More "miscellany" PART ONE (General)

by dhw, Thursday, November 24, 2022, 12:46 (6 days ago) @ David Turell


I have edited out all the entries dealt with on the theory of evolution thread.

How roots find water (concerning the subject of cellular intelligence)

DAVID: My view is just as valid as yours from the viewpoint that we look at cells from outside.

dhw: Yes, that’s your 50/50. So why do you insist on a 100% no? […]

DAVID: […] There is no argument cells operate intelligently. But we look from the outside. As we study the biochemistry of life on the inside, we find mind-boggling complexity, which logically leads to recognizing the need for a designing mind. Responding logic!

Yet again, you dodge from the point at issue to another which we have long since agreed on. I have never disputed the logic of the design theory. The issue here is whether cells have autonomous intelligence or not. You say 50/50, but 100% no they don’t.

Primordial enhancers

DAVID: the fact that this mechanism existed at the start of life strongly support design theory in that it is a design prepared for future use. A wise designer will set the process up this way.

dhw: There is a discrepancy here, as the site itself also calls it “the dawn of life”, but an early common ancestor a billion years ago is not the dawn of life. However, to take up your own point, of course if God exists he would have set up the early cellular mechanisms for future use. That encapsulates the whole theory of evolution with or without God: the first cells evolved into all subsequent species. But that is a very different theory from yours, which is that every future use was specially designed in advance of the changing conditions that required or allowed for new uses!

DAVID: Yes, the first cells that lived became us by evolution. But how did those special first cells appear? By magic? By chance? Or by design.

How many more times must I repeat that they may have been designed by your God? The point of my comment was to clarify that the first cells paved the way for all future uses, but the future uses themselves arose in response to new conditions (my proposal) and not in anticipation of them (your proposal).


DAVID: Adler and I agree about your complaint re' Adler. You know nothing about Adler. His discussions support my theories.

dhw: I don’t recall complaining about Adler. I only know what you tell me, which is that our uniqueness provides evidence of God’s existence (which applies to all life’s complexities – hence ID), and that he does not cover your irrational theories about evolution which we spend so much time repeating.

DAVID: BUT HE DOES. He analyzes evolution as natural, or GOD guided. Concluding natural would not have produced us, then God did it.

Then tell me how Adler explains his all-powerful God’s need to design all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food. If he is as mystified as you, then there is absolutely no point in your constantly referring to him.


DAVID: Remember Bechly: most major fossil finds are in the past. The Cambrian gap remains at 410,000 years. The new forms would have needed many millions of years to evolve 'naturally'.

dhw: By “naturally” you obviously mean without God’s personal direction, or by chance.

DAVID: No, I'm referencing the 'timing problem', described here many times. Any progress to new species by new natural mutations will always take millions of years.

Why “no”? This is the same comment as above, and since you believe only God could have done it in such a comparatively short time, by “naturally” you obviously mean without God or by chance! And as usual my response is that if your God could do it in that time, he could also have created the mechanisms (intelligent cells)) to do it in that time.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum