Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, July 03, 2022, 09:19 (664 days ago) @ David Turell

Agnosticism

dhw: […] I don't see how you can find your theory very logical when you admit that it "makes sense only to God." You continue to dodge all those parts of your theory which make no sense when combined: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages.

DAVID: I don't know how to find your contention that God could have directly created us and complained that He didn't. Considering God as a designer, I believe 1,2 & 3 are all very reasonable thoughts. Humans were certainly a goal, per Adler's approach.

You keep ignoring the fact that it is the combination of these theories that makes no sense. I do not “complain” that he didn’t design us directly. I complain that the history (we evolved in stages) is not compatible with your combined theories that a) we were your God’s one and only goal, and b) he could have designed us without any precursors if he’d wanted to. 1, 2 and 3 are indeed reasonable thoughts, and that is why you focus on them separately, whereas it is their combination that makes no sense to you. What else are you referring to when you say you can’t explain your theory, I should go and ask God to explain it, and it “makes sense only to God”?

dhw: […] to counter your absurd accusation that I know better than your God what he should have done, I am assuming – unlike you – that he would have had logical reasons for everything he did.

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

dhw: [My alternative theories] offer logical explanations for what we know actually happened, and your only objection is that they entail human thought patterns which are different from the human thought patterns you attribute to him. […]

DAVID: Have you discard your very human God?

I don’t understand your question. I offer ALTERNATIVE theories, each of which follows on from one or other of your three premises. You reject them all because they entail human thought patterns, although you believe your God probably has human thought patterns. Another of your self-contradictions.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: The problem is outside appearances allow for either/or interpretations. […] The decision should not be based on innate prejudice. Mine is based on the requirement for a designer.

dhw: The theory of cellular intelligence does not exclude your designer! Your prejudice is your assumption that the designer would not design a mechanism which would be able to do its own designing. Again, why should I accept that your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” outweighs the deep knowledge of renowned experts in the field who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life?

DAVID: Your renowned experts used hyperbolic descriptions of cellular intelligent actions, implying innate intelligence as compared to intelligently designed instructions.

My renowned experts believe that cells are intelligent. You believe the odds are 50/50, but for you, 50/50 means 100% no. It is your belief that their expert descriptions are “hyperbolic”, and that cells only obey your God’s instructions. I presume you justify your beliefs because you regard your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” as deeper than theirs.

Recovery from brain damage

QUOTES: "What the researchers saw was striking. Two months after an injury to the hippocampus, a brain region involved in learning and memory, neural circuits in the mice brains had reconfigured themselves.”

Sounds as if they know what they’re doing.

"'It looks like the entire brain is being carefully rewired to accommodate for the damage, regardless of whether there was direct injury to the region or not…"

If your God exists, didn’t write a book of instructions 3.8 billion years ago for mouse-brain rewiring, or doesn’t pop in whenever a mouse injures itself, I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

"In their imaging explorations, the team also found signs that the machinery brain cells use to establish distant connections remained intact after a severe injury. This bodes well for recovery because, Hunt says, it suggests there may be a way to entice the injured brain to repair lost connections on its own."

I guess that’s the aim of most medical treatment: to help the cells get back to their normal autonomy.

Human only networks

QUOTE: 'Interneurons make about a fourth to a third of cortical nerve cells that behave in a very peculiar way: they are highly active, however, not to activate other neurons, rather to silence them. Just like kindergarten caretakers, or guards in the museum: their very laborious and highly energy consuming activity is to keep others peaceful, quiet.”

Here we have a very vivid description of how intelligent cells organize themselves. We only need to substitute “communities” for “networks” to see how the system works.