More Miscellany (General)
I posted this five hours ago, but it and all previous posts have disappeared! It's a complete mystery! We have to start again.
Origin of humans
dhw: […] you yourself can’t understand why [your God] didn’t create us directly. I’m suggesting he may have had good reasons for not doing so (e.g. experimentation, a new idea, a free-for-all), but you reject them all in favour of making your God a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.
DAVID: You ignore my now ancient answer: the various adaptations perfected us!
You have ignored my now ancient objection: why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose only purpose is to design H. sapiens, not do so directly? If he designed every adaptation individually, couldn’t that suggest experimentation, or new ideas, rather than the omniscience required for direct creation?
Darwin’s survival theory
dhw: I’m happy with your acknowledgement that [your God] would have expanded the brain originally in order to improve chances of survival. It is therefore wrong to claim that the human brain cannot be explained by Darwin’s survival theory.
DAVID: Still disagree. The 315,000-year-old brain was much too adequate for those times.
You agree that your God’s original purpose was to improve chances of survival, and your God did not control subsequent complexifications. These resulted from new ideas, many of which were and are extensions of basic survival improvements through inventions, discoveries and institutions. All perfectly in keeping with Darwin’s theory of survival.
Evolution, David and Adler
DAVID: God chose to evolve us, and you complain.
dhw: I complain about your wacky theories, and your constant effort to divert attention away from them by focusing on Adler’s evidence for God’s existence.
DAVID: Not a diversion but a strong point he made which counters your confused approach.
Proving God’s existence does not provide any support for your illogical theory of evolution, which you can’t explain. How does that make my approach “confused”?
Introducing the brain: Defining sex differences
dhw: Perhaps those who wish to change sex already have a mixture of proteins that creates the wish or feeling. That would be another area for the team to explore.
DAVID: We'll wait for a slew of trans brains to study.
It could make a big difference to negative social attitudes if scientists could explain these feelings as natural consequences of brain differences.
Mummies with parasites
DAVID: Thank goodness we know how to protect ourselves now. This was a major part of our civilized evolution. Big brains sure help.
dhw: There are still plenty of lethal bugs around. And in the context of [...] theodicy, we should not forget your statement that it is fair to “blame God for natural disasters” which include “bugs causing diseases”.
DAVID: It is the degree of blame that is important. Proportionality.
See “Theodicy”.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
ID’s answer
QUOTE: The design of nature requires an explanation, an ultimate explanation. Rather than explain, invoking “teleonomy” just dodges the question. If we say that natural selection and random variation cannot explain something, evolutionary biologists can say, “Well, it’s not random variation, it’s goal-oriented.” If we ask where the goal-oriented-ness itself came from, they will say “natural selection.” The question returns to where it began; a final cause for the existence of design in nature has yet to be proposed.
DAVID: Good old Shapiro is back. Long ago we concluded natural selection is passive. Now suddenly with wishful thinking it is active again. As humans, who plan with purpose, we know a mind must be involved to plan the demonstrated intricacies of living biochemistry!
Yes, we have long since agreed that natural selection does not create anything, and nowhere is it mentioned in the description. It is the ID person who brings it in, and then erects a straw man entirely of his own making. The two quotes above could hardly be clearer: all the authors believe that organisms do their own designing, which is the exact opposite of random mutations. And of course they design with purpose! Every organism’s prime purpose is survival, and every evolutionary development either enables survival or improves the chances of survival.
The question your ID expert has every right to ask is how could this autonomous ability have originated? But that is evidently not the subject of the book, just as Darwin begins with Chapter 2 of life: the origin of species, not of life. There is no reason why any religious person or ID-er should think these findings exclude the possibility of God as the designer of the processes that enable organisms to pursue their own purpose in their own way, from “cognition and decision-making in plants to the niche-construction activities of many organisms to the self-making evolution of humankind.”
More Miscellany
by David Turell 
, Saturday, April 06, 2024, 16:16 (229 days ago) @ dhw
Origin of humans
You have ignored my now ancient objection: why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose only purpose is to design H. sapiens, not do so directly? If he designed every adaptation individually, couldn’t that suggest experimentation, or new ideas, rather than the omniscience required for direct creation?
God chose to evolve us as a purpose, stepwise, for His own unknown reasons. Experimentation not necessary as He is omniscient.
Darwin’s survival theorydhw: I’m happy with your acknowledgement that [your God] would have expanded the brain originally in order to improve chances of survival. It is therefore wrong to claim that the human brain cannot be explained by Darwin’s survival theory.
DAVID: Still disagree. The 315,000-year-old brain was much too adequate for those times.
dhw: You agree that your God’s original purpose was to improve chances of survival, and your God did not control subsequent complexifications. These resulted from new ideas, many of which were and are extensions of basic survival improvements through inventions, discoveries and institutions. All perfectly in keeping with Darwin’s theory of survival.
As a very limited view of it. Adler used the very opposite view.
Evolution, David and AdlerDAVID: God chose to evolve us, and you complain.
dhw: I complain about your wacky theories, and your constant effort to divert attention away from them by focusing on Adler’s evidence for God’s existence.
DAVID: Not a diversion but a strong point he made which counters your confused approach.
dhw: Proving God’s existence does not provide any support for your illogical theory of evolution, which you can’t explain. How does that make my approach “confused”?
You are confused about God's choice to evolve us for His own unknown reasons.
Introducing the brain: Defining sex differencesDAVID: We'll wait for a slew of trans brains to study.
dhw: It could make a big difference to negative social attitudes if scientists could explain these feelings as natural consequences of brain differences.
What is now true is obvious very male and quite feminine homosexuals, with exactly the same in lesbians: 'butch' and very feminine.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
ID’s answer
QUOTE: The design of nature requires an explanation, an ultimate explanation. Rather than explain, invoking “teleonomy” just dodges the question. If we say that natural selection and random variation cannot explain something, evolutionary biologists can say, “Well, it’s not random variation, it’s goal-oriented.” If we ask where the goal-oriented-ness itself came from, they will say “natural selection.” The question returns to where it began; a final cause for the existence of design in nature has yet to be proposed.
DAVID: Good old Shapiro is back. Long ago we concluded natural selection is passive. Now suddenly with wishful thinking it is active again. As humans, who plan with purpose, we know a mind must be involved to plan the demonstrated intricacies of living biochemistry!
dhw: Yes, we have long since agreed that natural selection does not create anything, and nowhere is it mentioned in the description. It is the ID person who brings it in, and then erects a straw man entirely of his own making. The two quotes above could hardly be clearer: all the authors believe that organisms do their own designing, which is the exact opposite of random mutations. And of course they design with purpose! Every organism’s prime purpose is survival, and every evolutionary development either enables survival or improves the chances of survival.
The question your ID expert has every right to ask is how could this autonomous ability have originated? But that is evidently not the subject of the book, just as Darwin begins with Chapter 2 of life: the origin of species, not of life. There is no reason why any religious person or ID-er should think these findings exclude the possibility of God as the designer of the processes that enable organisms to pursue their own purpose in their own way, from “cognition and decision-making in plants to the niche-construction activities of many organisms to the self-making evolution of humankind.”
You've made a good review. ID accepts God. What you have avoided is the obvious purpose in evolution, the point of the book, which it tries to explain.
More Miscellany
Origin of humans
dhw: You have ignored my now ancient objection: why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God whose only purpose is to design H. sapiens, not do so directly? If he designed every adaptation individually, couldn’t that suggest experimentation, or new ideas, rather than the omniscience required for direct creation?
DAVID: God chose to evolve us as a purpose, stepwise, for His own unknown reasons. Experimentation not necessary as He is omniscient.
Omniscience is another attribute you wish for. Experimentation would not be necessary IF he was omniscient. Hence the question why an omniscient God with only one purpose (sapiens plus food) would not design us directly. “Unknown reasons!” you cry, as if that explained anything! God experimenting and learning would be a logical answer. Your response: “That goes against the God I wish for.”
Darwin’s survival theory
dhw: You agree that your God’s original purpose was to improve chances of survival, and your God did not control subsequent complexifications. These resulted from new ideas, many of which were and are extensions of basic survival improvements through inventions, discoveries and institutions. All perfectly in keeping with Darwin’s theory of survival.
DAVID: As a very limited view of it. Adler used the very opposite view.
Please stop hiding behind Adler. All of the above illustrates the obvious link between the human brain and its ever-present use from origin to present in the cause of survival. Your wish that your God gave it neurons that would not be used or only barely used for 290,000 years does not invalidate the theory that it originated as a continuation of the quest for improved chances of survival. Darwin’s theory is not wrong.
Introducing the brain: Defining sex differences
DAVID: We'll wait for a slew of trans brains to study.
dhw: It could make a big difference to negative social attitudes if scientists could explain these feelings as natural consequences of brain differences.
DAVID: What is now true is obvious very male and quite feminine homosexuals, with exactly the same in lesbians: 'butch' and very feminine.
Indeed. And horrifically they were once branded as criminals (and still are in some cultures). There are vast numbers of animal species that are also gay, and I’m sure their brain wiring would be different too, as would “trans brains”. But I must admit that the latter do create social problems that do not arise from homosexuality and lesbianism. No blame attached, but in the competitive world of sport, and in places like prisons and public lavatories, integration of “trans” people is a tricky matter which is causing a lot of controversy over here.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
ID’s answer
I’ll summarize my response, which was that the author devised a straw man by pretending that the book sets up natural selection and random mutations as the answer to ID. It doesn’t. The above quotes propose that evolution develops through the autonomous ability of organisms to do their own designing. The ID reviewer then criticizes the book for not dealing with the origin of life (or in this case the origin of cellular autonomy), but that is not the subject the book is concerned with (unless the description is horribly selective).
DAVID: You've made a good review. ID accepts God. What you have avoided is the obvious purpose in evolution, the point of the book, which it tries to explain.
I didn’t avoid it. I wrote: “Of course they design with purpose! Every organisms‘s prime purpose is survival, and every evolutionary development either enables survival or improves the chances of survival.”
Handedness origin
QUOTES: "Monkeys that adopted an urban lifestyle in India are mostly left-handed – in contrast to humans and many other primates that live on the ground.”
"The findings clash with long-standing claims that primates that come down from the trees generally evolve a tendency to be right-handed, raising questions about what really drives this trait.”
I am applying for a grant to conduct a worldwide survey in order to establish the exact proportion of right and left handedness in monkeys and babies, and how this proportion is proportioned in proportion to the right and left handedness of parents and grandparents. All contributions will be most welcome.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Sunday, April 07, 2024, 15:08 (228 days ago) @ dhw
Origin of humans
DAVID: God chose to evolve us as a purpose, stepwise, for His own unknown reasons. Experimentation not necessary as He is omniscient.
dhw: Omniscience is another attribute you wish for. Experimentation would not be necessary IF he was omniscient. Hence the question why an omniscient God with only one purpose (sapiens plus food) would not design us directly. “Unknown reasons!” you cry, as if that explained anything! God experimenting and learning would be a logical answer. Your response: “That goes against the God I wish for.”
Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!
Darwin’s survival theorydhw: You agree that your God’s original purpose was to improve chances of survival, and your God did not control subsequent complexifications. These resulted from new ideas, many of which were and are extensions of basic survival improvements through inventions, discoveries and institutions. All perfectly in keeping with Darwin’s theory of survival.
DAVID: As a very limited view of it. Adler used the very opposite view.
dhw: Please stop hiding behind Adler. All of the above illustrates the obvious link between the human brain and its ever-present use from origin to present in the cause of survival. Your wish that your God gave it neurons that would not be used or only barely used for 290,000 years does not invalidate the theory that it originated as a continuation of the quest for improved chances of survival. Darwin’s theory is not wrong.
Survival and common descent everyone agrees to. Only some see God the designer.
Introducing the brain: Defining sex differencesDAVID: We'll wait for a slew of trans brains to study.
dhw: It could make a big difference to negative social attitudes if scientists could explain these feelings as natural consequences of brain differences.
DAVID: What is now true is obvious very male and quite feminine homosexuals, with exactly the same in lesbians: 'butch' and very feminine.
dhw: Indeed. And horrifically they were once branded as criminals (and still are in some cultures). There are vast numbers of animal species that are also gay, and I’m sure their brain wiring would be different too, as would “trans brains”. But I must admit that the latter do create social problems that do not arise from homosexuality and lesbianism. No blame attached, but in the competitive world of sport, and in places like prisons and public lavatories, integration of “trans” people is a tricky matter which is causing a lot of controversy over here.
AND here.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
ID’s answer
dhw: I’ll summarize my response, which was that the author devised a straw man by pretending that the book sets up natural selection and random mutations as the answer to ID. It doesn’t. The above quotes propose that evolution develops through the autonomous ability of organisms to do their own designing. The ID reviewer then criticizes the book for not dealing with the origin of life (or in this case the origin of cellular autonomy), but that is not the subject the book is concerned with (unless the description is horribly selective).
DAVID: You've made a good review. ID accepts God. What you have avoided is the obvious purpose in evolution, the point of the book, which it tries to explain.
dhw: I didn’t avoid it. I wrote: “Of course they design with purpose! Every organisms‘s prime purpose is survival, and every evolutionary development either enables survival or improves the chances of survival.”
The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
Handedness originQUOTES: "Monkeys that adopted an urban lifestyle in India are mostly left-handed – in contrast to humans and many other primates that live on the ground.”
"The findings clash with long-standing claims that primates that come down from the trees generally evolve a tendency to be right-handed, raising questions about what really drives this trait.”
dhw: I am applying for a grant to conduct a worldwide survey in order to establish the exact proportion of right and left handedness in monkeys and babies, and how this proportion is proportioned in proportion to the right and left handedness of parents and grandparents. All contributions will be most welcome.
From my lefty point of view I'll help.
More Miscellany
Origin of humans
DAVID: God chose to evolve us as a purpose, stepwise, for His own unknown reasons. Experimentation not necessary as He is omniscient.
dhw: Omniscience is another attribute you wish for. Experimentation would not be necessary IF he was omniscient. Hence the question why an omniscient God with only one purpose (sapiens plus food) would not design us directly. “Unknown reasons!” you cry, as if that explained anything! God experimenting and learning would be a logical answer. Your response: “That goes against the God I wish for.”
DAVID: Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!
Nobody knows God’s logic or his purpose or his nature. Not even theologians agree amongst themselves, and I’m sorry, but when you present us with theories which defy logic and depend entirely on irrational faith that the God you wish for is the real God, I don’t “refuse” to understand them. I join you in not understanding them, but I don’t join you in accepting them.
Darwin’s survival theory
dhw: You agree that your God’s original purpose was to improve chances of survival, and your God did not control subsequent complexifications. These resulted from new ideas, many of which were and are extensions of basic survival improvements through inventions, discoveries and institutions. All perfectly in keeping with Darwin’s theory of survival. […]
DAVID: Survival and common descent everyone agrees to. Only some see God the designer.
Thank you for agreeing that Darwin’s survival theory is correct. Darwin himself had no objection to the theory that God was the designer of the processes that led to the evolution of the human brain and every other product of evolution.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
I shan’t repeat ID’s answer which, by way of a straw man concerning natural selection, simply objected to the fact that the book appears not to have discussed the origin of life and of intelligent design.
DAVID: You've made a good review. ID accepts God. What you have avoided is the obvious purpose in evolution, the point of the book, which it tries to explain.
dhw: I didn’t avoid it. I wrote: “Of course they design with purpose! Every organism‘s prime purpose is survival, and every evolutionary development either enables survival or improves the chances of survival.”
DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
And clearly the book – like Darwin’s Origin of Species – was dedicated to the theory I have bolded above, the point being that evolution is driven by the purposeful actions of the organisms themselves, as they adapt to or exploit new conditions in the great quest for survival. The origin of life and all its mechanisms is a different subject.
Handedness origin
dhw: I am applying for a grant to conduct a worldwide survey in order to establish the exact proportion of right and left handedness in monkeys and babies, and how this proportion is proportioned in proportion to the right and left handedness of parents and grandparents. All contributions will be most welcome.
DAVID: From my lefty point of view I'll help.
I’ll accept contributions from lefties and righties. You know how open-minded I am!
Evolution: transitional fish, Tiktaalik new findings
QUOTE: "'Tiktaalik is remarkable because it gives us glimpses into this major evolutionary transition," Stewart said. "Across its whole skeleton, we see a combination of traits that are typical of fish and life in water as well as traits that are seen in land-dwelling animals."
DAVID: the authors of this article see the purpose in evolution as they describe the advances related to walking.
It’s truly amazing how frequently we are presented with new findings. My thanks, as always, to David.
This one is very revealing. There is no “advance related to walking”. Different conditions demand different means of locomotion. Fins are better for water, and legs are better for land. In this clear filling of gaps, the authors point out the similarities and developments that confirm the theory of common descent, and they show that the purpose of all these structural changes is to improve the respective organisms’ chances of survival in different environments.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 19:16 (225 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 19:23
Origin of humans
DAVID: Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!
dhw: Nobody knows God’s logic or his purpose or his nature. Not even theologians agree amongst themselves, and I’m sorry, but when you present us with theories which defy logic and depend entirely on irrational faith that the God you wish for is the real God, I don’t “refuse” to understand them. I join you in not understanding them, but I don’t join you in accepting them.
I know that.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
dhw: I shan’t repeat ID’s answer which, by way of a straw man concerning natural selection, simply objected to the fact that the book appears not to have discussed the origin of life and of intelligent design.
DAVID: You've made a good review. ID accepts God. What you have avoided is the obvious purpose in evolution, the point of the book, which it tries to explain.
dhw: I didn’t avoid it. I wrote: “Of course they design with purpose! Every organism‘s prime purpose is survival, and every evolutionary development either enables survival or improves the chances of survival.”
DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
dhw: And clearly the book – like Darwin’s Origin of Species – was dedicated to the theory I have bolded above, the point being that evolution is driven by the purposeful actions of the organisms themselves, as they adapt to or exploit new conditions in the great quest for survival. The origin of life and all its mechanisms is a different subject.
And the book asks, what gave those organisms that purposeful drive? Trilobites lasted 250 million years. As Raup shows, only extinction forced a new change. One could ask, lasting that long, why bother to improve survival with a better form?
Handedness origindhw: I am applying for a grant to conduct a worldwide survey in order to establish the exact proportion of right and left handedness in monkeys and babies, and how this proportion is proportioned in proportion to the right and left handedness of parents and grandparents. All contributions will be most welcome.
DAVID: From my lefty point of view I'll help.
dhw: I’ll accept contributions from lefties and righties. You know how open-minded I am!
Evolution: transitional fish, Tiktaalik new findings
QUOTE: "'Tiktaalik is remarkable because it gives us glimpses into this major evolutionary transition," Stewart said. "Across its whole skeleton, we see a combination of traits that are typical of fish and life in water as well as traits that are seen in land-dwelling animals."
DAVID: the authors of this article see the purpose in evolution as they describe the advances related to walking.
dhw: It’s truly amazing how frequently we are presented with new findings. My thanks, as always, to David.
This one is very revealing. There is no “advance related to walking”. Different conditions demand different means of locomotion. Fins are better for water, and legs are better for land. In this clear filling of gaps, the authors point out the similarities and developments that confirm the theory of common descent, and they show that the purpose of all these structural changes is to improve the respective organisms’ chances of survival in different environments.
No question Tiktaalik fits the bill.
More Miscellany
Origin of humans
DAVID: Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!
dhw: Nobody knows God’s logic or his purpose or his nature. Not even theologians agree amongst themselves, and I’m sorry, but when you present us with theories which defy logic and depend entirely on irrational faith that the God you wish for is the real God, I don’t “refuse” to understand them. I join you in not understanding them, but I don’t join you in accepting them.
DAVID: I know that.
So you know I don’t “refuse” to understand your wacky theological theories but, like yourself, can’t find any logical reason for supporting them. And I can’t join you in faithfully accepting your own wishful thinking.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable."
DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
And he has no right to do so, since the book is manifestly not about God and some divine purpose but about the purposeful mechanisms that have driven evolution.
dhw: […] the point being that evolution is driven by the purposeful actions of the organisms themselves, as they adapt to or exploit new conditions in the great quest for survival. The origin of life and all its mechanisms is a different subject.
DAVID: And the book asks, what gave those organisms that purposeful drive? Trilobites lasted 250 million years. As Raup shows, only extinction forced a new change. One could ask, lasting that long, why bother to improve survival with a better form?
The book apparently shows us the different ways in which organisms design themselves. You and the reviewer seem to be criticizing it because you think the authors should have dealt with a different subject.
Evolution: transitional fish, Tiktaalik new findings
QUOTE: "'Tiktaalik is remarkable because it gives us glimpses into this major evolutionary transition," Stewart said. "Across its whole skeleton, we see a combination of traits that are typical of fish and life in water as well as traits that are seen in land-dwelling animals."
DAVID: the authors of this article see the purpose in evolution as they describe the advances related to walking.
dhw: There is no “advance related to walking”. Different conditions demand different means of locomotion. Fins are better for water, and legs are better for land. In this clear filling of gaps, the authors point out the similarities and developments that confirm the theory of common descent, and they show that the purpose of all these structural changes is to improve the respective organisms’ chances of survival in different environments.
DAVID: No question Tiktaalik fits the bill.
Nice to be in agreement! 
Giant viruses
DAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.
Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.) You’ve used the present tense, so please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 21:27 (224 days ago) @ dhw
Origin of humans
DAVID: Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!
dhw: Nobody knows God’s logic or his purpose or his nature. Not even theologians agree amongst themselves, and I’m sorry, but when you present us with theories which defy logic and depend entirely on irrational faith that the God you wish for is the real God, I don’t “refuse” to understand them. I join you in not understanding them, but I don’t join you in accepting them.
DAVID: I know that.
dhw: So you know I don’t “refuse” to understand your wacky theological theories but, like yourself, can’t find any logical reason for supporting them. And I can’t join you in faithfully accepting your own wishful thinking.
I'm sorry you can't jump in and see the logic.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable."
DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
dhw: And he has no right to do so, since the book is manifestly not about God and some divine purpose but about the purposeful mechanisms that have driven evolution.
And he questions where did that purpose come from? And you object to that?
dhw: […] the point being that evolution is driven by the purposeful actions of the organisms themselves, as they adapt to or exploit new conditions in the great quest for survival. The origin of life and all its mechanisms is a different subject.DAVID: And the book asks, what gave those organisms that purposeful drive? Trilobites lasted 250 million years. As Raup shows, only extinction forced a new change. One could ask, lasting that long, why bother to improve survival with a better form?
dhw: The book apparently shows us the different ways in which organisms design themselves. You and the reviewer seem to be criticizing it because you think the authors should have dealt with a different subject.
Same subject, different questions with possible answers you seem to avoid.
Evolution: transitional fish, Tiktaalik new findingsQUOTE: "'Tiktaalik is remarkable because it gives us glimpses into this major evolutionary transition," Stewart said. "Across its whole skeleton, we see a combination of traits that are typical of fish and life in water as well as traits that are seen in land-dwelling animals."
DAVID: the authors of this article see the purpose in evolution as they describe the advances related to walking.
dhw: There is no “advance related to walking”. Different conditions demand different means of locomotion. Fins are better for water, and legs are better for land. In this clear filling of gaps, the authors point out the similarities and developments that confirm the theory of common descent, and they show that the purpose of all these structural changes is to improve the respective organisms’ chances of survival in different environments.
DAVID: No question Tiktaalik fits the bill.
dhw: Nice to be in agreement!
Giant viruses
DAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.
dhw: Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.)
Same weird total distortion of the evolutionary process. The 99.9% must be linked to the now living or the now living would not be here.
dhw: You’ve used the present tense, so please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
More Miscellany
Origin of humans
DAVID: Your dive into God's brain is your refusal to understand theologian's views. Your logic is not God's logic!
dhw: […] I don’t “refuse” to understand your wacky theological theories but, like yourself, can’t find any logical reason for supporting them. And I can’t join you in faithfully accepting your own wishful thinking.
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't jump in and see the logic.
The only logic you have offered us is the design theory. You admit that you can’t find any logic in your theory of evolution, and that your often self-contradictory views of your God’s nature are based on your wishes, not on “logic”.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
QUOTES:[the authors have explored] “in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.”
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable."
DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
dhw: And he has no right to do so, since the book is manifestly not about God and some divine purpose but about the purposeful mechanisms that have driven evolution.
DAVID: And he questions where did that purpose come from? And you object to that?
I do not think a reviewer should criticize a book for not dealing with the subject he/she would like it to deal with. Why should a scientific study of how evolution works have to discuss theology?
DAVID: Same subject, different questions with possible answers you seem to avoid.
How evolution works is not the same subject as how life might have originated. During your medical career, when you were studying how diseases developed, and what was needed to cure them, I hope you didn’t spend half the time explaining to your patients that God had a purpose in creating the bugs and had given you your great brain in the hope that you would find an antidote. The purpose of science is not always to wed itself to philosophy and theology.
Giant viruses
DAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.
dhw: Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.)
DAVID: Same weird total distortion of the evolutionary process. The 99.9% must be linked to the now living or the now living would not be here.
Off you go again. You have agreed that it is the 0.1% that are linked to the now living. How many more times?
(dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.)
dhw: […] please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
Cell complexity: formation of the centriole
DAVID: I cannot reproduce any portion of this study which is filled with picture illustrations of all the steps and parts. If possible open the website and skim through. The complexity of the design will be startling.
I have skimmed. It’s way beyond my comprehension, but that is a point in itself: I’m amazed by the fact that humans are able to analyse the different parts of such a tiny organism, and the amazement is massively multiplied when we think of the design itself. This is where faith in chance becomes as irrational as faith in an unknown, unknowable, immaterial, eternal, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good form of consciousness.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Friday, April 12, 2024, 21:27 (223 days ago) @ dhw
Origin of humans
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't jump in and see the logic.
The only logic you have offered us is the design theory. You admit that you can’t find any logic in your theory of evolution, and that your often self-contradictory views of your God’s nature are based on your wishes, not on “logic”.
You won't see the purpose, so the logic never shows up.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
DAVID: The reviewer is looking for purpose as God evolved us.
dhw: And he has no right to do so, since the book is manifestly not about God and some divine purpose but about the purposeful mechanisms that have driven evolution.
DAVID: And he questions where did that purpose come from? And you object to that?
dhw: I do not think a reviewer should criticize a book for not dealing with the subject he/she would like it to deal with. Why should a scientific study of how evolution works have to discuss theology?
DAVID: Same subject, different questions with possible answers you seem to avoid.
dhw: How evolution works is not the same subject as how life might have originated. During your medical career, when you were studying how diseases developed, and what was needed to cure them, I hope you didn’t spend half the time explaining to your patients that God had a purpose in creating the bugs and had given you your great brain in the hope that you would find an antidote. The purpose of science is not always to wed itself to philosophy and theology.
Of course not. But a reviewer is free to review however he wishes. A book is not presented with any iron-bound rules that it must be seen from one rigid viewpoint. The reviewer used it to make his point. Why does that bother you?
Giant virusesDAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.
dhw: Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.)
DAVID: Same weird total distortion of the evolutionary process. The 99.9% must be linked to the now living or the now living would not be here.
dhw: Off you go again. You have agreed that it is the 0.1% that are linked to the now living. How many more times?
If you don't like my reasoning, try and understand it from the viewpoint of a purposeful designer.
(dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.)dhw: […] please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
dhw: Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
Millions died or are impaired. Where did you find such statistics to extrapolate?
Cell complexity: formation of the centrioleDAVID: I cannot reproduce any portion of this study which is filled with picture illustrations of all the steps and parts. If possible open the website and skim through. The complexity of the design will be startling.
dhw: I have skimmed. It’s way beyond my comprehension, but that is a point in itself: I’m amazed by the fact that humans are able to analyse the different parts of such a tiny organism, and the amazement is massively multiplied when we think of the design itself. This is where faith in chance becomes as irrational as faith in an unknown, unknowable, immaterial, eternal, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good form of consciousness.
Quite an intricate design, isn't it? Yes, chance is an irrational conclusion. But we mustn't conclude a designing mind might exist. The big step is MUST exist.
More Miscellany
Origin of humans
DAVID: I'm sorry you can't jump in and see the logic.
dhw: The only logic you have offered us is the design theory. You admit that you can’t find any logic in your theory of evolution, and that your often self-contradictory views of your God’s nature are based on your wishes, not on “logic”.
DAVID: You won't see the purpose, so the logic never shows up.
I see your wishes and what you agree is your irrational faith that they are the reality. I note that you can’t find any logic to support your faith in your messy and inefficient theory of evolution, and you have no evidence to support your often contradictory faith that the God you wish for is the real God.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
dhw: I do not think a reviewer should criticize a book for not dealing with the subject he/she would like it to deal with. Why should a scientific study of how evolution works have to discuss theology? […]
DAVID: a reviewer is free to review however he wishes. A book is not presented with any iron-bound rules that it must be seen from one rigid viewpoint. The reviewer used it to make his point. Why does that bother you?
Of course anyone can write whatever they want to write. Go and see “King Lear” and write a review castigating Shakespeare for not making it a comedy. This review bothers me because I think critics should judge such a work by the degree to which it fulfils the purpose it sets out to fulfil. I can only comment on the article you presented to us, but the quotes suggest that it is a scientific study of the manner in which plants and animals design their own means of survival. As a potential reader, I want to know what the book is about, and whether the reviewer finds it convincing. If not, why not? I don’t expect the reviewer to ignore the actual subject and complain that the authors didn’t write about the subject he/she is interested in.
Giant viruses
DAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.
dhw: Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.)
DAVID: If you don't like my reasoning, try and understand it from the viewpoint of a purposeful designer.
That is exactly what I have done, and if I were a designer with a single purpose, I would not deliberately design and then get rid of 99.9 out of 100 items that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose.
dhw: […] please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
dhw: Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
DAVID: Millions died or are impaired. Where did you find such statistics to extrapolate?
One website gives the number of known Covid deaths as 7,010,631. The flu epidemic that hit the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.
Cell complexity: formation of the centriole
dhw: I’m amazed by the fact that humans are able to analyse the different parts of such a tiny organism, and the amazement is massively multiplied when we think of the design itself. This is where faith in chance becomes as irrational as faith in an unknown, unknowable, immaterial, eternal, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good form of consciousness.
DAVID: Quite an intricate design, isn't it? Yes, chance is an irrational conclusion. But we mustn't conclude a designing mind might exist. The big step is MUST exist.
I don’t understand your third sentence. I would use the complexity as evidence that a designing mind might exist. And yes, the big step would entail ignoring my last sentence.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Saturday, April 13, 2024, 20:26 (222 days ago) @ dhw
Origin of humans
dhw: I see your wishes and what you agree is your irrational faith that they are the reality. I note that you can’t find any logic to support your faith in your messy and inefficient theory of evolution, and you have no evidence to support your often contradictory faith that the God you wish for is the real God.
No one knows the 'real' Gpd. But I accept an all-knowing purposeful God who evolved us and provided the resources of the Earth for our use.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.dhw: I do not think a reviewer should criticize a book for not dealing with the subject he/she would like it to deal with. Why should a scientific study of how evolution works have to discuss theology? […]
DAVID: a reviewer is free to review however he wishes. A book is not presented with any iron-bound rules that it must be seen from one rigid viewpoint. The reviewer used it to make his point. Why does that bother you?
dhw: Of course anyone can write whatever they want to write. Go and see “King Lear” and write a review castigating Shakespeare for not making it a comedy. This review bothers me because I think critics should judge such a work by the degree to which it fulfils the purpose it sets out to fulfil. I can only comment on the article you presented to us, but the quotes suggest that it is a scientific study of the manner in which plants and animals design their own means of survival. As a potential reader, I want to know what the book is about, and whether the reviewer finds it convincing. If not, why not? I don’t expect the reviewer to ignore the actual subject and complain that the authors didn’t write about the subject he/she is interested in.
There is no rule that a writer cannot use a book as a discussion point from which he presents his view. A reviewer need not be neutral.
Giant virusesDAVID: from my view of purpose acting in evolution, all forms of life that are here play a necessary role.
dhw: Necessary for what? All forms of life, extinct and extant, have played and play a role in the history of life. (Nothing to do with your theory of evolution, in which 99.9% of forms had no link with the present but for no conceivable reason were specially designed and culled by your God.)
DAVID: If you don't like my reasoning, try and understand it from the viewpoint of a purposeful designer.
dhw: That is exactly what I have done, and if I were a designer with a single purpose, I would not deliberately design and then get rid of 99.9 out of 100 items that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose.
Same leap back to the same muddled distortion of the history of evolution which actually required that degree of extinctions.
dhw: […] please tell us, for example, what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
dhw: Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
DAVID: Millions died or are impaired. Where did you find such statistics to extrapolate?
dhw: One website gives the number of known Covid deaths as 7,010,631. The flu epidemic that hit the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.
If you wish everyone sat peacefully around doing nothing just eating and sleeping, would you want a life like that? I'll take the challenges!
Cell complexity: formation of the centrioledhw: I’m amazed by the fact that humans are able to analyse the different parts of such a tiny organism, and the amazement is massively multiplied when we think of the design itself. This is where faith in chance becomes as irrational as faith in an unknown, unknowable, immaterial, eternal, sourceless, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good form of consciousness.
DAVID: Quite an intricate design, isn't it? Yes, chance is an irrational conclusion. But we mustn't conclude a designing mind might exist. The big step is MUST exist.
dhw: I don’t understand your third sentence. I would use the complexity as evidence that a designing mind might exist. And yes, the big step would entail ignoring my last sentence.
You understand the point. Design means a designer did it.
More Miscellany
Origin of humans
dhw: […] you have no evidence to support your often contradictory faith that the God you wish for is the real God.
DAVID: No one knows the 'real' God. But I accept an all-knowing purposeful God who evolved us and provided the resources of the Earth for our use.
For all-knowing, see the evolution thread. If God exists, I agree that he must have had a purpose, and that evolution produced us and all the other species and resources throughout our planet’s history. I do not accept your theory that 3.8 billion years of life’s ever changing history was “for our use”, since 99.9% of that history had no connection with us. Stop dodging.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
DAVID: There is no rule that a writer cannot use a book as a discussion point from which he presents his view. A reviewer need not be neutral.
No review will be neutral, as judgements are always subjective. There are no “rules”, but in my opinion a book which presents scientific evidence that organisms themselves shape the course of evolution should not be criticized for not delving into theology. If you explained the nature of and possible cure for your patient’s illness, would you expect the patient to disagree because you didn’t discuss the extent to which God was responsible for it? I think the context should determine the approach.
Giant viruses
DAVID: If you don't like my reasoning, try and understand it from the viewpoint of a purposeful designer.
dhw: That is exactly what I have done, and if I were a designer with a single purpose, I would not deliberately design and then get rid of 99.9 out of 100 items that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose.
DAVID: Same leap back to the same muddled distortion of the history of evolution which actually required that degree of extinctions.
I didn’t know history had requirements. How many evolutions have you experienced? I thought you thought it was your God who decided he must design and extinguish the 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose, though you can’t find any reason for his doing so.
dhw: […] please tell us […] what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
dhw: Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
DAVID: Millions died or are impaired. Where did you find such statistics to extrapolate?
dhw: One website gives the number of known Covid deaths as 7,010,631. The flu epidemic that hit the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people.
No response.
dhw: But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.
DAVID: If you wish everyone sat peacefully around doing nothing just eating and sleeping, would you want a life like that? I'll take the challenges!
I have no idea why you think an interesting life would be impossible without rape, murder and millions of deaths from the diseases for which you blame your God. You keep telling us under “Theodicy” to ignore the evil and focus on all the good your God has created! Now we should forget all the good (the joys of love, family, friendship, art, sport, travel, etc.), and you thank God for creating or allowing evil to prevent you from getting bored.
Cell complexity: formation of the centriole
DAVID: Quite an intricate design, isn't it? Yes, chance is an irrational conclusion. But we mustn't conclude a designing mind might exist. The big step is MUST exist. […]
Later:
DAVID: Design means a designer did it.
Yes, That is a rational conclusion. But if a complex life requires a designing mind, the designing mind must be so complex that it too would require a designer: you need blind faith to believe that an unknown, immaterial, superpowerful form of consciousness can simply exist without a source. That is why I remain on my picket fence.
Homo luzonensis
QUOTES: "The implication is that some population of hominins, wandering vaguely eastwards, made their way to Luzon – accidentally or on purpose. Isolated on the island, they evolved bodies different to those of other hominins, ultimately becoming the distinct species we call H. luzonensis.”
“…evolution often throws up the same thing multiple times in different species: it’s called convergent evolution.”
DAVID: Environment causes adaptations.
Existing organisms respond to new conditions, and so there is clearly a mechanism that produces the changes – not just adaptations but also speciation. It ties in with the book on “teleonomy”: “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable”. This dispenses with Darwin’s random mutations, but confirms the heart of his theory, which is common descent. How such an autonomous mechanism came into being would be a different subject. Thank you, David, for your objective presentation.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Sunday, April 14, 2024, 19:50 (221 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For all-knowing, see the evolution thread. If God exists, I agree that he must have had a purpose, and that evolution produced us and all the other species and resources throughout our planet’s history. I do not accept your theory that 3.8 billion years of life’s ever changing history was “for our use”, since 99.9% of that history had no connection with us. Stop dodging.
More confusion. What is here now if for our use.
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.DAVID: There is no rule that a writer cannot use a book as a discussion point from which he presents his view. A reviewer need not be neutral.
dhw: No review will be neutral, as judgements are always subjective. There are no “rules”, but in my opinion a book which presents scientific evidence that organisms themselves shape the course of evolution should not be criticized for not delving into theology. If you explained the nature of and possible cure for your patient’s illness, would you expect the patient to disagree because you didn’t discuss the extent to which God was responsible for it? I think the context should determine the approach.
A reviewer can take any viewpoint He wishes. It is your obligation to evaluate the review.
Giant virusesDAVID: Same leap back to the same muddled distortion of the history of evolution which actually required that degree of extinctions.
dhw: I didn’t know history had requirements. How many evolutions have you experienced? I thought you thought it was your God who decided he must design and extinguish the 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose, though you can’t find any reason for his doing so.
The history of evolution had extinction requirements. You continue to torture Raup's book. All of evolution required a 99.9% lost.
dhw: […] please tell us […] what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
dhw: Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
DAVID: Millions died or are impaired. Where did you find such statistics to extrapolate?
dhw: One website gives the number of known Covid deaths as 7,010,631. The flu epidemic that hit the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people.
No response.
Thank you, Good statistics. Thank the Chinese for inventing the virus.
dhw: But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.DAVID: If you wish everyone sat peacefully around doing nothing just eating and sleeping, would you want a life like that? I'll take the challenges!
dhw: I have no idea why you think an interesting life would be impossible without rape, murder and millions of deaths from the diseases for which you blame your God. You keep telling us under “Theodicy” to ignore the evil and focus on all the good your God has created! Now we should forget all the good (the joys of love, family, friendship, art, sport, travel, etc.), and you thank God for creating or allowing evil to prevent you from getting bored.
I never ignored the 'good'. Your fallacy.
Cell complexity: formation of the centrioleDAVID: Quite an intricate design, isn't it? Yes, chance is an irrational conclusion. But we mustn't conclude a designing mind might exist. The big step is MUST exist. […]
Later:
DAVID: Design means a designer did it.dhw: Yes, That is a rational conclusion. But if a complex life requires a designing mind, the designing mind must be so complex that it too would require a designer: you need blind faith to believe that an unknown, immaterial, superpowerful form of consciousness can simply exist without a source. That is why I remain on my picket fence.
I'll stick with there must be a first cause.
Homo luzonensis
QUOTES: "The implication is that some population of hominins, wandering vaguely eastwards, made their way to Luzon – accidentally or on purpose. Isolated on the island, they evolved bodies different to those of other hominins, ultimately becoming the distinct species we call H. luzonensis.”“…evolution often throws up the same thing multiple times in different species: it’s called convergent evolution.”
DAVID: Environment causes adaptations.
dhw: Existing organisms respond to new conditions, and so there is clearly a mechanism that produces the changes – not just adaptations but also speciation. It ties in with the book on “teleonomy”: “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable”. This dispenses with Darwin’s random mutations, but confirms the heart of his theory, which is common descent. How such an autonomous mechanism came into being would be a different subject. Thank you, David, for your objective presentation.
You are welcome.
More Miscellany
Evolution and purpose: teleonomy.
dhw: […] in my opinion a book which presents scientific evidence that organisms themselves shape the course of evolution should not be criticized for not delving into theology.
DAVID: A reviewer can take any viewpoint He wishes. It is your obligation to evaluate the review.
Agreed. And I have done so.
Giant viruses
DAVID: Same leap back to the same muddled distortion of the history of evolution which actually required that degree of extinctions.
dhw: I didn’t know history had requirements. How many evolutions have you experienced? I thought you thought it was your God who decided he must design and extinguish the 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose, though you can’t find any reason for his doing so.
DAVID: The history of evolution had extinction requirements. You continue to torture Raup's book. All of evolution required a 99.9% lost.
I have no idea what Raup believes, and I wish you would tackle my arguments directly instead of hiding behind him. If God exists, he would have determined what evolution required – he would not have been bound by some requirement he hadn’t created for himself. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God require himself to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
dhw: […] please tell us […] what you think is the necessary role of the influenza virus.
DAVID: Just like Covid. God-given brains are challenged and protect us.
dhw: Millions die or are impaired for life, and that is necessary because God gave us brains to protect ourselves with. I find your logic incomprehensible.
DAVID: Millions died or are impaired. Where did you find such statistics to extrapolate?
dhw: One website gives the number of known Covid deaths as 7,010,631. The flu epidemic that hit the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people.
DAVID: Thank you, Good statistics. Thank the Chinese for inventing the virus.
Influenza was the virus we started with. Now that you know it killed 50 million in 1918, we can proceed to the next question.
dhw: But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.
DAVID: If you wish everyone sat peacefully around doing nothing just eating and sleeping, would you want a life like that? I'll take the challenges!
dhw: I have no idea why you think an interesting life would be impossible without rape, murder and millions of deaths from the diseases for which you blame your God. You keep telling us under “Theodicy” to ignore the evil and focus on all the good your God has created! Now we should forget all the good (the joys of love, family, friendship, art, sport, travel, etc.), and you thank God for creating or allowing evil to prevent you from getting bored.
DAVID: I never ignored the 'good'. Your fallacy.
You have just done so here and on the Plantinga thread. Without evil, you think “Eden” would be boring (“sitting around...just eating and sleeping”).
Cell complexity: formation of the centriole
DAVID: Design means a designer did it.
dhw: Yes, That is a rational conclusion. But if a complex life requires a designing mind, the designing mind must be so complex that it too would require a designer: you need blind faith to believe that an unknown, immaterial, superpowerful form of consciousness can simply exist without a source. That is why I remain on my picket fence.
DAVID: I'll stick with there must be a first cause.
I agree. The basic choice lies between an eternal, conscious, sourceless mind and an eternal, infinite mass of ever changing matter and energy forming endless combinations which eventually produce the first forms of life. One of these must be the truth, but I can’t choose between them.
The wild Milky Way center
QUOTES: “A huge black hole with high-speed stars in all sorts of wild orbits…”
“A few stars win the collision lottery…"
DAVID: by design the Earth is safely far away, two-thirds of the way out on the second spiral arm. It seems the larger the galaxy, the more turbulent is its center.
Bearing in mind that ours is only one of billions of galaxies in a universe that contains trillions of stars and quintillions of black holes, I can’t help feeling that the lottery image is more appropriate than that of design.
Mictobiomes and post-surgical infections
DAVID: the infections occur, not because the bacteria are 'bad', but they are freely built to survive on any food available. Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.
And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? Or do you mean that your omnipotent and omniscient God was powerless and too ignorant to prevent the evil caused by his inventions?
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Monday, April 15, 2024, 21:47 (220 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, April 15, 2024, 21:55
Giant viruses
DAVID: The history of evolution had extinction requirements. You continue to torture Raup's book. All of evolution required a 99.9% lost.
dhw: I have no idea what Raup believes, and I wish you would tackle my arguments directly instead of hiding behind him. If God exists, he would have determined what evolution required – he would not have been bound by some requirement he hadn’t created for himself. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God require himself to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
Please find some definition of evolution to see that it requires loss of species. God chose to evolve us is obvious if one believes in God.
dhw: But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.DAVID: If you wish everyone sat peacefully around doing nothing just eating and sleeping, would you want a life like that? I'll take the challenges!
dhw: I have no idea why you think an interesting life would be impossible without rape, murder and millions of deaths from the diseases for which you blame your God. You keep telling us under “Theodicy” to ignore the evil and focus on all the good your God has created! Now we should forget all the good (the joys of love, family, friendship, art, sport, travel, etc.), and you thank God for creating or allowing evil to prevent you from getting bored.
DAVID: I never ignored the 'good'. Your fallacy.
dhw: You have just done so here and on the Plantinga thread. Without evil, you think “Eden” would be boring (“sitting around...just eating and sleeping”).
Is living just eating and sleeping? No mental activity? We should just be bugs.
Cell complexity: formation of the centrioleDAVID: Design means a designer did it.
dhw: Yes, That is a rational conclusion. But if a complex life requires a designing mind, the designing mind must be so complex that it too would require a designer: you need blind faith to believe that an unknown, immaterial, superpowerful form of consciousness can simply exist without a source. That is why I remain on my picket fence.
DAVID: I'll stick with there must be a first cause.
dhw: I agree. The basic choice lies between an eternal, conscious, sourceless mind and an eternal, infinite mass of ever changing matter and energy forming endless combinations which eventually produce the first forms of life. One of these must be the truth, but I can’t choose between them.
Hint: organic molecules just don't join up. It requires lots of energy or magical enzymes which appear with just the right fits!!
The wild Milky Way centerQUOTES: “A huge black hole with high-speed stars in all sorts of wild orbits…”
“A few stars win the collision lottery…"
DAVID: by design the Earth is safely far away, two-thirds of the way out on the second spiral arm. It seems the larger the galaxy, the more turbulent is its center.
dhw: Bearing in mind that ours is only one of billions of galaxies in a universe that contains trillions of stars and quintillions of black holes, I can’t help feeling that the lottery image is more appropriate than that of design.In fact, 86 percent of the bacteria causing infections after spine surgery were genetically matched to bacteria a patient carried before surgery. That number is remarkably close to estimates from earlier studies using older genetic techniques focused on Staphylococcus aureus.
Patterns like designed-for-life, our very unusual spiral galaxy, etc. refute that thought.
" Nearly 60 percent of infections were also resistant to the preventive antibiotic administered during surgery, the antiseptic used to clean the skin before incision or both.
It turns out the source of this antibiotic resistance was also not acquired in the hospital but from microbes the patient had already been living with unknowingly. They likely acquired these antibiotic-resistant microbes through prior antibiotic exposure, consumer products or routine community contact.
Mictobiomes and post-surgical infections
DAVID: the infections occur, not because the bacteria are 'bad', but they are freely built to survive on any food available. Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? Or do you mean that your omnipotent and omniscient God was powerless and too ignorant to prevent the evil caused by his inventions?
God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.
More Miscellany
Giant viruses
DAVID: The history of evolution had extinction requirements. You continue to torture
Raup's book. All of evolution required a 99.9% lost.
You have confessed YOUR distortion of Raup’s book on the “evolution” thread: “All Raup said was 0.1% are the living result.” Nothing to support your wacky theory.
DAVID: Please find some definition of evolution to see that it requires loss of species.
Please find one for me. Changing conditions have resulted in 99.9% extinction and in new species emerging. That is history. It doesn’t mean that an all-powerful God was forced to design species irrelevant to his purpose!
DAVID: God chose to evolve us is obvious if one believes in God.
Stop leaving out the fact that he would also obviously have chosen to evolve (but not necessarily to individually design) all the species that had no connection with us.
dhw: But you think such suffering is justified because your God wants to give us a challenge. Please tell us why you think he wants to challenge us.
DAVID: If you wish everyone sat peacefully around doing nothing just eating and sleeping, would you want a life like that? I'll take the challenges!
dhw: I have no idea why you think an interesting life would be impossible without rape, murder and millions of deaths from the diseases for which you blame your God. You keep telling us under “Theodicy” to ignore the evil and focus on all the good your God has created! Now we should forget all the good (the joys of love, family, friendship, art, sport, travel, etc.), and you thank God for creating or allowing evil to prevent you from getting bored.
DAVID: Is living just eating and sleeping? No mental activity? We should just be bugs.
No, it isn’t just eating and sleeping. So why have you pretended that it would be just that if there was no evil? I have given you a list of the “goodies” which we can enjoy without evil. You are tying yourself in knots.
Centriole (now first cause)
DAVID: I'll stick with there must be a first cause.
dhw: I agree. The basic choice lies between an eternal, conscious, sourceless mind and an eternal, infinite mass of ever changing matter and energy forming endless combinations which eventually produce the first forms of life. One of these must be the truth, but I can’t choose between them.
DAVID: Hint: organic molecules just don't join up. It requires lots of energy or magical enzymes which appear with just the right fits!!
No need to hint. I keep telling you I accept the logic of design! But even you admit that belief in the being described above requires irrational faith.
The wild Milky Way center
QUOTES: “A huge black hole with high-speed stars in all sorts of wild orbits…”
“A few stars win the collision lottery…"
dhw: Bearing in mind that ours is only one of billions of galaxies in a universe that contains trillions of stars and quintillions of black holes, I can’t help feeling that the lottery image is more appropriate than that of design.
That was the unanswered end of my post, but somehow a whole section of bacteria quotes was added to it.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections
DAVID: the infections occur, not because the bacteria are 'bad', but they are freely built to survive on any food available. Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? Or do you mean that your omnipotent and omniscient God was powerless and too ignorant to prevent the evil caused by his inventions?
DAVID: God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.
“Had to”…! “best he could…”? Today he’s lost his omnipotence and omniscience. A few days ago he was to blame. Yesterday all of these evils were necessary to provide a challenge and to prevent boredom. Which of your versions are you going to offer us tomorrow?
Storms are needed
DAVID: The pigmy human mind does not see God's reasons for dangerous storms, until research explains God's reasons. Thus, lots of thoedistic complaints await answers.
Like Dawkins, you wait for science to confirm what you wish to believe. Meanwhile, you have 50 million flu victims from 2018 and about 11 million holocaust victims haunting you as you announce that God allowed them to die in order to relieve the boredom, or their deaths don’t matter because God did so much good, or they shouldn’t object, because God must have had a good moral reason though you can’t think of one.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Saturday, April 20, 2024, 18:45 (215 days ago) @ dhw
Giant viruses
DAVID: Please find some definition of evolution to see that it requires loss of species.
dhw: Please find one for me. Changing conditions have resulted in 99.9% extinction and in new species emerging. That is history. It doesn’t mean that an all-powerful God was forced to design species irrelevant to his purpose!
Your usual fallacy. A purposeful God does not produce irrelevance.
DAVID: Is living just eating and sleeping? No mental activity? We should just be bugs.
dhw: No, it isn’t just eating and sleeping. So why have you pretended that it would be just that if there was no evil? I have given you a list of the “goodies” which we can enjoy without evil. You are tying yourself in knots.
Free-will will always produce evil, as a human trait.
Centriole (now first cause)
DAVID: Hint: organic molecules just don't join up. It requires lots of energy or magical enzymes which appear with just the right fits!!
dhw: No need to hint. I keep telling you I accept the logic of design! But even you admit that belief in the being described above requires irrational faith.
Faith is not irrational.
The wild Milky Way centerQUOTES: “A huge black hole with high-speed stars in all sorts of wild orbits…”
“A few stars win the collision lottery…"
dhw: Bearing in mind that ours is only one of billions of galaxies in a universe that contains trillions of stars and quintillions of black holes, I can’t help feeling that the lottery image is more appropriate than that of design.
That was the unanswered end of my post, but somehow a whole section of bacteria quotes was added to it.
I think it is all by reasoned design.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infectionsDAVID: the infections occur, not because the bacteria are 'bad', but they are freely built to survive on any food available. Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? Or do you mean that your omnipotent and omniscient God was powerless and too ignorant to prevent the evil caused by his inventions?
DAVID: God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.
dhw: “Had to”…! “best he could…”? Today he’s lost his omnipotence and omniscience. A few days ago he was to blame. Yesterday all of these evils were necessary to provide a challenge and to prevent boredom. Which of your versions are you going to offer us tomorrow?
Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.
Storms are neededDAVID: The pigmy human mind does not see God's reasons for dangerous storms, until research explains God's reasons. Thus, lots of thoedistic complaints await answers.
dhw: Like Dawkins, you wait for science to confirm what you wish to believe. Meanwhile, you have 50 million flu victims from 2018 and about 11 million holocaust victims haunting you as you announce that God allowed them to die in order to relieve the boredom, or their deaths don’t matter because God did so much good, or they shouldn’t object, because God must have had a good moral reason though you can’t think of one.
It is God's obligation to have morally sufficient reasons.
More Miscellany
Giant viruses
DAVID: Please find some definition of evolution to see that it requires loss of species.
dhw: Please find one for me. Changing conditions have resulted in 99.9% extinction and in new species emerging. That is history. It doesn’t mean that an all-powerful God was forced to design species irrelevant to his purpose!
DAVID: Your usual fallacy. A purposeful God does not produce irrelevance.
You have inadvertently cottoned on to the reason why your theory is so illogical. You have no idea why your omnipotent and omniscient God would have produced the irrelevant 99.9%, but instead of considering the possibility that he might have had a different purpose, or that he might not have designed every species individually, you insist that only your version of his “inefficient” design of irrelevant species is correct.
Centriole (now first cause)
dhw: I keep telling you I accept the logic of design! But even you admit that belief in the being described above requires irrational faith.
DAVID: Faith is not irrational.
Off we go again with your contradictions.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: “It is YOUR reasoning I am criticizing, not your God’s. Nobody knows God’s reasoning…” You replied:
DAVID: Welcome to faith which does not need rationality.
If you can’t find a reason to justify your faith, and your faith does not need rationality, how can you claim that your “faith is not irrational”?
The wild Milky Way center
QUOTES: “A huge black hole with high-speed stars in all sorts of wild orbits…”
“A few stars win the collision lottery…"
dhw: Bearing in mind that ours is only one of billions of galaxies in a universe that contains trillions of stars and quintillions of black holes, I can’t help feeling that the lottery image is more appropriate than that of design.
DAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
But you can’t think of any reason for it. Your opinion is based on irrational faith.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections
DAVID: the infections occur, not because the bacteria are 'bad', but they are freely built to survive on any food available. Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? Or do you mean that your omnipotent and omniscient God was powerless and too ignorant to prevent the evil caused by his inventions?
DAVID: God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.
dhw: “Had to”…? “best he could…”? Today he’s lost his omnipotence and omniscience. A few days ago he was to blame. Yesterday all of these evils were necessary to provide a challenge and to prevent boredom. Which of your versions are you going to offer us tomorrow?
DAVID: Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.
“My” desired perfection? It’s YOU who claim he’s perfect, omniscient, omnipotent etc. but had to do this and that – thereby knowingly creating evil – and was powerless to prevent it, though he did his best!
Storms are needed
DAVID: The pigmy human mind does not see God's reasons for dangerous storms, until research explains God's reasons. Thus, lots of thoedistic complaints await answers.
dhw: Like Dawkins, you wait for science to confirm what you wish to believe. Meanwhile, you have 50 million flu victims from 2018 and about 11 million holocaust victims haunting you as you announce that God allowed them to die in order to relieve the boredom, or their deaths don’t matter because God did so much good, or they shouldn’t object, because God must have had a good moral reason though you can’t think of one.
DAVID: It is God's obligation to have morally sufficient reasons.
Since when was it God’s obligation to have the attributes you wish him to have? Do think that relief of boredom is a morally sufficient reason for allowing rape, murder and the Holocaust? Please don’t answer “dayenu”.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Sunday, April 21, 2024, 23:05 (214 days ago) @ dhw
Giant viruses
dhw: Please find one for me. Changing conditions have resulted in 99.9% extinction and in new species emerging. That is history. It doesn’t mean that an all-powerful God was forced to design species irrelevant to his purpose!
DAVID: Your usual fallacy. A purposeful God does not produce irrelevance.
dhw: You have inadvertently cottoned on to the reason why your theory is so illogical. You have no idea why your omnipotent and omniscient God would have produced the irrelevant 99.9%, but instead of considering the possibility that he might have had a different purpose, or that he might not have designed every species individually, you insist that only your version of his “inefficient” design of irrelevant species is correct.
It is your cockamamy view of evolution that is at fault. All species produced were relevant in their time.
Centriole (now first cause)
DAVID: Faith is not irrational.
dhw: Off we go again with your contradictions.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: “It is YOUR reasoning I am criticizing, not your God’s. Nobody knows God’s reasoning…” You replied:DAVID: Welcome to faith which does not need rationality.
dhw: If you can’t find a reason to justify your faith, and your faith does not need rationality, how can you claim that your “faith is not irrational”?
From previous: 'Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' gives it rationality.
The wild Milky Way centerQUOTES: “A huge black hole with high-speed stars in all sorts of wild orbits…”
“A few stars win the collision lottery…"
dhw: Bearing in mind that ours is only one of billions of galaxies in a universe that contains trillions of stars and quintillions of black holes, I can’t help feeling that the lottery image is more appropriate than that of design.
DAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
dhw: But you can’t think of any reason for it. Your opinion is based on irrational faith.
WE are the reason!!! But in your mind we are not that important.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infectionsDAVID: the infections occur, not because the bacteria are 'bad', but they are freely built to survive on any food available. Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? Or do you mean that your omnipotent and omniscient God was powerless and too ignorant to prevent the evil caused by his inventions?
God has not stopped humans or bacteria from use of free will. For life free will of molecules of bugs, of humans is required.
DAVID: God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.dhw: “Had to”…? “best he could…”? Today he’s lost his omnipotence and omniscience. A few days ago he was to blame. Yesterday all of these evils were necessary to provide a challenge and to prevent boredom. Which of your versions are you going to offer us tomorrow?
The same God who gives life.
DAVID: Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.dhw: “My” desired perfection? It’s YOU who claim he’s perfect, omniscient, omnipotent etc. but had to do this and that – thereby knowingly creating evil – and was powerless to prevent it, though he did his best!
All secondary and required effects.
Storms are neededDAVID: The pigmy human mind does not see God's reasons for dangerous storms, until research explains God's reasons. Thus, lots of thoedistic complaints await answers.
dhw: Like Dawkins, you wait for science to confirm what you wish to believe. Meanwhile, you have 50 million flu victims from 2018 and about 11 million holocaust victims haunting you as you announce that God allowed them to die in order to relieve the boredom, or their deaths don’t matter because God did so much good, or they shouldn’t object, because God must have had a good moral reason though you can’t think of one.
DAVID: It is God's obligation to have morally sufficient reasons.
dhw: Since when was it God’s obligation to have the attributes you wish him to have? Do think that relief of boredom is a morally sufficient reason for allowing rape, murder and the Holocaust? Please don’t answer “dayenu”.
Stop blaming God for humans who use free will to create evil.
More Miscellany
Giant viruses
DAVID: [...] A purposeful God does not produce irrelevance.
dhw: You have inadvertently cottoned on to the reason why your theory is so illogical. You have no idea why your omnipotent and omniscient God would have produced the irrelevant 99.9%, but instead of considering the possibility that he might have had a different purpose, or that he might not have designed every species individually, you insist that only your version of his “inefficient” design of irrelevant species is correct.
DAVID: It is your cockamamy view of evolution that is at fault. All species produced were relevant in their time.
Relevant to what? Certainly not to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food), since only 0.1% of them led to us and our food.
First cause)
DAVID: Faith is not irrational.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: “It is YOUR reasoning I am criticizing, not your God’s. Nobody knows God’s reasoning…” You replied:[/i]
DAVID: Welcome to faith which does not need rationality.
dhw: If you can’t find a reason to justify your faith, and your faith does not need rationality, how can you claim that your “faith is not irrational”?
DAVID: From previous: 'Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' gives it rationality.
As usual, you are referring to the theory of design and God’s existence, which I acknowledge as being rational, though “beyond a reasonable doubt” goes much too far. You know perfectly well that I am talking about your illogical theories of evolution and theodicy. Stop dodging.
The wild Milky Way center
DAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
dhw: But you can’t think of any reason for it. Your opinion is based on irrational faith.
DAVID: WE are the reason!!! But in your mind we are not that important.
You cannot find any reason why your God would design billions of galaxies and trillions of stars (not to mention millions of irrelevant species) when all he wanted to design was a single system to accommodate us and our food.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections
AVID: [..] Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.[/i]
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? [...]
DAVID: God has not stopped humans or bacteria from use of free will. For life free will of molecules of bugs, of humans is required.
According to you, your all-powerful, all-knowing God gave us and them free will, knowing precisely what we and they would use it for. Why did you “blame” him for the bugs? Why do you not blame him for knowingly allowing rape, murder, the Holocaust, although he must have known as you and I do that it is perfectly possible to lead a non-boring life without anyone committing evil?
DAVID: God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.
dhw: “Had to”…? “best he could…”? Today he’s lost his omnipotence and omniscience. A few days ago he was to blame. Yesterday all of these evils were necessary to provide a challenge and to prevent boredom. Which of your versions are you going to offer us tomorrow?
DAVID: The same God who gives life.
Which God do you wish for: the omnipotent one who is powerless to prevent evil, the all-good one who is to blame for natural disasters, or the selfless one who creates/allows evil in order to relieve his and our boredom?
DAVID: Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.
dhw: “My” desired perfection? It’s YOU who claim he’s perfect, omniscient, omnipotent etc. but had to do this and that – thereby knowingly creating evil – and was powerless to prevent it, though he did his best!
DAVID: All secondary and required effects.
The Holocaust and the 50 million deaths from ‘flu in 1918 were just secondary and required so that your selfless, omniscient and omnipotent God could relieve his and our boredom. (Please note: Under “Plantinga” you claim that your beliefs are mainstream!)
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Monday, April 22, 2024, 18:57 (213 days ago) @ dhw
Giant viruses
DAVID: It is your cockamamy view of evolution that is at fault. All species produced were relevant in their time.
dhw: Relevant to what? Certainly not to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food), since only 0.1% of them led to us and our food.
Relevant to current ecosystem of the time in evolution. More distortion of Raup. Cleared up in the other thread, remember.
First cause)DAVID: Faith is not irrational.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: “It is YOUR reasoning I am criticizing, not your God’s. Nobody knows God’s reasoning…” You replied:[/i]
DAVID: Welcome to faith which does not need rationality.dhw: If you can’t find a reason to justify your faith, and your faith does not need rationality, how can you claim that your “faith is not irrational”?
DAVID: From previous: 'Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' gives it rationality.
dhw: As usual, you are referring to the theory of design and God’s existence, which I acknowledge as being rational, though “beyond a reasonable doubt” goes much too far. You know perfectly well that I am talking about your illogical theories of evolution and theodicy. Stop dodging.
Stop complaining that I made logical choices in thought that lead to faith. Sorry you can't do it. And then you invent the weirdest definition I've ever seen about double standards, with no choices allowed. You have tied yourself into intellectual knots to defend your inability to consider choices!!!
The wild Milky Way centerDAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
dhw: But you can’t think of any reason for it. Your opinion is based on irrational faith.
DAVID: WE are the reason!!! But in your mind we are not that important.
dhw: You cannot find any reason why your God would design billions of galaxies and trillions of stars (not to mention millions of irrelevant species) when all he wanted to design was a single system to accommodate us and our food.
God has reasons I am not privy to.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infectionsAVID: [..] Not God's fault. Bacteria necessarily live as freely-acting organisms.[/i]
dhw: And yet a couple of weeks ago, you wrote: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” Why are you blaming him, if it’s not for the fact that he knowingly gave bacteria the freedom to infect us as well as help us? And why then would you not blame him if he knowingly gave us the freedom to do evil? [...]
DAVID: God has not stopped humans or bacteria from use of free will. For life free will of molecules of bugs, of humans is required.
dhw: According to you, your all-powerful, all-knowing God gave us and them free will, knowing precisely what we and they would use it for. Why did you “blame” him for the bugs? Why do you not blame him for knowingly allowing rape, murder, the Holocaust, although he must have known as you and I do that it is perfectly possible to lead a non-boring life without anyone committing evil?
The necessary bugs are free to get into trouble. It is the way life has to work.
DAVID: God had to accept tradeoffs to produce life. He created the best form of life He could. We need good skin microbiomes. A slicing scalpel makes no choices, just an instrument of delivery.dhw: “Had to”…? “best he could…”? Today he’s lost his omnipotence and omniscience. A few days ago he was to blame. Yesterday all of these evils were necessary to provide a challenge and to prevent boredom. Which of your versions are you going to offer us tomorrow?
DAVID: The same God who gives life.
dhw: Which God do you wish for: the omnipotent one who is powerless to prevent evil, the all-good one who is to blame for natural disasters, or the selfless one who creates/allows evil in order to relieve his and our boredom?
Same usual limp distortion. TE subject is human boredom! Stay on point!!
DAVID: Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.dhw: “My” desired perfection? It’s YOU who claim he’s perfect, omniscient, omnipotent etc. but had to do this and that – thereby knowingly creating evil – and was powerless to prevent it, though he did his best!
DAVID: All secondary and required effects.
dhw: The Holocaust and the 50 million deaths from ‘flu in 1918 were just secondary and required so that your selfless, omniscient and omnipotent God could relieve his and our boredom. (Please note: Under “Plantinga” you claim that your beliefs are mainstream!)
In theodicy discussions, yes.
More Miscellany
First cause
DAVID: Faith is not irrational.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: “It is YOUR reasoning I am criticizing, not your God’s. Nobody knows God’s reasoning…” You replied:
DAVID: Welcome to faith which does not need rationality.
dhw: If you can’t find a reason to justify your faith, and your faith does not need rationality, how can you claim that your “faith is not irrational”?
DAVID: From previous: 'Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' gives it rationality.
dhw: As usual, you are referring to the theory of design and God’s existence, which I acknowledge as being rational, though “beyond a reasonable doubt” goes much too far. You know perfectly well that I am talking about your illogical theories of evolution and theodicy. Stop dodging.
The wild Milky Way center
DAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
dhw: You cannot find any reason why your God would design billions of galaxies and trillions of stars (not to mention millions of irrelevant species) when all he wanted to design was a single system to accommodate us and our food.
DAVID: God has reasons I am not privy to.
Your inability to think of any reason once more illustrates the fact that most of your beliefs (apart from your argument for a designer God) are based on totally irrational faith, so please stop pretending that they are logical.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections
dhw: Why did you “blame” [God] for the bugs? Why do you not blame him for knowingly allowing rape, murder, the Holocaust, although he must have known as you and I do that it is perfectly possible to lead a non-boring life without anyone committing evil?
DAVID: The necessary bugs are free to get into trouble. It is the way life has to work.
Yes, we know they were free to kill 50 million people in 1918, just as Hitler was free to kill 6 million Jews. And your omniscient God must have known what would happen when he gave them their freedom. Now will you please answer the bolded questions.
dhw: Which God do you wish for: the omnipotent one who is powerless to prevent evil, the all-good one who is to blame for natural disasters, or the selfless one who creates/allows evil in order to relieve his and our boredom?
DAVID: Same usual limp distortion. THE subject is human boredom! Stay on point!!
You keep forgetting the following:
dhw: I’m sure you’ll agree that your God, who you believe is interested in his creations, would find puppets pretty boring.
DAVID: Exactly!
And so he gave us free will because he would have found puppets boring. A very reasonable theory, which you have confirmed. What’s the problem?
DAVID: Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.
dhw: “My” desired perfection? It’s YOU who claim he’s perfect, omniscient, omnipotent etc. but had to do this and that – thereby knowingly creating evil – and was powerless to prevent it, though he did his best!
DAVID: All secondary and required effects.
Please tell us if you regard the Holocaust and the 50 million flu victims as secondary and morally justified by the fact that such evil relieves us from being bored.
A new consciousness declaration
QUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.) (dhw's bold)
DAVID: there is no question animals are aware, perform purposeful activities and also can play. What they lack, as my bold notes, is self-awareness.
I don’t think anyone would argue that our fellow creatures have the same degree of awareness/self awareness that we humans have. The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? I would also draw attention to “including, at minimum….” You have now published articles which completely support Shapiro’s belief that even individual cells have a degree of consciousness. Many thanks as always for your integrity in presenting all these articles.
New study on DNA repair
QUOTE: Luckily, cells have developed a complex set of repair mechanisms to protect vulnerable DNA and fix damage so that the cell’s genomic instruction manual remains intact.
DAVID: Did this defense develop because breaks happened early on, or was it designed from the beginning to avoid early loss of genes from brakes? Darwin-type unguided chance evolution could not have achieved this degree of controls.
I agree with your dismissal of unguided chance. It seems perfectly logical to me that, as with the whole of evolution, cells respond to new requirements. See above. The origin of all degrees of consciousness remains open to question, but the evidence of its existence in all forms of life is becoming stronger and stronger, extending to plants and to all cells and cell communities.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 23, 2024, 22:35 (212 days ago) @ dhw
The wild Milky Way center
DAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
dhw: You cannot find any reason why your God would design billions of galaxies and trillions of stars (not to mention millions of irrelevant species) when all he wanted to design was a single system to accommodate us and our food.
DAVID: God has reasons I am not privy to.>
dhw: Your inability to think of any reason once more illustrates the fact that most of your beliefs (apart from your argument for a designer God) are based on totally irrational faith, so please stop pretending that they are logical.
What do you want? That I can think like God.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections
dhw: Why did you “blame” [God] for the bugs? Why do you not blame him for knowingly allowing rape, murder, the Holocaust, although he must have known as you and I do that it is perfectly possible to lead a non-boring life without anyone committing evil?DAVID: The necessary bugs are free to get into trouble. It is the way life has to work.
dhw: Yes, we know they were free to kill 50 million people in 1918, just as Hitler was free to kill 6 million Jews. And your omniscient God must have known what would happen when he gave them their freedom. Now will you please answer the bolded questions.
Answered, For life to work, free bugs have to exist!!! You are alive, accept it and stop complaining.
dhw: Which God do you wish for: the omnipotent one who is powerless to prevent evil, the all-good one who is to blame for natural disasters, or the selfless one who creates/allows evil in order to relieve his and our boredom?DAVID: Same usual limp distortion. THE subject is human boredom! Stay on point!!
You keep forgetting the following:
dhw: I’m sure you’ll agree that your God, who you believe is interested in his creations, would find puppets pretty boring.DAVID: Exactly!
dhw: And so he gave us free will because he would have found puppets boring. A very reasonable theory, which you have confirmed. What’s the problem?
Answered, For life to work, free bugs have to exist!!! You are alive, accept it and stop complaining.
DAVID: Apparently your desired perfection cannot exist.dhw: “My” desired perfection? It’s YOU who claim he’s perfect, omniscient, omnipotent etc. but had to do this and that – thereby knowingly creating evil – and was powerless to prevent it, though he did his best!
DAVID: All secondary and required effects.
dhw: Please tell us if you regard the Holocaust and the 50 million flu victims as secondary and morally justified by the fact that such evil relieves us from being bored.
Not the direct effect you tout. Humans are free to cause evil.
A new consciousness declarationQUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.) (dhw's bold)
DAVID: there is no question animals are aware, perform purposeful activities and also can play. What they lack, as my bold notes, is self-awareness.
dhw: I don’t think anyone would argue that our fellow creatures have the same degree of awareness/self awareness that we humans have. The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? I would also draw attention to “including, at minimum….” You have now published articles which completely support Shapiro’s belief that even individual cells have a degree of consciousness. Many thanks as always for your integrity in presenting all these articles.
You are welcome. But consciousness does not create speciation.
New study on DNA repairQUOTE: Luckily, cells have developed a complex set of repair mechanisms to protect vulnerable DNA and fix damage so that the cell’s genomic instruction manual remains intact.
DAVID: Did this defense develop because breaks happened early on, or was it designed from the beginning to avoid early loss of genes from brakes? Darwin-type unguided chance evolution could not have achieved this degree of controls.
dhw: I agree with your dismissal of unguided chance. It seems perfectly logical to me that, as with the whole of evolution, cells respond to new requirements. See above. The origin of all degrees of consciousness remains open to question, but the evidence of its existence in all forms of life is becoming stronger and stronger, extending to plants and to all cells and cell communities.
Consciousness is more common than peviously realized.
More Miscellany
The wild Milky Way center
DAVID: I think it is all by reasoned design.
dhw: You cannot find any reason why your God would design billions of galaxies and trillions of stars (not to mention millions of irrelevant species) when all he wanted to design was a single system to accommodate us and our food.
DAVID: God has reasons I am not privy to.
dhw: Your inability to think of any reason once more illustrates the fact that most of your beliefs (apart from your argument for a designer God) are based on irrational faith, so please stop pretending that they are logical.
DAVID: What do you want? That I can think like God.
No, I want you to stop pretending that your God must think like you, as in your belief that the billions of galaxies are by “reasoned design” in order to produce us, although you can’t think why. However, you have agreed that your beliefs (other than in the existence of God) are based on irrational faith and on what you wish your God to be, so we can leave it at that.
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections (now theodicy and boredom)
dhw: Why did you “blame” [God] for the bugs? Why do you not blame him for knowingly allowing rape, murder, the Holocaust, although he must have known as you and I do that it is perfectly possible to lead a non-boring life without anyone committing evil? [See below re moral justification.]
DAVID: The necessary bugs are free to get into trouble. It is the way life has to work.
dhw: Yes, we know they were free to kill 50 million people in 1918, just as Hitler was free to kill 6 million Jews. And your omniscient God must have known what would happen when he gave them their freedom. Now will you please answer the bolded questions.
DAVID: Answered, For life to work, free bugs have to exist!!! You are alive, accept it and stop complaining.
I am not complaining. Now would you please answer the two bolded questions: 1) why “blame” for the bugs, and 2) why not “blame” for allowing evil in order to alleviate his and our boredom?
dhw: I’m sure you’ll agree that your God, who you believe is interested in his creations, would find puppets pretty boring.
DAVID: Exactly!
dhw: And so he gave us free will because he would have found puppets boring. A very reasonable theory, which you have confirmed. What’s the problem?
DAVID: Answered, For life to work, free bugs have to exist!!! You are alive, accept it and stop complaining.
Once more: I am not complaining. You believe that your God created or allowed evil in order to relieve himself and us of boredom. It fits in with life’s history. But it raises a moral problem, as below, which you keep refusing to answer:
dhw: Please tell us if you regard the Holocaust and the 50 million flu victims as secondary and morally justified by the fact that such evil relieves us from being bored.
DAVID: Not the direct effect you tout. Humans are free to cause evil.
You believe your omniscient God gave us that freedom, knowing that it would lead to rape, murder and holocausts, in order to relieve his and our boredom. Do you think he was morally justified in doing so?
A new consciousness declaration
QUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.) (dhw's bold)
DAVID: there is no question animals are aware, perform purposeful activities and also can play. What they lack, as my bold notes, is self-awareness.
dhw: I don’t think anyone would argue that our fellow creatures have the same degree of awareness/self awareness that we humans have. The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? I would also draw attention to “including, at minimum….” You have now published articles which completely support Shapiro’s belief that even individual cells have a degree of consciousness. Many thanks as always for your integrity in presenting all these articles.
DAVID: You are welcome. But consciousness does not create speciation.
I thought we'd agreed that it does, unless you believe in blind chance. But you think that only your God’s consciousness can do it, and it is unthinkable that even though he gave consciousness to our fellow animals, birds and insects, he might have done the same for single cells and their communities.
DAVID: Consciousness is more common than previously realized.
I’m glad the message is gradually getting through to you.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 24, 2024, 16:18 (211 days ago) @ dhw
Microbiomes and post-surgical infections (now theodicy and boredom)
dhw: Why did you “blame” [God] for the bugs? Why do you not blame him for knowingly allowing rape, murder, the Holocaust, although he must have known as you and I do that it is perfectly possible to lead a non-boring life without anyone committing evil? [See below re moral justification.]
DAVID: The necessary bugs are free to get into trouble. It is the way life has to work.
dhw: Yes, we know they were free to kill 50 million people in 1918, just as Hitler was free to kill 6 million Jews. And your omniscient God must have known what would happen when he gave them their freedom. Now will you please answer the bolded questions.
DAVID: Answered, For life to work, free bugs have to exist!!! You are alive, accept it and stop complaining.
dhw: I am not complaining. Now would you please answer the two bolded questions: 1) why “blame” for the bugs, and 2) why not “blame” for allowing evil in order to alleviate his and our boredom?
The bugs are required as previously explained. God did not allow evil!!! He gave us free will. Humans with free will create evil!!! l
dhw: I’m sure you’ll agree that your God, who you believe is interested in his creations, would find puppets pretty boring.DAVID: Exactly!
dhw: And so he gave us free will because he would have found puppets boring. A very reasonable theory, which you have confirmed. What’s the problem?
DAVID: Answered, For life to work, free bugs have to exist!!! You are alive, accept it and stop complaining.
dhw: Once more: I am not complaining. You believe that your God created or allowed evil in order to relieve himself and us of boredom. It fits in with life’s history. But it raises a moral problem, as below, which you keep refusing to answer:
dhw: Please tell us if you regard the Holocaust and the 50 million flu victims as secondary and morally justified by the fact that such evil relieves us from being bored.
The theodicy answer is always proportionality.
DAVID: Not the direct effect you tout. Humans are free to cause evil.
dhw: You believe your omniscient God gave us that freedom, knowing that it would lead to rape, murder and holocausts, in order to relieve his and our boredom. Do you think he was morally justified in doing so?
Yes, as a morally sufficient reason to give us free will.
A new consciousness declarationQUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.) (dhw's bold)
DAVID: there is no question animals are aware, perform purposeful activities and also can play. What they lack, as my bold notes, is self-awareness.
dhw: I don’t think anyone would argue that our fellow creatures have the same degree of awareness/self awareness that we humans have. The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? I would also draw attention to “including, at minimum….” You have now published articles which completely support Shapiro’s belief that even individual cells have a degree of consciousness. Many thanks as always for your integrity in presenting all these articles.
DAVID: You are welcome. But consciousness does not create speciation.
I thought we'd agreed that it does, unless you believe in blind chance. But you think that only your God’s consciousness can do it, and it is unthinkable that even though he gave consciousness to our fellow animals, birds and insects, he might have done the same for single cells and their communities.
DAVID: Consciousness is more common than previously realized.
dhw: I’m glad the message is gradually getting through to you.
But not at your cell committee theoretical level.
More Miscellany
DAVID: I will agree faith is not rational.
dhw: Thank you. I will make a note of this for the next time you claim that your theories about evolution and God’s purpose, method and nature are based on reason.
DAVID Stop complaining that I made logical choices in thought that lead to faith.
dhw: You have just agreed that your faith in your choices (apart from the design theory) is irrational (i.e. not logical).
DAVID: The thoughts are logical. The final leap is not.
That depends on which of your choices we’re talking about. The thought that an omniscient, omnipotent God would deliberately choose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only goal is illogical/irrational, as is your fixed faith in that theory.
A new consciousness declaration
QUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles,amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.)(dhw's bold)
DAVID: there is no question animals are aware, perform purposeful activities and also can play. What they lack, as my bold notes, is self-awareness.
dhw: The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? I would also draw attention to “including, at minimum….”
DAVID: But consciousness does not create speciation. […]
dhw: I thought we'd agreed that it does, unless you believe in blind chance. But you think that only your God’s consciousness can do it, and it is unthinkable that even though he gave consciousness to our fellow animals, birds and insects, he might have done the same for
single cells and their communities.
DAVID: Consciousness is more common than previously realized.
dhw: I’m glad the message is gradually getting through to you.
DAVID: But not at your cell committee theoretical level.
“Community” not “committee”. Thank you for publishing all the articles that disagree with you.
Bioluminescence
DAVID: light is always helpful, but these organisms don't have eyes. It is a mystery but developments in evolution always have reasons.
I agree, and one very logical reason is that in one way or another they improve chances of survival. It seems to me highly unlikely that the reason for bioluminescence is that your God (if he exists) considered it to be essential for the evolution of humans and their food, although you tell us that we and our food were his one and only purpose right from the beginning of life.
Importance of Microbiomes: skin wound effects
DAVID: These relationships are hard to explain as to purpose. But evolution produces these results for valid reasons. We need to understand the underlying purpose.
Not so hard to understand if we assume that bacteria, like every other organism, find their own ways to survive. This can clearly involve conflict between different types of bacteria in the great free-for-all – a theory which you accept when it concerns good and bad bugs, but reject when it comes to the countless different species that had no connection with your version of your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food).
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Friday, April 26, 2024, 00:01 (210 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You have just agreed that your faith in your choices (apart from the design theory) is irrational (i.e. not logical).
DAVID: The thoughts are logical. The final leap is not.
dhw: That depends on which of your choices we’re talking about. The thought that an omniscient, omnipotent God would deliberately choose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only goal is illogical/irrational, as is your fixed faith in that theory.
Your weird distortion of my theology is not worth discussing, as totally preposterous.
A new consciousness declarationQUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles,amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.)(dhw's bold)
DAVID: there is no question animals are aware, perform purposeful activities and also can play. What they lack, as my bold notes, is self-awareness.
dhw: The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? I would also draw attention to “including, at minimum….”
DAVID: But consciousness does not create speciation. […]
dhw: I thought we'd agreed that it does, unless you believe in blind chance. But you think that only your God’s consciousness can do it, and it is unthinkable that even though he gave consciousness to our fellow animals, birds and insects, he might have done the same for
single cells and their communities.DAVID: Consciousness is more common than previously realized.
dhw: I’m glad the message is gradually getting through to you.
DAVID: But not at your cell committee theoretical level.
dhw: “Community” not “committee”. Thank you for publishing all the articles that disagree with you.
All views are to be seen.
BioluminescenceDAVID: light is always helpful, but these organisms don't have eyes. It is a mystery but developments in evolution always have reasons.
dhw: I agree, and one very logical reason is that in one way or another they improve chances of survival. It seems to me highly unlikely that the reason for bioluminescence is that your God (if he exists) considered it to be essential for the evolution of humans and their food, although you tell us that we and our food were his one and only purpose right from the beginning of life.
My point exactly.
Importance of Microbiomes: skin wound effectsDAVID: These relationships are hard to explain as to purpose. But evolution produces these results for valid reasons. We need to understand the underlying purpose.
dhw: Not so hard to understand if we assume that bacteria, like every other organism, find their own ways to survive. This can clearly involve conflict between different types of bacteria in the great free-for-all – a theory which you accept when it concerns good and bad bugs, but reject when it comes to the countless different species that had no connection with your version of your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food).
I'm glad God had that purpose, aren't you?
More Miscellany
dhw: You have just agreed that your faith in your choices (apart from the design theory) is irrational (i.e. not logical).
DAVID: The thoughts are logical. The final leap is not.
dhw: That depends on which of your choices we’re talking about. The thought that an omniscient, omnipotent God would deliberately choose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only goal is illogical/irrational, as is your fixed faith in that theory.
DAVID: Your weird distortion of my theology is not worth discussing, as totally preposterous.
Please tell us which part of the above theory is a distortion. To be precise: do you now reject your beliefs that (1) we and our food were your God’s sole purpose, 2) that he chose to design and cull 99.9% of past species, 3) that we and our food are descended from only 0.1% of past species, which means the remaining 99.9% were irrelevant to his purpose?
A new consciousness declaration
QUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles,amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.)(dhw's bold)
dhw: The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? […]
DAVID: But consciousness does not create speciation. […]
dhw: I thought we'd agreed that it does, unless you believe in blind chance. But you think that only your God’s consciousness can do it, and it is unthinkable that even though he gave consciousness to our fellow animals, birds and insects, he might have done the same for
single cells and their communities.
DAVID: But not at your cell committee theoretical level.
dhw: “Community” not “committee”. Thank you for publishing all the articles that disagree with you.
DAVID: All views are to be seen.
We have come a long way since you claimed that Shapiro’s theory was dead and buried.
Bioluminescence
DAVID: light is always helpful, but these organisms don't have eyes. It is a mystery but developments in evolution always have reasons.
dhw: I agree, and one very logical reason is that in one way or another they improve chances of survival. It seems to me highly unlikely that the reason for bioluminescence is that your God (if he exists) considered it to be essential for the evolution of humans and their food, although you tell us that we and our food were his one and only purpose right from the beginning of life.
DAVID: My point exactly.
Just to clarify: is it now your point that these developments serve the purpose to improve chances of survival? Or do you still think your God couldn’t have designed us and our food without designing bioluminescence for eyeless organisms?
Importance of Microbiomes: skin wound effects
DAVID: These relationships are hard to explain as to purpose. But evolution produces these results for valid reasons. We need to understand the underlying purpose.
dhw: Not so hard to understand if we assume that bacteria, like every other organism, find their own ways to survive. This can clearly involve conflict between different types of bacteria in the great free-for-all – a theory which you accept when it concerns good and bad bugs, but reject when it comes to the countless different species that had no connection with your version of your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food).
DAVID: I'm glad God had that purpose, aren't you?
The discussion is not about how glad we are to be alive. Which purpose are you talking about now? You seem to be accepting the theory that your God created a free-for-all battle for survival as a means of avoiding boredom, so I don’t know why you reject it as an explanation for the 99.9% of species that were not connected with us and our food.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Friday, April 26, 2024, 20:07 (209 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The thoughts are logical. The final leap is not.
dhw: That depends on which of your choices we’re talking about. The thought that an omniscient, omnipotent God would deliberately choose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only goal is illogical/irrational, as is your fixed faith in that theory.
DAVID: Your weird distortion of my theology is not worth discussing, as totally preposterous.
dhw: Please tell us which part of the above theory is a distortion. To be precise: do you now reject your beliefs that (1) we and our food were your God’s sole purpose, 2) that he chose to design and cull 99.9% of past species, 3) that we and our food are descended from only 0.1% of past species, which means the remaining 99.9% were irrelevant to his purpose?
Your invented discussion of the statistics of survival in evolution is wildly illogical. The 99.9% that went extinct led to the 0.1% survivors. That is what Raup told us in his book. All extinction led to current new living forms.
A new consciousness declarationQUOTE:“The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles,amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects.)(dhw's bold)
dhw: The whole point is that they can think for themselves, which suggests that they can design their own lifestyles, strategies and modes of survival. What else would they use their consciousness for? […]
DAVID: But consciousness does not create speciation. […]
dhw: I thought we'd agreed that it does, unless you believe in blind chance. But you think that only your God’s consciousness can do it, and it is unthinkable that even though he gave consciousness to our fellow animals, birds and insects, he might have done the same for
single cells and their communities.DAVID: But not at your cell committee theoretical level.
dhw: “Community” not “committee”. Thank you for publishing all the articles that disagree with you.
DAVID: All views are to be seen.
dhw: We have come a long way since you claimed that Shapiro’s theory was dead and buried.
Shapiro retired but he is still active touting his evolution theory.
BioluminescenceDAVID: light is always helpful, but these organisms don't have eyes. It is a mystery but developments in evolution always have reasons.
dhw: I agree, and one very logical reason is that in one way or another they improve chances of survival. It seems to me highly unlikely that the reason for bioluminescence is that your God (if he exists) considered it to be essential for the evolution of humans and their food, although you tell us that we and our food were his one and only purpose right from the beginning of life.
DAVID: My point exactly.
dhw: Just to clarify: is it now your point that these developments serve the purpose to improve chances of survival? Or do you still think your God couldn’t have designed us and our food without designing bioluminescence for eyeless organisms?
All part of required diversity of forms.
Importance of Microbiomes: skin wound effectsDAVID: These relationships are hard to explain as to purpose. But evolution produces these results for valid reasons. We need to understand the underlying purpose.
dhw: Not so hard to understand if we assume that bacteria, like every other organism, find their own ways to survive. This can clearly involve conflict between different types of bacteria in the great free-for-all – a theory which you accept when it concerns good and bad bugs, but reject when it comes to the countless different species that had no connection with your version of your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food).
DAVID: I'm glad God had that purpose, aren't you?
dhw:The discussion is not about how glad we are to be alive. Which purpose are you talking about now? You seem to be accepting the theory that your God created a free-for-all battle for survival as a means of avoiding boredom, so I don’t know why you reject it as an explanation for the 99.9% of species that were not connected with us and our food.
Back we do to your irrational analysis of evolution. God does not get bored, but your overly humanized form does. When will you learn how to think about a possibly real God?
More Miscellany
A new consciousness declaration
dhw: Thank you for publishing all the articles that disagree with you.
DAVID: All views are to be seen.
dhw: We have come a long way since you claimed that Shapiro’s theory was dead and buried.
DAVID: Shapiro retired but he is still active touting his evolution theory.
And as you have kindly demonstrated, it is getting more and more support. As in the next item:
QUOTES...new research at Moffitt led by Dipesh Niraula, Ph.D., and Robert Gatenby, M.D., discovered a nongenomic information system that operates alongside DNA, enabling cells to gather information from the environment and respond quickly to changes.
The researchers suggested that this system, which allows for rapid and local responses to specific signals, can also generate coordinated regional or global responses to larger environmental changes.
This intricate network enables cells to make swift and informed decisions, critical for their survival and function.
Thank you for providing yet more evidence for Shapiro’s theory that cells gather information, respond to changes in conditions, and make decisions based on what is best for their survival.
Bioluminescence
DAVID: light is always helpful, but these organisms don't have eyes. It is a mystery but developments in evolution always have reasons.
dhw: I agree, and one very logical reason is that in one way or another they improve chances of survival. It seems to me highly unlikely that the reason for bioluminescence is that your God (if he exists) considered it to be essential for the evolution of humans and their food, although you tell us that we and our food were his one and only purpose right from the beginning of life.
DAVID: My point exactly.
dhw: Just to clarify: is it now your point that these developments serve the purpose to improve chances of survival? Or do you still think your God couldn’t have designed us and our food without designing bioluminescence for eyeless organisms?
DAVID: All part of required diversity of forms.
Why do you think bioluminescence for eyeless organisms was essential to the fulfilment of your God’s sole purpose of producing us and our food?
Importance of Microbiomes: skin wound effects
DAVID: These relationships are hard to explain as to purpose. But evolution produces these results for valid reasons. We need to understand the underlying purpose.
dhw: Not so hard to understand if we assume that bacteria, like every other organism, find their own ways to survive. This can clearly involve conflict between different types of bacteria in the great free-for-all – a theory which you accept when it concerns good and bad bugs, but reject when it comes to the countless different species that had no connection with your version of your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food).
DAVID: I'm glad God had that purpose, aren't you?
dhw:The discussion is not about how glad we are to be alive. Which purpose are you talking about now? You seem to be accepting the theory that your God created a free-for-all battle for survival as a means of avoiding boredom, so I don’t know why you reject it as an explanation for the 99.9% of species that were not connected with us and our food.
DAVID: Back we do to your irrational analysis of evolution. God does not get bored, but your overly humanized form does. When will you learn how to think about a possibly real God?
Your theory was that your God allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which he is to be blamed) in order to avoid boredom – his and ours. Now, with your astonishing first-hand knowledge of how God thinks and feels, you dismiss your own theory. When will you learn that nobody can learn how to think about a possibly real God, but if you propose certain ideas one week and then propose the opposite the following week, it becomes more and more difficult to take any of your ideas seriously. I still vividly remember your certainty that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and has thought patterns and emotions like our own. When you proposed your boredom theory, it was nicely consistent with your earlier beliefs. But suddenly out they all go again.
The role of the interstitium
QUOTE: "Understanding how the interstitium works will define more of the rules about how the trillions of cells in the human body communicate across vast distances to create the exquisitely complex system that is the body. How these things all add up are vast scientific questions that will require a meticulously reductive approach as well as cultivation of a beginner’s mind.”
The new articles were too technical for me to grasp, but this paragraph leapt out at me. These vast communities perform different functions, but communicate with one another to create a single community of communities. Awesome. And I love the emphasis on the need for a reductive approach and a beginner’s mind. The logical outcome of a reductive approach would seem to be just how each individual cell plays its part, and perhaps the beginner’s mind will find that each cell actually knows what it’s doing. But I acknowledge that you would expect the approach to lead to the conclusion that all cells are robots obeying your God’s instructions.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Saturday, April 27, 2024, 17:01 (208 days ago) @ dhw
A new consciousness declaration
QUOTES...new research at Moffitt led by Dipesh Niraula, Ph.D., and Robert Gatenby, M.D., discovered a nongenomic information system that operates alongside DNA, enabling cells to gather information from the environment and respond quickly to changes.
The researchers suggested that this system, which allows for rapid and local responses to specific signals, can also generate coordinated regional or global responses to larger environmental changes.
This intricate network enables cells to make swift and informed decisions, critical for their survival and function.
dhw: Thank you for providing yet more evidence for Shapiro’s theory that cells gather information, respond to changes in conditions, and make decisions based on what is best for their survival.
No question, cells adapt but only at a local level, not speciation.
BioluminescenceDAVID: light is always helpful, but these organisms don't have eyes. It is a mystery but developments in evolution always have reasons.
dhw: I agree, and one very logical reason is that in one way or another they improve chances of survival. It seems to me highly unlikely that the reason for bioluminescence is that your God (if he exists) considered it to be essential for the evolution of humans and their food, although you tell us that we and our food were his one and only purpose right from the beginning of life.
DAVID: My point exactly.
dhw: Just to clarify: is it now your point that these developments serve the purpose to improve chances of survival? Or do you still think your God couldn’t have designed us and our food without designing bioluminescence for eyeless organisms?
DAVID: All part of required diversity of forms.
dhw: Why do you think bioluminescence for eyeless organisms was essential to the fulfilment of your God’s sole purpose of producing us and our food?
My God wished to produce an Earth filled with diverse life forms for our use.
Importance of Microbiomes: skin wound effectsdhw:The discussion is not about how glad we are to be alive. Which purpose are you talking about now? You seem to be accepting the theory that your God created a free-for-all battle for survival as a means of avoiding boredom, so I don’t know why you reject it as an explanation for the 99.9% of species that were not connected with us and our food.
DAVID: Back we do to your irrational analysis of evolution. God does not get bored, but your overly humanized form does. When will you learn how to think about a possibly real God?
dhw: Your theory was that your God allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which he is to be blamed) in order to avoid boredom – his and ours. Now, with your astonishing first-hand knowledge of how God thinks and feels, you dismiss your own theory. When will you learn that nobody can learn how to think about a possibly real God, but if you propose certain ideas one week and then propose the opposite the following week, it becomes more and more difficult to take any of your ideas seriously. I still vividly remember your certainty that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and has thought patterns and emotions like our own. When you proposed your boredom theory, it was nicely consistent with your earlier beliefs. But suddenly out they all go again.
God is not human. Does He have emotions like ours is questionable. Religions claim He loves us, but is that human wishful thinking? I have never been 'certain' about God's personal attributes you listed. Perhaps it is my human wishes that He be that way.
The role of the interstitiumQUOTE: "Understanding how the interstitium works will define more of the rules about how the trillions of cells in the human body communicate across vast distances to create the exquisitely complex system that is the body. How these things all add up are vast scientific questions that will require a meticulously reductive approach as well as cultivation of a beginner’s mind.”
dhw: The new articles were too technical for me to grasp, but this paragraph leapt out at me. These vast communities perform different functions, but communicate with one another to create a single community of communities. Awesome. And I love the emphasis on the need for a reductive approach and a beginner’s mind. The logical outcome of a reductive approach would seem to be just how each individual cell plays its part, and perhaps the beginner’s mind will find that each cell actually knows what it’s doing. But I acknowledge that you would expect the approach to lead to the conclusion that all cells are robots obeying your God’s instructions.
IN DNA there are instructions, but as these articles show there are other levels of communication constantly in action.
More Miscellany
A new consciousness declaration
dhw: Thank you for providing yet more evidence for Shapiro’s theory that cells gather information, respond to changes in conditions, and make decisions based on what is best for their survival.
DAVID: No question, cells adapt but only at a local level, not speciation.
Another authoritative statement of opinion.
Bioluminescence
dhw: Why do you think bioluminescence for eyeless organisms was essential to the fulfilment of your God’s sole purpose of producing us and our food?
DAVID: My God wished to produce an Earth filled with diverse life forms for our use.
I’m not sure what use we make of these organisms, but of course we are still left with the conundrum of why he would have produced and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were manifestly not for our use, since today’s bush of life is descended from only 0.1% of past species.
Importance of Microbiome (now back to boredom and theodicy)
DAVID: God does not get bored, but your overly humanized form does. When will you learn how to think about a possibly real God?
dhw: Your theory was that your God allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which he is to be blamed) in order to avoid boredom – his and ours. Now, with your astonishing first-hand knowledge of how God thinks and feels, you dismiss your own theory. When will you learn that nobody can learn how to think about a possibly real God, but if you propose certain ideas one week and then propose the opposite the following week, it becomes more and more difficult to take any of your ideas seriously. I still vividly remember your certainty that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and has thought patterns and emotions like our own. When you proposed your boredom theory, it was nicely consistent with your earlier beliefs. But suddenly out they all go again.
DAVID: God is not human.
I never said he was.
DAVID: Does He have emotions like ours is questionable. Religions claim He loves us, but is that human wishful thinking? I have never been 'certain' about God's personal attributes you listed. Perhaps it is my human wishes that He be that way.
You were once certain he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but apparently you have never been certain. You are certain that he is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, can’t get bored, is selfless and acts without self-interest etc. In fact, you are certain about anything that supports your wishes, and you are certain in your rejection of anything that contradicts them.
The role of the interstitium
QUOTE: "Understanding how the interstitium works will define more of the rules about how the trillions of cells in the human body communicate across vast distances to create the exquisitely complex system that is the body. How these things all add up are vast scientific questions that will require a meticulously reductive approach as well as cultivation of a beginner’s mind.”
dhw: The new articles were too technical for me to grasp, but this paragraph leapt out at me. These vast communities perform different functions, but communicate with one another to create a single community of communities. Awesome. And I love the emphasis on the need for a reductive approach and a beginner’s mind. The logical outcome of a reductive approach would seem to be just how each individual cell plays its part, and perhaps the beginner’s mind will find that each cell actually knows what it’s doing. But I acknowledge that you would expect the approach to lead to the conclusion that all cells are robots obeying your God’s instructions.
DAVID: In DNA there are instructions, but as these articles show there are other levels of communication constantly in action.
All of which reinforce the image of a vast community of communities cooperating to perform existing functions and to respond to new requirements. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that they know what they’re doing.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Sunday, April 28, 2024, 15:53 (207 days ago) @ dhw
A new consciousness declaration
dhw: Thank you for providing yet more evidence for Shapiro’s theory that cells gather information, respond to changes in conditions, and make decisions based on what is best for their survival.
DAVID: No question, cells adapt but only at a local level, not speciation.
dhw: Another authoritative statement of opinion.
Why are you afraid of opinions? You know my view, and I know yours.
Bioluminescencedhw: Why do you think bioluminescence for eyeless organisms was essential to the fulfilment of your God’s sole purpose of producing us and our food?
DAVID: My God wished to produce an Earth filled with diverse life forms for our use.
dhw: I’m not sure what use we make of these organisms, but of course we are still left with the conundrum of why he would have produced and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were manifestly not for our use, since today’s bush of life is descended from only 0.1% of past species.
Same confused math, not worth further discussion. Stop splitting evolution into two unrelated parts!!!
Importance of Microbiome (now back to boredom and theodicy)DAVID: God does not get bored, but your overly humanized form does. When will you learn how to think about a possibly real God?
dhw: Your theory was that your God allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which he is to be blamed) in order to avoid boredom – his and ours. Now, with your astonishing first-hand knowledge of how God thinks and feels, you dismiss your own theory. When will you learn that nobody can learn how to think about a possibly real God, but if you propose certain ideas one week and then propose the opposite the following week, it becomes more and more difficult to take any of your ideas seriously. I still vividly remember your certainty that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and has thought patterns and emotions like our own. When you proposed your boredom theory, it was nicely consistent with your earlier beliefs. But suddenly out they all go again.
DAVID: God is not human. Addendum: All those human qualities I and you listed above are covered just below.
dhw: I never said he was.
DAVID: Does He have emotions like ours is questionable. Religions claim He loves us, but is that human wishful thinking? I have never been 'certain' about God's personal attributes you listed. Perhaps it is my human wishes that He be that way.
dhw; You were once certain he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but apparently you have never been certain. You are certain that he is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, can’t get bored, is selfless and acts without self-interest etc. In fact, you are certain about anything that supports your wishes, and you are certain in your rejection of anything that contradicts them.
That is my right as an individual thinker.
The role of the interstitiumQUOTE: "Understanding how the interstitium works will define more of the rules about how the trillions of cells in the human body communicate across vast distances to create the exquisitely complex system that is the body. How these things all add up are vast scientific questions that will require a meticulously reductive approach as well as cultivation of a beginner’s mind.”
dhw: The new articles were too technical for me to grasp, but this paragraph leapt out at me. These vast communities perform different functions, but communicate with one another to create a single community of communities. Awesome. And I love the emphasis on the need for a reductive approach and a beginner’s mind. The logical outcome of a reductive approach would seem to be just how each individual cell plays its part, and perhaps the beginner’s mind will find that each cell actually knows what it’s doing. But I acknowledge that you would expect the approach to lead to the conclusion that all cells are robots obeying your God’s instructions.
DAVID: In DNA there are instructions, but as these articles show there are other levels of communication constantly in action.
dhw; All of which reinforce the image of a vast community of communities cooperating to perform existing functions and to respond to new requirements. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that they know what they’re doing.
"Know" in a mental sense? Please define.
More Miscellany
A new consciousness declaration
dhw: Thank you for providing yet more evidence for Shapiro’s theory that cells gather information, respond to changes in conditions, and make decisions based on what is best for their survival.
DAVID: No question, cells adapt but only at a local level, not speciation.
dhw: Another authoritative statement of opinion.
DAVID: Why are you afraid of opinions? You know my view, and I know yours.
I am not afraid of opinions. But I’m not happy when people express opinions as if they were facts, as in “No question…” Of course there is a question.
Bioluminescence
Dealt with above.
Importance of Microbiome (now back to boredom and theodicy)
DAVID: Does He have emotions like ours is questionable. Religions claim He loves us, but is that human wishful thinking? I have never been 'certain' about God's personal attributes you listed. Perhaps it is my human wishes that He be that way.
dhw: You were once certain he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but apparently you have never been certain. You are certain that he is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, can’t get bored, is selfless and acts without self-interest etc. In fact, you are certain about anything that supports your wishes, and you are certain in your rejection of anything that contradicts them.
DAVID: That is my right as an individual thinker.
You have “never been certain about God’s attributes” which I listed, but you are certain about some of them, as is your right.Maybe you should also say you never contradict yourself.
The role of the interstitium
dhw: logical outcome of a reductive approach would seem to be just how each individual cell plays its part, and perhaps the beginner’s mind will find that each cell actually knows what it’s doing. But I acknowledge that you would expect the approach to lead to the conclusion that all cells are robots obeying your God’s instructions.
DAVID: In DNA there are instructions, but as these articles show there are other levels of communication constantly in action.
dhw: All of which reinforce the image of a vast community of communities cooperating to perform existing functions and to respond to new requirements. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that they know what they’re doing.
DAVID: "Know" in a mental sense? Please define.
To be aware of the available information, to deliberately process it, communicate with other cells, and make decisions as to the best way to deal with it. This is what all organisms do in order to survive, and I don’t think even you believe that all living organisms are robots whose decisions always depend on instructions provide by your God.
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” This would also be a very reasonable explanation for pre-whales leaving the land. In their case, you had your God making the changes before the pre-whales entered the water, so do you think he did the same for all the different varieties of aquatic spiders listed in the article: a twiddle here and a fiddle there, and hey ho, off you go to the water? But of course, you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways. And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Monday, April 29, 2024, 18:30 (206 days ago) @ dhw
A new consciousness declaration
DAVID: Why are you afraid of opinions? You know my view, and I know yours.
dhw: I am not afraid of opinions. But I’m not happy when people express opinions as if they were facts, as in “No question…” Of course there is a question.
I express my thoughts about God as fact for my faith. Please remember that as you question me.
Importance of Microbiome (now back to boredom and theodicy)DAVID: Does He have emotions like ours is questionable. Religions claim He loves us, but is that human wishful thinking? I have never been 'certain' about God's personal attributes you listed. Perhaps it is my human wishes that He be that way.
dhw: You were once certain he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but apparently you have never been certain. You are certain that he is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, can’t get bored, is selfless and acts without self-interest etc. In fact, you are certain about anything that supports your wishes, and you are certain in your rejection of anything that contradicts them.
DAVID: That is my right as an individual thinker.
dhw: You have “never been certain about God’s attributes” which I listed, but you are certain about some of them, as is your right. Maybe you should also say you never contradict yourself.
Contradictions are your inventions. No, no one can be certain about God's attributes. My thoughts about God are within a faith structure. When I offer an opinion it will come across as if fact.
The role of the interstitiumdhw: logical outcome of a reductive approach would seem to be just how each individual cell plays its part, and perhaps the beginner’s mind will find that each cell actually knows what it’s doing. But I acknowledge that you would expect the approach to lead to the conclusion that all cells are robots obeying your God’s instructions.
DAVID: In DNA there are instructions, but as these articles show there are other levels of communication constantly in action.
dhw: All of which reinforce the image of a vast community of communities cooperating to perform existing functions and to respond to new requirements. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that they know what they’re doing.
DAVID: "Know" in a mental sense? Please define.
dhw:To be aware of the available information, to deliberately process it, communicate with other cells, and make decisions as to the best way to deal with it. This is what all organisms do in order to survive, and I don’t think even you believe that all living organisms are robots whose decisions always depend on instructions provide by your God.
No, in adaptability there are some minor processes that do not need instructions.
Aquatic spidersDAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” This would also be a very reasonable explanation for pre-whales leaving the land. In their case, you had your God making the changes before the pre-whales entered the water, so do you think he did the same for all the different varieties of aquatic spiders listed in the article: a twiddle here and a fiddle there, and hey ho, off you go to the water? But of course, you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways. And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
They play a role in seaside ecosystems, of course. The authors spouted the usual reasons we all think of to explain such an unusual action.
More Miscellany
A new consciousness declaration
DAVID: Why are you afraid of opinions? You know my view, and I know yours.
dhw: I am not afraid of opinions. But I’m not happy when people express opinions as if they were facts, as in “No question [cells adapt but only at a local level, not speciation]…” Of course there is a question.
DAVID: I express my thoughts about God as fact for my faith. Please remember that as you question me.
I am constantly aware that you express your opinions as fact, in your effort to support your faith that your God is what you want him to be.
boredom and theodicy
DAVID: […] I have never been 'certain' about God's personal attributes you listed. Perhaps it is my human wishes that He be that way.
dhw: You were once certain he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but apparently you have never been certain. You are certain that he is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, can’t get bored, is selfless and acts without self-interest etc. In fact, you are certain about anything that supports your wishes, and you are certain in your rejection of anything that contradicts them.
DAVID: Contradictions are your inventions.
Examples of your contradictions have been listed elsewhere (e.g. an all-good God who is to blame for the bugs that kill millions of people).
DAVID: No, no one can be certain about God's attributes. My thoughts about God are within a faith structure. When I offer an opinion it will come across as if fact.
All agreed. This is particularly irksome when you use your contradictory opinions to dismiss any theory different from your own. For instance, your opinion one day is that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the next day when I propose that he might have created life in order to provide himself with interesting things to do and watch, you insist that he has no self-interest. You even propose that he would find puppets boring, which leads to his knowingly allowing evil and creating murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to avoid boredom, but again, he has no self-interest.
The role of the interstitium
DAVID: […] as these articles show there are other levels of communication constantly in action.
dhw: All of which reinforce the image of a vast community of communities cooperating to perform existing functions and to respond to new requirements. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that they know what they’re doing.
DAVID: "Know" in a mental sense? Please define.
dhw:To be aware of the available information, to deliberately process it, communicate with other cells, and make decisions as to the best way to deal with it. This is what all organisms do in order to survive, and I don’t think even you believe that all living organisms are robots whose decisions always depend on instructions provide by your God.
DAVID: No, in adaptability there are some minor processes that do not need instructions.
Please tell us which category the next item covers:
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” […] you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways. And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
DAVID: They play a role in seaside ecosystems, of course. The authors spouted the usual reasons we all think of to explain such an unusual action.
And what do you find unacceptable in the usual reasons? Now please tell us why you think your God found it necessary to specially design all the different ways in which these spiders have adapted to life in the water.
Cerebellum helps learning
QUOTES: Our research provides clear evidence that the cerebellum is not only important for learning how to perform skillful actions, but also for learning which actions are most valuable in certain situations," says Bostan.
"'It helps explain some of the non-motor difficulties in people with cerebellar disorders.'"
DAVID: the cerebellum is packed with specialized neurons. We see connections to the cortex and are still trying to find out how those connections work.
The brain, like the rest of the body, is a community of cellular communities, and these all communicate with one another. Even specialists can communicate with other specialists. Would it be too simple to suggest that the connections work because cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, information-processing, decision-making entities “that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation” (James A. Shapiro)? (NB: This theory leaves open the possibility that your God was the designer of cellular intelligence.)
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 30, 2024, 20:13 (205 days ago) @ dhw
boredom and theodicy
DAVID: No, no one can be certain about God's attributes. My thoughts about God are within a faith structure. When I offer an opinion it will come across as if fact.
dhw: All agreed. This is particularly irksome when you use your contradictory opinions to dismiss any theory different from your own. For instance, your opinion one day is that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the next day when I propose that he might have created life in order to provide himself with interesting things to do and watch, you insist that he has no self-interest. You even propose that he would find puppets boring, which leads to his knowingly allowing evil and creating murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to avoid boredom, but again, he has no self-interest.
'Self-interest' means doing something to satisfy yourself. God does not require self-satisfaction as I view Him.
DAVID: No, in adaptability there are some minor processes that do not need instructions.
dhw; Please tell us which category the next item covers:
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” […] you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways. And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
DAVID: They play a role in seaside ecosystems, of course. The authors spouted the usual reasons we all think of to explain such an unusual action.
dhw: And what do you find unacceptable in the usual reasons? Now please tell us why you think your God found it necessary to specially design all the different ways in which these spiders have adapted to life in the water.
Same OLD answer: they fit into a necessary ecosystem.
Cerebellum helps learningQUOTES: Our research provides clear evidence that the cerebellum is not only important for learning how to perform skillful actions, but also for learning which actions are most valuable in certain situations," says Bostan.
"'It helps explain some of the non-motor difficulties in people with cerebellar disorders.'"
DAVID: the cerebellum is packed with specialized neurons. We see connections to the cortex and are still trying to find out how those connections work.
dhw; The brain, like the rest of the body, is a community of cellular communities, and these all communicate with one another. Even specialists can communicate with other specialists. Would it be too simple to suggest that the connections work because cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, information-processing, decision-making entities “that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation” (James A. Shapiro)? (NB: This theory leaves open the possibility that your God was the designer of cellular intelligence.)
God is the best explanation.
More Miscellany
Boredom and theodicy
dhw: […] your opinion one day is that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the next day when I propose that he might have created life in order to provide himself with interesting things to do and watch, you insist that he has no self-interest. You even propose that he would find puppets boring, which leads to his knowingly allowing evil and creating murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to avoid boredom, but again, he has no self-interest.
DAVID: 'Self-interest' means doing something to satisfy yourself. God does not require self-satisfaction as I view Him.
I know what self-interest means, and I know you think he doesn’t require it, although you also think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, and he would find puppets boring, and so he allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to prevent himself and us from getting bored. But not wanting to be bored, and doing things for enjoyment apparently do not entail self-interest.
Importance of microbiomes
DAVID: more information about an important microbiome. Bacterial and fungal microbiomes are necessary and vital for all life. BUT, the flip side is Pseudomonas infections in humans are often fatal. Again a theodicy issue. The plants benefit from the bug, so why complain about the evil they do. They are necessarily designed as free-acting. They cannot be puppets.
Once again, your omnipotent God is powerless to prevent evil, and you have not yet explained why you blame him. However, as above, you proposed the theory that he actually wanted evil as a means of relieving boredom (for himself and us). That would make sense, though it dents your concept of an all-good God without self-interest. A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone. As you say, your God would not want puppets, which would be boring, so he’d certainly find an ever-changing world more interesting than one in which he simply designed every creature and – through his omniscience – knew precisely what each one would be and do. It’s just a “maybe”, but your theologians have taught you that you can invent your own God, and these two inventions have the priceless advantage that they are not riddled with contradictions.
Aquatic spiders
(I am splitting the comments to clarify questions and answers.)
DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” […]
DAVID: The authors spouted the usual reasons we all think of to explain such an unusual action.
dhw: And what do you find unacceptable in the usual reasons?
No answer.
dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.
Ignored
dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
DAVID: Same OLD answer: they fit into a necessary ecosystem.
All life forms fit into ecosystems necessary for themselves. Why do you think all the variations of spider design were necessary for us humans and our food?
Cerebellum helps learning
DAVID: the cerebellum is packed with specialized neurons. We see connections to the cortex and are still trying to find out how those connections work.
dhw: The brain, like the rest of the body, is a community of cellular communities, and these all communicate with one another. Even specialists can communicate with other specialists. Would it be too simple to suggest that the connections work because cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, information-processing, decision-making entities “that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation” (James A. Shapiro)? (NB: This theory leaves open the possibility that your God was the designer of cellular intelligence.)
DAVID: God is the best explanation.
For what? Do you mean he gives instructions to all the cells and takes their decisions for them, or he invented the autonomous mechanism by which they are responsible for their own actions and decisions?
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 01, 2024, 19:34 (204 days ago) @ dhw
Boredom and theodicy
DAVID: 'Self-interest' means doing something to satisfy yourself. God does not require self-satisfaction as I view Him.
dhw: I know what self-interest means, and I know you think he doesn’t require it, although you also think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, and he would find puppets boring, and so he allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to prevent himself and us from getting bored. But not wanting to be bored, and doing things for enjoyment apparently do not entail self-interest.
God may enjoy creating is a possible attribute since He does create. But 'enjoy' MUST be used allegorically, since God is not human and may not want or need the emotions we have.
Importance of microbiomesDAVID: more information about an important microbiome. Bacterial and fungal microbiomes are necessary and vital for all life. BUT, the flip side is Pseudomonas infections in humans are often fatal. Again a theodicy issue. The plants benefit from the bug, so why complain about the evil they do. They are necessarily designed as free-acting. They cannot be puppets.
dhw: Once again, your omnipotent God is powerless to prevent evil, and you have not yet explained why you blame him.
I initially raised here the issue of theodicy for completeness.
dhw: However, as above, you proposed the theory that he actually wanted evil as a means of relieving boredom (for himself and us). That would make sense, though it dents your concept of an all-good God without self-interest.
Boredom is a human problem. It may not affect God at all. Don't apply boredom to Him.
dhw: A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone. As you say, your God would not want puppets, which would be boring, so he’d certainly find an ever-changing world more interesting than one in which he simply designed every creature and – through his omniscience – knew precisely what each one would be and do. It’s just a “maybe”, but your theologians have taught you that you can invent your own God, and these two inventions have the priceless advantage that they are not riddled with contradictions.
Backwards as usual. God makes the world as it is. It doesn't run independently as a show for Him. No contradictions here for your humanized form of a God.
Aquatic spiders(I am splitting the comments to clarify questions and answers.)
DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” […]
DAVID: The authors spouted the usual reasons we all think of to explain such an unusual action.
dhw: And what do you find unacceptable in the usual reasons?
dhw: No answer.
None necessary. Just-so stories, as in the article, add nothing of substance.
dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.Ignored
Your same old blather about super intelligent cells.
dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?DAVID: Same OLD answer: they fit into a necessary ecosystem.
dhw: All life forms fit into ecosystems necessary for themselves. Why do you think all the variations of spider design were necessary for us humans and our food?
Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
Cerebellum helps learningDAVID: the cerebellum is packed with specialized neurons. We see connections to the cortex and are still trying to find out how those connections work.
dhw: The brain, like the rest of the body, is a community of cellular communities, and these all communicate with one another. Even specialists can communicate with other specialists. Would it be too simple to suggest that the connections work because cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, information-processing, decision-making entities “that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation” (James A. Shapiro)? (NB: This theory leaves open the possibility that your God was the designer of cellular intelligence.)
DAVID: God is the best explanation.
dhw: For what? Do you mean he gives instructions to all the cells and takes their decisions for them, or he invented the autonomous mechanism by which they are responsible for their own actions and decisions?
The Purkinje cells, as specialized neurons, have many designed abilities.
More Miscellany
Double standards
dhw: You seem to have understood the term now.
DAVID: Yes, I understand your view. The problem for me is, if I give a brief answer, you immediately demand a more complete justification, as this exchange shows. I will try to be more complete.
Yes, it is highly desirable that you give at least one good reason for rejecting alternatives to your own theology, and that it should not open you up to being accused of double standards. Thank you.
Enjoyment, boredom and theodicy
dhw: […] you also think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, and he would find puppets boring, and so he allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to prevent himself and us from getting bored. But not wanting to be bored, and doing things for enjoyment apparently do not entail self-interest.
DAVID: God may enjoy creating is a possible attribute since He does create. But 'enjoy' MUST be used allegorically, since God is not human and may not want or need the emotions we have.
And:
DAVID: Boredom is a human problem. It may not affect God at all. Don't apply boredom to Him.
There is no “allegory” involved. Enjoyment is not a symbol. You know what you mean by the word, and so do I. Whether or not he has emotions like ours (including enjoyment and boredom) is a fair question. But it was you who were certain he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations, and I can’t see why he would create life if he didn’t enjoy doing it. You said he would have found puppets boring. I agree. I don’t find it difficult to believe that the conscious being you call God might find eternity boring if he didn’t have anything other than himself to think about. And I even accept the reasonableness of your idea that he wants us to worship him. It’s you who object to your own suggestions, because you also want your God to be selfless. You start with the God you wish for, and the contradictions follow.
Importance of microbiomes
DAVID: […] The plants benefit from the bug, so why complain about the evil they do. They are necessarily designed as free-acting. They cannot be puppets.
dhw: Once again, your omnipotent God is powerless to prevent evil, and you have not yet explained why you blame him.
DAVID: I initially raised here the issue of theodicy for completeness.
So please tell us why you blame him for the murderous bugs,
dhw: A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone.
DAVID: Backwards as usual. God makes the world as it is. It doesn't run independently as a show for Him. No contradictions here for your humanized form of a God.
Your usual statement of opinion as fact, and a blanket rejection of any humanizing “maybes” other than your own.
Aquatic spiders
(I am splitting the comments to clarify questions and answers.)
DAVID: Why did the spiders go back to water? As with whales many physiological changes had to occur. God must have stepped in as a designer.
dhw: The article answers your question: “Presumably, the spiders that later returned to a life aquatic were strongly drawn by something to eat there, or driven by unsafe conditions on land.” […]
DAVID: Just-so stories, as in the article, add nothing of substance.
Why do you find it unreasonable to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if they can’t find food or they are in danger?
dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.
DAVID: Your same old blather about super intelligent cells.
Why “super”? No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
Cerebellum helps learning
DAVID: God is the best explanation.
dhw: For what? Do you mean he gives instructions to all the cells and takes their decisions for them, or he invented the autonomous mechanism by which they are responsible for their own actions and decisions?
DAVID: The Purkinje cells, as specialized neurons, have many designed abilities.
What wonderful news! Now please tell us if you think they use their abilities autonomously or if they merely obey your God’s instructions.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Thursday, May 02, 2024, 20:11 (203 days ago) @ dhw
Double standards
DAVID: Yes, I understand your view. The problem for me is, if I give a brief answer, you immediately demand a more complete justification, as this exchange shows. I will try to be more complete.
dhw: Yes, it is highly desirable that you give at least one good reason for rejecting alternatives to your own theology, and that it should not open you up to being accused of double standards. Thank you.
Solved.
Enjoyment, boredom and theodicydhw: […] you also think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, and he would find puppets boring, and so he allowed human evil and created murderous bugs (for which you blame him) in order to prevent himself and us from getting bored. But not wanting to be bored, and doing things for enjoyment apparently do not entail self-interest.
DAVID: God may enjoy creating is a possible attribute since He does create. But 'enjoy' MUST be used allegorically, since God is not human and may not want or need the emotions we have.
And:
DAVID: Boredom is a human problem. It may not affect God at all. Don't apply boredom to Him.There is no “allegory” involved. Enjoyment is not a symbol. You know what you mean by the word, and so do I. Whether or not he has emotions like ours (including enjoyment and boredom) is a fair question. But it was you who were certain he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations, and I can’t see why he would create life if he didn’t enjoy doing it. You said he would have found puppets boring. I agree. I don’t find it difficult to believe that the conscious being you call God might find eternity boring if he didn’t have anything other than himself to think about.
The bold is a prime example of how you view God, as PRIMARILY HUMAN!
dhw: And I even accept the reasonableness of your idea that he wants us to worship him. It’s you who object to your own suggestions, because you also want your God to be selfless. You start with the God you wish for, and the contradictions follow.
Applying guesses you ask for are all done with allegorical meanings applied, per rules, despite your discomfort from totally misunderstanding the concept.
Importance of microbiomesDAVID: I initially raised here the issue of theodicy for completeness.
dhw: So please tell us why you blame him for the murderous bugs,
they exist form a morally sufficient reason: they help create the life we enjoy.;
dhw: A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone.DAVID: Backwards as usual. God makes the world as it is. It doesn't run independently as a show for Him. No contradictions here for your humanized form of a God.
dhw: Your usual statement of opinion as fact, and a blanket rejection of any humanizing “maybes” other than your own.
I attempt no humanizations of God.
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Just-so stories, as in the article, add nothing of substance.
dhw: Why do you find it unreasonable to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if they can’t find food or they are in danger?
Obviously, you enjoy just-so stories. You just spouted a truim.
dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.
DAVID: Your same old blather about super intelligent cells.
dhw: Why “super”? No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
Neither do I.
dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
All for our use.
Cerebellum helps learningDAVID: God is the best explanation.
dhw: For what? Do you mean he gives instructions to all the cells and takes their decisions for them, or he invented the autonomous mechanism by which they are responsible for their own actions and decisions?
DAVID: The Purkinje cells, as specialized neurons, have many designed abilities.
dhw: What wonderful news! Now please tell us if you think they use their abilities autonomously or if they merely obey your God’s instructions.
Programmed with God's instructions.
More Miscellany
Enjoyment, boredom and theodicy.
DAVID: God may enjoy creating is a possible attribute since He does create. But 'enjoy' MUST be used allegorically, since God is not human and may not want or need the emotions we have.
And:
DAVID: Boredom is a human problem. It may not affect God at all. Don't apply boredom to Him.
I have dealt with your absurd use of “allegory” on the other thread. “May not want” is simply balanced by “may want”. Nobody knows the truth!
dhw: […] I don’t find it difficult to believe that the conscious being you call God might find eternity boring if he didn’t have anything other than himself to think about.
DAVID: The bold is a prime example of how you view God, as PRIMARILY HUMAN!
Where do you get “primarily” from? You said yourself that he would have found puppets boring. You think he wants us to worship him, is an inefficient designer, but enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. This does not make an eternal, immaterial, sourceless creator of universes and life “primarily” human!
Theodicy
DAVID: I initially raised here the issue of theodicy for completeness.
dhw: So please tell us why you blame him for the murderous bugs.
DAVID: they exist form a morally sufficient reason: they help create the life we enjoy.
That would be a reason for not blaming him, but you wrote that you do blame him. Why?
"Humanization"
dhw: A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone.
DAVID: Backwards as usual. God makes the world as it is. It doesn't run independently as a show for Him. No contradictions here for your humanized form of a God.
dhw: Your usual statement of opinion as fact, and a blanket rejection of any humanizing “maybes” other than your own.
DAVID: I attempt no humanizations of God.
This is your usual attempt to blank out statements you have made in the past. Enjoyment and interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, inefficiency, powerlessness (can’t control the bugs), possibly/probably/certainly has thought patterns and emotions like ours...Why are you so afraid of your own “maybes”? Don’t you find it perfectly feasible that the creator should imbue his creations with some of his own attributes? Is it not possible that your God’s purpose in designing us was to create a being that would recognize him, commune with him, worship him, love him, be loved by him? Why do you solidly oppose the very explanations that you yourself have proposed in the past?
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Just-so stories, as in the article, add nothing of substance.
dhw: Why do you find it unreasonable to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if they can’t find food or they are in danger?
DAVID: Obviously, you enjoy just-so stories. You just spouted a truism
A truism is something that is so obviously true that it doesn’t need to be said. So why do you call an obvious truth a “just-so story”? More self-contradictions!
dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.
DAVID: Your same old blather about super intelligent cells.
dhw: Why “super”? No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
DAVID: Neither do I.
Oh! So why did you say God must have designed them?
dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?
DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
DAVID: All for our use.
God designed lots of different aquatic spiders and every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for our use? I hope you enjoy your trilobite soup and your dinosaur steak.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Friday, May 03, 2024, 19:25 (202 days ago) @ dhw
Enjoyment, boredom and theodicy.
dhw: […] I don’t find it difficult to believe that the conscious being you call God might find eternity boring if he didn’t have anything other than himself to think about.
DAVID: The bold is a prime example of how you view God, as PRIMARILY HUMAN!
dhw: Where do you get “primarily” from? You said yourself that he would have found puppets boring. You think he wants us to worship him, is an inefficient designer, but enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. This does not make an eternal, immaterial, sourceless creator of universes and life “primarily” human!
Same stubborn approach. I use those words exclusively, allegorically because we don't know
God directly and humanizing Him is a giant NO NO.
TheodicyDAVID: I initially raised here the issue of theodicy for completeness.
dhw: So please tell us why you blame him for the murderous bugs.
DAVID: they exist form a morally sufficient reason: they help create the life we enjoy.
dhw: That would be a reason for not blaming him, but you wrote that you do blame him. Why?
Blame in sense because they are His true invention.
"Humanization"dhw: A deliberately designed free-for-all, not just for bad bugs and human free will but for the whole of evolution, would also make sense, as an explanation for the enormous variety of life forms that have come and gone.
DAVID: Backwards as usual. God makes the world as it is. It doesn't run independently as a show for Him. No contradictions here for your humanized form of a God.
dhw: Your usual statement of opinion as fact, and a blanket rejection of any humanizing “maybes” other than your own.
DAVID: I attempt no humanizations of God.
dhw: This is your usual attempt to blank out statements you have made in the past. Enjoyment and interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, inefficiency, powerlessness (can’t control the bugs), possibly/probably/certainly has thought patterns and emotions like ours...Why are you so afraid of your own “maybes”? Don’t you find it perfectly feasible that the creator should imbue his creations with some of his own attributes? Is it not possible that your God’s purpose in designing us was to create a being that would recognize him, commune with him, worship him, love him, be loved by him? Why do you solidly oppose the very explanations that you yourself have proposed in the past?
All partially true, but since you use no sense of allegory for those words you humanized God.
Aquatic spidersDAVID: Obviously, you enjoy just-so stories. You just spouted a truism
dhw: A truism is something that is so obviously true that it doesn’t need to be said. So why do you call an obvious truth a “just-so story”? More self-contradictions!
Just-so stories are presented as if truth, elephant trunk or giraffe neck origins as examples.
dhw: …you will not even consider the possibility that this wide variety of adaptations might be the result of intelligent cells responding to new conditions in their own different ways.DAVID: Your same old blather about super intelligent cells.
dhw: Why “super”? No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
DAVID: Neither do I.
dhw:Oh! So why did you say God must have designed them?
Misinterpretation. These spiders have designed attributes to fill their role in ecosystems.
dhw: And I’d better not ask why you think your God specially designed all these variations. Do we humans really need them or use them?DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
DAVID: All for our use.
dhw: God designed lots of different aquatic spiders and every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for our use? I hope you enjoy your trilobite soup and your dinosaur steak.
What happened long ago makes our current result.
More Miscellany
Enjoyment, boredom and theodicy.
dhw: […] I don’t find it difficult to believe that the conscious being you call God might find eternity boring if he didn’t have anything other than himself to think about.
DAVID: The bold is a prime example of how you view God, as PRIMARILY HUMAN!
dhw: Where do you get “primarily” from? You said yourself that he would have found puppets boring. You think he wants us to worship him, is an inefficient designer, but enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. This does not make an eternal, immaterial, sourceless creator of universes and life “primarily” human!
DAVID: Same stubborn approach. I use those words exclusively, allegorically because we don't know God directly and humanizing Him is a giant NO NO.
Your proposal that your God might want us to worship him does not mean he is a human being. None of the above proposals – made by you – makes him a human being. And there is no allegory involved in any of them. Either he does or he doesn’t enjoy, want to avoid boredom, want us to worship him. You keep biting your own tail. (See the other thread.)
"Humanization"
DAVID: I attempt no humanizations of God.
dhw: This is your usual attempt to blank out statements you have made in the past. Enjoyment and interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, inefficiency, powerlessness (can’t control the bugs), possibly/probably/certainly has thought patterns and emotions like ours...Why are you so afraid of your own “maybes”? Don’t you find it perfectly feasible that the creator should imbue his creations with some of his own attributes? Is it not possible that your God’s purpose in designing us was to create a being that would recognize him, commune with him, worship him, love him, be loved by him? Why do you solidly oppose the very explanations that you yourself have proposed in the past?
DAVID: All partially true, but since you use no sense of allegory for those words you humanized God.
As explained on the other thread, you know what you mean by those words, and they are not allegories. Either he does or he doesn’t want to be worshipped.
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Obviously, you enjoy just-so stories. You just spouted a truism
dhw: A truism is something that is so obviously true that it doesn’t need to be said. So why do you call an obvious truth a “just-so story”? More self-contradictions!
DAVID: Just-so stories are presented as if truth, elephant trunk or giraffe neck origins as examples.
Why is it a just-so story that organisms might move elsewhere if they can’t find food or are in danger? You called it a truism. See above for the meaning of the word.
dhw: […] No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
DAVID: Neither do I.
dhw: Oh! So why did you say God must have designed them?
DAVID: Misinterpretation. These spiders have designed attributes to fill their role in ecosystems.
We’re talking about the different ways in which they have adapted to life in the water. You said your God must have designed them, but if you think the changes were minor, then your God would not have needed to intervene.
DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
DAVID: All for our use.
dhw: God designed lots of different aquatic spiders and every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for our use? I hope you enjoy your trilobite soup and your dinosaur steak.
DAVID: What happened long ago makes our current result.
SOME of what happened long ago (approx. 0.1%) makes our current result. The rest, as you have agreed, did NOT lead to our current results.
The role of B cells in cancer control
DAVID: if your eyes glaze over reading all of this I'm not surprised.
I laughed out loud at your clairvoyance! Thank you for your understanding!
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Saturday, May 04, 2024, 18:54 (201 days ago) @ dhw
Enjoyment, boredom and theodicy.
DAVID: Same stubborn approach. I use those words exclusively, allegorically because we don't know God directly and humanizing Him is a giant NO NO.
dhw: Your proposal that your God might want us to worship him does not mean he is a human being. None of the above proposals – made by you – makes him a human being. And there is no allegory involved in any of them. Either he does or he doesn’t enjoy, want to avoid boredom, want us to worship him. You keep biting your own tail. (See the other thread.)
What I bolded is the problem you are blinded to. We cannot know if any of the terms we use apply to God is any sense. Our meanings may not be God's!!!
"Humanization"DAVID: I attempt no humanizations of God.
dhw: This is your usual attempt to blank out statements you have made in the past. Enjoyment and interest, desire to be recognized and worshipped, inefficiency, powerlessness (can’t control the bugs), possibly/probably/certainly has thought patterns and emotions like ours...Why are you so afraid of your own “maybes”? Don’t you find it perfectly feasible that the creator should imbue his creations with some of his own attributes? Is it not possible that your God’s purpose in designing us was to create a being that would recognize him, commune with him, worship him, love him, be loved by him? Why do you solidly oppose the very explanations that you yourself have proposed in the past?
DAVID: All partially true, but since you use no sense of allegory for those words you humanized God.
dhw: As explained on the other thread, you know what you mean by those words, and they are not allegories. Either he does or he doesn’t want to be worshipped.
Still blind. Yes, the word themselves are not allegories, but when emotions are needed as descriptive terms, our words become allegorically used. Does God need or wish to be worshipped? All we can accept is maybe.
Aquatic spidersdhw: Oh! So why did you say God must have designed them?
DAVID: Misinterpretation. These spiders have designed attributes to fill their role in ecosystems.
dhw; We’re talking about the different ways in which they have adapted to life in the water. You said your God must have designed them, but if you think the changes were minor, then your God would not have needed to intervene.
Each adaptation must be studied for complexity. If very complex God designed it.
DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
DAVID: All for our use.
dhw: God designed lots of different aquatic spiders and every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for our use? I hope you enjoy your trilobite soup and your dinosaur steak.
DAVID: What happened long ago makes our current result.
dhw:SOME of what happened long ago (approx. 0.1%) makes our current result. The rest, as you have agreed, did NOT lead to our current results.
The 99.9% extinct are the ancestors of the 0.1%c surviving now.
The role of B cells in cancer controlDAVID: if your eyes glaze over reading all of this I'm not surprised.
dhw: I laughed out loud at your clairvoyance! Thank you for your understanding!
but I made my point. Down and dirty in the weeds is where progress in understanding happens.
More Miscellany
Enjoyment, boredom , humanization, allegory and theodicy.
All covered on the other thread.
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Obviously, you enjoy just-so stories. You just spouted a truism
dhw: A truism is something that is so obviously true that it doesn’t need to be said. So why do you call an obvious truth a “just-so story”? More self-contradictions!
DAVID: Just-so stories are presented as if truth, elephant trunk or giraffe neck origins as examples.
Why is it a just-so story that organisms might move elsewhere if they can’t find food or are in danger? You called it a truism. See above for the meaning of the word.
This obviously true proposal explains the purpose and history of evolution: that organisms find different ways of responding to new requirements (or they go extinct). I must confess I find it more convincing than a divine dabble or a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every change.
dhw: […] No one is suggesting that a change in the structure of certain cells is on a par with rocket science. You have agreed that cells are capable of minor autonomous adaptations. I don’t know where you draw the line between minor and major, but since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
DAVID: Neither do I.
dhw: Oh! So why did you say God must have designed them?
DAVID: Misinterpretation. These spiders have designed attributes to fill their role in ecosystems.
dhw: We’re talking about the different ways in which they have adapted to life in the water. You said your God must have designed them, but if you think the changes were minor, then your God would not have needed to intervene.
DAVID: Each adaptation must be studied for complexity. If very complex God designed it.
You have just agreed that the changes were NOT major (= very complex). Now you agreement changes to “if”.
DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.
dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
DAVID: All for our use.
dhw: God designed lots of different aquatic spiders and every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for our use? I hope you enjoy your trilobite soup and your dinosaur steak.
DAVID: What happened long ago makes our current result.
dhw: SOME of what happened long ago (approx. 0.1%) makes our current result. The rest, as you have agreed, did NOT lead to our current results.
DAVID: The 99.9% extinct are the ancestors of the 0.1%c surviving now.
I don’t believe it! Having dropped the subject two days ago, you once more return to the same massive contradiction of your own statement, which I have quoted again and again. Here are the comments from two days ago:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.
dhw: I asked this unequivocal question in order to end the long-drawn-out discussion you are now trying to re-open. You agreed that we and our contemporaries are directly descended from 0.1% of all the creatures that ever lived. We are not descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived. And yes, we are descended from a line of mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs, but the vast majority of dinosaurs left no descendants except for birds.
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: If one assumes the universe developed following a purpose, early development of large barred spiral galaxies would presage the appearance of an early Milky Way in that form, allowing for our solar system to appear. Of course, one can take the position of pure chance governed the progress. The chance course must take into account all the contingent events leading to us. Odds? Enormously against chance.
It is estimated that there are between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. The “divine” course assumes that there is a purpose for every single one, and your own particular divine course proposes that every single one is/was necessary for the production of us humans and our contemporary species. For some people, the odds that one of those possible two trillion galaxies will happen to produce evolvable life are more favourable than the odds on an unknown divine being who creates two trillion for the sake of just one. It comes down to irrational faith in one or the other – or simply acknowledging that we can’t possibly know.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Sunday, May 05, 2024, 17:39 (200 days ago) @ dhw
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Each adaptation must be studied for complexity. If very complex God designed it.
dhw: You have just agreed that the changes were NOT major (= very complex). Now you agreement changes to “if”.
Degree of complexity dictates the work of a designer.
DAVID: Life requires active ecosystems as the one the spiders are in.dhw: Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that all active ecosystems (not to mention the millions of extinct ecosystems) have been specially designed for humans.
DAVID: All for our use.
dhw: God designed lots of different aquatic spiders and every ecosystem for the last 3.8 billion years for our use? I hope you enjoy your trilobite soup and your dinosaur steak.
DAVID: What happened long ago makes our current result.
dhw: SOME of what happened long ago (approx. 0.1%) makes our current result. The rest, as you have agreed, did NOT lead to our current results.
DAVID: The 99.9% extinct are the ancestors of the 0.1%c surviving now.
dhw; I don’t believe it! Having dropped the subject two days ago, you once more return to the same massive contradiction of your own statement, which I have quoted again and again. Here are the comments from two days ago:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.
dhw: I asked this unequivocal question in order to end the long-drawn-out discussion you are now trying to re-open. You agreed that we and our contemporaries are directly descended from 0.1% of all the creatures that ever lived. We are not descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived. And yes, we are descended from a line of mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs, but the vast majority of dinosaurs left no descendants except for birds.
Agreed.
Early barred spiral galaxiesDAVID: If one assumes the universe developed following a purpose, early development of large barred spiral galaxies would presage the appearance of an early Milky Way in that form, allowing for our solar system to appear. Of course, one can take the position of pure chance governed the progress. The chance course must take into account all the contingent events leading to us. Odds? Enormously against chance.
dhw; It is estimated that there are between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. The “divine” course assumes that there is a purpose for every single one, and your own particular divine course proposes that every single one is/was necessary for the production of us humans and our contemporary species. For some people, the odds that one of those possible two trillion galaxies will happen to produce evolvable life are more favourable than the odds on an unknown divine being who creates two trillion for the sake of just one. It comes down to irrational faith in one or the other – or simply acknowledging that we can’t possibly know.
God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.
More Miscellany
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Each adaptation must be studied for complexity. If very complex God designed it.
dhw: You have just agreed that the changes were NOT major (= very complex). Now you agreement changes to “if”.
DAVID: Degree of complexity dictates the work of a designer.
Agreed. Our exchange was as follows:
dhw:...since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
DAVID: Neither do I.
So I don’t know why you thought these minor changes (= less complexity than major changes) required the work of God. You’ve also forgotten to tell us why it’s a “just-so story” to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if there is a shortage of food or they are in danger where they are, which I suggest is a major factor in the development of evolution, as organisms must change in order to meet new requirements.
DAVID: The 99.9% extinct are the ancestors of the 0.1%c surviving now.
dhw: I don’t believe it! Having dropped the subject two days ago, you once more return to the same massive contradiction of your own statement, which I have quoted again and again. Here are the comments from two days ago:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.
dhw: I asked this unequivocal question in order to end the long-drawn-out discussion you are now trying to re-open. You agreed that we and our contemporaries are directly descended from 0.1% of all the creatures that ever lived. We are not descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived. And yes, we are descended from a line of mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs, but the vast majority of dinosaurs left no descendants except for birds.
DAVID: Agreed.
Thank you. Once more, I shall note this agreement and remind you of it next time you disagree.
Early barred spiral galaxies
dhw; It is estimated that there are between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. The “divine” course assumes that there is a purpose for every single one, and your own particular divine course proposes that every single one is/was necessary for the production of us humans and our contemporary species. For some people, the odds that one of those possible two trillion galaxies will happen to produce evolvable life are more favourable than the odds on an unknown divine being who creates two trillion for the sake of just one. It comes down to irrational faith in one or the other – or simply acknowledging that we can’t possibly know.
DAVID: God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.
So according to you, God’s one and only desire to produce us and our food explains why he had to design trillions of galaxies, just as he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. And in order to verify your theory, all I have to do is go and ask God.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Monday, May 06, 2024, 17:52 (199 days ago) @ dhw
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Degree of complexity dictates the work of a designer.
dhw: Agreed. Our exchange was as follows:
dhw:...since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.DAVID: Neither do I.
So I don’t know why you thought these minor changes (= less complexity than major changes) required the work of God. You’ve also forgotten to tell us why it’s a “just-so story” to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if there is a shortage of food or they are in danger where they are, which I suggest is a major factor in the development of evolution, as organisms must change in order to meet new requirements.
Just-so stories fit the circumstances as logical explanations while ignoring underlying complexities.
Early barred spiral galaxiesdhw; It is estimated that there are between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. The “divine” course assumes that there is a purpose for every single one, and your own particular divine course proposes that every single one is/was necessary for the production of us humans and our contemporary species. For some people, the odds that one of those possible two trillion galaxies will happen to produce evolvable life are more favourable than the odds on an unknown divine being who creates two trillion for the sake of just one. It comes down to irrational faith in one or the other – or simply acknowledging that we can’t possibly know.
DAVID: God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.
dhw: So according to you, God’s one and only desire to produce us and our food explains why he had to design trillions of galaxies, just as he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. And in order to verify your theory, all I have to do is go and ask God.
Who else can you ask in this event where God is in charge.
More Miscellany
Aquatic spiders
DAVID: Degree of complexity dictates the work of a designer.
dhw: Agreed. Our exchange was as follows:
dhw:...since the spiders are still spiders, I wouldn’t have thought these changes counted as major.
DAVID: Neither do I.
dhw: So I don’t know why you thought these minor changes (= less complexity than major changes) required the work of God.
You still haven’t told us.
dhw: You’ve also forgotten to tell us why it’s a “just-so story” to suggest that organisms might move elsewhere if there is a shortage of food or they are in danger where they are, which I suggest is a major factor in the development of evolution, as organisms must change in order to meet new requirements.
