Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 15:03 (29 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


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum