More "miscellany" PART ONE (General)

by dhw, Thursday, June 01, 2023, 12:17 (301 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

The human brain

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!

DAVID: We have dropped excessive, Answer me!

There is nothing to answer. I don’t know why you say “we”. You kept telling us that there were excessive neurons (as you've just defined the word), and brains were oversized, because your God had inserted more neurons than necessary, in anticipation of requirements that did not yet exist. You have now agreed that there were no excessive neurons and brains were not oversized. But instead of dropping the subject, you change excessive to extra and then repeat what we have agreed as if you were contradicting 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.

DAVID: 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.

Not a “new” brain but an enlarged brain. Otherwise. Yes. You've repeated what I've said in different words, so what is the "nonsense"?

DAVID: 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.

Why do call them a “reserve”? A new term, just to try and muddy the waters. Something in reserve is not used until it is needed. That means they were in excess of what was needed at the beginning (i.e. they were not used), whereas you have just agreed that they WERE used and were not excessive. Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

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.

DAVID: Response to changing conditions can be al automatic.

Only if your God had preprogrammed the first cells to solve every problem and cope with or exploit every change in conditions that would arise for every life form that would exist throughout the next few billion years until life comes to an end. Alternatively, your God would have to step in every time conditions changed.

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”.

DAVID: Or nonprejudiced clear thinking and analysis

So you believe Margulis, McClintock, Buehler and Shapiro were/are all prejudiced, muddled thinkers. Only those experts who agree with you are clear thinking and impartial.

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.

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

I don’t mind “equal to”. If they are equal, your authoritative “it is all automatic” is balanced by other scientists who say “it is not all automatic”. And it is therefore sheer nonsense to claim that your view is nonprejudiced and clear thinking, and theirs is not.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum