More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 23, 2021, 15:57 (4 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Therefore, even in your God-directed evolution, speciation is driven by the quest for survival! The flippers are not separate from speciation – they ARE speciation.

DAVID: I know that! God drives speciation and provides for survival, the reverse of your reasoning.

dhw: You see your God as the agent of speciation, but we're discusing his PURPOSE for changing legs into flippers! You said his purpose for designing flippers was to advance evolution to a more complex stage, but apparently this simply means another collection of life forms eating one another in order to survive. Food for all seems to be the driving principle, and what is the purpose of food if it’s not survival? I suppose inevitably we’ll have to resurrect your overall, illogical theory of evolution, according to which your God had only one purpose: he specially designed not just whale flippers but every single innovation, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so that he could specially design humans and their food.
And you just can't believe pre-whales might have found more food in the water, and usage changed legs into flippers.

You are back to Lamarck in the bold. I'll stay with my position: God speciates and provides for survival. God's purpose is to cerate organisms from Archaea to humans, and he did just that.

Genome complexity
dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

DAVID: If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

dhw: Correct. How do you fill in the need to explain the existence of a conscious, universal mind etc., as above? You don’t.

DAVID: But logically I do: if design is present, where is the designer? I don't know, but He must exist. Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

dhw: Agreed. It is also highly reasonable to argue that the only consciousness we know of must have a source, so how can a being with a consciousness that is infinitely more powerful than our own simply exist without having a source?

And what is the source of the universe that seems to have a beginning? No wonder Einstein fought against it!! It raises your question to requiring an answer.

Keeping a cell organized
DAVID: Every aspect of cellular biochemical processes has controls, as in feedback loops previously described. Life based on free-floating protein molecules that must alter folding shapes requires guiding molecule controllers, which as my bold shows, must also have cellular controllers. So we see designed layers of controllers must exist to maintain order in our system of life homeostasis. Only a designing mind can create this.

dhw: I didn’t answer because my only answer is the same as ever: I accept the argument for design, as above, and I accept the argument for control. The latter will take us back to the same disagreement as below and a thousand times before:

Which means you have to recognize the designed automaticity.

How T cells are triggered
QUOTES: “T cells communicate with other cells in the body in search of infections or diseases.”
Here we have shown that these gamma delta T cells can recognize MHC-like molecules in their own unique ways and in ways we could not have predicted.”

DAVID: here is a marvelous example of how T cells act automatically to fight infections and cancer. […] The cells are not innately intelligent, but completely automatic. Cells act automatically, and following intelligent information (instructions) appear to BE intelligent, inferring they use an innate intelligence they do not have.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement, based presumably on the belief that if you repeat the word “automatic” often enough, I will have to accept that cells act automatically, and are not – to use Shapiro’s terms – “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…and possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” 50/50 according to you, and that means 100% no!

Shapiro, whose bacterial findings I accept fully, studied free-living bacteria, nothing beyond that in the process of evolution to more complexity. He theorized all of evolution might work that way. And you have swallowed that as probable fact since it helps you avoid God arranging for automaticity as He has done in His biological designs..

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum