Cellular intelligence: (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:09 (1064 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: I've listed your God' weaknesses: uncontrolled free-for-all, giving design control away, and others, etc.

If God wanted a free-for-all and designed what he wanted, I’m sorry but for the life of me I cannot see that this makes him weaker than a God who wanted control but “had to” design a system containing errors he could not control.

dhw: […] 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.

dhw: 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.]

dhw: "At hand" or in the future?

DAVID: Again the 300,000 year old sapiens brain waited 250,000 years to be used properly.

This seems to be the only example you can think of. See your theory PART ONE for my detailed reply.

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?

dhw: 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?

AVID: I have proven a designer is required

You have provided a logical case for the existence of a designer. The only proof would be if your God showed himself to us. There is a logical case for materialism, but the only proof would be if we could demonstrate HOW matter transformed itself into living organisms with consciousness.

T cells
DAVID: this back up system recognizes the need for T cell preservation, and therefore must be designed from the beginning or we would have not survived infections. This shows foresight of the future is required in creating new designs

You talk as if T cells were there “from the beginning”. As far as I know, they only arrived when our fellow vertebrates came into existence. Every form of animal consists of cell communities, and I would suggest that T cells were a RESPONSE to new infections that attacked our fellow vertebrates. As with all processes relating to immunity, there would have been – just as there are now – vast numbers of victims until the survivors found a solution to the problem. I was quite taken with the quote: “Like human beings, every cell in our body tries to ward off death as long as it can.”