More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Friday, November 12, 2021, 08:39 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

David v Dawkins
DAVID: I have the right to consider both sides and choose one. Sorry you are incapable of doing it.

Of course both you and Dawkins have the right to tell one another that your own theory is right, the other’s theory is wrong, and you hope/believe science will prove it. My view is that if a question is unresolved, a scientist should wait for more evidence before proclaiming the truth of his theory and the invalidity of someone else’s.

dhw: How do you know what your God needs?

DAVID: On the basis of accepting God as the Creator, He knows fully how to create, and is purposeful in reaching His desired goals, whatever they might be.

dhw: If God exists, I agree. All of my alternatives to your illogical theory show him to be purposeful […]

DAVID: Once again your view of God is full of human purposes, not direct action.

I would regard any form of experimentation as direct action, as is the creation of a free-for-all. I do not regard the design of countless life forms that had no connection with humans as “direct action” for the design of humans, which you claim was your God’s one and only purpose.

Human evolution: another huge gap
QUOTE: "Two leading evolutionists….exolain that language could not evolve in an abrupt manner, genetically speaking, because many genetic changes would be necessary

dhw: […] Of course it would have been gradual (but that is a very flexible term) and not "abrupt". If you accept the theory that cells can restructure themselves in response to new requirements, you have a perfectly logical explanation for the physical changes.

DAVID: Cells make minor epigenetic adaptation. We agree with that. But you have neatly avoided the size of the gap from Arthropithicus to Erectus, which requires a designer. Cells don't have the mental power to make complex designs.

Your usual authoritative statement of your belief as if it were a fact. The article suggested that Australopithecus and Sapiens were very different from one another, so I suggested that they may have evolved independently. Then I asked why your God would have designed Australopithecus if all he wanted was sapiens. No reply.

Human neurons different
QUOTE: "'We think that humans have evolved out of this building plan that was previously restricting the size of cortex, and they figured out a way to become more energetically efficient, so you spend less ATP per volume compared to other species," Harnett says." (David’s bold)

I find the wording somewhat surprising. “They” can only mean humans, but does he really believe that humans sat down and consciously fiddled with their own neurons? Of course, you will say God popped in to do it, or he preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, along with the rest of evolution. A different explanation would be that intelligent cell communities detect problems and find solutions.

DAVID: His desire to finally produce sapiens obviously did not preclude his designs of others. God does what He wants to does for His own reasons. You are allowed to question Him all you wish. I accept what He has done.

Very kind of you, but I am in fact questioning you, because if your God did what he wanted to do, and he only wanted to design sapiens, the question arises as to why he designed other homos. You don’t “accept” that he designed other homos - you believe he designed other homos, and you don’t know why. So it’s possible that he didn’t design them, but that they all found their own means of separate development, or that sapiens was not his one and only purpose.

Free will
QUOTE: “To base the hefty issue of free will on experiments that measure neuronal activity when people move fingers to push a button should hardly count as decisive. Most of the choices we make in life are complex, multi-layered decisions that often take a long time."

DAVID: All I can say is I agree. Libet was refuted long ago.

We’ve tackled the subject many times. I remain surprised that anyone in this field should confine the argument to what happens in the brain. The other question is what control I have over the influences that shape my decisions: i.e. heredity, environment, upbringing, chance events, disease – all of which are outside my control. We needn’t delve any further, as we’re only going back over well trodden ground.

Magic embryology
DAVID: […] the instructional information always produces the same results with minor variations. This is a pure example of cellular automaticity. Automatic sameness is automaticity in fetal production.

Once a pattern is established successfully, it is repeated in all walks of life. It has to run automatically. But when conditions change, organisms must change or die out. Evolution could not have taken place if every living creature had stuck to its inherited form! You always leap in when systems are established, but every new system had an origin, and every existing system is potentially liable to change if conditions change. That is when I suggest that automaticity gives way to autonomy.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum