Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Monday, August 23, 2021, 13:20 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

Cells and antibodies
DAVID: God does not 'tell them' each time. They have original instructions to follow every time they are needed. Thus they have autonomous action (by my definition) every time needed.

dhw: Original instructions for what??? Why do you refuse to specify? You agreed that your God gave cells the ABILITY “to recognize each new threat and to respond to it by creating new antibodies de novo.” Are you now saying the first cells were provided with instructions to be passed on to all their descendants, telling them exactly what to do when each new problem arose throughout the future of life on Earth, and so they just have to “read” the particular instruction when the new problem arises?

DAVID: Exactly correct as a description of what I believe. From the beginning all immune cells know what to do since they have instructions to follow.

In other words, you have gone back 3.8 billion years, when your God provided the first cells with details of every solution to every problem in a programme to be passed down to every cell in every species for the rest of life’s history. Apparently that is what you meant when you agreed that your God had provided immune cells with the autonomous ability (without intervention) to respond to new problems by creating new antibodies “de novo”. Autonomy apparently means obeying instructions.

The role of survival in evolution
DAVID: Survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: Survival does not drive anything. Survival is the result of changes made to the organism to enable it to adapt to new conditions. These changes, whether designed by your God or by the cells themselves, lead to speciation. […] [I have restored my reference to God, which you left out and have ignored in your response.]

DAVID: You have explained my point. Something drives evolution to more complexity, the only explanation for our appearance. God.

And so I repeat: the changes that lead to speciation (and to more complexity), even if they have been designed by your God, have been made for the purpose of improving the organism’s chances of survival. You have agreed: "Survival is required for each new stage until the next stage appears.” If survival is required, then the need for survival is the reason why your God designed the changes that have led to speciation. This remains true even if he only wanted the species to survive so that he could finally design humans.

Retinal design
DAVID: Are you denying the huge gaps between all steps of all species?

dhw: Your question does not answer my questions! There are huge gaps between some species. I have just said there are “vast differences between the noses and brains of all the different species”! And I’ve asked you if you think each individual nose and brain was a separate, irreducibly complex design, or if the differences developed over millions of years. Why don’t you answer?

DAVID: You have the answer: Irreducible complexity means fully designed from its beginning.

I know what the expression means. I take it then that your God designed every single type of nose and brain “de novo”. So now we have the following history of evolution. God, who only wanted to design humans and their food, programmed the first cells with solutions to all the immunity problems (human and otherwise) that might arise for the rest of life’s history, but he also popped in whenever he wanted to design new types of nose and brain. He couldn’t use existing noses and brains, because each design is fully designed from its beginning.

DAVID: ….epigenetic modifications do occur as we both know. [Repeated under “Cambrian Explosion”, so we can skip that section.)

We were discussing noses and brains, and your answer above suggests that each type was an example of irreducible complexity. Every new nose and brain newly designed from the beginning. I still think that if you want to put the case for design, you’d find it much easier to stick to complexity rather than trying to decide what is and isn’t “irreducible”.

Evolution can work in reverse
DAVID: In Darwinist terms, it is obvious advanced complexification through natural selection isn't required. Animals can get by with less complexity than previously present.

dhw: In Darwinist terms, then, natural selection discards any complexity which, under new conditions, is no longer required. Simple.

DAVID: You simply agreed. Happens now and then.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to denigrate Darwin again instead of supporting him.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum