More "miscellany" PART ONE (General)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 31, 2023, 17:04 (126 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: I use excessive as meaning extra, spare or redundant, thus alive but hardly used at first.

dhw: Excessive means not used at all. They would not have been added if they were not needed!

We have dropped excessive, Answer me!

DAVID: We both agree the new brain can be used for some time in complexification before new neurons are necessary, thus, existing neurons are used up. That implies there were extra neurons in the beginning.

dhw: Extra = "additional", not "excessive". Stop dodging. The new neurons were added because they were needed at the time. The new and old neurons then became the existing neurons, and when their capacity for complexification proved inadequate, new neurons were added, and the process was repeated.

Nonsense! We agree complexification requires tying up a group of neurons into new networks and when all neurons are tied up a new brain is required. Our brain is still complexifying over 315,000 years. That means we still have a reserve of available neurons for more networks. Alive but in reserve. Provided 315,000 years ago.

dhw: You now agree that your God could have given past brains the same autonomy for expansion as he gave them for complexification. I’ll settle for that.

Anything is possible but not necessary.

Cellular intelligence (and "the cancer problem")

dhw: Intelligence only comes into play when new conditions require or allow cells to make changes. Why do you think cancer cells are intelligent, but cells that fight diseases are not?

DAVID: Cancer cells appearance of intelligence is because they have subverted DNA into abnornal actions.

dhw: “Appearance”? You said they were intelligent. I’d have thought their ability to counter our attempts to destroy them was evidence enough to support your statement. Meanwhile, you seem to have dropped the concept of random mutations, and you have ignored the point that intelligence only comes into play when conditions change.

Response to changing conditions can be al automatic.

Role of the centromere

dhw (re Buehler): I don’t know why you think you can dismiss a theory supported by other experts in the field, just because you have never heard of the cell biologist concerned.

DAVID: You have simply dug up views supporting your preconceived views.

dhw: […]. Why do you think that scientific support for a theory you don’t like entails prejudice? Do you object to your own references to ID science as denoting “preconceived views”?

DAVID: Yes, I had a preconceived view of biochemistry being so complex before I found ID, which agreed with my views.

dhw: So if a scientist agrees with your existing views, you are not prejudiced, but if a scientist disagrees with your views, anyone who believes them is prejudiced.This is called “double standards”.

Or nonprejudiced clear thinking and analysis

bacterial motors

DAVID: Because it is all automatic.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement – which some folk might even describe as “preconceived views”!

DAVID: Yes, preconceived from my own knowledge of biochemistry.

dhw:Which you believe to be greater than that of the specialists I have named.

No, equal to, and supported by a large group of ID specialists.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum