Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, June 11, 2023, 12:56 (529 days ago) @ David Turell

The human brain

DAVID: Different words, same agreement. New brains came so more complexification could occur with more new neurons present.

dhw: Not exactly “new”, as they retain their old neurons, but yes, you’ve finally cottoned on, so let’s have no more of this nonsense about “excessive”, “spare”, “redundant”, “reserve” neurons and oversized brains.

DAVID: Sorry, but new neurons are added to new larger brains in evolution.

Why are you sorry? I’m delighted that you’ve dropped your theory that the new neurons were excessive, spare, redundant and in reserve. Of course new neurons were added, but I suggest they were added to existing brains, not brains that were created de novo. I believe in common descent, i.e. that we and our brains are descended from earlier forms of homo.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: […] once an organ or organism or species is established, of course it must repeat its processes in order to remain itself. Intelligence only comes into play when conditions change and require or allow the cells to make changes to themselves. If single cells can do it autonomously, why can’t cell communities do the same?

DAVID: Yes, we see epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: I take it your “yes” now means that individual cells are autonomously intelligent and retain their autonomous intelligence when they form communities. Why do you mention epigenetic adaptations? Since bacteria can autonomously edit their DNA, do you think intelligent cells lose the ability to edit their DNA when they form communities?

DAVID: Epigenetics is one form of adaptation we see for cell intelligence, but no new speciation.

I know. But as you now accept that individual cells are autonomously intelligent (which enables them to edit their own DNA) and retain their autonomous intelligence when they form communities, why would they ever lose the ability to edit their own DNA – as is essential for speciation?

INFORMATION IS THE BASIS OF LIVING BIOLOGY.

DAVID: At least you admit information exists, but we shouldn't mention it.

dhw: Of course information exists, and I only object when you and others use the word so loosely, unnecessarily and misleadingly that it causes confusion and contradiction, as above and throughout this discussion.

DAVID: The word is commonly used intelligently, but you always bristle at it.

I frequently use it myself, and I only bristle when it is used in such a manner that it creates confusion and contradiction, as in your statement that information is never created “de novo”, and your belief that the inert information in DNA is the basis of living biology although inert DNA information cannot be used until there is already living biology to use it.

Bounce v Big Bang

DAVID: […] And as I believe the BB is God created, it came from nothing.

dhw: I don’t think many theists would define God as nothing. And if eternal bouncing universes can exist without a God, I don’t see why an eternal universe shouldn’t go bang without a God. Apparently most scientists agree that the BB didn’t need a God.

DAVID: Still Guth's point: no 'before' before the BB. The BB is a singularity de novo.

A point which we discussed at length, and which you finally rejected.

Homo habilis

dhw: All very mysterious, and highly relevant to many of our discussions. The incompleteness of the fossil record from approx. 3 million years ago emphasizes how unlikely it is that there could be a complete record from 600 million years ago (Cambrian) and earlier. Why so many transitional forms, if an all-powerful God only wanted one? What caused brain expansion? Just how sophisticated were our ancestors (see “Naledi burials” two days ago), and how “unique” is sapiens?

DAVID: See: Human evolution: genes driving toward sapiens (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Monday, April 26, 2021, 20:08 (775 days ago) @ David Turell

Special genes driving human evolution. Why? Not chance but God editing DNA.

No doubt because of my own technical incompetence, I’ve wasted a lot of time trying “search” in order to find this. Please summarize the argument. See above concerning intelligent cells, not chance, editing DNA.

We see only 5% of our universe

QUOTES: "The 20th century brought with it the realization that the majority of what we know and experience in this physical Universe — atoms, light, and the known subatomic particles along with everything they combine to form — makes up only 5% of the total amount of stuff in the Universe. The remaining 95% is a mixture of things that are completely “dark” to us…”

“From the latest observations and experiments, only 4.7-5.0% of the entire energy budget of the Universe can be composed of normal matter. The remaining 95%, whatever it is, must truly be dark."

Not for the first time, Ethan Siegel tells us something that we already know, and concludes that it is true.

Influence of Neanderthal genes

DAVID: these results are generalizations about genetic influences. Were these trysts consensual? I doubt it. Humans and Neanderthals coexisted side by side, but there is no evidence of cooperation.

I’m sorry, but if we have inherited Neanderthal genes, I can guarantee that at least one Neanderthal and one sapiens must have cooperated in the closest manner possible.