Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, October 21, 2021, 14:41 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum