Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 14:47 (27 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 complexity

DAVID: 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.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum