Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 16:29 (667 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 16:50

DAVID: In creating a universe, a special Earth to allow life. creating living forms, and then designing a series of forms which eventually reach a human form, so unusual it could not logically occur naturally that series of events shows stepwise purposes by a designing mind, which you accept with a 50/50 probability.

dhw: We are not discussing proof of design but the specific questions: if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food a) why do you think he individually created every life form etc. that had no connection with us?

He chose to evolve us stepwise from bacteria. I accept history as God's doing.

dhw: And b) if he was capable of designing species without precursors, why did he design us in stages? Your previous answer has been that you don’t know, and it “makes sense only to God”. Any change? (NB Please note that 50/50 does not mean rejection.)

Same answer! God's choice for His unknown reasons.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

dhw: How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?

DAVID:You scurry back to your obtuse view of how to design complexity. Designing living life forms is way beyond any form of modern technology. A very strained comparison don't you think?

dhw: You have missed the point. If you believe your God designed one mechanism that is capable of autonomous invention (the human brain), why are you so opposed to the possibility of his designing another mechanism that is also capable of autonomous invention (the intelligent cell)?

It is a possibility. That explains evolution is all God's doing by secondary intention. If you accept that point, you must necessarily accept God. Or why do you bother with that theory? Your answer?

Neurons control new connections

QUOTES: we showed that new synapses conform to the functional organization of synapses already present on a neuron through a game of cellular trial and error: when the neuron detects a synchronized cluster, it locally samples other nearby inputs until it finds one that is also in sync and gets rid of any new synapses that don't meet these requirements."

"'Our findings are even more incredible when considering that all the events described in this paper likely happen over a very small domain of a single neuron, suggesting that neurons must have a way to differentiate events occurring in one place on their dendrites vs. another," Hedrick said.

DAVID: neurons must know how to do this from the very beginning of brain function, or the brain could not learn. Fits the definition of irreducibly complex and therefore must have been designed.

dhw: Neurons are cells. The article shows how cells cooperate, and even a single cell samples, finds, gets rid of, has ways to differentiate, and – in your comment – “must know” what to do. And you agree that there is a 50/50 chance that this denotes autonomous intelligence. How wonderful that you consider the theory of the intelligent cell to be a 50/50 possibility.

Same old dodge. Tell me how cells become so intelligent all by themselves naturally?