Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Friday, October 01, 2021, 12:32 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: My point was in answer to your comment that “survival adaptations made epigenetically do not cause speciation. Survival has nothing to do with the appearance of new species”. I am arguing that major changes, even in your own theory, are made in order to allow organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions in their quest for survival.

DAVID: Evolution does not come from a 'quest for survival'. New species are designed by God to insure future survival following their appearance.

So your God designs all the changes that lead to speciation in order to ensure the survival of the respective life forms, but evolution does not come about because of your God’s efforts to ensure that the respective life forms will survive.

Reductionism
DAVID: There has to be a first cause. The biological design we see requires a designer who is necessarily the first cause.

dhw: I asked you to note my comment on “first cause”, but of course you ignored it: “Back to the non-explanation of “first cause”, which might just as well be unconscious materials evolving into consciousness”. And of course you continue to ignore my request for the rationale behind your firm belief that consciousness requires a designer but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

DAVID: I didn't ignore your first cause. You know my belief is in an eternal God designer. I know your disbelief, which to me defies logic.

Not “disbelief”, which means rejection. I am an agnostic. Now please explain to me the logic behind your belief that consciousness requires a designer, but supreme consciousness does not require a designer.

Newborn brains
DAVID: But luckily the advanced homo brain came with the proper wiring built in, because spoken language came first, and then other visual parts stepped in as later required with written language.

dhw: How do you know that the evolution of spoken language did not itself change the wiring of the homo brain?

DAVID: I agree brain plasticity played a role. But necessarily receptive areas were already present to receive new wiring connections.

dhw: That would apply to the whole history of the brain’s evolution. It would have expanded (with new “areas”) when plasticity was not sufficient to meet with new requirements. But my point was that the homo brain would not have come with “the proper wiring built in”. The new wiring would have been the result of spoken language evolving, just as rewiring was the result of illiterate women learning to read.

DAVID: The pre-homo brain had existing areas that eventually acquired specific uses.

The pre-sapiens brain was smaller than the sapiens brain, and required more and more cells once there were new skills to be mastered. Eventually, when the brain reached optimum size, complexification took over from expansion, and so such advances as spoken language entailed additional complexification (rewiring). Yes, the areas were there by then, but the rewiring was not “built in”, as bolded above.

Female wrasse cheat
QUOTES: "This sensitivity suggests that cleaner wrasse have evolved cognitive abilities that allow them to find solutions to their problems on a par with other animals, such as corvids and primates.
The greatest message of this paper is that there is no ladder which humans sit at the top of and then there’s primates and then there’s something else.'”

DAVID: I know dhw will enjoy this. I ignore the final obligatory comment that humans aren't worth any more than anyone else. The last rung on the animal ladder is huge.

You’re right, I enjoy the evidence that our fellow creatures all the way down to bacteria and single cells have far more intelligence than some humans like to believe. However, I have always agreed with you that our own intelligence is vastly in excess of theirs.

Guth and David on “time”

DAVID: I am unchanged. Your bolded comment makes the point. We do not know of any prior BB's. Our BB may be the only one ever!!!

dhw: And it may not be, as you have acknowledged: “I hadn’t considered the possibility of prior BB’s seventeen years ago. With that point made, it is obvious there was prior time within prior possible BB’s.

DAVID: Yes, possible time in possible previous BB's doesn't change past statements or make them untrue at the time they are made.

It certainly doesn’t change your July statement that: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.” However, I can’t follow your logic in maintaining that in July your statement was NOT untrue, whereas in August/September/October it WAS/IS untrue. May I humbly suggest that you have now changed your mind, realize that your July statement was untrue, and therefore – perish the thought – back in July you made a mistake and your statement was wrong. I suggest you drop the subject.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum