More "miscellany" PARTS ONE AND TWO (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 04, 2022, 09:31 (542 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] please explain why all the above characteristics do not count as “very human”.

DAVID: They are our human descriptions of a non-human personage.

So why are your human descriptions (e.g. God wanting control, enjoying and being interested in his creations, being kind) not human, whereas mine (e.g. not wanting control, wanting things to enjoy and be interested in) are “very human” and not to be considered?

DAVID: He has clearly defined purposes and knows exactly how to achieve them. His possible interest in them and enjoyment of creating are secondary to His primary goals, not reasons for His creating efforts.

dhw: Once more it’s plural purposes and “primary goals”, although you insist he only had one […]
No response.
dhw: How do you know that he knew exactly how to achieve his one goal, even though he proceeded to design countless organisms that had no connection with his one goal?
No response.
dhw: Why should interest and enjoyment NOT be his primary goals for creating life, including us?
No response.
dhw: What do you think your purposeful God’s “primary purpose” was for creating us?

DAVID: Frankly, I have no idea. Covered in the past, all guesswork.

Earlier you guessed that he wanted us to recognize and admire his work, and perhaps to have a relationship with him. Remember? Touchingly human! And why not, since you agree that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours? Perfectly feasible since you think he created them all in the first place.

Human evolution

dhw: [..] But of course once our brain had reached its current size, it coped with later requirements, just as earlier brains had done, through complexification.
And:
dhw: Our disagreement is on the cause and timing of each expansion. (You say your God dabbled in anticipation of future requirements, and I say brains expanded in response to current requirements.) And see the bolded statement above.

DAVID: Right. God speciates.

dhw: I have no idea what your agreement has to do with your God speciating, since we are discussing the cause and timing of sapiens’ brain expansion.

DAVID: Each newly expanded brain was in a new species!

And what has that got to do with the cause and timing of the expansion? What did you say “right” to? But we should perhaps stop there in view of the following bombshell:

Paleogenomics

QUOTES: Neanderthals hybridized both with modern humans and with Denisovans. Traces of both species’ DNA live on in human genomes today.

Xuchang 1 had a large brain volume of approximately 1800 cc, on the high end for Neanderthals and early modern humans, and well beyond the present-day human average.

Thank you again for continuing to educate us with these articles. I was intrigued by the first quote, and consulted Wikipedia for more information on Denisovans. There I found the second quote. You have often talked about the gigantic leap in the volume of the sapiens brain, but we know that Neanderthals had larger brains than ours. Now we know that Denisovans also had larger brains, I’ve learned that Heidelbergensis had the same sized brain as ours, and late erectus more or less overlapped with early sapiens! There never was a gigantic leap! If anything, there was shrinkage before sapiens took over. We may need to rethink our theories: first, we tried to explain sapiens' subsequent shrinkage (now apparently debunked), and then we tried to explain the gigantic leap, which apparently never happened!

How country ants urbanize

dhw: […] the article shows their amazing adaptability, as they figure out new ways of handling new conditions. I can’t help feeling that they do so by using their own intelligence, rather than God preprogramming every adaptation 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to give them courses.[…]

DAVID: Ants are part of an urban ecosystem we don't like, but they are necessary elsewhere.

Same question yet again: necessary for what? Would we humans run out of food and cease to exist if your God had not taught ants to live in our houses?

Plant immunity

DAVID: The question, of course, is how this developed, naturally or by God.

dhw: Why not both? All of these natural wonders point to one form or another of intelligence. Perception, processing of the information perceived, communication followed by action….these are all characteristics of intelligence – though of course not human levels of consciousness. Once you accept that all cells/communities have their own form and level of intelligence, everything else fits into place, including the higgledy-piggledy, free-for-all history of life on Earth, as intelligent organisms fight for survival. And your God may have set it up by designing the intelligent cell, and may also have dabbled if he felt like it (e.g. Chixculub, or even popping in with some new ideas of his own).

DAVID: You have covered all the bases except one: the cells contain from God all the instructions they need to act as if intelligent.

Your theory that 3.8 billion years ago your God issued instructions for anti-bark-beetle defence or alternatively gave ad hoc divine courses on the subject to enable him to design us and our food seems to me just a little far-fetched, but your faith is unshakable.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum