More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Friday, November 12, 2021, 16:12 (22 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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.

Preferring one theory over another produces debate.


Human evolution: another huge gap

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.

dhw: 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.

God evolved us from earlier forms in a stepwise manor.


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)

dhw: 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.

What he means is very energetic upright humans had to evolve a brain using less energy.


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.

dhw: 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.

Once again you are questioning God's logic. I can't help you.


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.

dhw: 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.

It is God designing new forms


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum