More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 16:03 (131 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: It isn't beyond God's powers, but back I go to who is God and what is His personality and His purposes? My God follows strong purposeful intents. Your proposed God gives up direct control over evolution, And so I reject your version of God.

dhw: You have not answered my point, repeated below. Since your God enjoys creation and is interested in watching his creations, why is it not a “strong purposeful intent” for him to create something that he will find interesting to watch?

You are touting side effects of creation. His main purpose is to create. How He might enjoy is not a reason for creation. Humanizing again.

dhw: Every modification, whether in the brain or in the body, requires the cooperation and coordination of cell communities. True or false?

Please answer.

Cells are designed to cooperate or life doesn't/can't exist.

dhw: If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? […]

DAVID: Wildly wrong comparison. Complexification involved specially designed cells to do one job with a new brain use. Many different body parts are involved in your proposals, fully described by me in the recent past, soft tissues and bony ones.

ALL parts of the body involve specially designed cells to do one job, and in order to meet new requirements, these cells cooperate with other cells to coordinate changes in the brain or in other parts of the body.

Not an answer. How they get designed is the point.>

Plant blooms pushed further back

QUOTES: Scientists in China say they have found the oldest flower bud in the fossil record, finally aligning the fossil evidence with the genetic data suggesting flowering plants, or angiosperms, evolved tens of millions of years earlier than we initially thought. (DAVID’S bold)

Because flowers are such delicate structures, they are notoriously difficult to find in fossils preceding the Cretaceous. Previous attempts to uncover the origin of flowering plants have been described as an "unbroken record of failure". (DAVID’S bold)

DAVID: Darwin's mystery is not solved as this is a still a sudden sudden appearance but the article makes two important statements I've bolded. The first shows the maths predicting genetic age work. The second speaks to dhw's constant complaint that gaps are missing fossils. […] We still have fact there are huge gaps in evolution supporting the need to recognize a designer at work.

dhw: You still expect a day-by-day fossil record of every species for 3,000,000,000+ years! Each find like this is a sensation, and find after find tells us that plants, animals and even hominins go back further than was once thought. I will make a bold statement. It's not the flower that makes a sudden appearance but the fossil. And I’ll bet every fossilized plant and animal that was ever found came from an earlier plant or animal. This fossil simply tells us flowers are older than was once thought. I can’t see how it supports the theory that there is a God who suddenly designed it “de novo”, and this particular flower was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food.

The obvious gap for flowering plants is still there 160+ years after Darwin noted it. It carries the same import as the Cambrian gap.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE:"Evolution of protein structures entails understanding how new folds arose from previously existing ones."

DAVID: The bold about one step leading to another is what dhw's complaints always seem to skip or minimize. This is a standard article without mentioning God. For me it shows God's planning at the beginning of life.

dhw: Of course one step leads to another – that is the nature of evolution. I complain about your theory that EVERY step leads to humans and their food. Please stop making up complaints for me and leaving out the theory that I do complain about.

Adler and I still will complain. Why can't you view God as desiring humans as a primary goal of God's designed evolutionary process?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum