More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 15:21 (130 days ago) @ dhw

Mechanisms

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Not an answer. How they get designed is the point.

dhw: Staying with your God’s role, you agree that he must have designed a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain cells (he doesn’t supervise every complexification as it responds to every new requirement), and so why should the same mechanism not be used for expansion of the brain and of the birth canal as the cells respond to new requirements? That is the question which you have not answered.

One set of cooperating neurons is not the same as skull bone cells anticipating the size needs of a suddenly grown brain. No comparison!


Plant blooms pushed further back

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

dhw: And I have offered you two possible theories (inevitable absence of fossils, cellular intelligence) to explain the gaps, while you have offered one (your God designed new species that had no predecessors – and, by the way, every single one was part of his goal to design humans plus food).

Same positions.


Theoretical origin of life
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.

DAVID: 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?

Not “a primary goal”, according to you, because you believe he only had the one goal, and when will you (leave Adler out, since you say he doesn’t deal with your theory) finally explain to us why a God whose one and only goal was to design humans plus food took all the trouble to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? (I continue to bold this, because you continue to leave it out in all your responses, except when you admit you have no idea.)

Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.


Biochemistry
An oddball molecule demonstrate how organic molecules can change shape:
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-shape-shifter-molecule.html
QUOTES: What is a nightmare for some chemists, others see as an opportunity because bond fluctuation also means that the molecule can react very quickly to external stimuli.

dhw: (This one comes right at the end of the article:) They [the authors] anticipate that their bullvalene taming could help in the development of molecular systems where fast adaptation to external stimuli is required.

These two quotes illustrate the basic principle behind the “cellular intelligence” theory (which allows for God as the designer of the mechanism), and the speed may explain the gaps. However, it requires more than “adaptation”, which is why I add “exploitation” in my theory, since it is exploitation of new stimuli that leads to innovation, whereas adaptation generally means the species stays the same.

Hilarious thought; this is a manmade molecule they are taming, not anything in nature. And all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity. You've not added anything new.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum