Cellular intelligence: (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 21:51 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Many apologies. I thought I had posted these responses yesterday, and have only just realized that I hadn't! When I logged on this morning, I wondered why there was only one reply from you!It's not just my computer that keeps going wrong! I'll try to catch up with your latest posts tomorrow, but there will then be a break as I have the family coming for Christmas. I'm delighted to say that Chris is well enough to travel, and is getting stronger every day.

T cells

dhw: Please explain why a God who designs a system that leads to mistakes which he cannot correct is “obviously” less human than a God who designs a system that allows for individual decision-making.

DAVID: I am discussing God's personality as related to purpose, compared to yours. Your question does not apply. And later:
DAVID: Another weird approach to discussing the underlying philosophy and personality of God. Totally off the point. You obviously have no answer to my criticism of your imagined God.

Your criticism of my imagined God in comparison to your imagined God is that a God who designs the system he wants is “weak” compared to a God who designs a system which contains errors he does not want and tries – often in vain – to correct. Please explain why the former is “weaker” than the latter.

DAVID: The problem is the fossil series gaps. If accepted, we must deal with de novo appearance, which supports design and a designer.

dhw: So do you think he operated on pre-whales’ reproductive systems and noses before they entered the water, or do you think he realized once they were in the water that he needed to perform more operations, because transitional flippers were only the start of the problem? I am trying to understand how you visualize your God’s procedures as he designs and then redesigns every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design sapiens plus food.

DAVID: I don't visualize God's timing, since we only have finished models to view. obviously designed for the conditions at hand.

But until this moment you did visualize his timing, since you insisted that he designed all innovations etc. IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements. However,I’m relieved that at last you have agreed that “finished models” are “obviously designed for the conditions at hand”. Except that you don't:


dhw (under "Oxygen and the Cambrian"):The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use. [The brain example you gave has been dealt with elsewhere.]

"At hand" or in the future?


A cell repair design
DAVID: "Choices available to components' takes us back to your unproven intelligent cells inventing complex designs.

dhw: Of course it does, and it takes us away from your unproven God and his unproven limitations and his unproven errors and his unproven attempts to correct them.

DAVID: Not everything we learn offers your required rigid proofs. Where is your proof of brilliant designing cells creating new species?

You emphasize that my theory is unproven. I emphasize that ALL the theories are unproven. So what is your point? That your unproven theory doesn’t require proof but mine does?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum