tell you the immune system always recognizes invasion and always produces new antibodies in the same way by adding the same proteins to new antigens (invaders). The new difference is only the reference protein of the new invader. All constantly automatic.
If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Saturday, October 16, 2021, 17:24 (1132 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We do not know how many wishes God had.
dhw: Then please stop telling us that his one and only goal from the very start was to design humans plus their food, and all other life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. (And please don’t mention plural “goals” or “wishes” unless you can tell us what they might have been.)
God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.
DAVID: We know of the obvious human one. I am fully happy with my interpretations even if you tell me I don't make sense to myself. The lack of sense is yours.dhw: How can you make such a claim when you openly admit that you have no idea why, if your all-powerful God’s only goal from the start was to design humans plus food, he would design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food? You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!
The concept of God rules how one thinks about Him. I reject your individual concept
Immunity system complexityDAVID: Exactly. Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.
dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.
That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.
dhw: It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic.DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. I can't give you your strawman 'details' of God's antibody programmed process. I can simply tell you the immune system always recognizes invasion and always produces new antibodies in the same way by adding the same proteins to new antigens (invaders). The new difference is only the reference protein of the new invader. All constantly automatic.
dhw: If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.
It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: We do not know how many wishes God had.
dhw: Then please stop telling us that his one and only goal from the very start was to design humans plus their food, and all other life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. (And please don’t mention plural “goals” or “wishes” unless you can tell us what they might have been.)
DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.
But that is not the point at issue, and you know it. Why do you persist in ignoring the vocabulary plus those parts of your theory that you yourself cannot explain? “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning (see bold above). God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans. So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)
dhw: You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!
DAVID: The concept of God rules how one thinks about Him. I reject your individual concept.
I do not have an “individual” concept. I have offered you alternative theistic concepts which explain the WHOLE of life’s history, and two of these even allow for the specialness of humans and individual design of all species (i.e. experimentation and new ideas), while the third is the proposal of a free-for-all. You admit that all three fit in logically with life’s history. All three allow for a purposeful God who knows what he is doing – though you obviously consider that setting out to learn something new is “namby-pamby”. Your own concept used to be that your God was logical, but now apparently he doesn’t have to be. That seems to be the only way you can defend your theory!
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.
dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.
Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.
DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
and
DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. [dhw's bolds]
dhw: If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.
DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.
If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Sunday, October 17, 2021, 15:47 (1131 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.
dhw: But that is not the point at issue, and you know it. Why do you persist in ignoring the vocabulary plus those parts of your theory that you yourself cannot explain? “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning (see bold above). God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans.
Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.
dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)
'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.
dhw: You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!DAVID: The concept of God rules how one thinks about Him. I reject your individual concept.
dhw: I do not have an “individual” concept. I have offered you alternative theistic concepts which explain the WHOLE of life’s history, and two of these even allow for the specialness of humans and individual design of all species (i.e. experimentation and new ideas), while the third is the proposal of a free-for-all. You admit that all three fit in logically with life’s history. All three allow for a purposeful God who knows what he is doing – though you obviously consider that setting out to learn something new is “namby-pamby”. Your own concept used to be that your God was logical, but now apparently he doesn’t have to be. That seems to be the only way you can defend your theory!
My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him.. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.
dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.
We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.
DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
and
DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. [dhw's bolds]dhw: If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.
DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.
dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?
My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.
dhw: “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning […]. God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans.
DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.
Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.
dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)
DAVID: 'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.
It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).
DAVID: My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.
What “altered” version? There is no authenticated version, but we both have him as highly purposeful. “He knows exactly what to do” depends on what he wants to do. If he wants to experiment, then he does it. If he wants to start off a process and see what new ideas it will lead him to, he does it. If he wants a free-for-all, he does it. According to your views on theodicy, he is far from being in full control, and in any case what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?
Immunity system complexity
dhw: The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.
dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.
DAVID: We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.
What else can we use in our discussions, other than words? If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.
DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.
dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?
DAVID: My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught.
So although nobody knows how the controls work, your teachers knew that they were preprogrammed to follow instructions, but they just didn’t realize it was your God who drew up the programmes and instructions. I wonder what they said when you told them. Or was this in the days before God told you he’d done it?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Monday, October 18, 2021, 15:36 (1130 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.
dhw: Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.
The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it..
dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)DAVID: 'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.
dhw: It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).
My opinions about God's intentions are all guesses. Neither of us knows Him better than the other, but I avoid your humanizing approach.
DAVID: My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.dhw: What “altered” version? There is no authenticated version, but we both have him as highly purposeful. “He knows exactly what to do” depends on what he wants to do. If he wants to experiment, then he does it. If he wants to start off a process and see what new ideas it will lead him to, he does it. If he wants a free-for-all, he does it. According to your views on theodicy, he is far from being in full control, and in any case what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?
My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.
dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.
DAVID: We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.
What else can we use in our discussions, other than words? If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.
And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.
DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?
DAVID: My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught.
dhw: So although nobody knows how the controls work, your teachers knew that they were preprogrammed to follow instructions, but they just didn’t realize it was your God who drew up the programmes and instructions. I wonder what they said when you told them.
I follow my teaching, God not discussed in med school.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.
dhw: Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.
DAVID: The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it.
Nobody in his right mind would disagree that all life forms need energy. The disagreement is over your insistence that all life forms and all foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food, although the vast majority had no evolutionary connection with humans. You don’t even have all of them descending from bacteria now, as you once claimed, since you insist that we are descended from life forms that had no precursors.
dhw: It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).
DAVID: My opinions about God's intentions are all guesses. Neither of us knows Him better than the other, but I avoid your humanizing approach.
Everyone’s opinions are guesses, but it absurd to dismiss guesses that are actually based on your own, and the “humanizing” moan also runs contrary to your own guesses, as above. You have long since demolished your own food and humanizing arguments, so please stop contradicting yourself.
dhw: […] what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?
DAVID: My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.
Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above. See “theodicy” concerning your gross misrepresentation of errors in relation to that subject.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]
dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.
DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.
A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.
DAVID: I follow my teaching, God not discussed in med school
Precisely. Your teachers did not identify your God as the unknown source, so please stop pretending that they all knew the source of the ability.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 19:24 (1129 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it.
dhw: Nobody in his right mind would disagree that all life forms need energy. The disagreement is over your insistence that all life forms and all foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food, although the vast majority had no evolutionary connection with humans. You don’t even have all of them descending from bacteria now, as you once claimed, since you insist that we are descended from life forms that had no precursors.
There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need. The Cambrian shows no direct precursors, but a giant leap in forms and functions. Have you abandoned poor Darwin who complained about the gap in form?
dhw: […] what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?DAVID: My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.
dhw: Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above.
It doesn't fit the all powerful God described yesterday :" "For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (my bold)
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.
DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.
dhw: A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.
We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions.
DAVID: I follow my teaching, God not discussed in med schooldhw: Precisely. Your teachers did not identify your God as the unknown source, so please stop pretending that they all knew the source of the ability.
biochemical professors preach automaticity.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it.
dhw: Nobody in his right mind would disagree that all life forms need energy. The disagreement is over your insistence that all past life forms and all foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food, although the vast majority had no evolutionary connection with humans. You don’t even have all of them descending from bacteria now, as you once claimed, since you insist that we are descended from life forms that had no precursors.
DAVID: There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need. The Cambrian shows no direct precursors, but a giant leap in forms and functions. Have you abandoned poor Darwin who complained about the gap in form?
It is you have abandoned poor Darwin and your own belief that your God “evolved” humans from bacteria. You insist that we are descended from life forms without precursors. So for 3.X billion years your God hadn’t even started to fulfil his one and only purpose. As for food, how long will you to continue to ignore your own demolition of the argument that your God could not have designed humans plus food without first designing life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Yet again I quote you: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
dhw: […] what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?
DAVID: My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.
dhw: Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above.
DAVID: It doesn't fit the all powerful God described yesterday :" "For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (David's bold)
C.S.Lewis thought that somehow the vastness of the universe proved that God existed, which of course it doesn’t. But whether God exists or not, I too am in awe of the majestic universe and the miracles of life. And if God made life a free-for-all, or he experimented to fulfil a particular purpose, or he experimented to give himself new ideas, I am still in awe, and I have no idea why you think that such a God is clueless, weak or namby-pamby.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]
dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.
DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.
dhw: A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.
DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.
You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…”
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.
It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 16:35 (1128 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need. The Cambrian shows no direct precursors, but a giant leap in forms and functions. Have you abandoned poor Darwin who complained about the gap in form?
dhw: It is you have abandoned poor Darwin and your own belief that your God “evolved” humans from bacteria. You insist that we are descended from life forms without precursors. So for 3.X billion years your God hadn’t even started to fulfil his one and only purpose. As for food, how long will you to continue to ignore your own demolition of the argument that your God could not have designed humans plus food without first designing life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Yet again I quote you: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
You are the one who chopped up evolution into distinct unrelated times by totally misusing my quotes which simply state 'now' is not 'then'. Darwin saw the gap I see. It is you who have abandoned him. What passed in evolution from Edicaran to Cambrian were evolved biochemical processes. In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.
dhw: Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above.
DAVID: It doesn't fit the all powerful God described yesterday :" "For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (David's bold)
dhw: C.S.Lewis thought that somehow the vastness of the universe proved that God existed, which of course it doesn’t. But whether God exists or not, I too am in awe of the majestic universe and the miracles of life. And if God made life a free-for-all, or he experimented to fulfil a particular purpose, or he experimented to give himself new ideas, I am still in awe, and I have no idea why you think that such a God is clueless, weak or namby-pamby.
Because those are totally human ways of having our God think, and you are clueless about it.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.
DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.
dhw: A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.
DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.
You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…”
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.
Those quotes you searched for to fit your desired view do nothing but that, not that they prove anything. All opinion that each of us has sitting outside the cell and looking in. Cells act intelligently is all you and I will agree to.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
DAVID: There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need.
dhw: […] how long will you to continue to ignore your own demolition of the argument that your God could not have designed humans plus food without first designing life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Yet again I quote you: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
DAVID: You are the one who chopped up evolution into distinct unrelated times by totally misusing my quotes which simply state 'now' is not 'then'.
They state that past food was for past forms of life, and current food is for current forms of life. They are separate, and it is patently absurd to claim that every single past form and food was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food.
DAVID: Darwin saw the gap I see. It is you who have abandoned him. What passed in evolution from Edicaran to Cambrian were evolved biochemical processes. In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.
But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! Now suddenly, you’re talking about biochemical processes. Yes, all life depends on biological processes, but how does that come to mean that all life was designed specially as part of the goal of designing humans, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with humans, and humans descended from life forms that had no precursors? You will stop at nothing to avoid answering the question (except when you admit you have no idea and I should ask God.) As for Darwin, he devotes a whole chapter to the “imperfection of the geological record”, which is his prime explanation for the gap.
dhw: C.S.Lewis thought that somehow the vastness of the universe proved that God existed, which of course it doesn’t. But whether God exists or not, I too am in awe of the majestic universe and the miracles of life. And if God made life a free-for-all, or he experimented to fulfil a particular purpose, or he experimented to give himself new ideas, I am still in awe, and I have no idea why you think that such a God is clueless, weak or namby-pamby.
DAVID: Because those are totally human ways of having our God think, and you are clueless about it.
Nobody knows how God thinks, but since you agree that we mimic your God, and his logic is like ours, and we probably/possibly have thought patterns and emotions similar to his, and you agree that my theories are logical and are therefore based on the “clues” given to us by life’s history, I would suggest that your own version of a God who designs countless life forms which have no connection with humans, although humans were his one and only goal, does not have a clue to stand on!
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]
DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.
dhw: You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…”
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.
dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.
DAVID: Those quotes you searched for to fit your desired view do nothing but that, not that they prove anything.
I didn’t search for them. They were contained in the articles you posted last week in the context of this discussion! This is not my "desired" view, but one which I feel solves the mysteries above, and there are some scientists who "know biochemistry" and support the theory.
DAVID: All opinion that each of us has sitting outside the cell and looking in. Cells act intelligently is all you and I will agree to.
I’m glad you agree that they act intelligently, but that is the opposite of saying that they act automatically! The quotes you yourself posted show that you are wrong to assume that all biologists agree that all the intelligent actions are automatic. They simply don’t know how cells exercise the necessary controls. And nor do you and I, but you keep insisting that you do: your God provides programmes/instructions for every single action! And to add to the absurdity, you agree that cells are cognitive, but you think “cognitive” means without thought!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Thursday, October 21, 2021, 15:34 (1127 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are the one who chopped up evolution into distinct unrelated times by totally misusing my quotes which simply state 'now' is not 'then'.
dhw: They state that past food was for past forms of life, and current food is for current forms of life. They are separate, and it is patently absurd to claim that every single past form and food was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food.
Of course they are separate in time, but related by evolution.
DAVID: Darwin saw the gap I see. It is you who have abandoned him. What passed in evolution from Edicaran to Cambrian were evolved biochemical processes. In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.dhw: But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! Now suddenly, you’re talking about biochemical processes. Yes, all life depends on biological processes, but how does that come to mean that all life was designed specially as part of the goal of designing humans,
Wow!!! Life had no precursors either.
dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks, but since you agree that we (may)mimic your God, and his logic is (may be) like ours, and we probably/possibly have thought patterns and emotions similar to his, and you agree that my theories are logical (only if a very humanized form of God is considered) and are therefore based on the “clues” given to us by life’s history, I would suggest that your own version of a God who designs countless life forms which have no connection with humans, although humans were his one and only goal, does not have a clue to stand on!
I have corrected the distortions of my views in bold above.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.
dhw: You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…”
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.
DAVID: Those quotes you searched for to fit your desired view do nothing but that, not that they prove anything.
dhw: I didn’t search for them. They were contained in the articles you posted last week in the context of this discussion! This is not my "desired" view, but one which I feel solves the mysteries above, and there are some scientists who "know biochemistry" and support the theory.
None in the present literature. All found by you in much earlier entries years ago: "McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler" your favorite go-to's for opinion, not any fact.
DAVID: All opinion that each of us has sitting outside the cell and looking in. Cells act intelligently is all you and I will agree to.dhw: I’m glad you agree that they act intelligently, but that is the opposite of saying that they act automatically! The quotes you yourself posted show that you are wrong to assume that all biologists agree that all the intelligent actions are automatic. They simply don’t know how cells exercise the necessary controls. And nor do you and I, but you keep insisting that you do: your God provides programmes/instructions for every single action! And to add to the absurdity, you agree that cells are cognitive, but you think “cognitive” means without thought!
As for cognitive, I used the word differently as in the ability to recognize. As for current research, the latest techniques show 'intelligent' cell processes as controlled series of molecular reactions, all obviously automatic.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Friday, October 22, 2021, 18:33 (1126 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.
dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.
I've consulted the literature for the biology of cellular cognition:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-study-of-the-mind-needs-a-copernican-shift-in-perspective
"What is cognition? Like many mental concepts, the term has no consensus definition, a fact that infuriated William James 130 years ago and occasional others since. This is my definition: Cognition comprises the means by which organisms become familiar with, value, exploit and evade features of their surroundings in order to survive, thrive and reproduce.
***
"Maturana’s account of cognition focuses on the organism’s need to interact continually with its surroundings to accomplish this amazing feat. This ‘domain of interactions’ between organism and environment is cognition for Maturana, such that ‘living as a process is a process of cognition’ (author’s italics), a claim I have confirmed in bacteria to my satisfaction.
***
"Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.
***
"Complex behaviours coordinated by thousands of interacting, autonomous cells are well studied in bacteria (eg, Bacillus subtilis, Myxococcus xanthus) and social amoeba (Dictyostelium discoideum). The discovery in B subtilis of colonies of long-distance electrical signalling via ion channels – the mechanism of electrical transmission in neurons – provided ‘proof of concept’ that microbes can illuminate cognitive mechanisms ordinarily associated with complex animals. This finding led to further discoveries of previously unknown collective bacterial behaviours that resemble some types of cognitive brain activity, including memory. Studies of bacterial behaviour mediated by electrical signalling are just beginning.
"Network activity among bacterial signal transduction proteins was first described 25 years ago. Today, the network properties of large arrays of signalling proteins, common in bacteria that rely on whip-like flagella to navigate chemical gradients (chemotaxis), are an active area of research. Highly conserved over the course of evolution, this architecture has been compared only slightly tongue-in-cheek to a ‘nanobrain’, because it functions as a network, is capable of processing large amounts of information, is exquisitely sensitive to tiny changes in environmental conditions,
"These arrays might be processing more information than imagined. Escherichia coli recently were found to reject the bacterial equivalent of junk food due to sluggish growth. Chemotaxis, movement toward or away from some states of affairs, is one of E coli’s most energetically costly behaviours; it should be puzzling that bacteria will leave available food (the proverbial bird in the hand) and continue foraging for better nutrition elsewhere – except that the strategy often works.
***
"Second, context and the organism’s internal state proved much more important to behaviour than initially thought. Context and internal state are believed to be signalled by molecules – neuromodulators and their smaller cousins, neuropeptides – although precisely how is unclear. These signalling molecules, many of which are produced by neurons themselves, can alter neural function from seconds to minutes to hours; interact with different targets (other neurons, muscle cells, glands); and activate or silence entire circuits. C elegans produces more than 100 such molecules. (my bold)
"In bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes (cells with a defined nucleus, which bacteria lack), coordinated activity involving thousands of individuals – the equivalent of multicellular behaviour – is also facilitated by signalling molecules, a phenomenon called quorum sensing. Quorum sensing molecules have been compared to hormones because they alter behaviour by similar mechanisms. As hormones do in animals and plants – and the activity of neuromodulators and neuropeptides is not dissimilar – signalling molecules produced by microbial cells induce changes in behaviour in four ways: 1) in the producing cell; 2) in an immediate neighbour via cell-cell contact; 3) within cell neighbourhoods; and 4) in cells at longer distances. Many unicellular signalling molecules exist but far fewer than in multicellular organisms." (my bolds)
Comment: My bolds focus on the fact that molecules alone are in action for this basic form of cognition. Some molecules in bacteria recognize sugar molecules and other food molecules by shape or by electrical signaling from the molecules ionic portions. This is automaticity of cognition, no real thought involved, not dictionary human definition.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: Past food was for past forms of life, and current food is for current forms of life. They are separate, and it is patently absurd to claim that every single past form and food was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food.
DAVID: Of course they are separate in time, but related by evolution.
You wrote: “Of course the brontosaurus is not directly connected to us.” So are you telling us your God could not have designed us and our food without first designing the brontosaurus and its food?
DAVID: In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.
dhw: But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! […] Yes, all life depends on biological processes, but how does that come to mean that all life was designed specially as part of the goal of designing humans.
DAVID: Wow!!! Life had no precursors either.
How does that prove that humans are descended in a continuous line from bacteria, if we are descended from life forms that had no precursors? Your theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and all your answers are attempts to dodge the same questions!
dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks, but since you agree that we (may)mimic your God, and his logic is (may be) like ours, and we probably/possibly have thought patterns and emotions similar to his, and you agree that my theories are logical (only if a very humanized form of God is considered) and are therefore based on the “clues” given to us by life’s history, I would suggest that your own version of a God who designs countless life forms which have no connection with humans, although humans were his one and only goal, does not have a clue to stand on!
DAVID: I have corrected the distortions of my views in bold above.
Your exact words were: “I am sure we mimic him in many ways”, and “we can only know his logic is like ours”, and you later changed probably to possibly. It makes no difference. If you think human attributes are possible, it is absurd to reject logical theories just because they entail possible human attributes.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught .[…] We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.
You kindly posted an article which emphasized the fact that nobody knows how the immune process is controlled.
dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.
DAVID: None in the present literature. All found by you in much earlier entries years ago: "McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler" your favorite go-to's for opinion, not any fact.
I've never said it was a fact, but please stop kidding yourself that cellular intelligence is an outdated theory. You have just posted an essay that demolishes your absurd definition of cognition as automaticity. Here are two clear indications of intelligence:
QUOTES: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
"Complex behaviours coordinated by thousands of interacting, autonomous cells are well studied […] microbes can illuminate cognitive mechanisms ordinarily associated with complex animals. This finding led to further discoveries of previously unknown collective bacterial behaviours that resemble some types of cognitive brain activity, including memory.
The essay is dated October 21st 2021. Thank you for keeping us up-to-date with the latest thinking!
You then quoted passages about “signalling molecules”, which can be summed up as follows:
QUOTE: […] signalling molecules produced by microbial cells induce changes in behaviour in four ways: 1) in the producing cell; 2) in an immediate neighbour via cell-cell contact; 3) within cell neighbourhoods; and 4) in cells at longer distances. Many unicellular signalling molecules exist but far fewer than in multicellular organisms." (David’s bold)
DAVID: My bolds focus on the fact that molecules alone are in action for this basic form of cognition. This is automaticity of cognition, no real thought involved, not dictionary human definition.
The question is not what molecules do, but what makes them do what they do! If you decide to hit me, your thinking brain will send a message to your arm and fist, and they will automatically respond. What you stubbornly refuse to recognize is that the decision to hit me is what starts the automatic process. The cognitive part off the process is what precedes and leads to the decision. The above quotes make it abundantly clear that even single cells go through all the cognitive processes (e.g. perception, memory, learning, decision-making) that lead to the automatic actions which implement the decisions reached through intelligent thinking. (But of course, the degree of intelligence is not comparable to our own.)
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Monday, October 25, 2021, 16:02 (1123 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You wrote: “Of course the brontosaurus is not directly connected to us.” So are you telling us your God could not have designed us and our food without first designing the brontosaurus and its food?
I'm telling that is what God did.
DAVID: In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.dhw: But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! […] Yes, all life depends on biological processes, but how does that come to mean that all life was designed specially as part of the goal of designing humans.
DAVID: Wow!!! Life had no precursors either.
dhw: How does that prove that humans are descended in a continuous line from bacteria, if we are descended from life forms that had no precursors? Your theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and all your answers are attempts to dodge the same questions!
You are asking the wrong questions of me. I view evolution as common design in which Darwin claimed was common descent looks like much the same..
Immunity system complexityDAVID: None in the present literature. All found by you in much earlier entries years ago: "McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler" your favorite go-to's for opinion, not any fact.
dhw: I've never said it was a fact, but please stop kidding yourself that cellular intelligence is an outdated theory. You have just posted an essay that demolishes your absurd definition of cognition as automaticity. Here are two clear indications of intelligence:
QUOTES: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
"Complex behaviours coordinated by thousands of interacting, autonomous cells are well studied […] microbes can illuminate cognitive mechanisms ordinarily associated with complex animals. This finding led to further discoveries of previously unknown collective bacterial behaviours that resemble some types of cognitive brain activity, including memory.
The essay is dated October 21st 2021. Thank you for keeping us up-to-date with the latest thinking!
You then quoted passages about “signalling molecules”, which can be summed up as follows:
QUOTE: […] signalling molecules produced by microbial cells induce changes in behaviour in four ways: 1) in the producing cell; 2) in an immediate neighbour via cell-cell contact; 3) within cell neighbourhoods; and 4) in cells at longer distances. Many unicellular signalling molecules exist but far fewer than in multicellular organisms." (David’s bold)DAVID: My bolds focus on the fact that molecules alone are in action for this basic form of cognition. This is automaticity of cognition, no real thought involved, not dictionary human definition.
dhw: The question is not what molecules do, but what makes them do what they do! If you decide to hit me, your thinking brain will send a message to your arm and fist, and they will automatically respond. What you stubbornly refuse to recognize is that the decision to hit me is what starts the automatic process. The cognitive part off the process is what precedes and leads to the decision. The above quotes make it abundantly clear that even single cells go through all the cognitive processes (e.g. perception, memory, learning, decision-making) that lead to the automatic actions which implement the decisions reached through intelligent thinking. (But of course, the degree of intelligence is not comparable to our own.)
You are again forgetting that we are all outside cells looking in. The odds for intelligent or looking intelligent are still 50/50, and only one mechanism is the real one.
Let's study ID: common descent or common design?
by David Turell , Monday, October 25, 2021, 20:05 (1123 days ago) @ David Turell
An essay of comparison:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo57/dont-ask
"To say that similarities prove common descent ignores a logical possibility: that common features may instead be due to a common design strategy.
***
"Stephen Meyer, who received his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge (and directs the center where I serve as a senior fellow), argues that modern evolutionary theory and intelligent design are "methodologically equivalent."1 Both are trying to answer the same questions about past events. Both employ what's known as inference to the best explanation.
***
"What does the evidence suggest is the best explanation for the origin of new plants and animals in the history of life? Some form of blind evolution? Or does important evidence in nature strongly suggest that intelligent design was involved? And what new findings might count in favor of one option over the other? Those are the kind of questions characteristic of an unfettered, truth-seeking scientific culture.
***
"...our DNA codes for things like blood and bone and muscle, for arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and ears, mouth and nose. These are all things chimps and humans both have. Should we be shocked that the designer stuck with a superb software system when it came time to design human beings? No, and all the more so since there are major functional advantages to having a biosphere with a shared system of biological information across kingdoms, phyla, and families.
***
"Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process. In contrast, intelligent design theorists predicted that "junk DNA" would prove to have function. The common-descent hypothesis led to a failed prediction. The common-design hypothesis made no such prediction.
***
"In 1965 one of the most important scientists of the last century, Linus Pauling, and biologist Emil Zuckerkandl, considered by some as the father of molecular biology, suggested a way that macroevolution could be tested and proved: If the comparison of anatomical and DNA sequences led to the same family tree of organisms, this would be strong evidence for macroevolution.7 According to them, only evolution would explain the convergence of these two independent chains of evidence. By implication, the opposite finding would count against macroevolution.
"So what were the results? Over the past twenty-eight years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge. Just as troubling for the idea of macroevolution, family trees based on different molecules yield conflicting and contradictory family trees. As a 2012 paper published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society reported, "Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species" (emphasis in original). (my bold)
"Another paper, published the following year in the journal Nature, highlighted the extent of the problem.9 The authors compared 1,070 genes in twenty different yeasts and got 1,070 different trees.
"These results are unexpected, even bizarre, on the assumption that all life evolved from a single common ancestor through a long series of small, random genetic mutations over millions of years. But if Darwinian evolution only explains modest differences among closely related species, and if the various similarities and differences across plants and animals of widely varying types are primarily due to an intelligent designer reusing genetic information for common purposes and fresh DNA sequences for innovations, the persistent failure of a single tree of life to emerge makes perfect sense: there is no evolutionary tree of life, because common descent isn't the case. A common designer is." (my bold)
Comment: As I have pointed out previously, a designer will make complex processes in advance of major steps and then use those complex processes in combination to jump gaps in phenotypical design as in the Cambrian gap. What God did was use a design system which resembles common descent as described by Darwin. dhw's illogical complaint that God didn't use precursors at the Cambrian gap is out the window. He used bits and pieces that were already perfected, as noted, and invented more complex body types, not seen in the Ediacaran. Looking at God's way of doing things, there never is a Darwinist gap!!! Only Darwin's common descent has gaps.
Let's study ID: common descent or common design?
by David Turell , Monday, October 25, 2021, 20:50 (1123 days ago) @ David Turell
An example of setting up an early design for vision in jumping spiders:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jumping-spider-vision-eyes-color-senses-hearing-mat...
"Unlike bees and flies, which have compound eyes that merge information from hundreds or thousands of lenses into a single, pixelated mosaic image, the jumping spider has camera-type eyes, similar to those of humans and most other vertebrates. Each of the spider’s eyes has a single lens that focuses light onto a retina."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_spider#Fossils
"Very few jumping spider fossils have been found. Of those known, all are from Cenozoic era amber. The oldest fossils are from Baltic amber dating to the Eocene epoch, specifically, 54 to 42 million years ago."
Comment: 'Nuff said. Our camera eyes are old. Ask the octopus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye
"Those supporting a convergent evolution state that this common ancestor would have preceded both cephalopods and vertebrates by a significant margin. The common ancestor with the expression for camera-type eye would have existed approximately 270 million years before the evolution of camera-type eye in cephalopods and approximately 110 to 260 million years before the evolution of camera-type eye in vertebrates.[11] Another source of evidence for this is the differences of expression due to independent variants of Pax6 arising in both cephalopods and vertebrates. Cephalopods contain five variants of Pax6 in their genomes which independently arose and are not shared by vertebrates, although they allow for a similar gene expression when compared to the Pax6 of vertebrates."
Comment: as noted, lots of old preparations for a camera eye. Designed evolution is step by step. So much for dhw's illogical worry about precursors and phenotypic 'Darwin gaps.'
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: You wrote: “Of course the brontosaurus is not directly connected to us.” So are you telling us your God could not have designed us and our food without first designing the brontosaurus and its food?
DAVID: I'm telling that is what God did.
So your God designed the brontosaurus and its food. Now please tell us in what way the brontosaurus and its food, with no direct connection to us, were part of his goal to evolve us and our food.
DAVID: In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.
dhw: But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! […].
DAVID: You are asking the wrong questions of me. I view evolution as common design in which Darwin claimed was common descent looks like much the same.
You have previously expressed your belief in common descent, with a continuous line from bacteria to humans, except for the Cambrian, which produced new species without any precursors. And you think we are descended from the latter, so there’s no continuous line from bacteria to humans. Please explain the contradiction. See later for “common design”.
Immunity system complexity
On the theory of cellular intelligence, you wrote:
DAVID: None in the present literature. All found by you in much earlier entries years ago: "McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler" your favorite go-to's for opinion, not any fact.
You yourself then went on to quote an essay published last week, explicitly supporting the concept of cellular intelligence. You have ignored it. I then pointed out to you that intelligence is manifested in all the processes that lead to a decision on what action is to be taken, and only then does automaticity take over as the decision is implemented. Again you have totally ignored this. Your only response is:
DAVID: You are again forgetting that we are all outside cells looking in. The odds for intelligent or looking intelligent are still 50/50, and only one mechanism is the real one.
Do you now agree that the theory is NOT confined to past literature, that cognition does NOT mean automaticity, and that there is a major distinction between intelligent decision-making and the automatic implementation of decisions? Even your 50/50 should mean that the theory of cellular intelligence should at least be taken just as seriously as your own theories.
Common design
QUOTE: "To say that similarities prove common descent ignores a logical possibility: that common features may instead be due to a common design strategy.”
Why instead? If God exists, and if – as you believe – he designed every species, then it would make perfect sense for him to use the same design strategy as he created the vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans. It also makes perfect sense for intelligent cells to build on the features already developed by their predecessors.
QUOTE: "Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process [etc.]
Dealt with over and over again: Darwin’s principle of natural selection explains why what is useful is preserved.
DAVID: As I have pointed out previously, a designer will make complex processes in advance of major steps and then use those complex processes in combination to jump gaps in phenotypical design as in the Cambrian gap. What God did was use a design system which resembles common descent as described by Darwin.
If God exists, this is perfectly feasible, and does not contradict the theory of common descent. Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post.
DAVID: dhw's illogical complaint that God didn't use precursors at the Cambrian gap is out the window.
It is you who insisted that God didn’t use precursors!!!!!!! That is why in the past, you have done nothing but emphasize the gaps! I have followed Darwin in proposing that the gaps are in the fossil record, but I have added the possibility suggested by Shapiro that intelligent cells are capable of the major innovations that lead to speciation. If your God can add new bits and pieces to existing bits and pieces, then I propose (theistic version) that he can also invent a mechanism which can do the same.
DAVID: as noted, lots of old preparations for a camera eye. Designed evolution is step by step. So much for dhw's illogical worry about precursors and phenotypic 'Darwin gaps.'
If by designed evolution you mean separate creation of species by God, you are once more stuck with the two illogical theories (disconnected anthropocentrism and continuity without precursors) pinpointed at the start of this post. If by designed evolution you mean that your God created the mechanism whereby all life forms – as indicated by the article you quoted and then ignored – are possessed of certain autonomous cognitive abilities (intelligence), and if you accept that they may be capable of innovation, then you have a perfectly logical explanation of the vast and ever-changing bush of forms and foods which constitutes the actual history of life on Earth.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 26, 2021, 15:27 (1122 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are asking the wrong questions of me. I view evolution as common design in which Darwin claimed was common descent looks like much the same.
dhw: You have previously expressed your belief in common descent, with a continuous line from bacteria to humans, except for the Cambrian, which produced new species without any precursors. And you think we are descended from the latter, so there’s no continuous line from bacteria to humans. Please explain the contradiction. See later for “common design”.
The continuity is in the biochemical processes creating life present in the first Archaea.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: You are again forgetting that we are all outside cells looking in. The odds for intelligent or looking intelligent are still 50/50, and only one mechanism is the real one.[/i]
dhw: Do you now agree that the theory is NOT confined to past literature, that cognition does NOT mean automaticity, and that there is a major distinction between intelligent decision-making and the automatic implementation of decisions? Even your 50/50 should mean that the theory of cellular intelligence should at least be taken just as seriously as your own theories.
I agree. I have my view and you yours. One is correct. I'll stay with mine.
Common design
QUOTE: "To say that similarities prove common descent ignores a logical possibility: that common features may instead be due to a common design strategy.”dhw: Why instead? If God exists, and if – as you believe – he designed every species, then it would make perfect sense for him to use the same design strategy as he created the vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans. It also makes perfect sense for intelligent cells to build on the features already developed by their predecessors.
Today's researchers always discover fixed molecular processes and never mention intelligence but do accept information exists
QUOTE: "Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process [etc.]dhw: Dealt with over and over again: Darwin’s principle of natural selection explains why what is useful is preserved.
Except junk meant random for 50 years, thus was discarded random mutations supporting
Darwin .
DAVID: As I have pointed out previously, a designer will make complex processes in advance of major steps and then use those complex processes in combination to jump gaps in phenotypical design as in the Cambrian gap. What God did was use a design system which resembles common descent as described by Darwin.dhw: If God exists, this is perfectly feasible, and does not contradict the theory of common descent. Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post.
Continuity of biological processes is the answer.
DAVID: dhw's illogical complaint that God didn't use precursors at the Cambrian gap is out the window.dhw: It is you who insisted that God didn’t use precursors!!!!!!! That is why in the past, you have done nothing but emphasize the gaps! I have followed Darwin in proposing that the gaps are in the fossil record, but I have added the possibility suggested by Shapiro that intelligent cells are capable of the major innovations that lead to speciation. If your God can add new bits and pieces to existing bits and pieces, then I propose (theistic version) that he can also invent a mechanism which can do the same.
Again useless secondhand deigning. The gaps are in form not life's processes.
DAVID: as noted, lots of old preparations for a camera eye. Designed evolution is step by step. So much for dhw's illogical worry about precursors and phenotypic 'Darwin gaps.'dhw: If by designed evolution you mean separate creation of species by God, you are once more stuck with the two illogical theories (disconnected anthropocentrism and continuity without precursors) pinpointed at the start of this post. If by designed evolution you mean that your God created the mechanism whereby all life forms – as indicated by the article you quoted and then ignored – are possessed of certain autonomous cognitive abilities (intelligence), and if you accept that they may be capable of innovation, then you have a perfectly logical explanation of the vast and ever-changing bush of forms and foods which constitutes the actual history of life on Earth.
Same reliance on a misinterpretation of automatic processes in cells. ID and the appearance of intelligence are two sides of the same coin.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: I view evolution as common design in which Darwin claimed was common descent looks like much the same.
dhw: You have previously expressed your belief in common descent, with a continuous line from bacteria to humans, except for the Cambrian, which produced new species without any precursors. And you think we are descended from the latter, so there’s no continuous line from bacteria to humans. Please explain the contradiction. See later for “common design”.
DAVID: The continuity is in the biochemical processes creating life present in the first Archaea.
ALL forms of life are the result of biochemical processes, but (a) that does not mean that all forms of life were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! And (b) you have not explained the above contradiction.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The odds for intelligent or looking intelligent are still 50/50, and only one mechanism is the real one.
dhw: Do you now agree that the theory is NOT confined to past literature, that cognition does NOT mean automaticity, and that there is a major distinction between intelligent decision-making and the automatic implementation of decisions? Even your 50/50 should mean that the theory of cellular intelligence should at least be taken just as seriously as your own theories.
DAVID: I agree. I have my view and you yours. One is correct. I'll stay with mine.
Thank you. From now on I trust you will cease to claim that cellular intelligence is an outdated theory, that cognition means automaticity, and that the automatic implementation of decisions somehow proves that the decisions themselves are automatic.
Common design
QUOTE: "To say that similarities prove common descent ignores a logical possibility: that common features may instead be due to a common design strategy.”
dhw: Why instead? If God exists, and if – as you believe – he designed every species, then it would make perfect sense for him to use the same design strategy as he created the vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans. It also makes perfect sense for intelligent cells to build on the features already developed by their predecessors.
DAVID: Today's researchers always discover fixed molecular processes and never mention intelligence but do accept information exists.
See “Transposons” on the theodicy thread for a painful rebuttal of this very silly claim.
QUOTE: "Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process [etc.]
dhw: Dealt with over and over again: Darwin’s principle of natural selection explains why what is useful is preserved.
DAVID: Except junk meant random for 50 years, thus was discarded random mutations supporting Darwin.
Do you or don’t you accept the argument that useful DNA confirms the process of natural selection, as above?
dhw: Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post. [See below]
DAVID: Continuity of biological processes is the answer.
As above: all life entails biological processes, but that does not mean all life serves the purpose of fulfilling your God’s alleged single goal of producing humans, and it does not explain how humans can be descended from bacteria if they are descended from life forms which your God created de novo, i.e. without any precursors.
DAVID: dhw's illogical complaint that God didn't use precursors at the Cambrian gap is out the window.
dhw: It is you who insisted that God didn’t use precursors!!!!!!! That is why in the past, you have done nothing but emphasize the gaps! I have followed Darwin in proposing that the gaps are in the fossil record, but I have added the possibility suggested by Shapiro that intelligent cells are capable of the major innovations that lead to speciation. If your God can add new bits and pieces to existing bits and pieces, then I propose (theistic version) that he can also invent a mechanism which can do the same.
DAVID: Again useless secondhand deigning. The gaps are in form not life's processes.
Of course the gaps are in form. How does that explain your two gross contradictions? And since you believe that your God created humans, do you consider all human designs to be useless and secondhand? If in your theology your God gave us the autonomous power of design, why do you denigrate design by autonomous cells if he gave them the same autonomous ability as he gave us?
DAVID: Same reliance on a misinterpretation of automatic processes in cells. ID and the appearance of intelligence are two sides of the same coin.
Off you go again, ignoring the difference between automatic implementation of decisions and the so far unexplained, mysterious process which leads to the decisions and which some scientists both past and present attribute to cognitive intelligence. But I agree that direct design by God and direct design by cells are two sides of the same coin. All the more reason why you should not pretend that you know your own 50/50 theory is correct.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 27, 2021, 15:35 (1121 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The continuity is in the biochemical processes creating life present in the first Archaea.
dhw: ALL forms of life are the result of biochemical processes, but (a) that does not mean that all forms of life were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! And (b) you have not explained the above contradiction.
Our difference is I accept that God created all reality. Humans are here, therefore He wanted us
Immunity system complexityDAVID: I agree. I have my view and you yours. One is correct. I'll stay with mine.
dhw: Thank you. From now on I trust you will cease to claim that cellular intelligence is an outdated theory, that cognition means automaticity, and that the automatic implementation of decisions somehow proves that the decisions themselves are automatic.
Cellular intelligence is your adopted theory. I fully believe cells are not.
Common designQUOTE: "Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process [etc.]
dhw: Dealt with over and over again: Darwin’s principle of natural selection explains why what is useful is preserved.
DAVID: Except junk meant random for 50 years, thus was discarded random mutations supporting Darwin.
dhw: Do you or don’t you accept the argument that useful DNA confirms the process of natural selection, as above?
Your point does not get rid of atheist/Darwinist use of 'junk' 50-year history. Larry Moran is still a diehard declaring it.
dhw: Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post. [See below]DAVID: Continuity of biological processes is the answer.
dhw: As above: all life entails biological processes, but that does not mean all life serves the purpose of fulfilling your God’s alleged single goal of producing humans, and it does not explain how humans can be descended from bacteria if they are descended from life forms which your God created de novo, i.e. without any precursors.
Because God created them. Gaps of form disprove Darwin. He never heard of biochemistry.
dhw: Of course the gaps are in form. How does that explain your two gross contradictions? And since you believe that your God created humans, do you consider all human designs to be useless and secondhand? If in your theology your God gave us the autonomous power of design, why do you denigrate design by autonomous cells if he gave them the same autonomous ability as he gave us?
Of course He created cells that produce as if self-intelligent. Still 50/50, with only one interpretation correct.
DAVID: Same reliance on a misinterpretation of automatic processes in cells. ID and the appearance of intelligence are two sides of the same coin.dhw: Off you go again, ignoring the difference between automatic implementation of decisions and the so far unexplained, mysterious process which leads to the decisions and which some scientists both past and present attribute to cognitive intelligence. But I agree that direct design by God and direct design by cells are two sides of the same coin. All the more reason why you should not pretend that you know your own 50/50 theory is correct.
And remember you have agreed that one of us is wrong.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: The continuity is in the biochemical processes creating life present in the first Archaea.
dhw: ALL forms of life are the result of biochemical processes, but (a) that does not mean that all forms of life were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! And (b) you have not explained the above contradiction. [Now see below]
DAVID: Our difference is I accept that God created all reality. Humans are here, therefore He wanted us.
If you believe he created all reality, then you believe he wanted every single life form that ever existed, and not just humans. How does that come to mean that every single life form that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food, although the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? See under “common design” for the second contradiction.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: I agree. I have my view and you yours. One is correct. I'll stay with mine.
dhw: Thank you. From now on I trust you will cease to claim that cellular intelligence is an outdated theory, that cognition means automaticity, and that the automatic implementation of decisions somehow proves that the decisions themselves are automatic.
DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your adopted theory. I fully believe cells are not.
I know you do. But you claimed that the theory was outdated, whereas I directed you to loads of websites in which it is still current (see "Theodicy"), and you very kindly reproduced an article last week which explicitly supported it. More dodging.
Common design
QUOTE: "Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process [etc.]
dhw: … Darwin’s principle of natural selection explains why what is useful is preserved.
DAVID: Except junk meant random for 50 years, thus was discarded random mutations supporting Darwin.
dhw: Do you or don’t you accept the argument that useful DNA confirms the process of natural selection, as above?
DAVID: Your point does not get rid of atheist/Darwinist use of 'junk' 50-year history. Larry Moran is still a diehard declaring it.
Then more fool him. Why don’t you respond to the argument instead of flogging what we both agree are dead horses?
dhw: Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post. [See below]
DAVID: Continuity of biological processes is the answer.
dhw: As above: all life entails biological processes, but that does not mean all life serves the purpose of fulfilling your God’s alleged single goal of producing humans, and it does not explain how humans can be descended from bacteria if they are descended from life forms which your God created de novo, i.e. without any precursors.
DAVID: Because God created them. Gaps of form disprove Darwin. He never heard of biochemistry.
So you believe your God created humans in a continuous line from bacteria, but you believe he didn’t because he created them out of a line that began with life forms that had no precursors. And that is explained by the fact that Darwin had never heard of biochemistry. I’m having trouble following your logic.
dhw: Of course the gaps are in form. How does that explain your two gross contradictions? And since you believe that your God created humans, do you consider all human designs to be useless and secondhand? If in your theology your God gave us the autonomous power of design, why do you denigrate design by autonomous cells if he gave them the same autonomous ability as he gave us?
DAVID: Of course He created cells that produce as if self-intelligent. Still 50/50, with only one interpretation correct.
But why do you consider autonomous design to be useless and secondhand?
DAVID: Same reliance on a misinterpretation of automatic processes in cells. ID and the appearance of intelligence are two sides of the same coin.
dhw: Off you go again, ignoring the difference between automatic implementation of decisions and the so far unexplained, mysterious process which leads to the decisions and which some scientists both past and present attribute to cognitive intelligence. But I agree that direct design by God and direct design by cells are two sides of the same coin. All the more reason why you should not pretend that you know your own 50/50 theory is correct.
DAVID: And remember you have agreed that one of us is wrong.
And so each of us presents his case. Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Thursday, October 28, 2021, 15:50 (1120 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Our difference is I accept that God created all reality. Humans are here, therefore He wanted us.
dhw: If you believe he created all reality, then you believe he wanted every single life form that ever existed, and not just humans. How does that come to mean that every single life form that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food,
Part of a goal is what you object to. Look at is as a desired endpoint of evolution.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: Cellular intelligence is your adopted theory. I fully believe cells are not.
I know you do. But you claimed that the theory was outdated, whereas I directed you to loads of websites in which it is still current (see "Theodicy"), and you very kindly reproduced an article last week which explicitly supported it. More dodging.
And I showed you your websites were non-supportive.
Common designdhw: Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post. [See below]
DAVID: Continuity of biological processes is the answer.
dhw: As above: all life entails biological processes, but that does not mean all life serves the purpose of fulfilling your God’s alleged single goal of producing humans, and it does not explain how humans can be descended from bacteria if they are descended from life forms which your God created de novo, i.e. without any precursors.
DAVID: Because God created them. Gaps of form disprove Darwin. He never heard of biochemistry.
dhw: So you believe your God created humans in a continuous line from bacteria, but you believe he didn’t because he created them out of a line that began with life forms that had no precursors. And that is explained by the fact that Darwin had never heard of biochemistry. I’m having trouble following your logic.
Life processes are a required first in designs. Body forms are secondary designs. The real continuity is biochemistry. Darwin only knew body form (anatomy). Not confusing.
dhw: But why do you consider autonomous design to be useless and secondhand?
Explained many times. As a designer I've found I do it better myself than instructing others.
DAVID: Same reliance on a misinterpretation of automatic processes in cells. ID and the appearance of intelligence are two sides of the same coin.dhw: Off you go again, ignoring the difference between automatic implementation of decisions and the so far unexplained, mysterious process which leads to the decisions and which some scientists both past and present attribute to cognitive intelligence. But I agree that direct design by God and direct design by cells are two sides of the same coin. All the more reason why you should not pretend that you know your own 50/50 theory is correct.
DAVID: And remember you have agreed that one of us is wrong.
dhw: And so each of us presents his case. Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?
I agree we don't have proof. What I see is all the automatic processes produce life automatically, no decision making required.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: Our difference is I accept that God created all reality. Humans are here, therefore He wanted us.
dhw: If you believe he created all reality, then you believe he wanted every single life form that ever existed, and not just humans. How does that come to mean that every single life form that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food,
DAVID: Part of a goal is what you object to. Look at is as a desired endpoint of evolution.
Not “a” goal but “the” goal. Substituting “endpoint”, which marks the completion of evolution (itself a dubious claim), for “goal” does not resolve the issue. But since you have no idea how to explain your theory (you tell me to go and ask God), we are doomed to your endless dodging.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: you claimed that the theory [cellular intelligence] was outdated, whereas I directed you to loads of websites in which it is still current (see "Theodicy"). […]. More dodging.
DAVID: And I showed you your websites were non-supportive.
You did no such thing! Your only response was to point out that some scientists don’t believe it. Yet another dodge. (See below for another supportive essay.)
Common design
dhw: Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post. [See below]
DAVID: Continuity of biological processes is the answer.
dhw: […] all life entails biological processes, but that does not mean all life serves the purpose of fulfilling your God’s alleged single goal of producing humans, and it does not explain how humans can be descended from bacteria if they are descended from life forms which your God created de novo, i.e. without any precursors.
DAVID: Because God created them. Gaps of form disprove Darwin. He never heard of biochemistry.
dhw: So you believe your God created humans in a continuous line from bacteria, but you believe he didn’t because he created them out of a line that began with life forms that had no precursors. And that is explained by the fact that Darwin had never heard of biochemistry. I’m having trouble following your logic.
DAVID: Life processes are a required first in designs. Body forms are secondary designs. The real continuity is biochemistry. Darwin only knew body form (anatomy). Not confusing.
All you are saying is that all life forms depend on biochemical processes. How does this explain your theory that humans are directly descended from bacteria, but humans are descended from life forms that had no predecessors?
dhw: But why do you consider autonomous design to be useless and secondhand?
DAVID: Explained many times. As a designer I've found I do it better myself than instructing others.
So your God gave you the autonomous power to do your own designing. But according to your theory, your God gave instructions to cells. I’m suggesting (theistic version) that he gave them the same autonomous power to do their own designing. The result is the same history of evolution, so why do you think the designs are secondhand and useless unless the cells carried out your God’s instructions?
dhw: Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?
DAVID: I agree we don't have proof. What I see is all the automatic processes produce life automatically, no decision making required.
We’re not talking about “producing life” but about the manner in which live organisms cope with conditions. And this interaction constantly requires decisions. So do you agree that nobody knows how cells make their decisions?
Introducing the brain
QUOTE: 'A strong intuition among many neuroscientists is that individual neurons are exquisitely complicated: They have all of these back-propagating action potentials, they have dendritic compartments that are independent, they have all these different channels there. And so a single neuron might even itself be a network.'
I’m deeply impressed by this intuition. In the brain and elsewhere , every individual cell is part of a community of cells, and every community is part of a wider community, and they cooperate and communicate and make decisions when they respond to changing conditions. It chimes in perfectly with the concept of each neuron being an individual cognitive unit, just like those single-celled organisms that live independently.
DAVID: we've invented fantastic ways of analyzing the brain and don't have a way of understanding how it really works. A reductionism approach won't work. Will anything? The designer is laughing.
If the designer exists, I expect he is laughing (and I’m so pleased that you humanize him by giving him a sense of humour). All the clues are there, as summarized in the article you quoted last week:
QUOTES: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
GOD: David thinks I preprogrammed every cell with every decision, or kept popping in to tell ‘em all what to do. He just can’t imagine me getting them to do their own designing. Ha, ha, ha!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Friday, October 29, 2021, 16:01 (1119 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But since you have no idea how to explain your theory (you tell me to go and ask God), we are doomed to your endless dodging.
The use of the word 'dodge' is meaningless. We have an insoluble disagreement.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: you claimed that the theory [cellular intelligence] was outdated, whereas I directed you to loads of websites in which it is still current (see "Theodicy"). […]. More dodging.DAVID: And I showed you your websites were non-supportive.
You did no such thing! Your only response was to point out that some scientists don’t believe it. Yet another dodge. (See below for another supportive essay.)
Wow!!! These are your reference websites, not mine. How many of the titles sites YOU found did you read? The quotes I gave from two in no way supported your view. Didn't waste time digging into your others. Did you? All you did was find likely titles. Lazy. I dug into them.
Common designDAVID: Life processes are a required first in designs. Body forms are secondary designs. The real continuity is biochemistry. Darwin only knew body form (anatomy). Not confusing.
dhw: All you are saying is that all life forms depend on biochemical processes. How does this explain your theory that humans are directly descended from bacteria, but humans are descended from life forms that had no predecessors?
A designer can create gaps in form rather than miniscule tiny steps in form, if he wishes.
dhw: Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?DAVID: I agree we don't have proof. What I see is all the automatic processes produce life automatically, no decision making required.
dhw: We’re not talking about “producing life” but about the manner in which live organisms cope with conditions. And this interaction constantly requires decisions. So do you agree that nobody knows how cells make their decisions?
From the outside we must theorize. Kidney cells are in constant control of blood plasma sodium levels second by second: nothing but automaticity between set boundaries.
Introducing the brain
QUOTE: 'A strong intuition among many neuroscientists is that individual neurons are exquisitely complicated: They have all of these back-propagating action potentials, they have dendritic compartments that are independent, they have all these different channels there. And so a single neuron might even itself be a network.'dhw: I’m deeply impressed by this intuition. In the brain and elsewhere , every individual cell is part of a community of cells, and every community is part of a wider community, and they cooperate and communicate and make decisions when they respond to changing conditions. It chimes in perfectly with the concept of each neuron being an individual cognitive unit, just like those single-celled organisms that live independently.
DAVID: we've invented fantastic ways of analyzing the brain and don't have a way of understanding how it really works. A reductionism approach won't work. Will anything? The designer is laughing.
dhw: If the designer exists, I expect he is laughing (and I’m so pleased that you humanize him by giving him a sense of humour). All the clues are there, as summarized in the article you quoted last week:
QUOTES: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
GOD: David thinks I preprogrammed every cell with every decision, or kept popping in to tell ‘em all what to do. He just can’t imagine me getting them to do their own designing. Ha, ha, ha!
God is laughing (allegorically) because some human fools think the amazing neuron cells with all their complexity of form and action popped up by chance.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: But since you have no idea how to explain your theory (you tell me to go and ask God), we are doomed to your endless dodging.
DAVID: The use of the word 'dodge' is meaningless. We have an insoluble disagreement.
If I ask why your God would have designed countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans, although you say his only goal was humans plus food, and you tell me to go and ask God, I count that as dodging. I shan’t go through the long list of other dodges.
Immunity system complexity
dhw: you claimed that the theory [cellular intelligence] was outdated, whereas I directed you to loads of websites in which it is still current (see "Theodicy"). […]. More dodging.
DAVID: And I showed you your websites were non-supportive.
dhw: You did no such thing! Your only response was to point out that some scientists don’t believe it. Yet another dodge.
DAVID:Wow!!! These are your reference websites, not mine. How many of the titles sites YOU found did you read? The quotes I gave from two in no way supported your view. Didn't waste time digging into your others. Did you? All you did was find likely titles. Lazy. I dug into them.
And what we both found was support for the theory of cellular intelligence! Look at your responses to the first two!
QUOTE: "Everywhere we look, there are ubiquitous conversations among all cells in all organisms. Life might come down to the ability to converse, which is another way of saying life is based on the ability to transfer meaningful biological information."
DAVID: I agree with the quote. Nowhere does He say cells are in and of themselves intelligent.
dhw: Then why is his blog called “cellular intelligence”? How can organisms converse and exchange information if they don’t have the intelligence to communicate with and understand each other?
DAVID: All opinion!
Yes, his opinion is that cells are intelligent.
QUOTE: "…..reveal a level of cellular intelligence that is unrecognised by science and is not amenable to computer analysis."
DAVID: Just my point. We scientists do not recognize it.
Your point was that Shapiro was McClintock’s only current “follower”. The theory is not recognized as a fact, but this author SUPPORTS it! You “didn’t waste time digging into the others”, which apparently proves that none of these scientists advocates the theory. Try this one:
QUOTE: “I was shocked by how smart individual ants and termites are. But even more amazing is the discovery of intelligence in individual cells, including microbes. Everywhere I looked cells were talking to each other, just like brain cells, and these conversations determined biological activity throughout the body, not just in the brain.” And this:
QUOTE: “Cellular intelligence is still with us today and to a lesser degree has evolved along several paths that affect cell function specialization as well as the entire organism and perhaps beyond. This is a relatively new area for evolutionary biologists and warrants much exploration.” And your own quote from last week:
QUOTE: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
Read the Wikipedia list of references. And yet you claim McClintock has had only one follower!
Common design
DAVID: Life processes are a required first in designs. Body forms are secondary designs. The real continuity is biochemistry. Darwin only knew body form (anatomy). Not confusing.
dhw: All you are saying is that all life forms depend on biochemical processes. How does this explain your theory that humans are directly descended from bacteria, but humans are descended from life forms that had no predecessors?
DAVID: A designer can create gaps in form rather than miniscule tiny steps in form, if he wishes.
Of course he can do whatever he likes. Now please tell us whether you think humans are descended from bacteria or from the Cambrian life forms you think your God created without precursors. And if he created a new line for us, why did he bother to create all the other lines that had no connection with us?
dhw: Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?
DAVID: I agree we don't have proof. What I see is all the automatic processes produce life automatically, no decision making required.
dhw: We’re not talking about “producing life” but about the manner in which live organisms cope with conditions. And this interaction constantly requires decisions. So do you agree that nobody knows how cells make their decisions?
DAVID: From the outside we must theorize. Kidney cells are in constant control of blood plasma sodium levels second by second: nothing but automaticity between set boundaries.
You always refer to automatic processes that operate when conditions are stable. Intelligence will only be required to invent those processes, and then to correct, defend, adapt, and invent new processes when conditions change. So do you agree that nobody knows how cells make their decisions?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Saturday, October 30, 2021, 14:50 (1118 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But since you have no idea how to explain your theory (you tell me to go and ask God), we are doomed to your endless dodging.
DAVID: The use of the word 'dodge' is meaningless. We have an insoluble disagreement.
dhw: If I ask why your God would have designed countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans, although you say his only goal was humans plus food, and you tell me to go and ask God, I count that as dodging. I shan’t go through the long list of other dodges.
Not a dodge, but making the point God didn't tell me but might answer you.
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: I agree with the quote. Nowhere does He say cells are in and of themselves intelligent.
dhw: Then why is his blog called “cellular intelligence”? How can organisms converse and exchange information if they don’t have the intelligence to communicate with and understand each other?
DAVID: All opinion!
dhw: Yes, his opinion is that cells are intelligent.
QUOTE: "…..reveal a level of cellular intelligence that is unrecognised by science and is not amenable to computer analysis."
DAVID: Just my point. We scientists do not recognize it.
dhw: Your point was that Shapiro was McClintock’s only current “follower”. The theory is not recognized as a fact, but this author SUPPORTS it! You “didn’t waste time digging into the others”, which apparently proves that none of these scientists advocates the theory. Try this one:
QUOTE: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
Read the Wikipedia list of references. And yet you claim McClintock has had only one follower!
My point remains, it is all opinion, no proof, and claimed "unrecognized by science" (above)
Common design
DAVID: Life processes are a required first in designs. Body forms are secondary designs. The real continuity is biochemistry. Darwin only knew body form (anatomy). Not confusing.dhw: All you are saying is that all life forms depend on biochemical processes. How does this explain your theory that humans are directly descended from bacteria, but humans are descended from life forms that had no predecessors?
DAVID: A designer can create gaps in form rather than miniscule tiny steps in form, if he wishes.
dhw: Of course he can do whatever he likes. Now please tell us whether you think humans are descended from bacteria or from the Cambrian life forms you think your God created without precursors. And if he created a new line for us, why did he bother to create all the other lines that had no connection with us?
We all come from the earliest Archaean forms, i.e., the start of life's processes. Latter forms all use the same basic processes. The Cambrian gap is a phenotypical gap, not a biochemical gap.
dhw: Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?DAVID: I agree we don't have proof. What I see is all the automatic processes produce life automatically, no decision making required.
dhw: We’re not talking about “producing life” but about the manner in which live organisms cope with conditions. And this interaction constantly requires decisions. So do you agree that nobody knows how cells make their decisions?
DAVID: From the outside we must theorize. Kidney cells are in constant control of blood plasma sodium levels second by second: nothing but automaticity between set boundaries.
dhw: You always refer to automatic processes that operate when conditions are stable. Intelligence will only be required to invent those processes, and then to correct, defend, adapt, and invent new processes when conditions change. So do you agree that nobody knows how cells make their decisions?
I view all responses to all changes as automatic, but agree not absolutely proven as yet.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: But since you have no idea how to explain your theory (you tell me to go and ask God), we are doomed to your endless dodging.
DAVID: The use of the word 'dodge' is meaningless. We have an insoluble disagreement.
dhw: If I ask why your God would have designed countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans, although you say his only goal was humans plus food, and you tell me to go and ask God, I count that as dodging. I shan’t go through the long list of other dodges.
DAVID: Not a dodge, but making the point God didn't tell me but might answer you.
You claim that your theory is logical, and you admit that you can’t find a logical explanation. Thank you for confirming the latter. So please stop claiming the former.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: “Everywhere we look, there are ubiquitous conversations among all cells in all organisms. [..]
DAVID: I agree with the quote. Nowhere does He say cells are in and of themselves intelligent.
dhw: Then why is his blog called “cellular intelligence”? How can organisms converse and exchange information if they don’t have the intelligence to communicate with and understand each other?
DAVID: All opinion!
dhw: Yes, his opinion is that cells are intelligent.
QUOTE: "…..reveal a level of cellular intelligence that is unrecognised by science and is not amenable to computer analysis."
DAVID: Just my point. We scientists do not recognize it.
dhw: Your point was that Shapiro was McClintock’s only current “follower”. The theory is not recognized as a fact, but this author SUPPORTS it! You “didn’t waste time digging into the others”, which apparently proves that none of these scientists advocates the theory. Try this one:
QUOTE: "Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.”
Read the Wikipedia list of references. And yet you claim McClintock has had only one follower!
DAVID: My point remains, it is all opinion, no proof, and claimed "unrecognized by science" (above).
That was not your point. Stop dodging! First you claimed that McClintock had no current followers except Shapiro, and then you claimed that a raft of articles which explicitly support cellular intelligence do NOT support cellular intelligence. We don’t need to be told that there is no proven theory. If there was, there would be nothing to discuss.
Common design
dhw: […] please tell us whether you think humans are descended from bacteria or from the Cambrian life forms you think your God created without precursors. And if he created a new line for us, why did he bother to create all the other lines that had no connection with us?
DAVID: We all come from the earliest Archaean forms, i.e., the start of life's processes. Latter forms all use the same basic processes. The Cambrian gap is a phenotypical gap, not a biochemical gap. […]
And under “Miscellany” you wrote: “Our human biochemistry comes directly from bacteria. When Darwin lamented about the Cambrian gap he could only view evolution by changing forms. I see God the designer creating the forms based upon the underlying processes creating life.”
Of course every life form is based on biochemical processes, but you can only view evolution by the changing forms, and it is these that result in speciation. You say your God only wanted to design our species plus food, and yet for reasons unknown he also individually designed all the other life forms, most of which had no connection with us. And he also designed new forms without precursors, from which we (plus lots of other non-human forms) are descended, but we are descended from bacteria. But you can't see the contradictions.
DAVD: It is interesting that you are trying a twisted subterfuge about the Cambrian gap as a gross contradiction. It acts as proof of as designer, remember, since the Edicaran precursors are so simple in form as compared to the Cambrian animals.
Even the simplest forms are so complex that you can cite them as evidence for a designer. That is a totally different issue. There is no subterfuge. So once more, please explain why you emphasize our descent from life forms with no precursors if you think that biochemical processes are the only factor to be considered in explaining the history of evolution.
DAVID: I view all responses to all changes as automatic, but agree not absolutely proven as yet.
I know your views. Your “not absolutely proven as yet” is on the same level of blinkered faith as Dawkins’ hope: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and to embrace it within the natural.” And the two of you call yourselves scientists.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Sunday, October 31, 2021, 14:47 (1117 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If I ask why your God would have designed countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans, although you say his only goal was humans plus food, and you tell me to go and ask God, I count that as dodging. I shan’t go through the long list of other dodges.
DAVID: Not a dodge, but making the point God didn't tell me but might answer you.
dhw: You claim that your theory is logical, and you admit that you can’t find a logical explanation. Thank you for confirming the latter. So please stop claiming the former.
I don't need the explanation you need as I believe it is God's choice to evolve/design us.
Immunity system complexityDAVID: My point remains, it is all opinion, no proof, and claimed "unrecognized by science" (above).
dhw: That was not your point. Stop dodging! First you claimed that McClintock had no current followers except Shapiro, and then you claimed that a raft of articles which explicitly support cellular intelligence do NOT support cellular intelligence. We don’t need to be told that there is no proven theory. If there was, there would be nothing to discuss.
I agree we should discuss the issue you love that cells are innately intelligent. Everything, including McClinton's view is simply opinion, never proof. I'm looking for proof of my opinion. Odds remain, in all honesty 50/50, and so we can express opinions until the odds change. McClinton and all your Google list are opinion, even the quotes I noted which stated cellular intelligence is currently: "unrecognized by science".
Common design
dhw: […] please tell us whether you think humans are descended from bacteria or from the Cambrian life forms you think your God created without precursors. And if he created a new line for us, why did he bother to create all the other lines that had no connection with us?DAVID: We all come from the earliest Archaean forms, i.e., the start of life's processes. Latter forms all use the same basic processes. The Cambrian gap is a phenotypical gap, not a biochemical gap. […]
dhw: And under “Miscellany” you wrote: “Our human biochemistry comes directly from bacteria. When Darwin lamented about the Cambrian gap he could only view evolution by changing forms. I see God the designer creating the forms based upon the underlying processes creating life.”
Of course every life form is based on biochemical processes, but you can only view evolution by the changing forms, and it is these that result in speciation. You say your God only wanted to design our species plus food, and yet for reasons unknown he also individually designed all the other life forms, most of which had no connection with us. And he also designed new forms without precursors, from which we (plus lots of other non-human forms) are descended, but we are descended from bacteria. But you can't see the contradictions.
So-called contradictions in bold are your inventions. Humans as an endpoint was God's desire, a vastly different way to look at it. He chose stepwise design from simple to complex as His method of creation. This filled the needed purpose of food/energy supply for the whole resultant bush to use. The bold implies (for the zillionth time) why not direct creation of only his final desired humans. That didn't happen for God's reasons. I don't know his reasons. I don't need them, but for some very weird reasons you do and ask me for them. Talk about dodging.
DAVD: It is interesting that you are trying a twisted subterfuge about the Cambrian gap as a gross contradiction. It acts as proof of as designer, remember, since the Edicaran precursors are so simple in form as compared to the Cambrian animals.dhw: Even the simplest forms are so complex that you can cite them as evidence for a designer. That is a totally different issue. There is no subterfuge. So once more, please explain why you emphasize our descent from life forms with no precursors if you think that biochemical processes are the only factor to be considered in explaining the history of evolution.
Evolution has the Cambrian gap in form. It means a giant step in form which negates Darwin tiny steps by chance, and in a major way supports a design theory
DAVID: I view all responses to all changes as automatic, but agree not absolutely proven as yet.dhw: I know your views. Your “not absolutely proven as yet” is on the same level of blinkered faith as Dawkins’ hope: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and to embrace it within the natural.” And the two of you call yourselves scientists.
How do you think about scientific discoveries? Are they additive? If so, we scientists can expect further understanding as Dawkins writes, even as I disagree with his opinions. Just as think cogitating cell brains will not be found.
Let's study ID: what science does
by David Turell , Sunday, October 31, 2021, 18:31 (1117 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: "How do you think about scientific discoveries? Are they additive? If so, we scientists can expect further understanding as Dawkins writes, even as I disagree with his opinions."
Look at this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211025172114.htm
"Physicists looking for signs of primordial gravitational waves by sifting through the earliest light in the cosmos -- the cosmic microwave background (CMB) -- have reported their findings: still nothing.
"But far from being a dud, the latest results from the BICEP3 experiment at the South Pole have tightened the bounds on models of cosmic inflation, a process that in theory explains several perplexing features of our universe and which should have produced gravitational waves shortly after the universe began.
"'Once-promising models of inflation are now ruled out," said Chao-Lin Kuo, a BICEP3 principal investigator
***
"The results rule out a number of inflation models, including some popular older models and some versions of newer ones motivated by string theory, says Silverstein. The findings suggest that the correct model will be slightly more complicated that those that have been ruled out, although there is still a wide range of viable alternatives. "It's not as though we're going back to the drawing board," Silverstein says, but the results "help us focus."
"As more data comes in from BICEP3 and its immediate successor, the BICEP Array, as well as from other projects, physicists will start to get clues that will help focus their search for better models of inflation even more. Still, Ahmed says, they may have to wait until CMB-S4, a project currently under review at the Department of Energy, to get clearer answers. CMB-S4 will deploy the equivalent of 18 BICEP3 experiments -- or more, Ahmed says -- and will draw heavily on Department of Energy laboratory researchers and expertise, including ideas developed for BICEP3. "It'll take a decade to build up this thing," he says, "but it's starting to take shape.'"
Comment: this is how science refines its theories, and you know it. Guth invented the theory of early inflation because it fits the facts known at the time. Research has supported it Time to retract this quote of yours, caused by your anti-Dawkins feelings:
dhw: I know your views. Your “not absolutely proven as yet” is on the same level of blinkered faith as Dawkins’ hope: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and to embrace it within the natural.” And the two of you call yourselves scientists.
As a non-scientist are you out of your depth?
Let's study ID: what dopamine does
by David Turell , Sunday, October 31, 2021, 19:17 (1117 days ago) @ David Turell
How did chance mutations find this specific molecule?:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211030221759.htm
"Among the neurotransmitters in the brain, dopamine has gained an almost mythical status. Decades of research have established its contribution to several seemingly unrelated brain functions including learning, motivation, and movement, raising the question of how a single neurotransmitter can play so many different roles.
"Untangling dopamine's diverse functions has been challenging, in part because the advanced brain of humans and other mammals contain different kinds of dopamine neurons, all embedded in highly complex circuits. In a new study, Rockefeller's Vanessa Ruta and her team dive deep into the question by looking instead at the much simpler brain of the fruit fly, whose neurons and their connections have been mapped in detail.
"As in humans, a fly's dopamine neurons provide a signal for learning, helping them to link a particular odor to a particular outcome. Learning that, for example, apple cider vinegar contains sugar serves to shape the animals' future behavior on their next encounter with that odor. But Ruta's team discovered that the same dopamine neurons also correlate strongly with the animal's ongoing behavior. The activity of these dopamine neurons does not simply encode the mechanics of movement, but rather appears to reflect the motivation or goal underlying the fly's actions in real time. In other words, the same dopamine neurons that teach animals long-term lessons also provide moment-to-moment reinforcement, encouraging the flies to continue with a beneficial action.
***
"They found that the activity of dopamine neurons closely reflects movements as they were happening, but only when the flies engage in purposeful tracking, and not when they are just wandering about.
***
"Together, the findings reveal how one dopamine pathway can perform two functions: conveying motivational signals to rapidly shape ongoing behaviors while also providing instructive signals to guide future behavior through learning. "It gives us a deeper understanding of how a single pathway can generate different forms of flexible behavior," Ruta says."
Comment: look at its structure which is not complex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine
But very valuable in its various actions in a brain. What are the chances of finding it? About 10^22 chances as natural odds. But then think about an average enzyme, thousands of which are necessary to make life's reactions occur, and each one contains thousands of amino acids in specific patterns, so their odds have to be 10 to the thousands. Each vital molecule has to be found to make life work. So the odds for life on a finding basis for one bacteria is 2x10^100,000,000,000!!! (quote in my science vs religion book, page 77). Only a finding designer fits.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
Immunity system complexity
DAVID: I agree we should discuss the issue you love that cells are innately intelligent. Everything, including McClinton's view is simply opinion, never proof.
You are dodging the two comments I was responding to: McClintock does have modern followers, and the websites I pointed out to you did support her theory. You don’t need to tell us that theories are theories and not proven facts.
Common design
dhw: Of course every life form is based on biochemical processes, but you can only view evolution by the changing forms, and it is these that result in speciation. You say your God only wanted to design our species plus food, and yet for reasons unknown he also individually designed all the other life forms, most of which had no connection with us. And he also designed new forms without precursors, from which we (plus lots of other non-human forms) are descended, but we are descended from bacteria. But you can't see the contradictions.
DAVID: So-called contradictions in bold are your inventions. Humans as an endpoint was God's desire, a vastly different way to look at it.
dhw: You claim that humans plus food were his only goal. If you have changed your mind, then please tell us his other goals.
DAVID: He chose stepwise design from simple to complex as His method of creation. This filled the needed purpose of food/energy supply for the whole resultant bush to use.
If he exists, then yes, he chose evolution for every life form, including humans. But if humans were his only goal, why did he specially design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? This is the question you keep dodging.
DAVID: The bold implies (for the zillionth time) why not direct creation of only his final desired humans. That didn't happen for God's reasons. I don't know his reasons.
And that is the whole problem. You claim that your theory is logical, but you can’t explain it. Your theory is opinion, not fact. And if it doesn’t make sense to you, maybe it is wrong.
dhw: […] once more, please explain why you emphasize our descent from life forms with no precursors if you think that biochemical processes are the only factor to be considered in explaining the history of evolution.
DAVID: Evolution has the Cambrian gap in form. It means a giant step in form which negates Darwin tiny steps by chance, and in a major way supports a design theory.
That is a reasonable argument, though one might explain the gaps as being due to a lack of fossils. However, the problem we were dealing with was your insistence that we humans are descended from bacteria, but we are not descended from bacteria because we are descended from Cambrian life forms which had no precursors. Please explain this apparent contradiction.
DAVID: I view all responses to all changes as automatic, but agree not absolutely proven as yet.
dhw: I know your views. Your “not absolutely proven as yet” is on the same level of blinkered faith as Dawkins’ hope: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and to embrace it within the natural.” And the two of you call yourselves scientists.
DAVID How do you think about scientific discoveries? Are they additive? If so, we scientists can expect further understanding as Dawkins writes, even as I disagree with his opinions. Just as think cogitating cell brains will not be found.
Of course scientific discoveries are additive. But if there is no scientific consensus on a theory, it is unscientific to draw definitive conclusions while hoping for/anticipating future evidence, and to reject alternative explanations as you and Dawkins do.
DAVID: this is how science refines its theories, and you know it. Guth invented the theory of early inflation because it fits the facts known at the time. Research has supported it.
Why are you raising Guth again? You accepted his statement that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and then you finally agreed that both you and he were wrong because nobody could possibly know what happened before the Big Bang (if that happened). End of story.
DAVID: Time to retract this quote of yours, caused by your anti-Dawkins feelings. [See quote above]. As a non-scientist are you out of your depth?
The two of you have drawn directly opposite conclusions from the information available to us at this time, and neither of you can see that your faith in your opinions is just that – faith and not science. I don’t need to be a scientist to distinguish blinkered opinion from scientific fact!
Dopamine
QUOTE: Each vital molecule has to be found to make life work. So the odds for life on a finding basis for one bacteria is 2x10^100,000,000,000!!! (quote in my science vs religion book, page 77). Only a finding designer fits.
I have always agreed that the complexity of life is one of the strongest arguments for a designer. Don’t you wish Dawkins was open-minded enough to agree?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Monday, November 01, 2021, 13:56 (1116 days ago) @ dhw
Common design
dhw: You claim that humans plus food were his only goal. If you have changed your mind, then please tell us his other goals.
DAVID: He chose stepwise design from simple to complex as His method of creation. This filled the needed purpose of food/energy supply for the whole resultant bush to use.
dhw: If he exists, then yes, he chose evolution for every life form, including humans. But if humans were his only goal, why did he specially design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? This is the question you keep dodging.
It is not a question in my mind!! What is evolution but to design each stage with more complexity? All the bush creates food for all, which is turn supports food for humans. I need no other answer. You seem to ask for direct creation in your objection, as I've noted before. But that is not what happened.
DAVID: The bold implies (for the zillionth time) why not direct creation of only his final desired humans. That didn't happen for God's reasons. I don't know his reasons.dhw: And that is the whole problem. You claim that your theory is logical, but you can’t explain it. Your theory is opinion, not fact. And if it doesn’t make sense to you, maybe it is wrong.
What to explain? God chose to evolve us. Your quote above: "dhw: If he exists, then yes, he chose evolution for every life form, including humans" is my answer also..
dhw: […] once more, please explain why you emphasize our descent from life forms with no precursors if you think that biochemical processes are the only factor to be considered in explaining the history of evolution.DAVID: Evolution has the Cambrian gap in form. It means a giant step in form which negates Darwin tiny steps by chance, and in a major way supports a design theory.
dhw: That is a reasonable argument, though one might explain the gaps as being due to a lack of fossils. However, the problem we were dealing with was your insistence that we humans are descended from bacteria, but we are not descended from bacteria because we are descended from Cambrian life forms which had no precursors. Please explain this apparent contradiction.
The contradiction is your lack of understanding my point: the gap is in form only as Darwin knew with his descent from a common ancestor. The underlying continuity is in the original biochemical processes that create life. Evolution is just change in form simple to complex. Darwin and I see the same gap. Don't you?
DAVID How do you think about scientific discoveries? Are they additive? If so, we scientists can expect further understanding as Dawkins writes, even as I disagree with his opinions. Just as think cogitating cell brains will not be found.dhw: Of course scientific discoveries are additive. But if there is no scientific consensus on a theory, it is unscientific to draw definitive conclusions while hoping for/anticipating future evidence, and to reject alternative explanations as you and Dawkins do.
Both Dawkins and I anticipate more explanation to support our theories. As theories we will change them if new findings correct us.
DAVID: this is how science refines its theories, and you know it. Guth invented the theory of early inflation because it fits the facts known at the time. Research has supported it.dhw: Why are you raising Guth again? You accepted his statement that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and then you finally agreed that both you and he were wrong because nobody could possibly know what happened before the Big Bang (if that happened). End of story.
Your cement mind is showing. Dredged up wrong point from my Guth example: he invented the inflation theory based on early evidence. Followup work strongly supported him. Just showing that Dawkins and I anticipate conformations as usually happens to most but not all theories.
Dopamine
QUOTE: Each vital molecule has to be found to make life work. So the odds for life on a finding basis for one bacteria is 2x10^100,000,000,000!!! (quote in my science vs religion book, page 77). Only a finding designer fits.dhw: I have always agreed that the complexity of life is one of the strongest arguments for a designer. Don’t you wish Dawkins was open-minded enough to agree?
I don't care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
Common design
dhw: […]if humans were his only goal, why did he specially design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? This is the question you keep dodging.
DAVID: It is not a question in my mind!! What is evolution but to design each stage with more complexity? All the bush creates food for all, which is turn supports food for humans.
Here we go again.How do all the foods of the past “support” food for humans in the present? How did all the life forms of the past that had no connection with humans form “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food?
DAVID: I need no other answer. You seem to ask for direct creation in your objection, as I've noted before. But that is not what happened.
No, it’s not, and that is why I question your theory as bolded above. But see “Miscellany” for your sudden repudiation of the term “goal”.
DAVID: The bold implies (for the zillionth time) why not direct creation of only his final desired humans. That didn't happen for God's reasons. I don't know his reasons.
dhw: And that is the whole problem. You claim that your theory is logical, but you can’t explain it. Your theory is opinion, not fact. And if it doesn’t make sense to you, maybe it is wrong.
DAVID: What to explain? God chose to evolve us. Your quote above: "dhw: If he exists, then yes, he chose evolution for every life form, including humans" is my answer also.
But it is not an answer to the bolded questions above.
dhw: […]the problem we were dealing with was your insistence that we humans are descended from bacteria, but we are not descended from bacteria because we are descended from Cambrian life forms which had no precursors. Please explain this apparent contradiction.
DAVID: The contradiction is your lack of understanding my point: the gap is in form only as Darwin knew with his descent from a common ancestor. The underlying continuity is in the original biochemical processes that create life. Evolution is just change in form simple to complex. Darwin and I see the same gap. Don't you?
The gap is caused by the apparently sudden appearance of NEW FORMS. As you rightly say, evolution (speciation) is change in form, not in biochemical processes. And so your theory that your God created new FORMS with no predecessors, and that we are descended from those forms, can only mean that our species (= form) is NOT descended from bacteria. Of course the argument against this is that we ARE descended from bacteria, and the Cambrian gap is not due to God popping in to start a brand new array of forms, but to a lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major as well as minor jumps in response to changing conditions.
DAVID How do you think about scientific discoveries? Are they additive? If so, we scientists can expect further understanding as Dawkins writes, even as I disagree with his opinions. Just as think cogitating cell brains will not be found.
dhw: Of course scientific discoveries are additive. But if there is no scientific consensus on a theory, it is unscientific to draw definitive conclusions while hoping for/anticipating future evidence, and to reject alternative explanations as you and Dawkins do.
DAVID: Both Dawkins and I anticipate more explanation to support our theories. As theories we will change them if new findings correct us.
Exactly. So the two of you go on hammering out your conclusions drawn from inadequate evidence, and slagging each other off as if your conclusions were already scientifically proven, whereas you can only hope that you will be proved right. Such hopes colour your thinking and replace science with faith. […]
DAVID: […] Dredged up wrong point from my Guth example: he invented the inflation theory based on early evidence. Followup work strongly supported him. Just showing that Dawkins and I anticipate conformations as usually happens to most but not all theories.
My apologies. I thought you were trying to restore your reputation and his after the fiasco of the time theory. We needn’t dwell on the obvious fact that some theories are proven right and some are proven wrong. The whole point is that until there is scientific consensus on a theory (the best we can expect, as final objective truths are unlikely in certain contexts), it will remain unproven. It is therefore unscientific to assume or hope that one’s own as yet unproven theory will be confirmed by science, and to dismiss equally unproven alternatives because they are not proven! This puts you and Dawkins on the same level of blinkered, unscientific faith.
Dopamine
DAVID: […] the odds for life on a finding basis for one bacteria is 2x10^100,000,000,000!!! (quote in my science vs religion book, page 77). Only a finding designer fits.
dhw: I have always agreed that the complexity of life is one of the strongest arguments for a designer. Don’t you wish Dawkins was open-minded enough to agree?
DAVID: I don't care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.
He would say the same about you. Unscientific pots and kettles, the two of you.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 15:25 (1115 days ago) @ dhw
Common design
dhw: Here we go again.How do all the foods of the past “support” food for humans in the present? How did all the life forms of the past that had no connection with humans form “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food?
Accept it. A connected evolution process happened from bacteria to humans.
dhw: The gap is caused by the apparently sudden appearance of NEW FORMS. As you rightly say, evolution (speciation) is change in form, not in biochemical processes. And so your theory that your God created new FORMS with no predecessors, and that we are descended from those forms, can only mean that our species (= form) is NOT descended from bacteria.
Strange conclusion. Real story. Bacteria are the start of life. We are alive using the same living processes.
dhw: Of course the argument against this is that we ARE descended from bacteria, and the Cambrian gap is not due to God popping in to start a brand new array of forms, but to a lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major as well as minor jumps in response to changing conditions.
The Edicaran and Cambrian layers are carefully explored in China: no form precursors!!!
DAVID: Both Dawkins and I anticipate more explanation to support our theories. As theories we will change them if new findings correct us.dhw: Exactly. So the two of you go on hammering out your conclusions drawn from inadequate evidence, and slagging each other off as if your conclusions were already scientifically proven, whereas you can only hope that you will be proved right. Such hopes colour your thinking and replace science with faith.
Faith in science finding answers is OK for me. I'll alter theory with new discoveries.
Dopamine
DAVID: […] the odds for life on a finding basis for one bacteria is 2x10^100,000,000,000!!! (quote in my science vs religion book, page 77). Only a finding designer fits.dhw: I have always agreed that the complexity of life is one of the strongest arguments for a designer. Don’t you wish Dawkins was open-minded enough to agree?
DAVID: I don't care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.
dhw: He would say the same about you. Unscientific pots and kettles, the two of you.
You do understand theories change as new findings indicate it?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
Common design
dhw: Here we go again.How do all the foods of the past “support” food for humans in the present? How did all the life forms of the past that had no connection with humans form “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food?
DAVID: Accept it. A connected evolution process happened from bacteria to humans.
I am perfectly happy to accept it. It is you (see below) who firstly have cast doubt on it with your theory that your God designed new forms that had no precursors, and we humans are descended from them – and therefore not in a "connected" evolutionary process from bacteria. Secondly, of course, you continue to ignore the bolded questions concerning all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans.
dhw: The gap is caused by the apparently sudden appearance of NEW FORMS. As you rightly say, evolution (speciation) is change in form, not in biochemical processes. And so your theory that your God created new FORMS with no predecessors, and that we are descended from those forms, can only mean that our species (= form) is NOT descended from bacteria.
DAVID: Strange conclusion. Real story. Bacteria are the start of life. We are alive using the same living processes.
No disagreement there, but our subject is the “gaps” in evolution’s history! You have simply ignored the above point that if we all use the same “living processes”, clearly evolution concerns changes of FORM. And you keep telling us that your God produced changes of FORM that had no precursors, and humans are descended from them.
dhw: Of course the argument against this is that we ARE descended from bacteria, and the Cambrian gap is not due to God popping in to start a brand new array of forms, but to a lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major as well as minor jumps in response to changing conditions.
DAVID: The Edicaran and Cambrian layers are carefully explored in China: no form precursors!!!
No known precursors, possibly explained by lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major jumps. Why do you ignore the point we are discussing? And see above for the implication of our descent from species with no known precursors.
DAVID: Both Dawkins and I anticipate more explanation to support our theories. As theories we will change them if new findings correct us.
dhw: Exactly. So the two of you go on hammering out your conclusions drawn from inadequate evidence, and slagging each other off as if your conclusions were already scientifically proven, whereas you can only hope that you will be proved right. Such hopes colour your thinking and replace science with faith.
DAVID: Faith in science finding answers is OK for me. I'll alter theory with new discoveries.
I don’t have a problem with science finding answers! I am simply pointing out that both you and Dawkins have come up with diametrically opposite, unproven conclusions, and you both dismiss any alternatives because your minds are closed.
Dopamine
DAVID: I don't care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.
dhw: He would say the same about you. Unscientific pots and kettles, the two of you.
DAVID: You do understand theories change as new findings indicate it?
Yes, I do. And that is why I find both of you equally blinkered, since you both adhere to unproven theories and sneer at each other for adhering to unproven theories.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 03, 2021, 15:17 (1114 days ago) @ dhw
Common design
DAVID: Accept it. A connected evolution process happened from bacteria to humans.
dhw: I am perfectly happy to accept it. It is you (see below) who firstly have cast doubt on it with your theory that your God designed new forms that had no precursors, and we humans are descended from them – and therefore not in a "connected" evolutionary process from bacteria. Secondly, of course, you continue to ignore the bolded questions concerning all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans.
I've answered and you refuse to accept my answers. Your tortured view of the Cambrian form gap is laughable, and is answered previously.
dhw: Of course the argument against this is that we ARE descended from bacteria, and the Cambrian gap is not due to God popping in to start a brand new array of forms, but to a lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major as well as minor jumps in response to changing conditions.DAVID: The Edicaran and Cambrian layers are carefully explored in China: no form precursors!!!
dhw: No known precursors, possibly explained by lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major jumps. Why do you ignore the point we are discussing? And see above for the implication of our descent from species with no known precursors.
Lack of fossils is a weak reed. Constant digging in china enhances the gap. Intelligent cells don't speciate is my view in all discussions.
DAVID: Faith in science finding answers is OK for me. I'll alter theory with new discoveries.dhw: I don’t have a problem with science finding answers! I am simply pointing out that both you and Dawkins have come up with diametrically opposite, unproven conclusions, and you both dismiss any alternatives because your minds are closed.
I've viewed all alternatives and chosen what I think are reasonable.
Dopamine
DAVID: I don't care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.dhw: He would say the same about you. Unscientific pots and kettles, the two of you.
DAVID: You do understand theories change as new findings indicate it?
dhw: Yes, I do. And that is why I find both of you equally blinkered, since you both adhere to unproven theories and sneer at each other for adhering to unproven theories.
My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book
Let's study ID: the gaps just get bigger
by David Turell , Thursday, November 04, 2021, 00:25 (1114 days ago) @ David Turell
Quoting dhw and his feeble excuse: dhw:" No known precursors, possibly explained by lack of fossils: from the last entry in this thread, Here's an answer:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/the-discontinuous-fossil-record-refutes-darwinian-gra...
"The core prediction of Darwin’s theory of evolution is gradualism, which means that all the transitional changes in the history of life are not supposed to have happened as sudden big changes, but by a continuous accumulation of small changes over vast periods of time. The simple reason is that Darwin wanted a naturalistic explanation and was fully aware that sudden big changes of organisms would require miraculous events.
***
"the fossil record is highly discontinuous and strongly contradicts Darwin’s prediction of gradualism. Even Darwin himself was quite aware of this problem for his theory and therefore tried to explain it away as a mere artifact of undersampling of a very incomplete fossil record. The famous vertebrate paleontologist Philip Gingerich once irritably remarked that “gaps of evidence are gaps of evidence and not evidence of gaps.”
***
"But after a while you are finding mostly the same stuff over and over again, and you must be lucky to find something new that you have not seen before (like a stranded whale or a message in a bottle). When you have reached this point of mostly repetition, then you know that you have sampled enough to be sure that you have not missed much that is out there to find.
"The same approach is used by paleontologists for a statistical test of the completeness of the fossil record; it is called the collector’s curve. In most groups of fossils, we have reached this point of demonstrable saturation, where we can be pretty confident that the distinct discontinuities that we find are data to be explained and not just sampling artifacts. There is another reason why we know this: If the gaps and discontinuities in the fossil record were just artifacts, they should more and more dissolve with our greatly increasing knowledge of the fossil record. But the opposite is the case. The more we know, the more acute these problems have become. “Darwin’s doubt” did not get smaller over time but bigger, and if he were still alive, he would likely agree that the evidence simply does not add up, since he was much more prudent than many of his modern followers.
"Of course, we have to consider the appropriate timescale in Earth history to estimate whether some event in the history of life is abrupt or not. In human history, we would not consider an event that lasts many years (say, decades or a century) to be abrupt. But in biological or geological terms, the appearance of a new group of organisms with a new body plan within, say, a window of time of 5-10 million years is very abrupt indeed. Why is this so? Because the average longevity of an invertebrate or vertebrate species (not an individual organism) varies between 2.5-10 million years. This means that a transition that required 5-10 million years happened within the lifespan of a single species! This is much too short to allow for Darwinian evolution to explain the required changes."
Comment: Even Gould described the gaps and invented punctuated equilibrium to excuse it. Punc-inc isn't heard from any more. And as they dig in the Edicaran layer in China, the Cambrian gap grows worse. Gaps do require miracles, don't they?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
Common design
DAVID: Accept it. A connected evolution process happened from bacteria to humans.
dhw: I am perfectly happy to accept it. It is you (see below) who firstly have cast doubt on it with your theory that your God designed new forms that had no precursors, and we humans are descended from them – and therefore not in a "connected" evolutionary process from bacteria. Secondly, of course, you continue to ignore the bolded questions concerning all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans.
DAVID: I've answered and you refuse to accept my answers. Your tortured view of the Cambrian form gap is laughable, and is answered previously.
What is tortured about it? I have reproduced your own theory: the gaps according to you are caused by your God designing new life forms without precursors, and we are descended from those life forms. Evolution, you tell us, entails changes of form, not changes in the biochemical processes that enable all organisms to live. If all this is so, we are not descended from bacteria but from what were then brand new species without precursors. So if he could start brand new species from scratch, and only wanted to design us plus our food, why bother with the whole great bush? Your answer: No idea. Go and ask God.
dhw: Of course the argument against this is that we ARE descended from bacteria, and the Cambrian gap is not due to God popping in to start a brand new array of forms, but to a lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major as well as minor jumps in response to changing conditions.
DAVID: Lack of fossils is a weak reed. Constant digging in china enhances the gap. Intelligent cells don't speciate is my view in all discussions.
I know you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every innovation and decision, or divine dabbling for each one. Some scientists disagree with you, but nobody knows the truth. That’s why we keep discussing which theories seem most feasible.
The gaps just get bigger
DAVID: Quoting dhw and his feeble excuse: dhw:" No known precursors, possibly explained by lack of fossils: from the last entry in this thread, Here's an answer:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/the-discontinuous-fossil-record-refutes-darwinian-gra...
DAVID: Even Gould described the gaps and invented punctuated equilibrium to excuse it. Punc-inc isn't heard from any more. And as they dig in the Edicaran layer in China, the Cambrian gap grows worse. Gaps do require miracles, don't they?
The gaps remain the same. Punctuated equilibrium simply means that there are long periods of stasis, punctuated by bursts of creativity. The theory, as far as I know, does not explain the process of innovation. Quite apart from the fact that we are frequently being alerted to new fossil discoveries (very often relating to hominins and homos, which of course are far more recent than the Cambrian), you and the authors have paid no attention whatever to the theory that intelligent cells might be responsible for the major jumps as well as minor adaptations. The time scale then becomes irrelevant – as it would be if your God did a dabble.
I have transferred David v Dawkins to "Miscellany", as it is not relevant to ID.
Fungus controls male flies
QUOTE: But meanwhile, the researchers say they are astonished by the fungus’ ability to manipulate its host. “I’m really impressed and amazed by the extent of the adaptation it shows,” de Fine Licht says.
So am I. It seems to support the theory that all life forms are possessed of some form of intelligence.
AVID: It is in the same class as fungus control of ants, described here before. Same old question: how chance evolution achieves this complex system?
I’m very much inclined to agree with you. The whole process suggests that there is cellular intelligence at work. I’m not sure why your God would specifically want to provide the first living cells with a programme for fungi to control male flies, or why he would pop in to give the fungi instructions – especially since his only goal was apparently to design humans and their food - but rest assured, I do not expect an answer.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Thursday, November 04, 2021, 14:01 (1113 days ago) @ dhw
Common design
DAVID: I've answered and you refuse to accept my answers. Your tortured view of the Cambrian form gap is laughable, and is answered previously.
dhw: What is tortured about it? I have reproduced your own theory: the gaps according to you are caused by your God designing new life forms without precursors, and we are descended from those life forms. Evolution, you tell us, entails changes of form, not changes in the biochemical processes that enable all organisms to live. If all this is so, we are not descended from bacteria but from what were then brand new species without precursors.
Right!!! God speciates forms He wants with no direct precursors in the Cambrian.
dhw: So if he could start brand new species from scratch, and only wanted to design us plus our food, why bother with the whole great bush? Your answer: No idea. Go and ask God.
God knew life needs food. The bush feeds all. My 'no idea', which so concerns you, is not that my mind is blank, but I don't know, and cannot know, why God chose to evolve us. Logical!!!
The gaps just get bigger
DAVID: Quoting dhw and his feeble excuse: dhw:" No known precursors, possibly explained by lack of fossils: from the last entry in this thread, Here's an answer:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/the-discontinuous-fossil-record-refutes-darwinian-gra...DAVID: Even Gould described the gaps and invented punctuated equilibrium to excuse it. Punc-inc isn't heard from any more. And as they dig in the Edicaran layer in China, the Cambrian gap grows worse. Gaps do require miracles, don't they?
dhw: The gaps remain the same. Punctuated equilibrium simply means that there are long periods of stasis, punctuated by bursts of creativity. The theory, as far as I know, does not explain the process of innovation. Quite apart from the fact that we are frequently being alerted to new fossil discoveries (very often relating to hominins and homos, which of course are far more recent than the Cambrian), you and the authors have paid no attention whatever to the theory that intelligent cells might be responsible for the major jumps as well as minor adaptations. The time scale then becomes irrelevant – as it would be if your God did a dabble.
See today's Cambrian entry. More missing fossils found, C-Gap the same
Fungus controls male flies
QUOTE: But meanwhile, the researchers say they are astonished by the fungus’ ability to manipulate its host. “I’m really impressed and amazed by the extent of the adaptation it shows,” de Fine Licht says.So am I. It seems to support the theory that all life forms are possessed of some form of intelligence.
DAVID: It is in the same class as fungus control of ants, described here before. Same old question: how chance evolution achieves this complex system?
dhw: I’m very much inclined to agree with you. The whole process suggests that there is cellular intelligence at work. I’m not sure why your God would specifically want to provide the first living cells with a programme for fungi to control male flies, or why he would pop in to give the fungi instructions – especially since his only goal was apparently to design humans and their food - but rest assured, I do not expect an answer.
But you know the answer: all part of necessary vital ecosystems
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
Common design
dhw: […] the gaps according to you are caused by your God designing new life forms without precursors, and we are descended from those life forms. Evolution, you tell us, entails changes of form, not changes in the biochemical processes that enable all organisms to live. If all this is so, we are not descended from bacteria but from what were then brand new species without precursors.
DAVID: Right!!! God speciates forms He wants with no direct precursors in the Cambrian.
And so we are not descended from bacteria, and God is perfectly capable of directly creating whatever species he wants.
dhw: So if he could start brand new species from scratch, and only wanted to design us plus our food, why bother with the whole great bush? Your answer: No idea. Go and ask God.
DAVID: God knew life needs food. The bush feeds all. My 'no idea', which so concerns you, is not that my mind is blank, but I don't know, and cannot know, why God chose to evolve us. Logical!!!
There are really two questions here. First, if he can create species directly, as you say, why didn’t he do so with the only species he wanted? Second, why would he have created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer is that you don’t know, and so that makes it logical!!! No it doesn’t, and that is why I question your theories. If they are not logical (and yet your God’s logic is like ours), maybe they are WRONG! And herewith a truly magnificent example of the mystery you can’t explain:
sponges
DAVID: Darwinist scientists abhor gaps in form, whether in cell types or body forms, since Darwin proposed evolution was in tiny steps. If evolution is formed by design there is no need for precursors.
Thank you. If God’s only purpose was humans plus food, there was no need for precursors, so why did he bother designing all the precursors, and why did he bother to design all the precursors of all the life forms that had no connection with humans? You have answered me. You don’t know. But apparently that makes your theory logical!
The gaps just get bigger
dhw: ...you and the authors have paid no attention whatever to the theory that intelligent cells might be responsible for the major jumps as well as minor adaptations. The time scale then becomes irrelevant – as it would be if your God did a dabble.
DAVID: See today's Cambrian entry. More missing fossils found, C-Gap the same.
I am not denying the gap! I have put forward two possible explanations.
Fungus controls male flies
dhw: The whole process suggests that there is cellular intelligence at work. I’m not sure why your God would specifically want to provide the first living cells with a programme for fungi to control male flies, or why he would pop in to give the fungi instructions – especially since his only goal was apparently to design humans and their food - but rest assured, I do not expect an answer.
DAVID: But you know the answer: all part of necessary vital ecosystems.
Necessary to keep alive all the life forms that had no connection with humans, although all he wanted was humans and their food, and he was perfectly capable of designing them without any precursors. Just stop pretending your theory is logical, stick to your confession that you have no idea why your God would have proceeded in such an illogical manner, and we can end this discussion once and for all.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Friday, November 05, 2021, 13:03 (1112 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Right!!! God speciates forms He wants with no direct precursors in the Cambrian.
dhw: And so we are not descended from bacteria, and God is perfectly capable of directly creating whatever species he wants.
We're descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.
dhw: There are really two questions here. First, if he can create species directly, as you say, why didn’t he do so with the only species he wanted? Second, why would he have created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer is that you don’t know, and so that makes it logical!!! No it doesn’t, and that is why I question your theories. If they are not logical (and yet your God’s logic is like ours), maybe they are WRONG! And herewith a truly magnificent example of the mystery you can’t explain:sponges
DAVID: Darwinist scientists abhor gaps in form, whether in cell types or body forms, since Darwin proposed evolution was in tiny steps. If evolution is formed by design there is no need for precursors.dhw: Thank you. If God’s only purpose was humans plus food, there was no need for precursors, so why did he bother designing all the precursors, and why did he bother to design all the precursors of all the life forms that had no connection with humans? You have answered me. You don’t know. But apparently that makes your theory logical!
The logic you abhor is that God chose to evolve us in small steps of form. The logic comes from the recognition that God can do anything He wishes for His own reasons.
The gaps just get biggerdhw: ...you and the authors have paid no attention whatever to the theory that intelligent cells might be responsible for the major jumps as well as minor adaptations. The time scale then becomes irrelevant – as it would be if your God did a dabble.
DAVID: See today's Cambrian entry. More missing fossils found, C-Gap the same.
dhw: I am not denying the gap! I have put forward two possible explanations.
Fungus controls male flies
dhw: The whole process suggests that there is cellular intelligence at work. I’m not sure why your God would specifically want to provide the first living cells with a programme for fungi to control male flies, or why he would pop in to give the fungi instructions – especially since his only goal was apparently to design humans and their food - but rest assured, I do not expect an answer.DAVID: But you know the answer: all part of necessary vital ecosystems.
dhw: Necessary to keep alive all the life forms that had no connection with humans, although all he wanted was humans and their food, and he was perfectly capable of designing them without any precursors. Just stop pretending your theory is logical, stick to your confession that you have no idea why your God would have proceeded in such an illogical manner, and we can end this discussion once and for all.
It is your problem deciding that my God did it all wrong in your eyes. God speciates and produced us from the start of life in bacteria, producing new forms stepwise until we appeared.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: […] the gaps according to you are caused by your God designing new life forms without precursors, and we are descended from those life forms. Evolution, you tell us, entails changes of form, not changes in the biochemical processes that enable all organisms to live. If all this is so, we are not descended from bacteria but from what were then brand new species without precursors.
DAVID: Right!!! God speciates forms He wants with no direct precursors in the Cambrian.
dhw: And so we are not descended from bacteria, and God is perfectly capable of directly creating whatever species he wants.
DAVID: We're descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.
You have just agreed with three exclamation marks that evolution entails changes of form, not of biochemical processes, and God creates new species (i.e. forms) without precursors, and you tell us that we are descended from just such new forms. If he created them separately (all this, of course, is assuming that he even exists), he could have created us separately. He didn’t. He not only created us in stages, but he also created countless other forms in stages, and most of them had no connection with what you say was his only goal, which was humans (plus food). (To be repeated ad nauseam every time you dodge it.) When I ask you to explain why he didn’t fulfil his purpose directly, your answer is “No idea. Go and ask God”, followed up by “…my mind is not blank, but I don’t know, and cannot know, why God chose to evolve us. Logical!!!” What you simply refuse to acknowledge is the possibility that if you can’t find a logical explanation, your theory might be wrong!
DAVID (under “Sponges”): The logic you abhor is that God chose to evolve us in small steps of form. The logic comes from the recognition that God can do anything He wishes for His own reasons.
Why do you keep ignoring the logic I abhor, which is bolded above and below? All we know is that we and all other life forms evolved in small steps of form (apart from those that you say were created separately), and so this logically casts doubt on your claim that we were your God’s only purpose. But if we really were his purpose, I have even offered you explanations to explain the rest, and you acknowledge that they too are logical.
Fungus controls male flies
dhw: The whole process suggests that there is cellular intelligence at work. I’m not sure why your God would specifically want to provide the first living cells with a programme for fungi to control male flies, or why he would pop in to give the fungi instructions – especially since his only goal was apparently to design humans and their food - but rest assured, I do not expect an answer.
DAVID: But you know the answer: all part of necessary vital ecosystems.
dhw: Necessary to keep alive all the life forms that had no connection with humans, although all he wanted was humans and their food, and he was perfectly capable of designing them without any precursors. Just stop pretending your theory is logical, stick to your confession that you have no idea why your God would have proceeded in such an illogical manner, and we can end this discussion once and for all.
DAVID: It is your problem deciding that my God did it all wrong in your eyes.
He did not do it all wrong in my eyes (if he exists). It is your bolded theory that must be all wrong!
DAVID: God speciates and produced us from the start of life in bacteria, producing new forms stepwise until we appeared.
How can you say he produced us from the start of life if he only started the process of producing us when you say he produced the new Cambrian species that had no precursors? And why do you keep omitting your belief that he also produced all the other life forms that had no connection with us, although we were his only goal?
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Saturday, November 06, 2021, 14:50 (1111 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We're descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.
dhw: You have just agreed with three exclamation marks that evolution entails changes of form, not of biochemical processes, and God creates new species (i.e. forms) without precursors, and you tell us that we are descended from just such new forms. If he created them separately (all this, of course, is assuming that he even exists), he could have created us separately. He didn’t. He not only created us in stages, but he also created countless other forms in stages, and most of them had no connection with what you say was his only goal, which was humans (plus food).
Don't you understand the other forms are the food! That is the connection. The huge human population requires the huge bush of life orgnaized into ecosystems.
dhw: When I ask you to explain why he didn’t fulfil his purpose directly, your answer is “No idea. Go and ask God”, followed up by “…my mind is not blank, but I don’t know, and cannot know, why God chose to evolve us. Logical!!!” What you simply refuse to acknowledge is the possibility that if you can’t find a logical explanation, your theory might be wrong!
I don't need the missing logic you seek. God does what He wants for His reasons and I accept that.
DAVID (under “Sponges”): The logic you abhor is that God chose to evolve us in small steps of form. The logic comes from the recognition that God can do anything He wishes for His own reasons.dhw: Why do you keep ignoring the logic I abhor, which is bolded above and below? All we know is that we and all other life forms evolved in small steps of form (apart from those that you say were created separately), and so this logically casts doubt on your claim that we were your God’s only purpose. But if we really were his purpose, I have even offered you explanations to explain the rest, and you acknowledge that they too are logical.
They are logical only if I accept your very humanized God, remember?. Your dodge is to ignore my position.
Fungus controls male fliesDAVID: God speciates and produced us from the start of life in bacteria, producing new forms stepwise until we appeared.
dhw: How can you say he produced us from the start of life if he only started the process of producing us when you say he produced the new Cambrian species that had no precursors? And why do you keep omitting your belief that he also produced all the other life forms that had no connection with us, although we were his only goal?
The issue of form precursors is your weird new straw man. Darwin and I know the Cambrian gap is a body form gap. Why don't you.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: We're descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.
dhw: You have just agreed with three exclamation marks that evolution entails changes of form, not of biochemical processes, and God creates new species (i.e. forms) without precursors, and you tell us that we are descended from just such new forms.If he created them separately (all this, of course, is assuming that he even exists), he could have created us separately. He didn’t. He not only created us in stages, but he also created countless other forms in stages, and most of them had no connection with what you say was his only goal, which was humans (plus food).
DAVID: Don't you understand the other forms are the food! That is the connection. The huge human population requires the huge bush of life orgnaized into ecosystems.
“Don’t you understand” that for thousands of millions of years, you claim that your God designed life forms and foods and ecosystems that had no connection with humans? And yet you claim that all of them were part of his goal of designing us humans and our food! That is illogical!
DAVID: I don't need the missing logic you seek. God does what He wants for His reasons and I accept that.
Once more: you are theorizing that he did what YOU want him to have done – namely, make humans his one and only purpose. That does not fit in with your belief that he is all-powerful, can create new species without precursors, and yet spent 3.X billion years designing countless life forms and food and econiches that had no connection with humans. You know all this, you have acknowledged that it doesn’t make sense to you, and yet you still go on “accepting” your own theory that God wanted what you want him to have wanted! (But NB I have also provided logical explanations of the bush if your God really did specially want to design us.)
Fungus controls male flies
DAVID: God speciates and produced us from the start of life in bacteria, producing new forms stepwise until we appeared.
dhw: How can you say he produced us from the start of life if he only started the process of producing us when you say he produced the new Cambrian species that had no precursors? And why do you keep omitting your belief that he also produced all the other life forms that had no connection with us, although we were his only goal?
DAVID: The issue of form precursors is your weird new straw man. Darwin and I know the Cambrian gap is a body form gap. Why don't you.
I had to remind you that evolution was related to body form!!! You wrote (see the beginning of this post): “We're descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.” You were trying to gloss over the contradiction between your belief that we are descended from bacteria, and your belief that we are not, because we are descended from new species designed “without precursors” during the Cambrian. I replied:
"You have just agreed with three exclamation marks that evolution entails changes of form, not of biochemical processes, and God creates new species (i.e. forms) without precursors, and you tell us that we are descended from just such new forms."
Then I proposed that the body form gap might be explained by absence of fossils and/or cellular intelligence capable of designing major as well as minor innovations. And you still haven’t answered either of my questions at the start of this section.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Sunday, November 07, 2021, 14:45 (1110 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Don't you understand the other forms are the food! That is the connection. The huge human population requires the huge bush of life organized into ecosystems.
dhw: “Don’t you understand” that for thousands of millions of years, you claim that your God designed life forms and foods and ecosystems that had no connection with humans? And yet you claim that all of them were part of his goal of designing us humans and our food! That is illogical!
Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.
DAVID: I don't need the missing logic you seek. God does what He wants for His reasons and I accept that.dhw: Once more: you are theorizing that he did what YOU want him to have done – namely, make humans his one and only purpose. That does not fit in with your belief that he is all-powerful, can create new species without precursors, and yet spent 3.X billion years designing countless life forms and food and econiches that had no connection with humans. You know all this, you have acknowledged that it doesn’t make sense to you, and yet you still go on “accepting” your own theory that God wanted what you want him to have wanted! (But NB I have also provided logical explanations of the bush if your God really did specially want to design us.)
You forget I'm with Adler. Our specialness makes us a prime purpose for God who chose to evolve us from bacteria as history shows. The God I believe in creates the history we study. I find your objection totally illogical.
Fungus controls male flies
DAVID: God speciates and produced us from the start of life in bacteria, producing new forms stepwise until we appeared.dhw: How can you say he produced us from the start of life if he only started the process of producing us when you say he produced the new Cambrian species that had no precursors? And why do you keep omitting your belief that he also produced all the other life forms that had no connection with us, although we were his only goal?
DAVID: The issue of form precursors is your weird new straw man. Darwin and I know the Cambrian gap is a body form gap. Why don't you.
dhw: I had to remind you that evolution was related to body form!!! You wrote (see the beginning of this post): “We're descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.” You were trying to gloss over the contradiction between your belief that we are descended from bacteria, and your belief that we are not, because we are descended from new species designed “without precursors” during the Cambrian.
You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms
dhw: I replied:
"You have just agreed with three exclamation marks that evolution entails changes of form, not of biochemical processes, and God creates new species (i.e. forms) without precursors, and you tell us that we are descended from just such new forms."
Then I proposed that the body form gap might be explained by absence of fossils and/or cellular intelligence capable of designing major as well as minor innovations. And you still haven’t answered either of my questions at the start of this section.
Absence of fossils for 170 years since Darwin resulting in the gap unchanged or larger is becoming a faint hope. Why do you cling to it? As for cells bright enough to jump the gap, the theory is extrapolating the the appearance that single cells do act as if intelligent. That intelligence is confined to their simple responses to stimuli producing standard results.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: Don't you understand the other forms are the food! That is the connection. The huge human population requires the huge bush of life organized into ecosystems.
dhw: “Don’t you understand” that for thousands of millions of years, you claim that your God designed life forms and foods and ecosystems that had no connection with humans? And yet you claim that all of them were part of his goal of designing us humans and our food! That is illogical!
DAVID: Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.
Evolution is the stepwise development of countless complex body forms, most of which had no connection with humans plus food, and you claim that your God designed them all, even though humans plus food were his one and only purpose. You have already admitted that you have no idea why he would have fulfilled such a purpose through such a method. Please stop dodging! […]
DAVID: You forget I'm with Adler. Our specialness makes us a prime purpose for God who chose to evolve us from bacteria as history shows. The God I believe in creates the history we study. I find your objection totally illogical.
I have no problem with our specialness. You have said that your beloved Adler used this as proof of God’s existence, but does not claim that every single extinct life form was specially created for the sole purpose of producing us. And you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have chosen to design all the life forms that had no connection with us, or why he would have chosen to design us in stages although according to you the Cambrian proves that he can design complex life forms de novo, without any precursors.
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.
I have understood this belief of yours right from the start. And I asked you why you thought a God who can create completely new species without precursors chose not to do so with the only species (plus food) you believe he actually wanted to design, namely us. You have no idea why, and you still insist that we are descended from bacteria, although you agree that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes, and therefore we are not descended from bacteria but from your God’s new creations during the Cambrian.
dhw: I proposed that the body form gap might be explained by absence of fossils and/or cellular intelligence capable of designing major as well as minor innovations.
DAVID: Absence of fossils for 170 years since Darwin resulting in the gap unchanged or larger is becoming a faint hope. Why do you cling to it?
I do not expect a complete record of all stages of speciation for the last 3.X billion years, but since new discoveries are constantly being made, I do not regard the book as being closed.
DAVID: As for cells bright enough to jump the gap, the theory is extrapolating the the appearance that single cells do act as if intelligent. That intelligence is confined to their simple responses to stimuli producing standard results.
Two days ago you agreed that there was a 50/50 chance that cells really are intelligent. I wrote: "So please stop dismissing it." You replied: “50/50 is not dismissal. You are so touchy!” The above authoritative statement is a direct dismissal of the suggestion that cells may be intelligent enough to make major as well as minor changes to themselves, which is the whole point of the theory, as bolded above.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Monday, November 08, 2021, 14:18 (1109 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.
dhw: Evolution is the stepwise development of countless complex body forms, most of which had no connection with humans plus food, and you claim that your God designed them all, even though humans plus food were his one and only purpose. You have already admitted that you have no idea why he would have fulfilled such a purpose through such a method. Please stop dodging!
I'm not omniscient. I can't know why God makes his choices of method.
DAVID: You forget I'm with Adler. Our specialness makes us a prime purpose for God who chose to evolve us from bacteria as history shows. The God I believe in creates the history we study. I find your objection totally illogical.
dhw: I have no problem with our specialness. You have said that your beloved Adler used this as proof of God’s existence, but does not claim that every single extinct life form was specially created for the sole purpose of producing us. And you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have chosen to design all the life forms that had no connection with us, or why he would have chosen to design us in stages although according to you the Cambrian proves that he can design complex life forms de novo, without any precursors.
Same answer. I can't read God's mind, even if you insist. It makes no point
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.dhw: I have understood this belief of yours right from the start. And I asked you why you thought a God who can create completely new species without precursors chose not to do so with the only species (plus food) you believe he actually wanted to design, namely us. You have no idea why, and you still insist that we are descended from bacteria, although you agree that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes, and therefore we are not descended from bacteria but from your God’s new creations during the Cambrian.
You have forgotten my statement that all life forms use the same biochemistry when life started, but even that biochemistry evolved to more complex processes as more complex forms appeared. God wanted to design all the species He did design or they wouldn't be here.
dhw: I proposed that the body form gap might be explained by absence of fossils and/or cellular intelligence capable of designing major as well as minor innovations.DAVID: Absence of fossils for 170 years since Darwin resulting in the gap unchanged or larger is becoming a faint hope. Why do you cling to it?
dhw: I do not expect a complete record of all stages of speciation for the last 3.X billion years, but since new discoveries are constantly being made, I do not regard the book as being closed.
How about your mind closed on this subject? 170 years of active fossil searching since Darwin and the gap is the same.
DAVID: As for cells bright enough to jump the gap, the theory is extrapolating the the appearance that single cells do act as if intelligent. That intelligence is confined to their simple responses to stimuli producing standard results.dhw: Two days ago you agreed that there was a 50/50 chance that cells really are intelligent. I wrote: "So please stop dismissing it." You replied: “50/50 is not dismissal. You are so touchy!” The above authoritative statement is a direct dismissal of the suggestion that cells may be intelligent enough to make major as well as minor changes to themselves, which is the whole point of the theory, as bolded above.
Accept that I have my point of view and you yours or we wouldn't have a debate
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.
dhw: Evolution is the stepwise development of countless complex body forms, most of which had no connection with humans plus food, and you claim that your God designed them all, even though humans plus food were his one and only purpose. You have already admitted that you have no idea why he would have fulfilled such a purpose through such a method. Please stop dodging!
DAVID: I'm not omniscient. I can't know why God makes his choices of method.
You can’t know what your God’s purpose was or what his method of achieving that purpose was! But you insist that you do know: purpose, to design humans plus food; method, to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans before finally starting out to design humans stage by stage though he had the power to create new species without precursors. You admit that it makes no sense, but you insist that it is logical.
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.
dhw: I have understood this belief of yours right from the start. And I asked you why you thought a God who can create completely new species without precursors chose not to do so with the only species (plus food) you believe he actually wanted to design, namely us. You have no idea why, and you still insist that we are descended from bacteria,although you agree that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes, and therefore we are not descended from bacteria but from your God’s new creations during the Cambrian.
DAVID: You have forgotten my statement that all life forms use the same biochemistry when life started, but even that biochemistry evolved to more complex processes as more complex forms appeared.
Hardly forgotten, since I reminded you that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes, as you confirmed in the now bolded statement at the top of this post.
DAVID: God wanted to design all the species He did design or they wouldn't be here.
If he exists, and if he deliberately designed each one, then of course he wanted them to be here. And that is why it is illogical to say that he deliberately designed all those that had no connection with humans, if he only wanted to design humans (plus food).
dhw: I proposed that the body form gap might be explained by absence of fossils and/or cellular intelligence capable of designing major as well as minor innovations.
DAVID: Absence of fossils for 170 years since Darwin resulting in the gap unchanged or larger is becoming a faint hope. Why do you cling to it?
dhw: I do not expect a complete record of all stages of speciation for the last 3.X billion years, but since new discoveries are constantly being made, I do not regard the book as being closed.
DAVID: How about your mind closed on this subject? 170 years of active fossil searching since Darwin and the gap is the same.
What is my mind supposed to be closed on? Are you saying the search has ended? No more fossils will ever be discovered? But I have offered another possible explanation of the gap – cellular intelligence.
DAVID: As for cells bright enough to jump the gap, the theory is extrapolating the the appearance that single cells do act as if intelligent. That intelligence is confined to their simple responses to stimuli producing standard results.
dhw: Two days ago you agreed that there was a 50/50 chance that cells really are intelligent. I wrote: "So please stop dismissing it." You replied: “50/50 is not dismissal. You are so touchy!” The above authoritative statement is a direct dismissal of the suggestion that cells may be intelligent enough to make major as well as minor changes to themselves, which is the whole point of the theory, as bolded above.
DAVID: Accept that I have my point of view and you yours or we wouldn't have a debate.
The point of the debate is to test the different theories as rationally and coherently as we can. You keep saying that the intelligent cell theory as above has a 50/50 chance of being right, you say you haven’t dismissed it, and then you dismiss it!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 09, 2021, 14:24 (1108 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'm not omniscient. I can't know why God makes his choices of method.
dhw: You can’t know what your God’s purpose was or what his method of achieving that purpose was! But you insist that you do know: purpose, to design humans plus food; method, to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans before finally starting out to design humans stage by stage though he had the power to create new species without precursors. You admit that it makes no sense, but you insist that it is logical.
The sentence I bolded is your illogical mantra. I accept that everything that has happened is God's work. You don't accept that starting point, and that is your problem.
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.DAVID: You have forgotten my statement that all life forms use the same biochemistry when life started, but even that biochemistry evolved to more complex processes as more complex forms appeared.
dhw: Hardly forgotten, since I reminded you that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes, as you confirmed in the now bolded statement at the top of this post.
Wrong: new biochemical processes have appeared through evolution, one obvious one is sexual reproduction.
DAVID: God wanted to design all the species He did design or they wouldn't be here.dhw: If he exists, and if he deliberately designed each one, then of course he wanted them to be here. And that is why it is illogical to say that he deliberately designed all those that had no connection with humans, if he only wanted to design humans (plus food).
Again your reference to your humanized God who can't wait to have humans appear.
dhw: I proposed that the body form gap might be explained by absence of fossils and/or cellular intelligence capable of designing major as well as minor innovations.
DAVID: How about your mind closed on this subject? 170 years of active fossil searching since Darwin and the gap is the same.
dhw: What is my mind supposed to be closed on? Are you saying the search has ended? No more fossils will ever be discovered? But I have offered another possible explanation of the gap – cellular intelligence.
I know.
DAVID: As for cells bright enough to jump the gap, the theory is extrapolating the the appearance that single cells do act as if intelligent. That intelligence is confined to their simple responses to stimuli producing standard results.dhw: Two days ago you agreed that there was a 50/50 chance that cells really are intelligent. I wrote: "So please stop dismissing it." You replied: “50/50 is not dismissal. You are so touchy!” The above authoritative statement is a direct dismissal of the suggestion that cells may be intelligent enough to make major as well as minor changes to themselves, which is the whole point of the theory, as bolded above.
DAVID: Accept that I have my point of view and you yours or we wouldn't have a debate.
dhw: The point of the debate is to test the different theories as rationally and coherently as we can. You keep saying that the intelligent cell theory as above has a 50/50 chance of being right, you say you haven’t dismissed it, and then you dismiss it!
I have my 50%, you have yours. We have chosen sides.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: I'm not omniscient. I can't know why God makes his choices of method.
dhw: You can’t know what your God’s purpose was or what his method of achieving that purpose was! But you insist that you do know: purpose, to design humans plus food; method, to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans before finally starting out to design humans stage by stage though he had the power to create new species without precursors. You admit that it makes no sense, but you insist that it is logical.
DAVID: The sentence I bolded is your illogical mantra. I accept that everything that has happened is God's work. You don't accept that starting point, and that is your problem.
Your usual dodge. Every theory I have offered you makes evolution into “God’s work”, because we are not arguing about God’s existence but about your interpretation of evolution if God does exist. You admit that you have no idea why he would choose the above method to achieve the above purpose, but still you try to wriggle out of it.
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.
And:
DAVID: You have forgotten my statement that all life forms use the same biochemistry when life started, but even that biochemistry evolved to more complex processes as more complex forms appeared.
dhw: Hardly forgotten, since I reminded you that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes…
DAVID: Wrong: new biochemical processes have appeared through evolution, one obvious one is sexual reproduction.
You wrote: “Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.” And you also wrote that “We’re descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.” Now you say they are not the same processes. All very confused and confusing. May I make a suggestion? Sexual reproduction may go back to when bacteria began to exchange genes. Evolution produced new methods of exchanging genes by way of new, more complex body forms. In any case, all this is a diversion from the fact that you believe we are descended from species which God created without precursors, which begs the question why, if his one and only purpose was to create humans, he did not create humans without precursors but instead created countless life forms that had no connection with humans. As you say next:
DAVID: God wanted to design all the species He did design or they wouldn't be here.
dhw: If he exists, and if he deliberately designed each one, then of course he wanted them to be here. And that is why it is illogical to say that he deliberately designed all those that had no connection with humans, if he only wanted to design humans (plus food).
DAVID: Again your reference to your humanized God who can't wait to have humans appear.
Why should your own humanized God “wait” if he has only one purpose and possesses the powers to fulfil it directly, as per Cambrian? You don’t know. I should “go and ask God”. If you can’t find any logic in your theory, then maybe part of your theory is wrong.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 13:52 (1107 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The sentence I bolded is your illogical mantra. I accept that everything that has happened is God's work. You don't accept that starting point, and that is your problem.
dhw: Your usual dodge. Every theory I have offered you makes evolution into “God’s work”, because we are not arguing about God’s existence but about your interpretation of evolution if God does exist. You admit that you have no idea why he would choose the above method to achieve the above purpose, but still you try to wriggle out of it.
My position does not require wriggling. Evolution happened. Everything in our reality is God's creation. God created the evolutionary history, which ended with humans in control. They ere current and probably the final endpoint. Asv tehv endpoint, humans are/were his goal.
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.
And:
DAVID: You have forgotten my statement that all life forms use the same biochemistry when life started, but even that biochemistry evolved to more complex processes as more complex forms appeared.dhw: Hardly forgotten, since I reminded you that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes…
DAVID: Wrong: new biochemical processes have appeared through evolution, one obvious one is sexual reproduction.
dhw: You wrote: “Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.” And you also wrote that “We’re descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.” Now you say they are not the same processes. All very confused and confusing.
You confuse easily. Biochemistry and new body forms are both part of the same evolutionary process.
dhw: May I make a suggestion? Sexual reproduction may go back to when bacteria began to exchange genes. Evolution produced new methods of exchanging genes by way of new, more complex body forms. In any case, all this is a diversion from the fact that you believe we are descended from species which God created without precursors, which begs the question why, if his one and only purpose was to create humans, he did not create humans without precursors but instead created countless life forms that had no connection with humans.
Don't you realize God does what He wants to do. History tells you what He did.
dhw: As you say next:
DAVID: God wanted to design all the species He did design or they wouldn't be here.
dhw: If he exists, and if he deliberately designed each one, then of course he wanted them to be here. And that is why it is illogical to say that he deliberately designed all those that had no connection with humans, if he only wanted to design humans (plus food).
DAVID: Again your reference to your humanized God who can't wait to have humans appear.dhw: Why should your own humanized God “wait” if he has only one purpose and possesses the powers to fulfil it directly, as per Cambrian? You don’t know. I should “go and ask God”. If you can’t find any logic in your theory, then maybe part of your theory is wrong.
You request that I understand God's choice to evolve us. I don't/can't know His thoughts. Your request is illogical in itself. If evolution happened, God did it is simple logic when one believes in God.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: My position does not require wriggling. Evolution happened. Everything in our reality is God's creation. God created the evolutionary history, which ended with humans in control. They ere current and probably the final endpoint. Asv tehv endpoint, humans are/were his goal.
You never stop dodging. For the ad nauseamth time: If humans were his goal, why did he specially design countless life forms that had no connection with humans? If he was capable of designing completely new life forms without any precursors, why didn’t he produce sapiens directly? Your answer: “No idea. Go and ask God.” Yes, if God exists, our reality is his creation. But your theory concerning what he wanted to create and how he created it makes no sense even to you. This discussion should end here.
DAVID (under “fungus controls male flies”): You have finally understood my designer God makes new species in completely new forms (phenotypes) without precursor forms.
And:
DAVID: You have forgotten my statement that all life forms use the same biochemistry when life started, but even that biochemistry evolved to more complex processes as more complex forms appeared.
dhw: Hardly forgotten, since I reminded you that evolution is development of body forms and not biochemical processes…
DAVID: Wrong: new biochemical processes have appeared through evolution, one obvious one is sexual reproduction.
dhw: You wrote: "Not illogical when evolution is understood to be stepwise development of more complex body forms.” And you also wrote that “We’re descended from bacteria because we use the same biochemical processes that produce life.” Now you say they are not the same processes. All very confused and confusing.
DAVID: You confuse easily. Biochemistry and new body forms are both part of the same evolutionary process.
Of course they are, but you said we use the same biochemical processes as bacteria, and then you said there were new biochemical processes. (I suggested that sex was the same exchange of genes, but through different methods which required new body forms.) It makes no difference to the general argument. If your God can produce brand new species with no precursors, why didn’t he produce us without all the rigmarole of umpteen precursors (see your latest posts on gaps), let alone all the species he created that had no connection with us?
DAVID: Don't you realize God does what He wants to do. History tells you what He did.
Of course it does. If he exists, he created life. That does NOT mean he individually designed every single life form, or that his sole purpose was to design us.
DAVID: You request that I understand God's choice to evolve us. I don't/can't know His thoughts. Your request is illogical in itself. If evolution happened, God did it is simple logic when one believes in God.
And under “Theodicy”:
DAVID: As always: Believing God exists, He created evolution. Since based on belief, what is illogical? Your answer has to be belief in God is illogical.
Same old dodge. Yes, we evolved. But my request is for answers to the two questions bolded above in my first response. All my alternatives to the theory which you cannot explain involve God, and this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God! It is about your belief in a theory you can't explain.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Thursday, November 11, 2021, 18:37 (1106 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You never stop dodging. For the ad nauseamth time: If humans were his goal, why did he specially design countless life forms that had no connection with humans? If he was capable of designing completely new life forms without any precursors, why didn’t he produce sapiens directly? Your answer: “No idea. Go and ask God.” Yes, if God exists, our reality is his creation. But your theory concerning what he wanted to create and how he created it makes no sense even to you. This discussion should end here.
Of course it can end. The bold makes perfect sense to me. God chose to evolve us. So quit bugging me
DAVID: You confuse easily. Biochemistry and new body forms are both part of the same evolutionary process.
dhw: Of course they are, but you said we use the same biochemical processes as bacteria, and then you said there were new biochemical processes. (I suggested that sex was the same exchange of genes, but through different methods which required new body forms.) It makes no difference to the general argument. If your God can produce brand new species with no precursors, why didn’t he produce us without all the rigmarole of umpteen precursors (see your latest posts on gaps), let alone all the species he created that had no connection with us?
I don't know why He chose to evolve us; He didn't tell me. You are repeating your same illogical objection because you do not understand those of us who accept God, just how we think about Him. What has appeared in history is God's created history. God evolved us from bacterial forms.
DAVID: Don't you realize God does what He wants to do. History tells you what He did.dhw; Of course it does. If he exists, he created life. That does NOT mean he individually designed every single life form, or that his sole purpose was to design us.
But that is what God did. God created the illusion of Darwinian style evolution.
DAVID: You request that I understand God's choice to evolve us. I don't/can't know His thoughts. Your request is illogical in itself. If evolution happened, God did it is simple logic when one believes in God.
And under “Theodicy”:
DAVID: As always: Believing God exists, He created evolution. Since based on belief, what is illogical? Your answer has to be belief in God is illogical.dhw: Same old dodge. Yes, we evolved. But my request is for answers to the two questions bolded above in my first response. All my alternatives to the theory which you cannot explain involve God, and this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God! It is about your belief in a theory you can't explain.
My explanation is simple. God does what God wants to do and He evolved us from bacteria. Live with it and we can move on to other topics.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: You never stop dodging. For the ad nauseamth time: If humans were his goal, why did he specially design countless life forms that had no connection with humans? If he was capable of designing completely new life forms without any precursors, why didn’t he produce sapiens directly? Your answer: “No idea. Go and ask God.” Yes, if God exists, our reality is his creation. But your theory concerning what he wanted to create and how he created it makes no sense even to you. This discussion should end here.
DAVID: Of course it can end. The bold makes perfect sense to me. God chose to evolve us. So quit bugging me.
I bug you because you resolutely ignore the two questions, or you agree that you can’t see the logic either, and yet you still insist that your theory is right and refuse to consider alternatives. The rest of this post repeats your evasion of the questions.
DAVID: My explanation is simple. God does what God wants to do and He evolved us from bacteria. Live with it and we can move on to other topics.
Omissions: God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, but before designing us,he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. You don’t know why. God had the power to design new life forms from scratch (with no precursors), but although we were his only purpose, he designed a whole collection of precursors for us. You don’t know why. But you believe your theory is logical.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Friday, November 12, 2021, 15:43 (1105 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You never stop dodging. For the ad nauseamth time: If humans were his goal, why did he specially design countless life forms that had no connection with humans? If he was capable of designing completely new life forms without any precursors, why didn’t he produce sapiens directly? Your answer: “No idea. Go and ask God.” Yes, if God exists, our reality is his creation. But your theory concerning what he wanted to create and how he created it makes no sense even to you. This discussion should end here.
DAVID: Of course it can end. The bold makes perfect sense to me. God chose to evolve us. So quit bugging me.
I bug you because you resolutely ignore the two questions, or you agree that you can’t see the logic either, and yet you still insist that your theory is right and refuse to consider alternatives. The rest of this post repeats your evasion of the questions.
DAVID: My explanation is simple. God does what God wants to do and He evolved us from bacteria. Live with it and we can move on to other topics.
dhw: Omissions: God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, but before designing us, he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. You don’t know why. God had the power to design new life forms from scratch (with no precursors), but although we were his only purpose, he designed a whole collection of precursors for us. You don’t know why. But you believe your theory is logical.
Still trying to confuse the issue are you? You want me to explain God's logic. We start knowing what God did since God created all history. We see the evolution of life from Archaea to us. We humans are a very unusual and highly unlikely result if natural forces were at work. Therefore God intended to produce us. Why He chose the known historical method was His choice. It is God's right to chose His method. I cannot know His reasons. It is you who question His logic. I accept it. It is your problem for which I cannot offer help.
Let's study ID: Darwinism cannot explain metamorphosis
by David Turell , Saturday, November 13, 2021, 00:46 (1105 days ago) @ David Turell
Especially with Monarch butterfly migration thrown in:
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo58/metamorphosis
" Charles Darwin reasoned that, nature can develop desirable traits by a process ,which he called "natural selection" acting on random variation. The key point is that each step needs to provide some increased survival benefit for the individual, or there is no reason to retain it for future generations.
***
"The first part of the lifecycle of butterflies is similar to that of crickets and grasshoppers in that they begin as eggs. Then, unlike crickets and grasshoppers, they develop into caterpillars, which go through a series of molts (usually about five), shedding their skin as they grow in size by two or three orders of magnitude (effectively doubling in mass every couple of days over a period of a few weeks). During this stage, their external shape stays basically the same through each instar.
"The next stage for butterflies [is] the caterpillar attaches itself to a twig. Under the skin that it sheds, there is a different type of skin that hardens to form the chrysalis. Inside this chrysalis (or pupa), the caterpillar completes its transformation into an adult butterfly. This stage involves the simultaneous development of a whole variety of new body parts and shapes—all of which are necessary for a successful butterfly.
"The first thing that happens inside the chrysalis is that the caterpillar's body digests itself from the inside out, using some of the same digestive juices it used to digest the leaves it previously ate. It then proceeds to assemble a new body with new structures—amazingly, while it is still alive. The new structures include:
"A thinner, lighter, multi-segmented body: Three segments of thorax develop, each of which has a pair of legs attached to it, while the second and third segments each have a pair of wings attached as well.
Six long, thin, segmented legs, instead of sixteen stumpy ones: the two front legs are held close to the body most of the time, but are used to taste-test milkweed before the butterfly lays its eggs.
Four wings: Two forewings and two hindwings are attached to the second and third body segments respectively, each with its necessary muscles and a system to inflate them. Recently it has been shown that each of the larger veins in a butterfly wing contains a central tracheal tube and one or two hemolymph channels; these control temperature and give the two-dimensional wings structure, strength, and support.
Two-part hollow tongue: The straw-like proboscis is the butterfly's tongue, through which it sucks in nectar and water (instead of chewing leaves) for nourishment. The tongue is formed in two halves and must be assembled after the butterfly leaves the chrysalis. Since the proboscis is very long (sometimes up to 1.5 times the length of the body), it would be in the way and might be damaged when not in use, so it conveniently is able to be curled up.
A much smaller digestive system, modified for digesting nectar instead of leaves.
"An improved sense of smell and taste: the butterfly's antennae, palpi (a pair of protrusions on the front of the head), legs, and feet have abundant sensory receptors with which it can locate flowers that have nectar, potential mates (producing pheromones), and milkweed plants where it can lay its eggs.
An improved sense of sight: A butterfly's compound eyes are made up of thousands of ommatidia, each of which senses light and images, instead of six pairs of simple eyes that barely detect light versus dark.
***
"You may recognize this problem as one of irreducible complexity, a term coined by Lehigh University biochemist Dr. Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box (Simon and Schuster, 1996). As Behe explains, if a system needs all its component parts to be in place simultaneously in order to function, there is no pathway for this to occur through a gradual Darwinian process.
***
"The characteristic that marks all these systems as irreducibly complex is that every single component in the system must be present at the same time in order for it to function, just as multiple, simultaneous changes must occur within the chrysalis for the emerging butterfly to survive and function. The combined probability of these necessary components coming into existence virtually at once is astoundingly low. Even billions of years is not enough time to give all this a reasonable chance of happening by a random process.
***
" Shun Yao and others describe the developmental changes in genetic expression in another species of butterfly, the swallowtail butterfly.3 They found 1,723 differences in genetic expression between the caterpillar and chrysalis stages, and 1,162 such differences between the chrysalis and adult butterfly stages. They identified these differences as being related to the changes that occur in the digestion, cuticularization (skin formation in the caterpillar stage), chemoreception (for the sense of smell), wing formation, and other systems. Since mutations are relatively rare (and most would negatively affect the ability of the insect to live), the chance of all of these needed mutations occurring simultaneously, and correctly, is far beyond an astronomical number."
Comment: The key is the concept of irreducible complexity. If its presence is recognized in any animal process as in metamorphosis, Darwinism is dead.
Let's study ID: more irreducible complexity
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 21, 2021, 15:41 (1066 days ago) @ David Turell
Transporting heme is such an example:
https://phys.org/news/2021-12-pathway-emerges-biologists-function-heme.html
"Heme is an essential part of the protein hemoglobin, which colors human blood red. Heme also is crucial for cytochrome proteins, which power the cell. Humans, animals, plants and bacteria all use heme. (my bold)
"Hemoglobin shuttles oxygen to tissues where it is needed, while cytochromes carry electrons for energy conversion in the cell. But understanding how heme moves across membranes—like it needs to, in order to insert into hemoglobin and cytochromes—has been challenging. Heme transport is transient, which means heme moves through membranes quickly and leaves behind no traces. And heme-binding membrane proteins are difficult to purify in large quantities.
"In research published Dec. 20 in Nature Chemical Biology, scientists at Washington University in St. Louis described for the first time the structure of a bifunctional protein, called CcsBA, that transports heme and attaches it to cytochromes. The study led by Robert Kranz, professor of biology in Arts & Sciences, captured two conformational states of CcsBA, a bacterial and chloroplast protein, allowing scientists to characterize the enzyme mechanism.
""This new paper addresses the structural basis for how the CcsBA machine functions, revealing major dynamic switches that occur during the cycle of heme transport," Kranz said.
***
"The cyro-EM data identified two states in which either one or two heme molecules were bound.
"'The structural models we were able to construct illustrate that CcsBA is trapped with heme in two different conformations, which we term the closed and open states," Kranz said. "This new body of work addresses the structural basis by which the CcsBA machine functions, revealing a major dynamic switch that occurs during the transport cycle. (my bold)
"'One of the coolest findings is that a large chamber opens upon heme transport," he said. The chamber is for cytochrome c synthesis."
Comment: Note my bolds. Heme must be present to make the proteins that power cells. This is irreducible complexity. Only in the whole form does it work. It cannot be built in consecutive stages of evolution. Cells need it intact tov function. Only a designed process developed in one step can create this. Not by chance.
Let's study ID: more irreducible complexity
DAVID: Note my bolds. Heme must be present to make the proteins that power cells. This is irreducible complexity. Only in the whole form does it work. It cannot be built in consecutive stages of evolution. Cells need it intact to function. Only a designed process developed in one step can create this. Not by chance.
For me, this is the strongest of all arguments for the existence of a designer. The intricate complexities of cells and cell communities make it impossible for me to embrace atheism. Psychic experiences are another important factor to counterbalance the materialist solution to all the problems connected with how conscious life could first have come into being. Atheist materialists will reject such reservations, just as theists will reject the objection that if conscious life requires a designer, then how can anyone believe in an all-powerful conscious mind that is simply "there" and has always been "there"? Hence the question: did God invent us, or did we invent God? I can't answer this question, and that is why this website exists.
My thanks to David for keeping it going.
Let's study ID: more irreducible complexity
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 14:37 (1065 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Note my bolds. Heme must be present to make the proteins that power cells. This is irreducible complexity. Only in the whole form does it work. It cannot be built in consecutive stages of evolution. Cells need it intact to function. Only a designed process developed in one step can create this. Not by chance.
dhw: For me, this is the strongest of all arguments for the existence of a designer. The intricate complexities of cells and cell communities make it impossible for me to embrace atheism. Psychic experiences are another important factor to counterbalance the materialist solution to all the problems connected with how conscious life could first have come into being. Atheist materialists will reject such reservations, just as theists will reject the objection that if conscious life requires a designer, then how can anyone believe in an all-powerful conscious mind that is simply "there" and has always been "there"? Hence the question: did God invent us, or did we invent God? I can't answer this question, and that is why this website exists.
My thanks to David for keeping it going.
It seems perfectly logical a 'designer has to be there'. Something must be eternal as we are here. For me it is the only answer to the question that fits.
Let's study ID: shaping organs
by David Turell , Friday, December 24, 2021, 15:07 (1063 days ago) @ David Turell
A study in zebra fish shows the forces that work:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211222153136.htm
"...researchers at Harvard Medical School have discovered a mechanical process by which sheets of cells morph into the delicate, looping semicircular canals of the inner ear.
"Published Dec. 22 in Cell, the research, done in zebrafish, reveals that the process involves a combination of hyaluronic acid, produced by cells, that swells with water, and thin connectors between cells that direct the force of this swelling to shape the tissue.
"Although conducted in zebrafish, the work reveals a basic mechanism for how tissues take on shapes -- one that is likely to be conserved across vertebrates, the researchers say, and may also have implications for bioengineering.
***
"'The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function," Megason added. "We went into it thinking it was a beautiful structure, but not knowing what we would find."
"What they did find surprised them.
"The conventional thinking is that the proteins actin and myosin act as tiny motors inside cells, pushing and pulling them in different directions to fold a tissue into a specific shape. However, the researchers discovered that zebrafish semicircular canals form through a markedly different process. During development, the cells produce hyaluronic acid, which is perhaps most well known as an antiwrinkle agent in beauty products. Once in the extracellular matrix the acid swells up, not unlike a diaper in a swimming pool. This swelling creates enough force to physically move nearby cells, but since the pressure is the same in all directions, the researchers wondered how the tissue ends up stretching in one direction and not another to form an elongated shape. The team found that this is accomplished by thin connectors between cells -- dubbed cytocinches -- that constrain the force.
"'It's like if you were to put a corset on a water balloon and deform it into an oblong structure," Munjal said. This combination of swelling and cinching progressively shapes an initially flat sheet of cells into tubes.
"'Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. "Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to, and time will tell exactly what the balance is between the molecular approaches of actin and myosin and the more physical approaches of pressure.'"
Comment: this study in the embryology of zebra fish is irreducibly complex. To shape an organ all of the forces and cell parts must act in concert. Therefor a process that cannot be developed stepwise. The process of embryology itself denies Darwin and requires design and a designer mind.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
dhw: Omissions: God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, but before designing us, he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. You don’t know why. God had the power to design new life forms from scratch (with no precursors), but although we were his only purpose, he designed a whole collection of precursors for us. You don’t know why. But you believe your theory is logical.
DAVID: Still trying to confuse the issue are you? You want me to explain God's logic. We start knowing what God did since God created all history. We see the evolution of life from Archaea to us.
We see the evolution of life from Archaea to countless forms including us.
DAVID: We humans are a very unusual and highly unlikely result if natural forces were at work. Therefore God intended to produce us.
But you say that all species, lifestyles and natural wonders are so special that your God must have designed them,including all those species and foods that had no connection with us and our foods, and including the weaverbird’s nest. Therefore, if he really did design them all, he intended to design them all. So back we go to the same question: if his ONLY intention was to design us, why did he design all the rest?
DAVID: Why He chose the known historical method was His choice. It is God's right to chose His method. I cannot know His reasons. It is you who question His logic. I accept it. It is your problem for which I cannot offer help.
You cannot know why, if his only goal was to design us, he chose to specially design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with us. I seem to have said this before. So (a) maybe we were not his only goal, or (b) maybe he did not specially design all the other forms. I am not questioning his logic, but yours! You keep admitting that you cannot see the logic in your own theory, yet still you insist that it is a fact. It is not. The only facts we have are that all the different species existed/exist, and we are the latest to appear on the scene.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Saturday, November 13, 2021, 14:06 (1104 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Omissions: God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, but before designing us, he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. You don’t know why. God had the power to design new life forms from scratch (with no precursors), but although we were his only purpose, he designed a whole collection of precursors for us. You don’t know why. But you believe your theory is logical.
DAVID: Still trying to confuse the issue are you? You want me to explain God's logic. We start knowing what God did since God created all history. We see the evolution of life from Archaea to us.
dhw: We see the evolution of life from Archaea to countless forms including us.
DAVID: We humans are a very unusual and highly unlikely result if natural forces were at work. Therefore God intended to produce us.
dhw: But you say that all species, lifestyles and natural wonders are so special that your God must have designed them, including all those species and foods that had no connection with us and our foods, and including the weaverbird’s nest. Therefore, if he really did design them all, he intended to design them all. So back we go to the same question: if his ONLY intention was to design us, why did he design all the rest?
What you always avoid is food supply for all. If we are here without the food bush, what do we eat?
DAVID: Why He chose the known historical method was His choice. It is God's right to chose His method. I cannot know His reasons. It is you who question His logic. I accept it. It is your problem for which I cannot offer help.dhw: You cannot know why, if his only goal was to design us, he chose to specially design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with us. I seem to have said this before. So (a) maybe we were not his only goal, or (b) maybe he did not specially design all the other forms. I am not questioning his logic, but yours! You keep admitting that you cannot see the logic in your own theory, yet still you insist that it is a fact. It is not. The only facts we have are that all the different species existed/exist, and we are the latest to appear on the scene.
My theory is totally logical to me. Your objections are your problem in your weird approach to God. It is a belief-fact for me. God must exist because of the complexity of biological designs. Per Adler we are an unusual result of a possible natural process as Darwin described that we are an end point purpose for evolution conducted supernaturally by God..
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
DAVID: We humans are a very unusual and highly unlikely result if natural forces were at work. Therefore God intended to produce us.
dhw: But you say that all species, lifestyles and natural wonders are so special that your God must have designed them, including all those species and foods that had no connection with us and our foods, and including the weaverbird’s nest. Therefore, if he really did design them all, he intended to design them all. So back we go to the same question: if his ONLY intention was to design us, why did he design all the rest?
DAVID: What you always avoid is food supply for all. If we are here without the food bush, what do we eat?
And under “Balance of Nature”:
QUOTE:"Understanding how ecosystems respond to changes in large predator populations is vital to resolving broader debates about the structure of food webs, determining species abundance and delivering ecosystem services, said the authors. (David's bold)
DAVID: Note the bold. Food webs are vital to all living organisms. It is a fact dhw admits and then poopoos. The current huge human population was anticipated for by God and prepared for by the giant food bush appearing from all the branches of evolution designed by God.
I don’t poopoo the blindingly obvious fact that food webs are vital to all living organisms. I poopoo the illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food and therefore he proceeded to design countless life forms, foods and econiches that had no connection with humans. You never cease to dodge this obvious illogicality and to contradict yourself on the subject of past “food webs”. Yet again, these are your wise words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
DAVID: My theory is totally logical to me. Your objections are your problem in your weird approach to God. It is a belief-fact for me.
What is a belief-fact? This is your constant blockage – you simply cannot accept that your God individually designing every species is NOT a fact, and your God’s sole purpose being to design humans and their food is NOT a fact. The only fact in this discussion is that countless species have been and gone, and humans are the last species so far to have appeared.
DAVID: God must exist because of the complexity of biological designs.
A perfectly reasonable belief, as I have always acknowledged.
DAVID: Per Adler we are an unusual result of a possible natural process as Darwin described that we are an end point purpose for evolution conducted supernaturally by God.
This sentence doesn’t make sense. Yes, we are unique, but according to you, God designed every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder as well. So…yet again…why would he have specially designed all those that had no connection with humans, plus food, if humans plus food were his only purpose? You have no idea, and I must ask God!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition
by David Turell , Sunday, November 14, 2021, 15:16 (1103 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE:"Understanding how ecosystems respond to changes in large predator populations is vital to resolving broader debates about the structure of food webs, determining species abundance and delivering ecosystem services, said the authors. (David's bold)
DAVID: Note the bold. Food webs are vital to all living organisms. It is a fact dhw admits and then poopoos. The current huge human population was anticipated for by God and prepared for by the giant food bush appearing from all the branches of evolution designed by God.
dhw: I don’t poopoo the blindingly obvious fact that food webs are vital to all living organisms. I poopoo the illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food and therefore he proceeded to design countless life forms, foods and econiches that had no connection with humans. You never cease to dodge this obvious illogicality and to contradict yourself on the subject of past “food webs”. Yet again, these are your wise words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
Your confusion is amazing. These statements simply recognize that different previous time periods differ from the present, nothing more.
DAVID: My theory is totally logical to me. Your objections are your problem in your weird approach to God. It is a belief-fact for me.dhw: What is a belief-fact? This is your constant blockage – you simply cannot accept that your God individually designing every species is NOT a fact, and your God’s sole purpose being to design humans and their food is NOT a fact. The only fact in this discussion is that countless species have been and gone, and humans are the last species so far to have appeared.
That history is correct and allows individual interpretation of God's actions, with which you disagree, so we debate from the positions of belief in God and a non-belief in God.
DAVID: God must exist because of the complexity of biological designs.dhw: A perfectly reasonable belief, as I have always acknowledged.
DAVID: Per Adler we are an unusual result of a possible natural process as Darwin described that we are an end point purpose for evolution conducted supernaturally by God.
dhw:This sentence doesn’t make sense. Yes, we are unique, but according to you, God designed every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder as well. So…yet again…why would he have specially designed all those that had no connection with humans, plus food, if humans plus food were his only purpose? You have no idea, and I must ask God!
The obvious answer which confuses you is God chose to create humans by a stepwise design process that mimics Darwin's natural evolution
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
by David Turell , Sunday, November 14, 2021, 19:58 (1103 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We humans are a very unusual and highly unlikely result if natural forces were at work. Therefore God intended to produce us.
dhw: But you say that all species, lifestyles and natural wonders are so special that your God must have designed them, including all those species and foods that had no connection with us and our foods, and including the weaverbird’s nest. Therefore, if he really did design them all, he intended to design them all. So back we go to the same question: if his ONLY intention was to design us, why did he design all the rest?
Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His. God has His own reasons for evolving us by designed stages from bacteria. Since I believe God created all of history in making this reality, I find no reason to question the history He created. You start from a position of no God at all, and then step in to try and interpret a God's actions. My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process. And along the way you constantly ignore the necessity for food issue, which requires the huge varied bush of life providing the highly organized ecosystems that supply the food for all, until I force the issue. But that doesn't make you backtrack from your constant illogical complaining about God's logic that you call illogical..
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
DAVID: Food webs are vital to all living organisms. It is a fact dhw admits and then poopoos. The current huge human population was anticipated for by God and prepared for by the giant food bush appearing from all the branches of evolution designed by God.
dhw: I don’t poopoo the blindingly obvious fact that food webs are vital to all living organisms. I poopoo the illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food and therefore he proceeded to design countless life forms, foods and econiches that had no connection with humans. You never cease to dodge this obvious illogicality and to contradict yourself on the subject of past “food webs”. Yet again, these are your wise words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.”
DAVID: Your confusion is amazing. These statements simply recognize that different previous time periods differ from the present, nothing more.
They are an acknowledgement that there is no connection between the food bushes of the past and the food bush of the present, which makes it absurd to argue that the food bushes of the present were “prepared for” by the food bushes of the past. Hence my questioning your illogical theory above (now bolded).
DAVID (responding later to the same problem): The obvious answer which confuses you is God chose to create humans by a stepwise design process that mimics Darwin's natural evolution.
That simply adds to the illogicality, since you also believe that your God is capable of designing species with no “stepwise” precursors (Cambrian). If I ask why God would have chosen to design humans “stepwise” if he was perfectly capable of designing us directly, it is not an answer to tell me that he chose to design us stepwise! Your theory remains as illogical as ever.
DAVID: we debate from the positions of belief in God and a non-belief in God.
That is another of your absurd dodges, since all the alternative theories I have offered you are theistic.
A new answer
This turns out to be a rehash of all your old answers!
DAVID: Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His.
Wrong. I am finding fault with your logic.
DAVID: God has His own reasons for evolving us by designed stages from bacteria. Since I believe God created all of history in making this reality, I find no reason to question the history He created.
If he exists, the history he created was of countless species coming and going, with humans as the last to appear. It is NOT history to say that we were his only purpose, and it is NOT history to say that he individually designed every life form etc.
DAVID: You start from a position of no God at all, and then step in to try and interpret a God's actions.
I start from a position of life’s history and an assumption that God does exist, as this discussion does not concern his existence but his possible purpose for creating life, and his possible methods of achieving his purpose.
DAVID: My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process.
The subject is not God’s existence, but if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever happened was his intention. You tell us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, so I don’t know why you keep bringing him into your defence of it.
DAVID: And along the way you constantly ignore the necessity for food issue, which requires the huge varied bush of life providing the highly organized ecosystems that supply the food for all, until I force the issue.
Food issue dealt with above.
DAVID: But that doesn't make you backtrack from your constant illogical complaining about God's logic that you call illogical.
I have never once dared to criticize your God’s logic, and have gone out of my way to offer you logical ALTERNATIVE interpretations of his purpose and methods. You accept that they are logical, but reject them because they entail human patterns of thought, although you agree that he may have human patterns of thought. It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
by David Turell , Monday, November 15, 2021, 14:51 (1102 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your confusion is amazing. These statements simply recognize that different previous time periods differ from the present, nothing more.
dhw: They are an acknowledgement that there is no connection between the food bushes of the past and the food bush of the present, which makes it absurd to argue that the food bushes of the present were “prepared for” by the food bushes of the past.
Of course they are different time intervals, but the organisms of the past become the organisms of the present. Past bushes evolve into present bushes. Evolution is a continuum.
DAVID (responding later to the same problem): The obvious answer which confuses you is God chose to create humans by a stepwise design process that mimics Darwin's natural evolution.dhw: That simply adds to the illogicality, since you also believe that your God is capable of designing species with no “stepwise” precursors (Cambrian). If I ask why God would have chosen to design humans “stepwise” if he was perfectly capable of designing us directly, it is not an answer to tell me that he chose to design us stepwise! Your theory remains as illogical as ever.
Again you are simply criticizing God's choice of method. How do you know God could or wished to create us directly?
DAVID: we debate from the positions of belief in God and a non-belief in God.dhw: That is another of your absurd dodges, since all the alternative theories I have offered you are theistic.
Just your desired form of theism in whi ch God is very humanized.
DAVID: Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His.dhw: Wrong. I am finding fault with your logic.
Which I don't understand and simply view as you criticizing god.
DAVID: God has His own reasons for evolving us by designed stages from bacteria. Since I believe God created all of history in making this reality, I find no reason to question the history He created.dhw: If he exists, the history he created was of countless species coming and going, with humans as the last to appear. It is NOT history to say that we were his only purpose, and it is NOT history to say that he individually designed every life form etc.
It is my belief God is the designer of all reality. As for purpose, we go back to Adler's argument, previously presented over and over.
DAVID: You start from a position of no God at all, and then step in to try and interpret a God's actions.dhw:I start from a position of life’s history and an assumption that God does exist, as this discussion does not concern his existence but his possible purpose for creating life, and his possible methods of achieving his purpose.
DAVID: My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process.
dhw: The subject is not God’s existence, but if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever happened was his intention. You tell us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, so I don’t know why you keep bringing him into your defence of it.
Adler's view is fully known to you. Human uniqueness shows God's purpose and is a proof of God.
DAVID: But that doesn't make you backtrack from your constant illogical complaining about God's logic that you call illogical.dhw: I have never once dared to criticize your God’s logic, and have gone out of my way to offer you logical ALTERNATIVE interpretations of his purpose and methods. You accept that they are logical, but reject them because they entail human patterns of thought, although you agree that he may have human patterns of thought. It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!
I'm not floundering in a position of believing God, the Creator, creates what He wants when He wants in the method He wants.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
dhw (quoting David:) “The current bush is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms “ and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.
DAVID: Your confusion is amazing. These statements simply recognize that different previous time periods differ from the present, nothing more.
dhw: They are an acknowledgement that there is no connection between the food bushes of the past and the food bush of the present, which makes it absurd to argue that the food bushes of the present were “prepared for” by the food bushes of the past.
DAVID: Of course they are different time intervals, but the organisms of the past become the organisms of the present. Past bushes evolve into present bushes. Evolution is a continuum.
The bush consisted and consists of countless branches, and the vast majority of these have not only become extinct, but also had no connection with humans. You have acknowledged this (humans are not descended from brontosauruses), and so I question your belief that every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.
DAVID (responding later to the same problem): The obvious answer which confuses you is God chose to create humans by a stepwise design process that mimics Darwin's natural evolution.
dhw: That simply adds to the illogicality, since you also believe that your God is capable of designing species with no “stepwise” precursors (Cambrian). If I ask why God would have chosen to design humans “stepwise” if he was perfectly capable of designing us directly, it is not an answer to tell me that he chose to design us stepwise! Your theory remains as illogical as ever.
DAVID: Again you are simply criticizing God's choice of method. How do you know God could or wished to create us directly?
I don’t “know” anything – even if God exists! I am not criticizing God’s choice of anything, since we can’t know it! I am criticizing the illogicality of your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, but I offer different theistic evolutionary theories which you keep agreeing all fit logically with life’s history. How do you know that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, and how do you know that he designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food? How do you know which human thought patterns and emotions he might have?
DAVID: Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His.
dhw: Wrong. I am finding fault with your logic.
DAVID: Which I don't understand and simply view as you criticizing god.
That is because you refuse to acknowledge that your theory is based on interpretation and not fact.
DAVID: My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process.
dhw: The subject is not God’s existence, but if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever happened was his intention. You tell us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, so I don’t know why you keep bringing him into your defence of it.
DAVID: Adler's view is fully known to you. Human uniqueness shows God's purpose and is a proof of God.
But you have repeatedly told us that he does not discuss your theory that humans were God’s ONLY purpose and that God designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder as part of his one and only goal – to produce humans and their food – although the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food! Even if he did, it would not make such a theory any more logical!
dhw: It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!
DAVID: I'm not floundering in a position of believing God, the Creator, creates what He wants when He wants in the method He wants.
If God exists, I doubt if anyone would disagree with that. You simply omit the fact that there are alternative theories concerning what, when and how, and your theory is so illogical that you have no idea why he would have chosen it.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 15:21 (1101 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The bush consisted and consists of countless branches, and the vast majority of these have not only become extinct, but also had no connection with humans. You have acknowledged this (humans are not descended from brontosauruses), and so I question your belief that every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.
I consider God's designed evolution as an all inclusive process.
DAVID: Again you are simply criticizing God's choice of method. How do you know God could or wished to create us directly?dhw: I don’t “know” anything – even if God exists! I am not criticizing God’s choice of anything, since we can’t know it! I am criticizing the illogicality of your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, but I offer different theistic evolutionary theories which you keep agreeing all fit logically with life’s history. How do you know that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, and how do you know that he designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food? How do you know which human thought patterns and emotions he might have?
The questions concern my process in changing from an agnostic. My research concluded God exists and created all of our reality. You are questioning my conclusions. All of my statements about God's thoughts, emotions to reach His actions are guesses. However His actions are real Works and open for interpretation
DAVID: Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His.dhw: Wrong. I am finding fault with your logic.
DAVID: Which I don't understand and simply view as you criticizing god.
dhw: That is because you refuse to acknowledge that your theory is based on interpretation and not fact.
No, it is my interpretation of the facts
DAVID: My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process.dhw: The subject is not God’s existence, but if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever happened was his intention. You tell us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, so I don’t know why you keep bringing him into your defence of it.
DAVID: Adler's view is fully known to you. Human uniqueness shows God's purpose and is a proof of God.
dhw: But you have repeatedly told us that he does not discuss your theory that humans were God’s ONLY purpose and that God designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder as part of his one and only goal – to produce humans and their food – although the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food! Even if he did, it would not make such a theory any more logical!
I'll stick with Adler's logic
dhw: It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!DAVID: I'm not floundering in a position of believing God, the Creator, creates what He wants when He wants in the method He wants.
dhw: If God exists, I doubt if anyone would disagree with that. You simply omit the fact that there are alternative theories concerning what, when and how, and your theory is so illogical that you have no idea why he would have chosen it.
Strawman inaccurate statement of my constant position. I obviously cannot know God's reasons for His choice of creation method. Distortion is a poor response argument. Your alternative theories come from a very humanized form of God.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
dhw: The bush consisted and consists of countless branches, and the vast majority of these have not only become extinct, but also had no connection with humans. You have acknowledged this (humans are not descended from brontosauruses), and so I question your belief that every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.
DAVID: I consider God's designed evolution as an all inclusive process.
The only meaning I can squeeze out of this opaque statement is that you believe your God specially designed every life form, lifestyle, food, natural wonder etc. in the history of evolution. And so I ask yet again: why would he have specially designed all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food if his only purpose was to design humans plus food? Your answer, when you refrain from dodging, is that you don’t know and I should ask God. That is where we should end this discussion.
DAVID: Again you are simply criticizing God's choice of method. How do you know God could or wished to create us directly?
dhw: I don’t “know” anything – even if God exists! […] How do you know that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, and how do you know that he designed every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food? How do you know which human thought patterns and emotions he might have?
DAVID: The questions concern my process in changing from an agnostic. My research concluded God exists and created all of our reality. You are questioning my conclusions. All of my statements about God's thoughts, emotions to reach His actions are guesses. However His actions are real Works and open for interpretation.
I’m questioning the logic of your guesses, not your conversion. I hope you will stop accusing me of criticizing God now that you have agreed that I am criticizing your illogical guesses/interpretation of your God’s works.
dhw: It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!
DAVID: I'm not floundering in a position of believing God, the Creator, creates what He wants when He wants in the method He wants.
dhw: If God exists, I doubt if anyone would disagree with that. You simply omit the fact that there are alternative theories concerning what, when and how, and your theory is so illogical that you have no idea why he would have chosen it.
DAVID: Strawman inaccurate statement of my constant position. I obviously cannot know God's reasons for His choice of creation method.
You cannot know his choice of creation method! Direct design of all life forms is your interpretation of the facts, just as his only goal being humans is your interpretation of the facts. And the two interpretations put together make for one illogical theory.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 15:01 (1100 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I consider God's designed evolution as an all inclusive process.
dhw: The only meaning I can squeeze out of this opaque statement is that you believe your God specially designed every life form, lifestyle, food, natural wonder etc. in the history of evolution.
I do.
dhw: And so I ask yet again: why would he have specially designed all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food if his only purpose was to design humans plus food? Your answer, when you refrain from dodging, is that you don’t know and I should ask God. That is where we should end this discussion.
I agree. I won't change my point God chose to evolve us from Archaea.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
DAVID: I consider God's designed evolution as an all inclusive process.
dhw: The only meaning I can squeeze out of this opaque statement is that you believe your God specially designed every life form, lifestyle, food, natural wonder etc. in the history of evolution.
DAVID: I do.
dhw: And so I ask yet again: why would he have specially designed all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food if his only purpose was to design humans plus food? Your answer, when you refrain from dodging, is that you don’t know and I should ask God. That is where we should end this discussion.
DAVID: I agree. I won't change my point God chose to evolve us from Archaea.
As a believer in evolution, I have no problem agreeing that we and every other species – including all those that had no connection with humans - evolved from bacteria. And if God exists, I have no problem agreeing that he would have set the process of evolution in motion. That probably marks the boundaries of our agreement. Pax.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer
by David Turell , Thursday, November 18, 2021, 15:03 (1099 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I consider God's designed evolution as an all inclusive process.
dhw: The only meaning I can squeeze out of this opaque statement is that you believe your God specially designed every life form, lifestyle, food, natural wonder etc. in the history of evolution.
DAVID: I do.
dhw: And so I ask yet again: why would he have specially designed all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food if his only purpose was to design humans plus food? Your answer, when you refrain from dodging, is that you don’t know and I should ask God. That is where we should end this discussion.
DAVID: I agree. I won't change my point God chose to evolve us from Archaea.
dhw: As a believer in evolution, I have no problem agreeing that we and every other species – including all those that had no connection with humans - evolved from bacteria. And if God exists, I have no problem agreeing that he would have set the process of evolution in motion. That probably marks the boundaries of our agreement. Pax.
Yes
Let's study ID: an expected early Cambrian found
by David Turell , Thursday, October 28, 2021, 14:52 (1120 days ago) @ dhw
Molecular clocks predicted it:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04033-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-202110&sap-outbo...
"The Cambrian fossil record chronicles in exceptional detail the emergence of major bilaterian clades and continues to provide chronological constraints on the evolutionary diversification of disparate metazoans from a common ancestor. Nearly all animal phyla, including soft-bodied Deuterostoma, Entoprocta, Phoronida and Priapulida, made their first appearance during the Cambrian evolutionary radiation. A key exception is the ‘missing’ colonial lophotrochozoan phylum Bryozoa, in which six of the eight recognized orders belonging to the classes Stenolaemata and Gymnolaemata appear abruptly with considerable diversity during the early Ordovician period6. Furthermore, there is a major time gap (approximately 44 million years) between the first fossil record of unequivocal bryozoans in the earliest Ordovician (Tremadocian) and the deeper origination in the early Cambrian (Terreneuvian) estimated using modern molecular clock analyses.
***
"Here we describe rare but exquisitely preserved specimens of a millimetric modular fossil, Protomelission gatehousei9 from the early Cambrian of Australia and South China (Extended Data. Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray tomographic microscopy, Extended Data images reveal a combination of character traits that suggest a stem-group bryozoan affinity for P. gatehousei but distinguish the taxon from all extant and extinct clades. The interpretation of this secondarily phosphatized fossil from lower Cambrian rocks of South China and South Australia as a putative bryozoan indicates that modular bryozoans evolved synchronously with most other stem-group metazoans during the Cambrian evolutionary radiation."
Comment: All our existing animal phyla started in the Cambrian. Now it is shown this one is also. Fitsv tehv existing pattern of timed design.
Let's study ID: a way to study adaptation times
by David Turell , Sunday, January 02, 2022, 15:27 (1054 days ago) @ David Turell
The gaps in the fossil record are discussed as an intro to a new math method:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/08/in-mainstream-journal-id-theorists-on-waiting-times-f...
"Do we have evidence that traits appear abruptly in the fossil record, and that these sorts of calculations apply? The introduction to the paper provides a rich review of examples of this from biological history, showing that their model is highly applicable to biological reality:
"For instance, the fossil record is often interpreted as having long periods of stasis, interrupted by more abrupt changes and “explosive” origins. These changes include, for instance, the evolution of life, photo-synthesis, multicellularity and the “Avalon Explosion”, animal body plans and the “Cambrian Explosion”, complex eyes, vertebrate jaws and teeth, terrestrialization (e.g., in vascular plants, arthropods, and tetrapods), insect metamorphosis, animal flight and feathers, reproductive systems, including angiosperm flowers, amniote eggs, and the mammalian placenta, echolocation in whales and bats, and even cognitive skills of modern man. Based on radiometric dating of the available windows of time in the fossil record, these genetic changes are believed to have happened very quickly on a macroevolutionary timescale. In order to evaluate the chances for a neo-Darwinian process to bring about such major phenotypic changes, it is important to give rough but reasonable estimates of the time it would take for a population to evolve so that the required multiple genetic changes occur. (internal citations omitted)
"There is thus ample precedent for investigating such a question in biohistory. Many complex features of living organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record, where it seems that multiple coordinated changes were necessary before any advantageous functional trait arose. The mathematical model developed in this paper is aptly suited to understanding how long it would take for such a trait to arise.
"As I noted, this paper is methodological, meaning it’s only developing a mathematical model and not yet applying it to real world biological systems. One hopes in the future the team will apply their model to real biological systems. We will then see what the implications are for the viability of standard evolutionary mechanisms to account for the origin of such traits."
Comment: So the gaps are not just the Cambrian as noted in biohistory. As the paper shows multiple coordinated mutations are required for such gaps. Sudden appearance of a new body part is difficult to explain by chance events.
Let's study ID: a way to study adaptation times
Adaptation times
QUOTES: Many complex features of living organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record, where it seems that multiple coordinated changes were necessary before any advantageous functional trait arose. The mathematical model developed in this paper is aptly suited to understanding how long it would take for such a trait to arise.
"As I noted, this paper is methodological, meaning it’s only developing a mathematical model and not yet applying it to real world biological systems. One hopes in the future the team will apply their model to real biological systems. We will then see what the implications are for the viability of standard evolutionary mechanisms to account for the origin of such traits."
DAVID: So the gaps are not just the Cambrian as noted in biohistory. As the paper shows multiple coordinated mutations are required for such gaps. Sudden appearance of a new body part is difficult to explain by chance events.
I agree. The heading here is misleading, though, because it’s clear that the authors are concerned with innovations rather than adaptations (though sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between the two – as in our legs-to-flippers saga). I have absolutely no idea how mathematicians can possibly calculate how long it would take for these innovations to come about, since nobody knows HOW they do so. People have tried to calculate how long random mutations would require, but an all-powerful God could produce changes overnight if he wanted to, and we have absolutely no way of knowing how long it would take autonomously intelligent cells. (As an aside: It occurs to me that climate change might prove eventually to be the next major influence on speciation, though I suspect it will result in mass extinction and certain existing species becoming hugely successful rather than innovating.)
Let's study ID: a way to study adaptation times
by David Turell , Monday, January 03, 2022, 15:45 (1053 days ago) @ dhw
Adaptation times
QUOTES: Many complex features of living organisms appear abruptly in the fossil record, where it seems that multiple coordinated changes were necessary before any advantageous functional trait arose. The mathematical model developed in this paper is aptly suited to understanding how long it would take for such a trait to arise.
"As I noted, this paper is methodological, meaning it’s only developing a mathematical model and not yet applying it to real world biological systems. One hopes in the future the team will apply their model to real biological systems. We will then see what the implications are for the viability of standard evolutionary mechanisms to account for the origin of such traits."
DAVID: So the gaps are not just the Cambrian as noted in biohistory. As the paper shows multiple coordinated mutations are required for such gaps. Sudden appearance of a new body part is difficult to explain by chance events.
dhw: I agree. The heading here is misleading, though, because it’s clear that the authors are concerned with innovations rather than adaptations (though sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between the two – as in our legs-to-flippers saga). I have absolutely no idea how mathematicians can possibly calculate how long it would take for these innovations to come about, since nobody knows HOW they do so. People have tried to calculate how long random mutations would require, but an all-powerful God could produce changes overnight if he wanted to, and we have absolutely no way of knowing how long it would take autonomously intelligent cells. (As an aside: It occurs to me that climate change might prove eventually to be the next major influence on speciation, though I suspect it will result in mass extinction and certain existing species becoming hugely successful rather than innovating.)
Climate change obviously affects species and requests new ones. If you were aware of evolution math, as I am, the Darwinist followers have been using this sort of math for seventy years. And we don't know if God can make instant changes. Cambrians appeared over a thirty million year time period. Evolution says God made humans starting 3.8 bya
Let's study ID: a way to study adaptation times
My apologies for missing a day. Another computer mishap, caused by the monitor "exploding"! I now have a new and better one. Maybe there's some sort of link here with the evolutionary process?!
DAVID: Sudden appearance of a new body part is difficult to explain by chance events.
dhw: I agree. The heading here is misleading, though, because it’s clear that the authors are concerned with innovations rather than adaptations (though sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between the two – as in our legs-to-flippers saga). I have absolutely no idea how mathematicians can possibly calculate how long it would take for these innovations to come about, since nobody knows HOW they do so. People have tried to calculate how long random mutations would require, but an all-powerful God could produce changes overnight if he wanted to, and we have absolutely no way of knowing how long it would take autonomously intelligent cells. (As an aside: It occurs to me that climate change might prove eventually to be the next major influence on speciation, though I suspect it will result in mass extinction and certain existing species becoming hugely successful rather than innovating.)
DAVID: Climate change obviously affects species and requests new ones. If you were aware of evolution math, as I am, the Darwinist followers have been using this sort of math for seventy years. And we don't know if God can make instant changes. Cambrians appeared over a thirty million year time period. Evolution says God made humans starting 3.8 bya.
I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution
QUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!”
And unless evolution has changed its name to David Turell, it does not say God exists, let alone that he started life with the sole intention of making humans although he also made countless other life forms that had no connection with humans. If he does exist, some folk believe that he is all-powerful, so we can hardly dismiss the idea that an all-powerful being can do whatever he wants, can we? My point remains: how can anyone possibly calculate the time needed for speciation without knowing how speciation takes place?
Let's study ID: a way to study adaptation times
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 16:48 (1051 days ago) @ dhw
My apologies for missing a day. Another computer mishap, caused by the monitor "exploding"! I now have a new and better one. Maybe there's some sort of link here with the evolutionary process?!
DAVID: Sudden appearance of a new body part is difficult to explain by chance events.dhw: I agree. The heading here is misleading, though, because it’s clear that the authors are concerned with innovations rather than adaptations (though sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between the two – as in our legs-to-flippers saga). I have absolutely no idea how mathematicians can possibly calculate how long it would take for these innovations to come about, since nobody knows HOW they do so. People have tried to calculate how long random mutations would require, but an all-powerful God could produce changes overnight if he wanted to, and we have absolutely no way of knowing how long it would take autonomously intelligent cells. (As an aside: It occurs to me that climate change might prove eventually to be the next major influence on speciation, though I suspect it will result in mass extinction and certain existing species becoming hugely successful rather than innovating.)
DAVID: Climate change obviously affects species and requests new ones. If you were aware of evolution math, as I am, the Darwinist followers have been using this sort of math for seventy years. And we don't know if God can make instant changes. Cambrians appeared over a thirty million year time period. Evolution says God made humans starting 3.8 bya.
dhw: I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolutionQUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!”
And unless evolution has changed its name to David Turell, it does not say God exists, let alone that he started life with the sole intention of making humans although he also made countless other life forms that had no connection with humans. If he does exist, some folk believe that he is all-powerful, so we can hardly dismiss the idea that an all-powerful being can do whatever he wants, can we? My point remains: how can anyone possibly calculate the time needed for speciation without knowing how speciation takes place?
I don't understand how they calculate when mutations happened, but both ID and Darwinists do it in articles published. Somehow they calculate backwards in time.
Let's study ID: the requirements of design
by David Turell , Monday, January 24, 2022, 16:16 (1032 days ago) @ David Turell
Taken from the ID site Uncommon Descent, an engineer's view:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nathan-lents-argues-that-the-human-eye-r...
"Lents’ argument reveals the common severe failing of most biologists in that they have no actual experience in designing anything, but still make grand pronouncements as if they knew everything there is to know about it. His argument ignores the inherent and basic nature of any very complex and intricate mechanism (in this case the human eye). Any engineer knows that such a mechanism inherently incorporates numerous design tradeoffs between different and conflicting requirements.
"The incredibly complex system of systems and subsystems of the human body inevitably and necessarily has a limited capacity to satisfy all the conflicting requirements simultaneously.
"Just like in a human-designed automobile there might be simultaneous ideal design requirements or goals say for all in the same machine to have high power and acceleration capacity, a high carrying capacity of one ton, total vehicle weight under 3600 pounds, and high reliability. And let’s say you also want a long range of 500 miles, the ability to park and fit in a standard parking slot, a high degree of complex but correspondingly inherently failure-prone automation making many functions and conveniences automatic, and last but not least, a retail price of less than $15,000.
"These requirements are fundamentally conflicting and will inevitably require tradeoffs and limitations in some of the requirement goals, based on carefully weighing the pros and cons in each case. That’s engineering, whether it’s automobiles or the immeasureably more complex human body.
"Hence what must be a certain inevitability due to many inherent factors including the performance limitations of biologically created materials and their availability and metabolic costs, of there being many failure modes in the human body, in particular disease. In such an intricate system of systems every design change to correct a flaw in performance inevitably affects numerous other subsystems, some adversely. It’s all a matter of many complex series of tradeoffs.
"Of course biologists don’t understand this – after all they aren’t engineers; but they still unwarrantedly assume expertise that can somehow overcome basic engineering principles.
"In other words they make untenable and ignorant assumptions about the capabilities of any designers, as if designers (whatever their nature) were unlimited by the way the physical world inherently works."
Comment: I've tried to explain the requirements a designer must consider, as I have designed several things, but as a non-engineer did not do it as well as this guy. New design is not a easy task when considering all the facts for future use. All design is for future use.
Let's study ID: simple design in nature
by David Turell , Saturday, January 29, 2022, 16:44 (1027 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 17:31
A new study of the abdomen finds simple design:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220128153555.htm
"In a research paper published in the Nature Portfolio journal Communications Biology, Professor Coffey's team has detailed the development and structure of the mesentery. In doing this, they uncovered a new order by which all contents of the abdomen are organised or arranged -- or the "fundamental order of the abdomen."
***
"'We showed how the mesentery is a single and continuous organ in and on which all abdominal digestive organs develop and then remain connected to throughout life.
"'These findings revealed a simplicity in the abdomen that was not apparent in conventional descriptions of anatomy," he explained.
***
"The conclusion of the work revealed that the organisation of the abdomen has a remarkably simple design. This design is summarised in a description called the 'Mesenteric Model of Abdominal Anatomy'.
"'The abdomen is not the dauntingly complex collection of separate organs it was previously thought to be," said Professor Coffey.
"'Instead, all digestive organs are neatly packaged and arranged by the mesentery into a single digestive engine. That simplicity lay hidden until clarification of the nature of the mesentery."
***
"'The most important finding here was the discovery of the fundamental order of the abdomen. At the foundation level, all contents of the abdomen are simply organised into one of two compartments," explained Professor Coffey.
"'The fundamental order of any structure is of considerable importance, in particular when it comes to diagnosing patients with illness and treating their disease. The fundamental order is the foundation from which all science launches and clinical practice is based.
"'The organisational simplicity of the abdomen now immediately explains the behaviours of viral and bacterial infections, cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes and many others," he added."
Comment: An unguided evolutionary process is not likely to develop such a simple design of a complex structure. All of the alimentary canal hang in mesentery.
Let's study ID: clearly answering Darwin
by David Turell , Friday, February 11, 2022, 16:10 (1014 days ago) @ David Turell
From Cornelius Hunter:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/02/why-the-main-argument-against-intelligent-design-is-f...
Whether presented centuries ago by Darwin or earlier naturalists, or by today’s evolutionists, the evidence and arguments for a strictly naturalistic origin of species is powerful and compelling. But the power of the arguments does not come from an objective empirical analysis. It comes from the underlying religious premises.
A reader might rightly ask, why exactly is it, and how do we know, that the biological variations Darwin discussed in chapters one and two are “utterly inexplicable if each species has been independently created”? Darwin never did give an explanation for this important claim. Any such explanation would have required a metaphysical rationale that Darwin was not prepared to give. This, and the other theological claims made by evolutionists, are nothing more than bare assertions. Not only are they non-scientific, metaphysical claims, but they are unsupported even by any metaphysical rationale.
To all of this, evolutionists claim foul. There is no theological content to their theory, they claim; rather, they merely are addressing the opposing theory. If religious people make claims about the origin of species, then certainly it is fair game to address those claims. And addressing those claims requires that the failures of the religious reasoning and expectations be explained. Nothing more, and nothing less. Beyond this, evolutionary theory is strictly scientific.
But, in fact, this is false. Consider, for example, the common argument from disutility. Darwin often cited biological structures that appeared inefficient or otherwise not to function very well as refutations of design. For instance, there were birds that were mostly observed away from water yet had webbed feet. As Darwin argued, “we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds … We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.” Inheritance was the right conclusion because no Creator worth his salt would have created such a utilitarian failure.
Of course, this is a religious argument. Remove the theological claim about what a Creator would and would not do, and the argument collapses. There is no scientific evidence here for evolution.
But more importantly, the theology is unique to evolutionary thought and its underlying Epicureanism. The evolutionist’s rejoinder that such arguments merely address opposing views is false for the simple reason that there are no such opposing views. Opposing views did not hold that such webbed feet would not have been divinely intended. Nor, more generally, that inefficient or otherwise non-utilitarian structures would not be intended. Even the natural theologians, often stereotyped as utilitarians, in fact consistently appealed to non-utilitarian design criteria such as aesthetics or design patterns.1
The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.
The irony in all this is that evolution itself is a utilitarian formulation. That is, natural selection describes a process in which species with greater fitness (or utility) evolve. The evolutionary process must create greater utility. Therefore, the many examples of disutility, presented as proof of evolution, in fact are problematic for evolution. We must believe that such useless designs escaped natural selection’s watchful eye which, otherwise, seems to have no limit of precision engineering.
While evolutionists fail to apply this evidence of disutility to their own theory, they inappropriately apply it to intelligent design. In other words, evolutionists subject intelligent design to the evolutionary criteria of fitness and utility, while dropping that criterion from evolutionary theory. They have it backwards.
Comment: so the observations cut both ways. If natural selection is so efficient why the non-useful results like webbed feet on the wrong birds? Darwinists have their cake and eat it too. Either natural selection is precisely efficient or it isn't. Its the overcommitted Darwinists who invented junk DNA.
Let's study ID: clearly answering Darwin
QUOTE: “Whether presented centuries ago by Darwin or earlier naturalists, or by today’s evolutionists, the evidence and arguments for a strictly naturalistic origin of species is powerful and compelling. But the power of the arguments does not come from an objective empirical analysis. It comes from the underlying religious premises.”
I must confess I’ve read this whole article through twice, and I still have difficulty in understanding what all the fuss is about. It’s perfectly obvious that Darwin’s theory ran counter to established religious belief in separate creation, which by definition entails God as the Creator. How does that come to mean that the theory was based on religious premises? His theory was based fairly and squarely on empirical analysis, but inevitably his conclusions can be called subjective since ultimately there is no way anyone can provide the objective truth about how species (or indeed life itself) originated. Scientists can examine the same empirical information and draw diametrically opposite conclusions, but that doesn’t mean the power of the arguments comes from religious premises. On the contrary, the power of the empirical analysis may even LEAD to religious premises, as is the case with a friend of mine named David Turell.
The rest of the article goes on and on about theological implications, which seems to be a euphemism for atheistic interpretations of the theory, and of course these are no more and no less unscientific than the claim that God guided evolution or God created every species separately. As for webbed feet:
QUOTE: As Darwin argued, “we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds … We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.” Inheritance was the right conclusion because no Creator worth his salt would have created such a utilitarian failure.
Of course, this is a religious argument. Remove the theological claim about what a Creator would and would not do, and the argument collapses. There is no scientific evidence here for evolution.
First of all, although I don’t know the context, I am 99.99% certain that Darwin would never have said anything like “No Creator worth his salt” etc., and would never have speculated on what a Creator would and wouldn’t do. He tries to find an explanation for vestigial structures and concludes that they are hereditary. Of course it’s not evidence for evolution: he is simply trying to explain those facts that might be seen as damaging to his theory: If natural selection gets rid of useless things, why do such useless things survive? He might have added the possibility that if a feature does not cause actual harm, it might survive through heredity.
QUOTE: “The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.”
This is the last straw. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life! It seeks to explain Chapter 2 of life, i.e. the origin of species. When Darwin wrote: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”, he may have been trying to appease his religious opponents, but he described himself as an agnostic and emphasized that he did not feel his theory should offend anyone’s religious feelings. The power of Darwin’s argument lies in his observations of the similarities between organisms, with variations that develop into separate species, suggesting common ancestry. Millions of scientists, faced with the same empirical data, draw the same conclusion, and they include vast numbers of religious people, who acknowledge that the theory does NOT exclude God as creator of the whole process. We do not have to accept all the details of the theory (I for one support common descent wholeheartedly but reject the concept of random mutations as the creative force behind innovation), but that does not in any way invalidate the empirical observations on which the theory is based, and it certainly doesn’t mean that support of the theory draws its power from theology.
Let's study ID: anticipation of use
by David Turell , Saturday, February 12, 2022, 16:10 (1013 days ago) @ dhw
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0
Origins of higher taxonomic groups entail dramatic and nearly simultaneous changes in morphology and ecological function, limiting our ability to disentangle the drivers of evolutionary diversification. Here we phylogenetically compare the anatomy and life habits of Cambrian–Ordovician echinoderms to test which facet better facilitates future success. Rates of morphological evolution are faster and involve more volatile trait changes, allowing morphological disparity to accrue faster and earlier in the Cambrian. However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (my bold)
Comment: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.
Let's study ID: clearly answering Darwin
by David Turell , Saturday, February 12, 2022, 17:26 (1013 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “Whether presented centuries ago by Darwin or earlier naturalists, or by today’s evolutionists, the evidence and arguments for a strictly naturalistic origin of species is powerful and compelling. But the power of the arguments does not come from an objective empirical analysis. It comes from the underlying religious premises.”
dhw: It’s perfectly obvious that Darwin’s theory ran counter to established religious belief in separate creation, which by definition entails God as the Creator. How does that come to mean that the theory was based on religious premises? His theory was based fairly and squarely on empirical analysis, but inevitably his conclusions can be called subjective since ultimately there is no way anyone can provide the objective truth about how species (or indeed life itself) originated. Scientists can examine the same empirical information and draw diametrically opposite conclusions, but that doesn’t mean the power of the arguments comes from religious premises. On the contrary, the power of the empirical analysis may even LEAD to religious premises, as is the case with a friend of mine named David Turell.
The rest of the article goes on and on about theological implications, which seems to be a euphemism for atheistic interpretations of the theory, and of course these are no more and no less unscientific than the claim that God guided evolution or God created every species separately. As for webbed feet:QUOTE: As Darwin argued, “we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds … We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.” Inheritance was the right conclusion because no Creator worth his salt would have created such a utilitarian failure.
dhw: Of course, this is a religious argument. Remove the theological claim about what a Creator would and would not do, and the argument collapses. There is no scientific evidence here for evolution.[/i]
dhw: He [Darwin] tries to find an explanation for vestigial structures and concludes that they are hereditary. Of course it’s not evidence for evolution: he is simply trying to explain those facts that might be seen as damaging to his theory: If natural selection gets rid of useless things, why do such useless things survive? He might have added the possibility that if a feature does not cause actual harm, it might survive through heredity.
You miss Hunter's point, In Darwin-speak improving fitness is required. If natural selection makes for advances in evolution (with fitness) why didn't natural selection remove the webbings? He shows how critics of design blame only God and ignore natural selection (NS) for blame. Both sides make the same argument about the other. What God didn't do, natural selection didn't do. Both gave us the human appendix. Darwinists declared it useless, blamed God for a mistake, but not NS. Turns out not vestigial, but useful, so both NS and God were correct. Hunter's point is sauce of the goose, sauce for the gander. Both NS and God gave us metabolic mistakes and diseases from viruses and bacteria. But God is blamed because He is supposed to rationally think. NS gets a pass as a random chance unthinking process.
QUOTE: “The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.”
dhw: This is the last straw. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life! It seeks to explain Chapter 2 of life, i.e. the origin of species. When Darwin wrote: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”, he may have been trying to appease his religious opponents, but he described himself as an agnostic and emphasized that he did not feel his theory should offend anyone’s religious feelings. The power of Darwin’s argument lies in his observations of the similarities between organisms, with variations that develop into separate species, suggesting common ancestry. Millions of scientists, faced with the same empirical data, draw the same conclusion, and they include vast numbers of religious people, who acknowledge that the theory does NOT exclude God as creator of the whole process. We do not have to accept all the details of the theory (I for one support common descent wholeheartedly but reject the concept of random mutations as the creative force behind innovation), but that does not in any way invalidate the empirical observations on which the theory is based, and it certainly doesn’t mean that support of the theory draws its power from theology.
Darwinism is nothing more than a faith, Hunter's point. I agree. As for origin of life, Darwin's ignoring the huge problem is pure cop out. It must be included in all considerations of 'why' we exist.
Let's study ID: clearly answering Darwin
dhw: He [Darwin] tries to find an explanation for vestigial structures and concludes that they are hereditary. Of course it’s not evidence for evolution: he is simply trying to explain those facts that might be seen as damaging to his theory: If natural selection gets rid of useless things, why do such useless things survive? He might have added the possibility that if a feature does not cause actual harm, it might survive through heredity.
DAVID: You miss Hunter's point, In Darwin-speak improving fitness is required. If natural selection makes for advances in evolution (with fitness) why didn't natural selection remove the webbings?
Darwin says “heredity”, and I have added my little piece.
DAVID: He shows how critics of design blame only God and ignore natural selection (NS) for blame. Both sides make the same argument about the other.
Fair comment. Thank you. I wish you and he wouldn’t attack Darwin, though, for the bias of those with their own religious or anti-religious agendas. I see nothing wrong with Darwin’s own explanation – especially with my little addition. Do you?
QUOTE: “The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.”
dhw: This is the last straw. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life! It seeks to explain Chapter 2 of life, i.e. the origin of species. […] The power of Darwin’s argument lies in his observations of the similarities between organisms, with variations that develop into separate species, suggesting common ancestry. Millions of scientists, faced with the same empirical data, draw the same conclusion, and they include vast numbers of religious people, who acknowledge that the theory does NOT exclude God as creator of the whole process. We do not have to accept all the details of the theory (I for one support common descent wholeheartedly but reject the concept of random mutations as the creative force behind innovation), but that does not in any way invalidate the empirical observations on which the theory is based, and it certainly doesn’t mean that support of the theory draws its power from theology. (dhw's bold)
DAVID: Darwinism is nothing more than a faith, Hunter's point. I agree. As for origin of life, Darwin's ignoring the huge problem is pure cop out. It must be included in all considerations of 'why' we exist.
Darwinism as Darwin offered it is not a faith but a theory. It does not set out to explain “why” we exist, but is confined to explaining HOW life developed from single cells through to the complexities of all life forms including ourselves. Hunter is right to point out that theology must play a part in the discussion, because one theory is that there is a God who designed every species separately, and Darwin could hardly have ignored a theory which had been accepted for so long by so many. But that most emphatically does NOT mean that his theory of common descent draws its power from theology! It is based solely on Darwin’s observation and interpretation of the empirical evidence. As above, the theory regarding the mechanisms whereby the changes take place is of course highly speculative, but even the random mutations concept – which you and I reject – is neither pro nor anti God (although in later editions, he repeatedly mentions the Creator – a fact which atheist evolutionists like to ignore). The theory of natural selection seems to me to be pure common sense: generally those organs and organisms which survive will do so if they are well equipped to survive in the conditions under which they live. I don’t see how that derives its power from theology. Do you?
Let's study ID: clearly answering Darwin
by David Turell , Sunday, February 13, 2022, 15:58 (1012 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You miss Hunter's point, In Darwin-speak improving fitness is required. If natural selection makes for advances in evolution (with fitness) why didn't natural selection remove the webbings?
dhw: Darwin says “heredity”, and I have added my little piece.
So natural selection bows to heredity? In that case now do advances happen?
DAVID: He shows how critics of design blame only God and ignore natural selection (NS) for blame. Both sides make the same argument about the other.dhw: Fair comment. Thank you. I wish you and he wouldn’t attack Darwin, though, for the bias of those with their own religious or anti-religious agendas. I see nothing wrong with Darwin’s own explanation – especially with my little addition. Do you?
Poor Darwin, knowing so little about how life worked, did demonstrate common descent, nothing more.
QUOTE: “The theological claim that divine intent is strictly utilitarian is uniquely evolutionary. It makes for powerful arguments for evolution, but the power derives from the theology. Mark this: the stronger the argument for evolution, the stronger its theological commitment. Absent theology, there is little reason to believe the entire biological world arose spontaneously, as evolutionists heroically claim.”dhw: This is the last straw. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life! It seeks to explain Chapter 2 of life, i.e. the origin of species. […] The power of Darwin’s argument lies in his observations of the similarities between organisms, with variations that develop into separate species, suggesting common ancestry. Millions of scientists, faced with the same empirical data, draw the same conclusion, and they include vast numbers of religious people, who acknowledge that the theory does NOT exclude God as creator of the whole process. We do not have to accept all the details of the theory (I for one support common descent wholeheartedly but reject the concept of random mutations as the creative force behind innovation), but that does not in any way invalidate the empirical observations on which the theory is based, and it certainly doesn’t mean that support of the theory draws its power from theology. (dhw's bold)
DAVID: Darwinism is nothing more than a faith, Hunter's point. I agree. As for origin of life, Darwin's ignoring the huge problem is pure cop out. It must be included in all considerations of 'why' we exist.
dhw: Darwinism as Darwin offered it is not a faith but a theory. It does not set out to explain “why” we exist, but is confined to explaining HOW life developed from single cells through to the complexities of all life forms including ourselves. Hunter is right to point out that theology must play a part in the discussion, because one theory is that there is a God who designed every species separately, and Darwin could hardly have ignored a theory which had been accepted for so long by so many. But that most emphatically does NOT mean that his theory of common descent draws its power from theology! It is based solely on Darwin’s observation and interpretation of the empirical evidence. As above, the theory regarding the mechanisms whereby the changes take place is of course highly speculative, but even the random mutations concept – which you and I reject – is neither pro nor anti God (although in later editions, he repeatedly mentions the Creator – a fact which atheist evolutionists like to ignore). The theory of natural selection seems to me to be pure common sense: generally those organs and organisms which survive will do so if they are well equipped to survive in the conditions under which they live. I don’t see how that derives its power from theology. Do you?
No, it doesn't. Natural selection is logical until, as most Darwinists do, insist it becomes a designer creating new forms. Only a real designer does that
Let's study ID: our mind must come from mind
by David Turell , Saturday, February 26, 2022, 23:33 (999 days ago) @ David Turell
A philosopher's approach:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/02/taylor-on-cognition-teleology-and-god.html#more
"Taylor begins by asking us to consider a couple of scenarios. Suppose you are traveling by train through the UK and, peering out the window, you see an arrangement of stones in a pattern that looks like this: THE BRITISH RAILWAYS WELCOMES YOU TO WALES. You would naturally assume that the stones had been deliberately arranged that way by someone, in order to convey the message that you are entering Wales. Now, it is possible in theory that the stones got into that arrangement in a very different way, through the operation of impersonal and purposeless natural causes.
***
"Taylor’s point is rather this. Even if you could reasonably entertain the latter possibility, what you could not reasonably do is both accept it as the correct explanation of the arrangement of stones and at the same time continue to regard that arrangement as conveying the message that you are entering Wales. The arrangement could intelligibly be conveying that message only if there is some intelligence behind its origin, which brought it about for the purpose of conveying the message. If, instead, the arrangement came about through unintelligent and purposeless causes, then it cannot intelligibly be said to convey that message, because it could not in that case intelligibly be conveying any message at all.
***
"I hasten to emphasize again that Taylor’s point has nothing whatsoever to do with probabilities, and in particular nothing to do with how likely or unlikely it is for arrangements of the kind in question to form via natural processes. He allows, for the purposes of the argument, that that could happen. His point is rather that, no matter how complex and orderly are the arrangements of physical components that might be generated by purely impersonal and purposeless natural processes, they could never by themselves generate something with intentional or semantic content. (This way of putting things is mine rather than Taylor’s.) This is not a point about probabilities, but rather a conceptual and metaphysical truth. Neither stones nor marks on a rock have any inherent connection with any semantic content we might decide to convey through them. The content they might have must derive from a mind which uses them for the purpose of conveying such content. Delete such a mind from an explanation of the arrangements of stones or marks, and you delete the semantic content along with it.
***
"We could take the deliverances of our sense organs and neural states to have genuine intentional or semantic content. Or we could take those organs and states to have arisen through entirely impersonal and purposeless natural processes. What we cannot reasonably do is both of these things at once. In particular, we cannot intelligibly both take these cognitive faculties to have arisen through entirely impersonal and purposeless processes and at the same time regard them as having genuine intentional or semantic content – as conveying any message about cats on mats, the ringing of doorbells, rain tomorrow, or anything else.
"The cases, Taylor argues, are in all relevant respects parallel. Delete mind and purpose from your account of the origin of the arrangement of stones or the marks on the rock, and you delete any semantic content along with them. Similarly, if you delete mind and purpose from your account of the origin of our cognitive faculties, then you delete any intentional or semantic content along with them. You can have one or the other account, but not both.
"Now, our cognitive faculties do in fact have intentional or semantic content. We really do have perceptual experiences with the content that the cat is on the mat, thoughts with the content that it will rain tomorrow, and so on. Since this is intelligible only on the supposition that our cognitive faculties originated via some mind and its purposes, there must be some intelligent being that brought us about with the aim of having our cognitive faculties convey to us information about the world around us.
***
"But if so, he does not explain how. Indeed, he makes only modest claims for his arguments, and leaves it an open question what relevance they might have for religion. If the chapter can be said to defend theism, it is a purely philosophical theism that does not entail (though it also does not rule out) a specifically Jewish, Christian, or Muslim conception of God and his relationship to the world.
"Taylor does address several objections that he suggests some readers might take to be obvious, but which in fact simply miss the point. For example, some may point out that our cognitive faculties are not always reliable. As Taylor says, this is irrelevant. The point isn’t that our cognitive faculties convey accurate messages, but rather that they convey any message at all."
Comment: it is a long complex review of another philosopher's view in a new book and its simplest conclusion is if we have working minds they were sourced from a working mind. This is an argument from a philosophic view and not a theological one. For completeness review the entire article.
Let's study ID: insect intelligent activity
by David Turell , Saturday, March 12, 2022, 17:20 (985 days ago) @ David Turell
Jumping spider study:
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/mind/2021/are-spiders-intelligent
"Behaviors that can be described as “cognitive,” as opposed to automatic responses, could be fairly common among spiders, says Dimitrov, coauthor of a study on spider diversity published in the 2021 Annual Review of Entomology. From orb weavers that adjust the way they build their webs based on the type of prey they are catching to ghost spiders that can learn to associate a reward with the smell of vanilla, there’s more going on in spider brains than they commonly get credit for.
“'It’s not so much the size of the brain that matters, but what the animal can do with what it’s got,” says arachnologist Fiona Cross of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand.
"Cross studies the behavior of jumping spiders, the undisputed champs of cognition among spiders. Although these tiny arachnids have brains that could literally fit on the head of a pin, the work of Cross and other scientists suggests that they have capabilities we’d have no problem hailing as signs of intelligence if exhibited by animals with much larger brains, like dogs or human toddlers.
“'Jumping spiders are remarkably clever animals,” says visual ecologist Nathan Morehouse, who studies the spiders at the University of Cincinnati. “I always find it delightful when something like a humble jumping spider punctures our sense of biological superiority.”
***
"The jumping spiders shown to have the sharpest eyesight and the most impressive smarts belong to the genus Portia, found in Africa, Asia and Australia. These spiders prefer to hunt other spiders and have strategies tailored to each species they prey upon. Renowned University of Canterbury jumping spider researcher Robert Jackson has discovered that many of Portia’s tactics are quite devious.
"When hunting another group of jumping spiders called Euryattus, Jackson reports, Portia employs a clever trick. Euryattus females build nests in curled-up dead leaves suspended in air by silk attached to rocks or vegetation. Courting males crawl down the silk suspension ropes, stand on top of the nest and shake it in a specific way. The signal draws the female out of the nest. Portia appears to take advantage of this system by mimicking the male’s shake and luring the female into an ambush.
"For Portia, finding the right strategy is especially important when pursuing spiders that also eat jumping spiders. To attack a web-building spider, for example, Portia deceives the spider into moving closer by plucking some of the silk strands of its web. If the target spider is relatively small, Portia plucks the web to mimic a trapped insect, prompting the spider to rush over thinking it’s about to have a meal — only to become one instead. But if the resident spider is bigger and potentially more dangerous, Portia may instead create a gentle disturbance similar to a fruit fly contacting a single strand at the edge of the web that the spider will slowly wander over to inspect. As soon as the target is close enough, Portia pounces and strikes with venomous fangs.
"If these strategies don’t work on a particular web spider, another of Portia’s tricks is to shake the whole web so it moves as if a gust of wind had hit it. This acts as a smokescreen for the vibration Portia makes as it crawls into the target spider’s web. In laboratory experiments, Jackson found that Portia will try different plucking methods, speeds and patterns until it finds just the right combination to fool each individual web spider it hunts — essentially learning on the job.
***
"Instead of entering the web, Portia navigated a roundabout path to find a better position from which to attack. “In that context, it was better for Portia to take the detour, go around the tree trunk, go up above the spider, go down on a line of silk, and swing in, grab the spider in its web without even touching the silk,” Cross says.
"To find out how these itsy-bitsy spiders map out such complicated routes, Cross and Jackson put Portia’s mental abilities to the test in the laboratory. They built an apparatus with a central viewing tower on a platform, surrounded by water, from which a spider can see two other towers topped with boxes: one containing dead spiders that Portia likes to prey on, and one with dead leaves.
***
"From the perch atop the viewing tower, the spiders carefully surveyed the scene before descending the tower and climbing up a walkway. Most spiders chose the path that led to the meal, even if this meant moving away from the prey and passing the incorrect walkway on the way. Cross and Jackson argue that the spiders planned the route from the viewing tower and then followed it, possibly by forming a mental “representation” of the scene — an impressive cognitive feat for a brain barely bigger than a poppy seed."
Comment: I'm educating everyone in ID. This article is from their website illustrating how the designer gives insect brains the ability to perform these feats. ID presented the recent book on incent brain algorithms:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/new-book-animal-algorithms-spells-fresh-trouble-for-d...
Let's study ID: no tree of life
by David Turell , Sunday, March 13, 2022, 15:38 (984 days ago) @ David Turell
An ID video of 15 minutes doesn't even accept a bush:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-tree-of-life-is-just-ground-cover/
"Some of us started to doubt the Tree of Life when so many life forms started acting like they don’t know their proper place in it. Just for example, octopuses and spiders don’t realize that invertebrates — especially those with tiny brains — aren’t supposed to be that smart.
"But that, it turns out, is really only a minor issue. Here’s a discussion of some of the other issues:
"Paleontology poses an insurmountable challenge to the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin himself predicted that countless intermediate animal forms must exist within the fossil record, given that organisms gradually evolved from one species into the next. However, what the fossil record actually shows is the exact opposite, namely, that whenever new species appear, they do so suddenly and without evidence of precursory forms in the geological record. The most prominent example is the so-called Cambrian explosion which happened around 530 million years ago, when about 20 animal phyla suddenly showed up on the stage of life out of the clear blue, as it were, but with no intermediate forms from the Precambrian strata. Given that no attempt to reconcile paleontology with evolutionary theory has succeeded, Darwinian evolutionists have come to admit that the fossil record doesn’t fit with their theory, as we will see at the end of this video. For the same reason, they’ve started to turn their focus towards another field of study in their search for support of evolution: Homology and phylogenetic trees. This episode assesses these efforts and shows why neither homologous structures nor tree of life studies support evolutionary theory."
Video: https://youtu.be/dT08h5dhTxM
Comment: Homology and genetic comparisons don't work to make a tree. Really trying to deny Darwin's common descent. Mirrors dhw's complaint that the road to humans was too torturous as a reasonable approach for God to follow.
Let's study ID:the source of information in living organisms
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 18:06 (912 days ago) @ David Turell
A new ID person is presented with his article:
https://uncommondescent.com/information/eric-hedin-information-and-nature/
"The question of the significance of human existence comes sharply into focus as we consider the origin of life itself. Do the laws of nature support the origin of life from nonlife, or do they argue against it? In order to address this question, it is helpful to consider a defining characteristic of all living things, namely their phenomenal information content. Naturalistic explanations attempting to reach the heights of information content found in even the simplest living thing have appealed to “dumb luck” or to some unobserved natural law. However, consideration of the known and observed laws of physics in conjunction with the finite limits of “chance” within our universe appear to rule out any natural origin of the vastly complex biomolecular metropolis found within the cells of life. (my bold)
"The science of information theory allows the quantification of the information content of physical systems such as stars, rocks, molecules, and books. The information content of a system composed of many parts, such as atoms, is low if the various parts don’t have to be in a specific relation to one another. In nature, examples of low-information systems would be a cloud of water molecules or a pile of dirt. Rearranging the particles of water or dirt doesn’t ruin the system; if an airplane flies through a cloud, stirring it up, it’s still a cloud. Another type of system found in nature is an ordered system, such as a snowflake or a salt crystal. These also have a low information content because the regular, repetitious pattern of the atoms composing the crystal can be easily specified with only a few instructions or decisions. “Stirring up” a crystal will ruin it, but it can be easily re-formed since its ordered structure follows a simple pattern, governed by specific interatomic bonds. Thus, both complex but random systems, like clouds, and specific ordered systems, like snowflakes, have low information content. Either of these systems can form naturally since they have lower information content than the precursors (dispersed water droplets or vapor) out of which they formed. (my bold)
***
"Since the information content of the entire physical universe has always been lower than that found in even the simplest living organism, we can conclude that no scientific examination of the initial conditions of the universe or of planet Earth could yield a naturalistic prediction of life (with its fantastically high information content) at any later time in the history of the universe. In consequence, since life came into existence on Earth, a reasonable conclusion is that the source of this exponential jump in information content comes from beyond nature—from a super-natural source.
***
"In principle, information can be coalesced out of the environment, but not to a degree any greater than already contained within the environment. It has been repeatedly shown that the information content of even a single large protein molecule far exceeds that of the entire nonliving universe, and the information content of even the simplest living thing is so much higher that were our universe 10^500 times bigger it would not come even close to sufficing for a naturalistic origin of life. (my bold)
***
"What kind of structures is nature good at producing? Stars! Astronomers estimate that the universe contains at least 10 billion trillion stars, formed through the gravitational collapse of primarily hydrogen and helium gas clouds. Stars, however, have a relatively low information content. We can understand this conceptually by imagining sticking a giant spoon into a star and stirring it up. After you pull the spoon out, what has become of the star? Have you permanently destroyed it? No, its internal fusion energy production will only be temporarily interrupted, because the laws of nature will cause it to settle back down into its former state, and it will shine just like before. Compare this to what would happen if you stirred up a living thing, even a single cell, in such a way that you rearranged all its atoms. Doing so would irreparably destroy the intricate internal chemical structures within the cell, and no matter how long you waited, it would not settle into its former state. The laws of nature could not recreate what your stirring destroyed.
"The information content of the universe exponentially increased with the formation of the first living organism. Since natural processes always work to lower the information content of any closed (or effectively closed) system over time, the origin of life represents an unnatural event in the history of our universe. And yet, it obviously came to pass! If life’s origin defies natural causes, then a supernatural Cause becomes a plausible explanation. If a skeptic demands a miracle as a reason to believe, consider that God has provided just such a confirmation of his reality in the abundance of life abounding on planet Earth."
Comment: Note at times ID sneaks in God. It is on their not so 'private' website. What is important in this article is a clear discussion of the use of information theory as ID views it. dhw seems to think information is a dirty word, based on past discussions. Understanding the theory based on Shannon's initial work is a vital part of understanding how to view ID theory.
Let's study ID:the source of information in living organisms
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 18:47 (912 days ago) @ David Turell
More information theory from a different source:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/article-by-david-snoke-spontaneous-appea...
"Dr. Snoke’s recent article, published in Biocosmos, dives into the important topic of the link between the 2nd law of thermodynamics, information theory, and living systems. He explores the notion of physical law, similar to the 2nd law, that applies to information, and concludes that “there is a fundamental entropy problem with the origin of life.”
"It is natural to define information as an extensive physical property similar to heat and entropy. This approach has been used in the physics community for many decades.
"Information can be defined as the elimination of possibilities. The more possibilities that are eliminated, the more information that is gained.
"The Second Law tells us that entropy cannot decrease. Is there an equivalent law for information?
"Dembski has proposed, as an axiomatic assertion, that information can never spontaneously increase. Can we do better, to create an information principle based on the Second Law? (my bold)
"Living systems are to all intents and purposes equivalent to Maxwell’s demons, in that they are information processors that perform selection processes. We may therefore conclude that there is a fundamental entropy problem with the origin of life."
Source article: https://www.sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2022-0006
Abstract: "It is often argued both by scientists and the lay public that it is extremely unlikely for life or minds to arise spontaneously, but this argument is hard to quantify. In this paper I make this argument more rigorous, starting with a review of the concepts of information and entropy, and then examining the specific case of Maxwell’s demon and how it relates to living systems. I argue that information and entropy are objective physical quantities, defined for systems as a whole, which allow general arguments in terms of physical law. In particular, I argue that living systems obey the same rules as Maxwell’s demons
***
"The Second Law can be used to make an argument against the spontaneous appearance of life and mind, but such an argument requires careful attention to definitions of terms like information and entropy and understanding the physical quantities involved.
***
"the crucial property for information content here is not knowledge or communication, but selection. An information-processing system selects and acts on one of Ω possibilities. It is possible, of course, for an intelligent agent to perform selections, but a selection process does not intrinsically require the presence of intelligence; any physical system which has a macroscopic action one way in response to a particular selected state, and not the same way in response to others, may be said to engage in selection.
***
"In defining information in terms of selection, we have assumed the existence of some information-processing system, which gives a macroscopically distinguishable response to certain states. We can therefore talk of information in terms of function. This leads to an alternate definition of information instead of Shannon information, which we may call functional information.
***
"From basic considerations, we can assume that the spontaneous appearance of an information-processing machine has the same improbability as a negative entropy fluctuation equal to a negative entropy fluctuation equal to the apparent loss of entropy in obtaining the machine’s initial action without the presence of the machine.• The spontaneous appearance of 1-bit information processors in natural pattern formation does not point the way toward spontaneous formation of million- to billion-bit processors as are common in living systems (such as human brains). For each new bit to be processed, another natural process with its own natural length scale or natural time constant must be posited. There is an upper bound to how many of these exist in nature, presumably of the order of the number of free parameters in the laws of nature themselves. Living systems are to all intents and purposes equivalent to Maxwell’s demons, in that they are information processors that perform selection processes. We may therefore conclude that there is a fundamental entropy problem with the origin of life." (my bold)
Comment: Highly technical article. I've plucked out the meat. T repeat the old point: life uses provided information to run its systems. That life had to have an original source of useful information when life started.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Sunday, June 05, 2022, 16:34 (900 days ago) @ David Turell
More new information:
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2021/heads-up-cardiovascular-secrets-...
"Giraffes have sky-high blood pressure because of their sky-high heads that, in adults, rise about six meters above the ground — a long, long way for a heart to pump blood against gravity. To have a blood pressure of 110/70 at the brain — about normal for a large mammal — giraffes need a blood pressure at the heart of about 220/180. It doesn’t faze the giraffes, but a pressure like that would cause all sorts of problems for people, from heart failure to kidney failure to swollen ankles and legs.
***
"When cardiologist and evolutionary biologist Barbara Natterson-Horowitz of Harvard and UCLA examined giraffes’ hearts, she and her student found that their left ventricles did get thicker, but without the stiffening, or fibrosis, that would occur in people. The researchers also found that giraffes have mutations in five genes related to fibrosis. In keeping with that find, other researchers who examined the giraffe genome in 2016 found several giraffe-specific gene variants related to cardiovascular development and maintenance of blood pressure and circulation. And in March 2021, another research group reported giraffe-specific variants in genes involved in fibrosis.
"And the giraffe has another trick to avoid heart failure: The electrical rhythm of its heart differs from that of other mammals so that the ventricular-filling phase of the heartbeat is extended, Natterson-Horowitz found. This allows the heart to pump more blood with each stroke, allowing a giraffe to run hard despite its thicker heart muscle.
"People who suffer from hypertension are also prone to annoying swelling in their legs and ankles because the high pressure forces water out of blood vessels and into the tissue. But you only have to look at the slender legs of a giraffe to know that they’ve solved that problem, too.
***
"In part, at least, giraffes minimize swelling with the same trick that nurses use on their patients: support stockings. In people, these are tight, elastic leggings that compress the leg tissues and prevent fluid from accumulating. Giraffes accomplish the same thing with a tight wrapping of dense connective tissue. Aalkjær’s team tested the effect of this by injecting a small amount of saline solution beneath the wrapping into the legs of four giraffes that had been anesthetized for other reasons. Successful injection required much more pressure in the lower leg than a comparable injection in the neck, the team found, indicating that the wrapping helped resist leakage.
"Giraffes also have thick-walled arteries near their knees that might act as flow restrictors, Aalkjær and others have found. This could lower the blood pressure in the lower legs, much as a kink in a garden hose causes water pressure to drop beyond the kink. It remains unclear, however, whether giraffes open and close the arteries to regulate lower-leg pressure as needed. “It would be fun to imagine that when the giraffe is standing still out there, it’s closing off that sphincter just beneath the knee,” says Aalkjær. “But we don’t know.”
"When a giraffe raises its head after bending down for a drink, blood pressure to the brain should drop precipitately — a more severe version of the dizziness that many people experience when they stand up suddenly. Why don’t giraffes faint?
"At least part of the answer seems to be that giraffes can buffer these sudden changes in blood pressure. In anesthetized giraffes whose heads could be raised and lowered with ropes and pulleys, Aalkjær has found that blood pools in the big veins of the neck when the head is down. This stores more than a liter of blood, temporarily reducing the amount of blood returning to the heart. With less blood available, the heart generates less pressure with each beat while the head’s down. As the head is raised again, the stored blood rushes suddenly back to the heart, which responds with a vigorous, high-pressure stroke that helps pump blood up to the brain.
"The great height of giraffes poses a problem when they drink: Lowering the head so far should dramatically increase blood pressure to the head. Lifting it again should cause a corresponding drop in cranial blood pressure — an extreme version of what often happens when a person stands up suddenly. Cardiovascular researchers are trying to understand how giraffes minimize this problem." [head up 220/180, head down 300/200 mmHg!]
Comment: we have no idea why giraffes devloped like they are from the standpoint of purposeful development. The giraffe series has a big gap in neck length, just as the whale series has big gaps. It is extremely difficult to imagine chance mutations did this. Fits much better with a designer at work. dhw should recognize they fit into their ecosystem.
Let's study ID: just right oxygen
by David Turell , Sunday, July 24, 2022, 16:53 (851 days ago) @ David Turell
Michel Denton's view:
https://salvomag.com/post/burning-yet-not-consumed
"Denton explains that the level of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere – 21 percent – is highly fine-tuned to allow both efficient respiration and combustion – the chemical reaction that allows humans to extract energy from burning fuels, which kickstarted our technical civilization. If the oxygen level were to fall much below 16 percent, human cognitive faculties would be severely compromised, migraines would come far too frequently, and even moderate physical activity would prove exhausting. What’s more, plant-based fuels would not stay alight. Below 12 percent, no combustion at all would be possible.
"With anything higher than 24 percent, however, forest fires would ravage vast swathes of the continental earth. In addition, elevated oxygen concentrations would generate much higher levels of what’s called reactive oxygen species (such as hydrogen peroxide) inside our cells, which would degrade biomolecules at dangerous rates. Furthermore, Denton also points out the extraordinary fire retarding properties of nitrogen, that all but inert gas which makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere, keeping oxygen’s vicious reactivity in check, allowing fires to burn, but not uncontrollably so.
***
"Denton calls our attention to yet more life-affirming properties of oxygen. Consider, for example, the solubility of oxygen in water. If oxygen were just a little more soluble in water, the oceans would draw down too much of it from the atmosphere, stymying the progress of air-breathing land animals. If it were only slightly less soluble in water, the marine environment upon which human civilization depends, would collapse.
"Here again, the level of oxygen in the atmosphere, with its just-right solubility, allows for life to flourish on our planet. But if oxygen is not sufficiently soluble in water, how can enough of it reach the innermost recesses of the human body? It turns out that some unique properties of transition metals – iron in particular – are found at the heart of the myriad hemoglobin molecules packed inside our red blood cells. The chemical properties of iron make it possible to bind oxygen molecules just strongly enough to carry it to all cells of the human body, but weakly enough to have it released into the tissues of our bodies.
"In the upper atmosphere, ultraviolet light from the Sun breaks up oxygen molecules (O2) into single atoms. Then, an oxygen molecule can combine with an oxygen atom to create a gaseous substance called ozone (O3). Too much ozone is toxic to life, but the small amount created in the earth’s stratosphere helps protect life on land from the most damaging effects of ultraviolet light. Thus, in a splendid symmetry, we see the molecule of life also acting to protect life.
***
"The unique properties of oxygen allowed our ancestors to tame a flame, but not just to keep warm and cook food, but also to use its unique properties to reduce metal ores of copper and tin using charcoal. Materials such as these launched the human technological revolution, with the creation of brand-new materials like bronze. Later, when humans learned how to create even hotter furnaces, the extraction of iron from its ore became possible, and just think how that metal has transformed the human world. Indeed, in a very real sense, we still live in the iron age. Similarly, the combustive properties of oxygen allowed humanity to roast limestone into lime, a key ingredient of concrete, as well as to exploit vast reserves of fossil fuels which launched the industrial revolution."
Comment: The just right level of oxygen evolved over time as cyanobacteria evolved to produce it in our atmosphere. Living organisms evolved using antioxidant molecules to protective themselves from the destructive effects of oxygen. How does a chance development of evolution choose such a dangerous gas to use as a basis of life? It doesn't. Design is required to carefuly put it all together.
Let's study ID: whales and hippos refute Darwin
by David Turell , Sunday, September 04, 2022, 19:18 (809 days ago) @ David Turell
Careful genetic studies of whales and hippos:
https://salvomag.com/post/converging-on-a-creator
"Despite great advances in our understanding of nature, the living world is still rich in mystery. One such enigma is the case of convergent evolution, the notion that life appears to have hit on the same or similar solutions at the genetic and organismic level, many times in its long history and across totally unrelated animal phyla.
***
"Biologists have identified a great many examples of convergence in nature but have yet to explain why this occurs within the framework of the evolutionary paradigm. The best they can do is suggest that when organisms live in similar environments, their evolution is constrained in such a way that they develop anatomical similarities that help them survive better.
***
"But the phenomenon of convergence presents fundamental problems for evolutionary biologists who continue to argue that life is historically contingent (contingent meaning it happened by chance and could just as easily have happened differently). This idea was strongly favored by the late Harvard palaeontologist, Stephen J. Gould, who likened the entire history of life on Earth to a kind of cassette tape being played in real time, such as a musical composition.
***
"But since Gould proposed these ideas in his popular 1989 work Wonderful Life, biologists have unearthed an enormous number of cases where completely unrelated species hit on the same solutions time and time again. This casts severe doubt on the contention that the history of life on Earth is really historically contingent.
"The problem of convergent evolution has recently been compounded by some astonishing research findings from a team of scientists who conducted studies on two unrelated species; the hippopotamus and the whale. Both species are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor some 53 million years ago, but they share a number of anatomical features including hairless bodies, underwater parturition, lack of sebaceous glands, and the ability to detect both the intensity and directionality of sound waves under water.
***
"What they found shocked them. The same 10 genes were inactivated in both hippos and whales! But here’s the kicker; those 10 genes were silenced in whales some 16 million years before the same genes were inactivated in hippos! In other words, those same 10 skin genes were silenced independently in both lineages.
"Responding to these extraordinary findings, lead author of the study Mark Springer said, “None of the inactivating mutations that would have suggested a common aquatic ancestry are shared between these two lineages.”
***
"The silencing of these genes in whales and hippos must have occurred in a highly coordinated manner. For this reason, it’s simply amazing to think that the coordinated loss of the same 10 genes occurred independently in both whales and hippos over such a short period of geological time. To my mind, this is yet another failed prediction of the evolutionary paradigm.
***
"Another issue these research findings unveil is the waiting time problem highlighted by scientists within the Intelligent Design movement. As a team of theorists from Cornell University pointed out some years ago, just two coordinated mutations in such long-lived creatures as hippos and whales would take 200 million years to occur by chance.
"Using the same reasoning, how long might it take 10 identical genes to be knocked out in the same creatures? The answer must be in the billions of years at the very least, and yet evolutionists claim hippos lost those ten genes in only 16 million years after they diverged from whales. This is far too short a time to make their case credible. (my bold)
"In summary, these new findings from mainstream biological research greatly bolster the case for design in biological systems and further weaken the evolutionary worldview, in which scientists must resort to magic to explain away the extraordinary convergence of biological systems, both at the anatomical and genetic level."
Comment: "According to Christian biochemist, Fazale (Fuz) Rana, who has written extensively on the problem of biological convergence, “The evolutionary paradigm fails in the face of the discovery of ‘repeatable’ evolution while biblical creation gains support from this phenomenon. What is interpreted as ‘repeatable’ evolution––morphologically indistinct and genetically unique organisms––is what one would expect if a single Creator has generated life throughout Earth’s history.'” Simon Conway Moris and I agree. Please remember Morris's powerful academic position. Note my bold about chance and gene change!!!
Let's study ID: explaining waiting time problems
by David Turell , Sunday, September 04, 2022, 19:35 (809 days ago) @ David Turell
ID research offers much to contemplate:
https://salvomag.com/post/more-trouble-for-darwinism-2
"In “Species Pairs: A New Challenge to Darwinists” at Evolution News & Science Today, Bechly brings our attention to an excellent online resource and shows how it creates new problems for the Darwinian paradigm. TimeTree is a data base of more than 97,000 living species that provides information on the tree-of-life and evolutionary timescales. Created by evolutionists, it can be used to show how long two closely related species took to diverge from each other in the fossil record, according to the best current molecular clock data. Using that data, Bechly highlights a generous sample of closely related species (from a Darwinian perspective at least), and their estimated divergence time in millions of years.
"To fully grasp Bechly’s insightful point, it’s best to first discuss what is called the “waiting time problem.” Even a small change in an organism’s body plan requires many co-ordinated mutations. Population geneticists have performed calculations to work out how long it would take for a series of necessary mutations to occur simultaneously in order to produce those changes in body plan. Back in 2008, a team of scientists from Cornell University, working on Drosophila (the fruit fly), showed that a few million years was required to get just two coordinated mutations. They calculated that, when translated to human biology, with their much smaller populations and longer generation times, the waiting time for two coordinated mutations worked out to more than 200 million years!
"Since major changes in body plans require far more than two coordinated mutations, it seems incredibly unlikely that such coordinated, multi-gene changes could occur to produce the necessary changes over the course of billions of years, let alone millions. Thus, the waiting time problem stretches scientific credulity to the very limits.
"The problem for the Darwinists is that the fossil record attests to many biological “big bang” events in which new lifeforms have appeared abruptly – within a few million years of each other or less, often without any credible antecedents, in utter defiance of the main results of the waiting time calculations.
"What Dr. Bechly pointed out in his article is that when one compares closely related species from the TImeTree website and looks at their time of divergence based on the best available molecular clocks, very long periods of time appear to be required for even small, almost indistinguishable morphological changes. For example, the fossil record shows that a complete re-engineering of the mammalian body plan from fully terrestrial wolf-like creatures to fully aquatic whale-like animals took place in only four million years, yet according to molecular clock calculations, species like the House Sparrow and Tree Sparrow took 10.2 million years to diverge!...This is good evidence for long periods of stasis and suggests that the comparatively rapid emergence of whales from wholly terrestrial creatures is far more likely to have happened by design that by accident.
"So, can you see the overall problem? Bechly clearly does!
"In his own words:
"Here is my explanation. Darwinism is wrong, and this applies not only to the neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection but to any unguided evolutionary processes including those suggested by proponents of the so-called Extended Synthesis. …
"There is no evolutionary reason why the creative power of this process should have been active over all of Earth history but then ceased to function within the past 10 million years. Intelligent design proponents can easily explain this pattern: there was creative intelligent intervention in the history of life, but this creative activity deliberately ceased with the arrival of humans as the final telos. Any further explanation would have to transgress the methodological limits of the design inference, but Judeo-Christian theists will certainly recognize an eerie correspondence with the Biblical message, which says that God rested from his creative activity after the creation of humans (Genesis 2:2-3).
"What an amazing conclusion! The biblical record says God ceased from creating new lifeforms as soon as humankind appeared on the scene."
Comment: I've always said evolution stopped when sapiens arrived, and I did that without knowing the Biblical passage. This material shows God's way of evolution is God's way, totally different from Darwinists and their prized natural selection as an inventor and convergence as a wonderful natural process working quickly.
Let's study ID: ice fish deny Darwin
by David Turell , Sunday, October 23, 2022, 17:09 (760 days ago) @ David Turell
They carry hemoglobinless blood and antifreezeto survive in the cold:
https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2022.2/BIO-C.2022.2
"HALLMARKS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN ICEFISH
The customized icefish heart, vasculature, and blood form a system with mutually dependent parts. These cannot be exchanged with those from red-blooded fish. A non-customized
heart would have the incorrect ratio of mitochondria to contractile elements in diomyocytes. As a result, ATP insufficiency would develop. If the icefish vasculature were replaced with one from a red-blooded fish, the increased vascular resistance would cause the heart to fail. If an icefish’s blood were replaced with red blood, the icefish would die because of hyperviscosity.The cardiovascular systems of other teleosts do not show the same degree of customization. If the heart of one teleost were replaced with one from another teleost of similar size and lifestyle, the teleost would probably survive long enough to reproduce. In general, it is probably fair to say that replacing the circulatory system and blood of one teleost with that of another would be tolerated. The hemoglobinless phenotype requires simultaneous, coordinated acquisition of multiple unique features. This is difficult
to explain with Darwinian evolution, which postulates that species develop by small, incremental changes over long periods. It is unlikely that the changes required by the hemoglobinless phenotype can be accomplished with only one or two mutations. A small number of random but bold, lucky strokes is the most change that can be accomplished by Darwinian evolution within a short period of time. This is simply not enough to develop the hemoglobinless phenotype. It is likely that the creation of a large heart with abundant mitochondria requires one developmental program, of a carbonic anhydrase–containing orpuscle another program, of large-diameter capillaries a third program, and gill epithelial cells that express carbonic anhydrase yet another program. Thus, an origin of icefish via
Darwinian processes from red-blooded notothenioids, or from the phylogenetic notothenioid sister lineage, Percophis brasiliensis [57], is unlikely.
SUMMARY
"The cardiovascular system of fish of the family Channichthyidae appears to have been designed to utilize hemoglobinless blood to solve the problem of increased viscosity at low temperatures. A design for any cardiovascular system must specify each component, including blood viscosity and vascular geometry, in order to maximize laminar flow and minimize vascular resistance. It also must include a mechanism to maintain blood viscosity within specifications. The appropriate value of blood viscosity allows vascular resistance to match cardiac power. This value can be estimated by Reynolds and Dean numbers. Because blood viscosity is an important determinant of blood flow, it should be considered part of the milieu intérieur. Multiple customized components are necessary to utilize hemoglobinless blood. Actualizing the design for the icefish cardiovascular system requires each customized component to be in place simultaneously. This is more innovation than can be accomplished by random mutation as postulated in Darwinian evolution."
Comment: a perfect example of Irreducible Complexity, with so many novelties required to be put together at the same time to create this species.
Let's study ID: DNA shows a mind is needed
by David Turell , Sunday, December 11, 2022, 16:57 (711 days ago) @ David Turell
From Quora website:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-quora-is-it-possible-to-prove-beyond-...
"Here’s the question you should ask yourself: Is symbolic code something that blind, intelligence-free physical processes could create and use? Or is mind alone up to the task?
"The legendary John Von Neumann did important work on self-replicating systems. A towering giant in the history of mathematics and pioneer in computer science, he was interested in describing machine-like systems that could build faithful copies of themselves.
"Von Neumann soon recognized that it would require both hardware and software. Such a system had to work from a symbolic representation of itself. That is, it must have a kind of encoded picture of itself in some kind of memory.
"Crucially, this abstract picture had to include a precise description of the very mechanisms needed to read and execute the code. Makes sense, right? To copy itself it has to have a blueprint to follow. And this blueprint has to include instructions for building the systems needed to decode and implement the code.
"Here’s the remarkable thing: Life is a Von Neumann Replicator. Von Neumann was unwittingly describing the DNA based genetic system at the heart of life. And yet, he was doing so years before we knew about these systems.
"The implications of this are profound. Think about how remarkable this is. It’s like having the blueprints and operating system for a computer stored on a drive in digital code that can only be read by the device itself. It’s the ultimate chicken and egg scenario.
"How might something like this have come about? For a system to contain a symbolic representation of itself the actualization of precise mapping between two realms, the physical realm and an abstract symbolic realm.
"In view here is a kind of translation, mechanisms that can move between encoded descriptions and material things being described. This requires a system of established correlations between stuff out here and information instantiated in a domain of symbols.
"Here’s the crucial question: Is this something that can be achieved by chance, physical laws, or intelligence-free material processes? The answer is decidedly NO. What’s physical cannot work out the non-physical. Only a mind can create a true code. Only a mind can conceive of and manage abstract, symbolic realities. A symbolic system has to be invented. It cannot come about in any other way.
"If you think something like this – mutually interdependent physical hardware and encoded software – can arise through unguided, foresight-less material forces acting over time, think again. If I were to ask you to think of something, anything that absolutely requires intelligence to bring about, you’d be hard pressed to think of a better example. It’s not just that no one understands how it could be done, it’s that we have every reason to believe that it is impossible in principle. No intelligence-free material processes could ever give you something like this.
***
"The conclusion is clear: The unmistakable signature of mind is literally in every cell of every living thing on earth.
"Note that John von Neumann mathematically showed that the information content of the simplest self-replicating machine is about 1500 bits of information. This is a vast amount of information, since information bits are counted on a logarithmic scale, and it cannot be explained by any natural process, since it far exceeds the information content of the physical (non-living) universe. Therefore, since self-replicating organisms obviously exist on Earth, their origin must come from the only known source of this level of information – an intelligent mind of capability far beyond our mental ability – consistent with the biblical view of God."
Comment: this is pure ID. The complexity of intelligent life is beyond the ability of evolution by natural selection. Note the use of the concept of underling information. Where the information came from is the key point. Not from a material world.
Let's study ID: current declaration.
by David Turell , Sunday, January 15, 2023, 16:33 (676 days ago) @ David Turell
Posted today:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/integrated-complexity-instantiated-to-ac...
"Complexity, in special when implemented to achieve a specific purpose, has always only been observed to be the product of a mind. The more complex, the more evidence of design. In ID, complexity is more defined, when we talk about specified, and irreducible complexity. We see it in every living cell, combined. DNA hosts specified complexity, or in words, that can be better comprehended, instructional assembly information. EVERY protein, which is the product of the information stored in DNA, is irreducibly complex. In order to perform its basic function, it must have a minimal size. Unless it has it, no deal, no function. On top of that, proteins are synthesized by the ribosome, depending on the specified complexity of the information stored in DNA. So on top of irreducible complexity, there is an interdependence of specified, and irreducible complexity combined.
"Specified complexity of information stored in DNA, dictates and directs the making of irreducible complex proteins, which all are made to perform a specific function in the cell. On top of that irreducible complexity, there are higher and higher layers of specified, and irreducible complexity. Signaling is essential in every cell, even in single cells, and protists, and was necessary for the first life form to emerge, no matter, what it was. Signals are carriers of information, that are also specified and complex. There has to be always a variegated number of signaling networks in operation, or no life. And there has to be a minimal number of proteins, for life to exist, or no deal. So, proteins are individually irreducible complex, and the cell and its proteome are irreducibly complex because a minimal number of proteins is required for life to exist.
"Living cells are prime examples of irreducible and specified complexity, instantiated to perform a specific function. In order for there to be life, a minimal number of parts has to be there, fully implemented, and operational. All at once.
"Graham Cairns-Smith:
We are all descended from some ancient organisms or group of organisms within which much of the machinery now found in all forms of life on Earth was already essentially fixed and, as part of that, hooked on today’s so-called ‘molecules of life’. This machinery is enormously sophisticated, depending for its operation on many collaborating parts. The multiple collaboration provides an explanation for why the present system is so frozen now and has been for so long. So we are left wondering how the whole DNA/RNA/protein control system, on which evolution now so utterly depends, could itself have evolved. We can see that at the time of the common ancestor, this system must already have been fixed in its essentials, probably through a critical interdependence of subsystems. (Roughly speaking in a domain in which everything has come to depend on everything else nothing can be easily changed, and our central biochemistry is very much like that.
"Albert-László Barabási:
Various types of interaction webs, or networks, (including protein-protein interaction, metabolic, signaling and transcription-regulatory networks) emerge from the sum of these interactions. None of these networks are independent, instead, they form a ‘network of networks that is responsible for the behavior of the cell. the architectural features of molecular interaction networks within a cell are shared to a large degree by other complex systems, such as the Internet, computer chips, and society.
"Wilhelm Huck chemist , professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity."
Comment: nature cannot be "bright" enough to produce life by chance. A powerful argument with no mention of God.
Let's study ID: current declaration.
by David Turell , Friday, June 07, 2024, 17:25 (167 days ago) @ David Turell
ID defined:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/06/luskin-why-intelligent-design-is-the-truly-scientific...
"ID uses the scientific method, is testable, and is perfectly happy when it yields a natural explanation for any given phenomenon. It’s also open to explanations that recognize the activity of a designing mind, when evidence supports that conclusion. The ID scientist who is a religious believer believes whatever he does for reasons of his own — not because he “used” ID to support his view. I would add, that’s why ID proponents are as interestingly diverse as they are, which is one reason ID (compared with apologetics) has the credibility it does.
"In the hands of the atheist scientist, on the other hand, a codicil is added to MN [methodological naturalism] that arbitrarily excludes seeing intelligent activity behind phenomena in biology and cosmology. That codicil, a matter of personal or philosophical preference, binds and blinds the scientist in a way that is NOT scientific. ID, as Luskin explains, is thus the superior, more open, and truly scientific tool."
Comment: belief in a God is up to the individual.
Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 15, 2023, 19:36 (617 days ago) @ David Turell
more on the neck:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/evolutions-tall-tale-the-giraffe-neck/
"There should be a good reason for the extraordinary length, because it causes hardship. A giraffe’s heart needs to pump blood 2 metres up to the head, which requires a high blood pressure and management to avoid fainting or stroke. “It’s beautifully adapted to this, but it’s a big cost,” says Rob Simmons, a behavioural ecologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, who was not involved in the study.
"One prevailing theory is that giraffes evolved longer necks to reach higher trees for food. “This is widely believed; it’s really entrenched,” says Simmons…. [But] research has shown that giraffes tend to eat from lower levels, and tall giraffes aren’t more likely to survive drought, when food competition is highest. Another idea is that giraffes evolved longer necks for sexual competition, with male giraffes engaging in violent neck-swinging fights and longer necks attracting mates…. [But] males don’t have longer necks than females.
***
"No continuous series of fossil links leads to the Giraffa or Okapia. “The giraffe and the okapi of the Congo rain forest are considered as sister groups, the origins of which are still not known”. Similarly Starck (1995, p. 999) remarks: “The ancestry of Giraffidae is disputed.” Wesson agrees with these statements about giraffe fossils, as follows: “The evolving giraffe line left no middling branches on the way, and there is nothing, living or fossil, between the moderate neck of the okapi and the greatly elongated giraffe. The several varieties of giraffe are all about the same height.”
***
"Lönnig describes several things that must be either engineered or reengineered to arrive at a functional giraffe from a short-necked ancestor. First, giraffes, like cows and many other grazing animals, are ruminants, meaning they regurgitate a half-digested cud and chew on it before swallowing the food a second time, helping them digest tough fibrous grass and leaves. But to pull off this trick, a giraffe, with its neck as tall as a man, needs “a special muscular esophagus,” Lönnig explains. So that’s one reengineering challenge.
"Lönnig gives so many more that there isn’t room for them all here. His book debunking giraffe evolution, The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe, is dense and thorough. But he helpfully quotes Gordon Rattray Taylor, who concisely summarized several of the reengineering challenges in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:
"Nineteenth-century observers assumed that the giraffe had only to develop a longer neck and legs to be able to reach the leaves which other animals could not. But in fact such growth created severe problems. The giraffe had to pump blood up about eight feet to its head. The solution it reached was to have a heart which beats faster than average and a high blood pressure. When the giraffe puts his head down to drink, he suffers a rush of blood to the head, so a special pressure-reducing mechanism, the rete mirabile, had to be provided to deal with this. However, much more intractable are the problems of breathing through an eight-foot tube. If a man tried to do so, he would die — not from lack of oxygen so much as poisoning by his own carbon dioxide. For the tube would fill with his expired, deoxygenated breath, and he would keep reinhaling it. Furthermore, one study group found that the blood in a giraffe’s legs would be under such pressure that it would force its way out of the capillaries. How was this being prevented? It turned out that the intercellular spaces are filled with fluid, also under pressure — which in turn necessitates the giraffe having a strong, impermeable skin. To all these changes one could add the need for new postural reflexes and for new strategies of escape from predators. It is evident that the giraffe’s long neck necessitated not just one mutation but many — and these perfectly coordinated.
"In short, the giraffe represents not a mere collection of individual traits but a package of interrelated adaptations. It is put together according to an overall design that integrates all parts into a single pattern. Where did such an adaptational package come from? According to Darwinian theory, the giraffe evolved to its present form by the accumulation of individual, random changes preserved by natural selection. But it is difficult to explain how a random process could offer to natural selection an integrated package of adaptations, even over time. Random mutations might adequately explain change in a relatively isolated trait, such as color. But major changes, like the macroevolution of the giraffe from some other animal, would require an extensive suite of coordinated adaptations."
"In the giraffe’s case, a bit of reasoning goes a long way. Blind evolution doesn’t look ahead and coordinate a group of changes for some future advantage. It’s blind and must proceed by one small useful step at a time. No evolutionist, for instance, believes that a small number of mega-mutations turned a land mammal into a whale."
Comment: We've been here before. The giraffe has no fossil ancestors, so we have a giraffe gap!!! The last paragraph is an ID comment. Most of the quotes are taken directly from a Nature article. From a devoted propaganda source for Darwinism!!! Wow!!!
Let's study ID: proper definintion
by David Turell , Thursday, October 19, 2023, 18:06 (399 days ago) @ David Turell
It is not creationism:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/words-for-wednesday-disentangling-id-from-creationism/
"Intelligent design (“ID”) is the theory, based on the scientific method and empirical evidence, that the best explanation for the “apparent design” in the universe, which is acknowledged by most scientists, is actual design by an intelligent agent.
"Creationism is the belief, typically based on religious scripture and tradition, that the universe has been designed and created by a divine agent.
"Intelligent design proponents and creationists come in many flavors. Creationists certainly believe that the creator is intelligent. They might also believe that the creation account in the book of Genesis should be interpreted as six 24-hour days, and that the earth is just several thousand years old. But some creationists interpret the Genesis account differently, and believe that the earth and universe are very old. Others start with different religious traditions altogether. Many creationists look for scientific data that supports their religious tradition.
"Intelligent design proponents, on the other hand, do not necessarily subscribe to any particular view of who or what the designing intelligence is. In other words, creationism starts with the identity of the designer and works downward to the creation, while intelligent design theory starts with empirical evidence and does not, from this scientific evidence, ascribe an identity to the designing mind.
"Do creationists believe that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent? Yes!
"Do intelligent design theorists believe that the intelligent agent was the creator described in the Hebrew Bible? Some do. Others don’t. (my bold)
"One reason the distinction is important is that many materialists (those who believe that everything about the universe is explicable in purely material terms, apart from a mind) ridicule creationism and lump ID in with it as if the two are equivalent. Whatever you believe, it’s important to recognize that creationism and ID are not the same thing. Creationism starts with the belief in a designer and interprets data accordingly, while ID starts with scientific evidence and infers the best possible explanation for that evidence."
Comment: My view is to avoid any use of the Bible, except to recognize modern Hebrew interpretation of Genesis which tells us the Earth is ancient and made over eons of time. I take the further step of recognizing God as the designer as one of the 'some do' folks..
Let's study ID: Dembski's latest book
by David Turell , Thursday, November 16, 2023, 20:43 (371 days ago) @ David Turell
Just out:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/dembski-won-the-argument-with-his-critics-new-edition...
"The fundamental goal of any approach to design detection is identifying patterns, events, or artifacts that (1) are extremely unlikely to have occurred through chance and natural processes and (2) show signs that they were deliberate acts of a mind. The challenge is rigorously meeting both criteria.
***
"In every context, the first criterion entails identifying, at least qualitatively, the probability for the occurrence of some event or outcome solely due to chance and natural processes. For instance, the probability of any number between 1 and 6 appearing on a well-constructed six-sided die is 1 in 6. The outcome is purely the result of chance. In contrast, the probability of rolling a 6 on a loaded die could be close to 100 percent. The outcome is a direct result of gravity.
***
"The second criterion entails a mind assigning significance or value to some outcomes independently of any law-like process. As a thought experiment, imagine Bill Gates deciding on a whim to give one billion dollars to five specific people scattered throughout the world. In addition, the day after the money was dispersed, you were one of six people invited to a dinner party. If you discovered that four of the five recipients of Gate’s generosity were also invited, you would know that the invitees were not chosen randomly. You would also know that the invitations were not primarily based on any factors independent of the invitees’ newfound wealth, such as their height or weight or nationality. The guests were deliberately chosen for some premeditated purpose, such as raising money for a charity or a political campaign.
"The key elements for this conclusion are (1) the number of combinations of six people chosen out of the entire human population being extremely high and (2) and the number of combinations of six people possessing such wealth being much lower. The disparity between the probability of choosing randomly a specific set of six people and the probability of randomly choosing a set out of all sets of six people with at least that much wealth is what points to design.
"The argument for design in biology follows the same logic. The number of configurations of atoms resulting from chance and natural laws is unimaginably large. By comparison, the number of configurations is vastly smaller that correspond to life or anything to which a mind would attribute the same significance as life, or nearly so, such as a computer with an advanced AI or an automated space shuttle capable of colonizing mars.
"Stated differently, the probability of a configuration of atoms corresponding to life occurring through chance and natural processes is unimaginably small. By comparison, the probability is vastly larger of choosing life out of a pool of entities that are as significant, or nearly as significant, as life.
"The design debate centers on one of the two criteria. Design proponents have described the exceedingly low probability of some biological system or structure emerging, such as a random sequence of amino acids folding into a functional protein. They also point out the significance of biological components, such as folded proteins, in the context of life.
"Some critics challenge the first criterion by arguing either that biological structures are not as rare as design proponents believe, or that natural processes such as self-organization and natural selection dramatically improve the odds of their forming. Others challenge the second criterion by arguing that a specific structure might be extremely unlikely to occur by chance and natural processes, but biological structures are not as special as design proponents believe. Critics assert that life could have used many other structures to accomplish the same tasks, so the probability of finding anything that serves a particular purpose is tractable.
"The second edition of The Design Inference lays out the theoretical framework and practical methodology for addressing all these objections. In addition, advances in biology over the past few decades allow the methodology to be rigorously applied. Such analyses demonstrate evidence for design that is now so clear and rigorous that, for intellectually honest and sincere seekers of the truth, denying it is no longer feasible."
Comment: this thought process seeing the complexity of design in living forms is Goff's missing gulf of knowledge as he tries to explore teleology of the universe. A nebulous universal mind appearing naturally is a weak substitute against postulating a supernatural mind of greater power of design as the designs in biochemistry show.
Let's study ID: the concept of irreducible complexity
by David Turell , Monday, December 18, 2023, 22:17 (339 days ago) @ David Turell
It simply means an organ must have all its specific integrated parts. It must be seen as stand alone, as illustrated by a mouse trap performing without any help or integration with other organs:
https://www.the-scientist.com/university/artificial-organs-innovating-to-replace-donors...
"Conventionally, renal assistance devices (RADs) are extracorporeal artificial systems that rely on a combination of a conventional hemofilter and a bioreactor. They mimic glomerular filtration and drive essential metabolic, endocrinologic, and immunologic kidney functions. Researchers creating artificial organ devices are preclinically investigating methods to miniaturize and implant RADs. In addition to RADs, scientists develop renal scaffolds for bioartificial kidneys from pig kidneys, discarded human kidneys, or polymers such as collagen, hyaluronic acid, alginate, agarose, chitosan, fibrin, and gelatin.
"Similarly, artificial livers may be a solution to organ donor shortages for treating end-stage liver failure and an alternative to extracorporeal artificial supports.8 For example, researchers made artificial “liver-buds” from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) in vitro and transplanted them to successfully rescue an animal model of liver failure.
"Scientists and clinicians can use 3D printing for cardiac surgical planning and creating custom-fit implants. Researchers have also created devices for cardiac tissue maturation that enhance implant viability, such as cardiac-specific extracellular matrices made of animal-derived bioink or decellularized cardiac tissue. Additionally, in proof-of-concept studies, researchers have manufactured cardiac structures such as branched coronary arteries and embryonic hearts with hydrogels. Using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, they printed hydrated materials such as alginate, collagen, and fibrin to build mechanically robust and complex 3D anatomical cardiac architectures."
Comment: the research to invent implantable artificial organs follows the concept of plug and play. Both kidney and liver need a supply of blood to work to full capacity and an emptying system for the discharge. A heart just needs a blood volume to work with. The artificial organs will be just as IC as the natural ones. Why must you try to reinterpret what is presented to fit your preconceived desires? IC demands ID. The primary premise of ID.
Let's study ID: the concept of irreducible complexity
by David Turell , Thursday, December 21, 2023, 22:12 (336 days ago) @ David Turell
More from Behe:
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/has_ken_miller/
"Recall that the definition of irreducible complexity notes that removal of a part "causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
***
"In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device, it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside... However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What’s more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine."
Comment: Behe refers to the flagellum as a system unit to perform a function. Its attachment to a bacterium is assumed, but not required to discuss specified function. In the mousetrap. once again, Behe discusses a single system function without any other requirements.
Let's study ID: the complexity of cell division
by David Turell , Monday, July 08, 2024, 18:41 (136 days ago) @ David Turell
An ID point of view on cell division:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/07/herding-chromosomes-in-the-mitosis-corral/
"The sequence of amino acids in each protein involved is far too improbable to have originated by chance.
"Several million cells divide every second in our bodies.
"Cells have been dividing since the beginning of life on earth.
"The accuracy of cell division is so extraordinarily high, many animals alive today are recognizable from their counterparts in the fossil record.
"We are truly privileged to behold details of wonders that were concealed from the eyes of people for thousands of years. If Romans and Babylonians and ancient Chinese were impressed by the sight of a baby at birth, how much more should we be awestruck, dumbfounded, indeed reverent at what biochemists are learning today about realities too small for human eyes? Sure, some observations like evil and suffering are hard to understand, yet even these are better situated for explanation in a design context. As my college biology prof used to say, “The amazing thing is not that we get sick. The amazing thing is that we are ever well,” considering how many things must work correctly each moment of every day. Never become complacent about these realities taking place inside us. We are witnessing intelligent design at a level never comprehended throughout all human history." (my bold)
Comment: cells are doing thousands of biochemical molecular processes every second and as the prof noted the vast majority of the time it all works just fine. This cannot happen by chance. It is the answer to objections in theodicy.
Let's study ID: giraffe cardiovascular adjustments II
by David Turell , Sunday, June 23, 2024, 15:30 (151 days ago) @ dhw
A six-meter-tall head needs help:
https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/living-world/2021/heads-up-cardiovascular-...
"Giraffes, it turns out, have solved a problem that kills millions of people every year: high blood pressure. Their solutions, only partly understood by scientists so far, involve pressurized organs, altered heart rhythms, blood storage — and the biological equivalent of support stockings.
***
"To have a blood pressure of 110/70 at the brain — about normal for a large mammal — giraffes need a blood pressure at the heart of about 220/180. It doesn’t faze the giraffes, but a pressure like that would cause all sorts of problems for people, from heart failure to kidney failure to swollen ankles and legs.
***
"When cardiologist and evolutionary biologist Barbara Natterson-Horowitz of Harvard and UCLA examined giraffes’ hearts, she and her student found that their left ventricles did get thicker, but without the stiffening, or fibrosis, that would occur in people. The researchers also found that giraffes have mutations in five genes related to fibrosis. In keeping with that find, other researchers who examined the giraffe genome in 2016 found several giraffe-specific gene variants related to cardiovascular development and maintenance of blood pressure and circulation. And in March 2021, another research group reported giraffe-specific variants in genes involved in fibrosis. (my bold)
***
"And the giraffe has another trick to avoid heart failure: The electrical rhythm of its heart differs from that of other mammals so that the ventricular-filling phase of the heartbeat is extended, Natterson-Horowitz found. (Neither of her studies has been published yet.) This allows the heart to pump more blood with each stroke, allowing a giraffe to run hard despite its thicker heart muscle.
***
"Natterson-Horowitz is now turning her attention to another problem that giraffes seem to have solved: high blood pressure during pregnancy, a condition known as preeclampsia. In people, this can lead to severe complications that include liver damage, kidney failure and detachment of the placenta. Yet giraffes seem to fare just fine. Natterson-Horowitz and her team are hoping to study the placentas of pregnant giraffes to see if they have unique adaptations that allow this.
***
"People who suffer from hypertension are also prone to annoying swelling in their legs and ankles because the high pressure forces water out of blood vessels and into the tissue. But you only have to look at the slender legs of a giraffe to know that they’ve solved that problem, too. “Why don’t we see giraffes with swollen legs?
***
"In people, these are tight, elastic leggings that compress the leg tissues and prevent fluid from accumulating. Giraffes accomplish the same thing with a tight wrapping of dense connective tissue. Aalkjær’s team tested the effect of this by injecting a small amount of saline solution beneath the wrapping into the legs of four giraffes that had been anesthetized for other reasons. Successful injection required much more pressure in the lower leg than a comparable injection in the neck, the team found, indicating that the wrapping helped resist leakage.
"Giraffes also have thick-walled arteries near their knees that might act as flow restrictors, Aalkjær and others have found. This could lower the blood pressure in the lower legs, much as a kink in a garden hose causes water pressure to drop beyond the kink. It remains unclear, however, whether giraffes open and close the arteries to regulate lower-leg pressure as needed. “It would be fun to imagine that when the giraffe is standing still out there, it’s closing off that sphincter just beneath the knee,” says Aalkjær. “But we don’t know.”
"Aalkjær has one more question about these remarkable animals. When a giraffe raises its head after bending down for a drink, blood pressure to the brain should drop precipitately — a more severe version of the dizziness that many people experience when they stand up suddenly. Why don’t giraffes faint?
"At least part of the answer seems to be that giraffes can buffer these sudden changes in blood pressure. In anesthetized giraffes whose heads could be raised and lowered with ropes and pulleys, Aalkjær has found that blood pools in the big veins of the neck when the head is down. This stores more than a liter of blood, temporarily reducing the amount of blood returning to the heart. With less blood available, the heart generates less pressure with each beat while the head’s down. As the head is raised again, the stored blood rushes suddenly back to the heart, which responds with a vigorous, high-pressure stroke that helps pump blood up to the brain.
"It’s not yet clear whether this is what happens in awake, freely moving animals, though Aalkjær’s team has recently recorded blood pressure and flow from sensors implanted in free-moving giraffes and he hopes to have an answer soon."
Comment: presented once before. It is an example of extreme adaptability requiring many new mutations to solve complex alterations. I've bolded that concern's answer above. I would suggest these protective mechanisms are designed