DAVID: Just-so stories fit the circumstances as logical explanations while ignoring underlying complexities.
I’m trying as gently as possible to alert you to your misuse of language. You referred to the above (organisms will move if there’s danger or a shortage of food) as a just-so story (= highly unlikely), and then as a truism (= obviously true). The latter is the exact opposite of the former. Let’s drop the subject.
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.
dhw: So according to you, God’s one and only desire to produce us and our food explains why he had to design trillions of galaxies, just as he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. And in order to verify your theory, all I have to do is go and ask God.
DAVID: Who else can you ask in this event where God is in charge.
I ask you, because you are the one who proposes the theory that your God designed the trillions of galaxies for the sole purpose of producing our galaxy, us, and our contemporary species. If you can’t think of a reason, maybe there is something wrong with your theory.
Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same place
QUOTE: Once its fungal plug has been torn apart, the newly disemboweled bug will sprinkle spores wherever it goes, passing this zombie fungus on to the next generation of cicadas.
DAVID: each brood plays a role in its ecosystem. Another weird animal in the vast bush of life.
Yuck! But I appreciate your comment. It applies to every ecosystem that has ever existed, and if your God exists, he must have had a reason for designing them (your theory), or letting them evolve through random mutations and natural selection (Darwin’s theory), or letting them design themselves autonomously (theistic version of Shapiro’s theory). The weirder they are – and the further back in time we go – the greater seems the likelihood of a massive free-for-all, and the lesser seems the likelihood that every single one was designed for the sole purpose of producing us and our contemporary species.
Protect a pregnancy
QUOTES: "But the placenta breaks these rules, according to the new research. Somehow, it turns on defenses before they are necessary and then leaves them on without harming itself or the fetus.”
“It protects but doesn’t damage […] Evolution is so smart.”
DAVID: The purpose is clear but how could this naturally happen? Trial and error would be disastrous. It reeks of a designer mind at work.
One’s heart goes out to the mice, who seem to be the main providers of all this information! As usual, I agree with you that these complex processes “reek” of design, and evolution is not “smart”. Evolution is a process, not a mind. The choice of explanations is the same as under “Cicadas”, but in answer to your comment, I would suggest that solutions to problems only arise once a problem appears. It seems to me perfectly possible that the relevant cells developed this strategy to improve chances of survival once problems became acute. Problems don’t automatically mean immediate extinction, and solutions can take time to find, as we know from the lives of bacteria.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 07, 2024, 20:38 (198 days ago) @ dhw
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.
dhw: So according to you, God’s one and only desire to produce us and our food explains why he had to design trillions of galaxies, just as he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us. And in order to verify your theory, all I have to do is go and ask God.
DAVID: Who else can you ask in this event where God is in charge.
dhw:I ask you, because you are the one who proposes the theory that your God designed the trillions of galaxies for the sole purpose of producing our galaxy, us, and our contemporary species. If you can’t think of a reason, maybe there is something wrong with your theory.
The usual false comment. I do not know at this point why the universe had to be so big. I assume God had a reason, but He didn't tell me. Why do you keep asking as if I can explain
God's actions simply because I believe in Him? we are not buddies! This is a phony tactic to get me to answers questions I can't answer.
Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same place
QUOTE: Once its fungal plug has been torn apart, the newly disemboweled bug will sprinkle spores wherever it goes, passing this zombie fungus on to the next generation of cicadas.
DAVID: each brood plays a role in its ecosystem. Another weird animal in the vast bush of life.
dhw: Yuck! But I appreciate your comment. It applies to every ecosystem that has ever existed, and if your God exists, he must have had a reason for designing them (your theory), or letting them evolve through random mutations and natural selection (Darwin’s theory), or letting them design themselves autonomously (theistic version of Shapiro’s theory). The weirder they are – and the further back in time we go – the greater seems the likelihood of a massive free-for-all, and the lesser seems the likelihood that every single one was designed for the sole purpose of producing us and our contemporary species.
All of this is highly designed. What produced your massive free-for-all? And why?
Protect a pregnancyQUOTES: "But the placenta breaks these rules, according to the new research. Somehow, it turns on defenses before they are necessary and then leaves them on without harming itself or the fetus.”
“It protects but doesn’t damage […] Evolution is so smart.”DAVID: The purpose is clear but how could this naturally happen? Trial and error would be disastrous. It reeks of a designer mind at work.
dhw: One’s heart goes out to the mice, who seem to be the main providers of all this information! As usual, I agree with you that these complex processes “reek” of design, and evolution is not “smart”. Evolution is a process, not a mind. The choice of explanations is the same as under “Cicadas”, but in answer to your comment, I would suggest that solutions to problems only arise once a problem appears. It seems to me perfectly possible that the relevant cells developed this strategy to improve chances of survival once problems became acute. Problems don’t automatically mean immediate extinction, and solutions can take time to find, as we know from the lives of bacteria.
See Reznick's guppies in the other thread to explain adaptation without mutations.
More Miscellany
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: God produces for His purpose. Why trillions of galaxies? God's purpose is enough reason.
dhw: […] And in order to verify your theory, all I have to do is go and ask God.
DAVID: Who else can you ask in this event where God is in charge.
dhw: I ask you, because you are the one who proposes the theory that your God designed the trillions of galaxies for the sole purpose of producing our galaxy, us, and our contemporary species. If you can’t think of a reason, maybe there is something wrong with your theory.
DAVID: The usual false comment. I do not know at this point why the universe had to be so big. I assume God had a reason, but He didn't tell me. Why do you keep asking as if I can explain God's actions simply because I believe in Him? we are not buddies! This is a phony tactic to get me to answers questions I can't answer.
It’s not a “phony tactic”! If an atheist tells you life arose by chance, do you just swallow the theory or do you ask pertinent questions? The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss all the different theories. You are able to provide good reasons for your belief in a designer God, but what I ask you to explain here is not your God’s actions but your illogical and often contradictory theories about his actions, purpose and nature. If you can’t think of any reasons to support your theories, please don’t blame me.
Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same place
QUOTE: Once its fungal plug has been torn apart, the newly disemboweled bug will sprinkle spores wherever it goes, passing this zombie fungus on to the next generation of cicadas.
DAVID: each brood plays a role in its ecosystem. Another weird animal in the vast bush of life.
dhw: Yuck! But I appreciate your comment. It applies to every ecosystem that has ever existed, and if your God exists, he must have had a reason for designing them (your theory), or letting them evolve through random mutations and natural selection (Darwin’s theory), or letting them design themselves autonomously (theistic version of Shapiro’s theory). The weirder they are – and the further back in time we go – the greater seems the likelihood of a massive free-for-all, and the lesser seems the likelihood that every single one was designed for the sole purpose of producing us and our contemporary species.
DAVID: All of this is highly designed. What produced your massive free-for-all? And why?
The atheist answer would be chance produced it, and there is no purpose other than that of the organisms themselves, which basically amounts to survival. I have also offered a theistic answer: God would have produced it because, as you pointed out yourself, he wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t enjoyed creating and been interested in his creations. You have agreed that he would have found puppets boring, and so an unpredictable free-for-all would be far more interesting for him to watch. (I have also proposed experimentation, but that would not be a free-for-all.)
Protect a pregnancy
QUOTE: “It protects but doesn’t damage […] Evolution is so smart.”
DAVID: The purpose is clear but how could this naturally happen? Trial and error would be disastrous. It reeks of a designer mind at work.
dhw: One’s heart goes out to the mice, who seem to be the main providers of all this information! As usual, I agree with you that these complex processes “reek” of design, and evolution is not “smart”. Evolution is a process, not a mind. The choice of explanations is the same as under “Cicadas”, but in answer to your comment, I would suggest that solutions to problems only arise once a problem appears. It seems to me perfectly possible that the relevant cells developed this strategy to improve chances of survival once problems became acute. Problems don’t automatically mean immediate extinction, and solutions can take time to find, as we know from the lives of bacteria.
DAVID: See Reznick's guppies in the other thread to explain adaptation without mutations.
Covered below, but it has nothing to do with the point I have made above.
Reznick’s guppies:
QUOTE: "Identifying the origin of novelty-generation as random mutation is pivotal to providing an authentic instance of Darwinian macroevolution. Instead, what we have here is an example of how populations rapidly adapt using preexisting genetic variation."
I don’t quite understand the reasoning here. Novelty-generation is what causes speciation, but although the borderline between adaptation and novelty is not clear-cut, the guppies are still guppies. That’s not macroevolution. Of course, the same argument would apply to Darwin’s finches, and in any case, David, you and I have long since rejected random mutations as the driving force of macroevolution. We are therefore left with two possible theories: design by your God, or by Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, the source of which could be your God.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 08, 2024, 18:48 (197 days ago) @ dhw
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: The usual false comment. I do not know at this point why the universe had to be so big. I assume God had a reason, but He didn't tell me. Why do you keep asking as if I can explain God's actions simply because I believe in Him? we are not buddies! This is a phony tactic to get me to answers questions I can't answer.
dhw: It’s not a “phony tactic”! If an atheist tells you life arose by chance, do you just swallow the theory or do you ask pertinent questions? The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss all the different theories. You are able to provide good reasons for your belief in a designer God, but what I ask you to explain here is not your God’s actions but your illogical and often contradictory theories about his actions, purpose and nature. If you can’t think of any reasons to support your theories, please don’t blame me.
There are no reasons to support theories!!! I chose a form of God consistent with the monotheistic Western religions' views. It must start with a recognition of a designer who starts out by creating a universe, then creates life beginning as bacteria. Finally, humans, which brings your constant probing questions as to how we relate to Him. That we can answer, but how He relates to us is a big unknown. Only guesses follow.
Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same placeQUOTE: Once its fungal plug has been torn apart, the newly disemboweled bug will sprinkle spores wherever it goes, passing this zombie fungus on to the next generation of cicadas.
DAVID: each brood plays a role in its ecosystem. Another weird animal in the vast bush of life.
dhw: Yuck! But I appreciate your comment. It applies to every ecosystem that has ever existed, and if your God exists, he must have had a reason for designing them (your theory), or letting them evolve through random mutations and natural selection (Darwin’s theory), or letting them design themselves autonomously (theistic version of Shapiro’s theory). The weirder they are – and the further back in time we go – the greater seems the likelihood of a massive free-for-all, and the lesser seems the likelihood that every single one was designed for the sole purpose of producing us and our contemporary species.
DAVID: All of this is highly designed. What produced your massive free-for-all? And why?
dhw: The atheist answer would be chance produced it, and there is no purpose other than that of the organisms themselves, which basically amounts to survival. I have also offered a theistic answer: God would have produced it because, as you pointed out yourself, he wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t enjoyed creating and been interested in his creations. You have agreed that he would have found puppets boring, and so an unpredictable free-for-all would be far more interesting for him to watch. (I have also proposed experimentation, but that would not be a free-for-all.)
Back to your totally humanized God who needs unpredictability to avoid boredom! This is not any form of recognizable theism!
Reznick’s guppies:QUOTE: "Identifying the origin of novelty-generation as random mutation is pivotal to providing an authentic instance of Darwinian macroevolution. Instead, what we have here is an example of how populations rapidly adapt using preexisting genetic variation."
dhw: I don’t quite understand the reasoning here. Novelty-generation is what causes speciation, but although the borderline between adaptation and novelty is not clear-cut, the guppies are still guppies. That’s not macroevolution. Of course, the same argument would apply to Darwin’s finches, and in any case, David, you and I have long since rejected random mutations as the driving force of macroevolution. We are therefore left with two possible theories: design by your God, or by Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, the source of which could be your God.
This is in line with Shapiro's view of DNA controls. The guppies make minor DNA shifts to adapt as necessary.
More Miscellany
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: […] Why do you keep asking as if I can explain God's actions simply because I believe in Him? we are not buddies! This is a phony tactic to get me to answers questions I can't answer.
dhw: It’s not a “phony tactic”! If an atheist tells you life arose by chance, do you just swallow the theory or do you ask pertinent questions? The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss all the different theories. […] If you can’t think of any reasons to support your theories, please don’t blame me.
DAVID: There are no reasons to support theories!!! I chose a form of God consistent with the monotheistic Western religions' views.
Did you? Do monotheistic religions tell us God messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose (us and our food)? Do they teach us to doubt whether God wants us to worship him, whether he loves us, or that he allowed/created evil so that we (not to mention himself) wouldn’t be bored, and that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but he certainly doesn’t???
DAVID: It must start with a recognition of a designer who starts out by creating a universe, then creates life beginning as bacteria. Finally, humans….
Once you believe in a God, all this is agreed (though finally is too final, since we have no idea what will evolve in the next few billion years).
DAVID: ….which brings your constant probing questions as to how we relate to Him. That we can answer, but how He relates to us is a big unknown. Only guesses follow.
My “probing questions” relate to your “guesses” about his purpose, methods and nature. Nobody knows what these are, and so we discuss different guesses. You start out with the God you wish for, and complain when I point out that your guesses contradict one another.
Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same place
DAVID: All of this is highly designed. What produced your massive free-for-all? And why?
dhw: The atheist answer would be chance produced it, and there is no purpose other than that of the organisms themselves, which basically amounts to survival. I have also offered a theistic answer: God would have produced it because, as you pointed out yourself, he wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t enjoyed creating and been interested in his creations. You have agreed that he would have found puppets boring, and so an unpredictable free-for-all would be far more interesting for him to watch. (I have also proposed experimentation, but that would not be a free-for-all.)
DAVID: Back to your totally humanized God who needs unpredictability to avoid boredom! This is not any form of recognizable theism!
Your theory was that your God deliberately allowed/created evil to prevent boredom (not just for us, as you agreed that he would have found puppets boring). My point is the same as yours: puppets do as they’re told; they’re predictable, and unpredictability is more interesting than predictability. Enjoyment and interest do not turn your God into a “totally” human being, and you try to forget your guess that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and in fact you were certain that these two attributes applied to him. But you’re right: your avoidance-of-boredom explanation of evil - like your inefficient designer of evolution and your might-not-want-to-be-worshipped God - is not taught by Christians, Jews or Muslims. But you have always prided yourself on choosing your own form of God.
Reznick’s guppies
dhw: you and I have long since rejected random mutations as the driving force of macroevolution. We are therefore left with two possible theories: design by your God, or by Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, the source of which could be your God.
DAVID: This is in line with Shapiro's view of DNA controls. The guppies make minor DNA shifts to adapt as necessary.
We are in agreement, though Shapiro's theory extends to major shifts.
A snake feigns death
DAVID: so, it is not just possoms but a whole group of animals using the same convergent mechanism. It is obviously designed into these animals, not a learned instinct.
I don’t understand your conclusion. Convergent evolution occurs when different species come up with the same solution to the same problem, though there is a huge difference between the possum just lying there and all the actions performed by these snakes. It seems to me only common sense that all organisms have strategies for survival, and that once a strategy has proved successful, it will be passed on to later generations. In that case, it becomes a learned instinct. I have no idea why you think it is “obviously designed into them”.
Monkeys on a keyboard
QUOTE: it is very unlikely that chance will produce even a single readable verse of a poem—or any other text—after a finite amount of time.
I have just applied for a grant to do research into how much money is spent on grants to do research into subjects that do not require grants to do research into. All contributions will be welcome.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Thursday, May 09, 2024, 21:07 (196 days ago) @ dhw
Early barred spiral galaxies
DAVID: There are no reasons to support theories!!! I chose a form of God consistent with the monotheistic Western religions' views.
dhw:Did you? Do monotheistic religions tell us God messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose (us and our food)? Do they teach us to doubt whether God wants us to worship him, whether he loves us, or that he allowed/created evil so that we (not to mention himself) wouldn’t be bored, and that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but he certainly doesn’t???
I start with their God. The rest is my personal analysis, and I ignore your purposeful distortion of evolutionary statistics as Raup presented.
DAVID: ….which brings your constant probing questions as to how we relate to Him. That we can answer, but how He relates to us is a big unknown. Only guesses follow.
dhw: My “probing questions” relate to your “guesses” about his purpose, methods and nature. Nobody knows what these are, and so we discuss different guesses. You start out with the God you wish for, and complain when I point out that your guesses contradict one another.
Out of context, of course they do. Guesses about the unknown will be contradictory in various contexts.
Cicadas XIII and XIX appear in same placeDAVID: All of this is highly designed. What produced your massive free-for-all? And why?
dhw: The atheist answer would be chance produced it, and there is no purpose other than that of the organisms themselves, which basically amounts to survival. I have also offered a theistic answer: God would have produced it because, as you pointed out yourself, he wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t enjoyed creating and been interested in his creations. You have agreed that he would have found puppets boring, and so an unpredictable free-for-all would be far more interesting for him to watch. (I have also proposed experimentation, but that would not be a free-for-all.)
DAVID: Back to your totally humanized God who needs unpredictability to avoid boredom! This is not any form of recognizable theism!
dhw: Your theory was that your God deliberately allowed/created evil to prevent boredom (not just for us, as you agreed that he would have found puppets boring). My point is the same as yours: puppets do as they’re told; they’re predictable, and unpredictability is more interesting than predictability. Enjoyment and interest do not turn your God into a “totally” human being, and you try to forget your guess that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and in fact you were certain that these two attributes applied to him. But you’re right: your avoidance-of-boredom explanation of evil - like your inefficient designer of evolution and your might-not-want-to-be-worshipped God - is not taught by Christians, Jews or Muslims. But you have always prided yourself on choosing your own form of God.
Why not. I can think freely
Reznick’s guppiesdhw: you and I have long since rejected random mutations as the driving force of macroevolution. We are therefore left with two possible theories: design by your God, or by Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, the source of which could be your God.
DAVID: This is in line with Shapiro's view of DNA controls. The guppies make minor DNA shifts to adapt as necessary.
dhw: We are in agreement, though Shapiro's theory extends to major shifts.
With no evidence.
A snake feigns deathDAVID: so, it is not just possoms but a whole group of animals using the same convergent mechanism. It is obviously designed into these animals, not a learned instinct.
dhw; I don’t understand your conclusion. Convergent evolution occurs when different species come up with the same solution to the same problem, though there is a huge difference between the possum just lying there and all the actions performed by these snakes. It seems to me only common sense that all organisms have strategies for survival, and that once a strategy has proved successful, it will be passed on to later generations. In that case, it becomes a learned instinct. I have no idea why you think it is “obviously designed into them”.
Playing dead is a concept we understand. Are the animals that conceptual? I doubt it.
Monkeys on a keyboardQUOTE: it is very unlikely that chance will produce even a single readable verse of a poem—or any other text—after a finite amount of time.
dhw: I have just applied for a grant to do research into how much money is spent on grants to do research into subjects that do not require grants to do research into. All contributions will be welcome.
I await your results.
More Miscellany
Early barred spiral galaxies
All covered on the “evolution” thread.
Cicadas (now the boredom theory)
DAVID: Back to your totally humanized God who needs unpredictability to avoid boredom! This is not any form of recognizable theism!
The desire to create something interesting does not make your God into a “total” human being! See the thread on “evolution” for your own theories that do not belong to any form of recognizable theism, and the pride you take in your independent thinking.
Reznick’s guppies
dhw: you and I have long since rejected random mutations as the driving force of macroevolution. We are therefore left with two possible theories: design by your God, or by Shapiro’s cellular intelligence, the source of which could be your God.
DAVID: This is in line with Shapiro's view of DNA controls. The guppies make minor DNA shifts to adapt as necessary.
dhw: We are in agreement, though Shapiro's theory extends to major shifts.
DAVID: With no evidence.
And the evidence for your divine dabbles or 3.X-billion-year-old book of instructions is…..?
The second post adds: "Organisms are problem-solving entities not passive objects being shaped by the environment.”
Yet more support for Shapiro, though a few weeks ago you were telling us that his theory was already dead and buried.
A snake feigns death
DAVID: It is obviously designed into these animals, not a learned instinct.
And under “fungus to fight wasps”:
DAVID: a learned instinct or a designed action? Since the activity is seen in several types of insects and such activity would protect species from extinction, i believe it is a designed instinct. How would a species survive with totally unprotected eggs?
In order to survive, all species find ways to protect themselves and their young, and it only takes one discovery (by accident or by clever thinking) to hit on an idea. If it doesn’t work, it will be jettisoned mighty fast. If it does work, it will survive and be passed on. Hence, an action initially designed by the organism and then passed on as a learned instinct.
Origin of sympathetic nervous system
QUOTE: "The findings suggest that the sympathetic nervous system was not an innovation of jawed vertebrates, but rather that the blueprint for it has been around since even before lampreys diverged from the main vertebrate line about half a billion years ago
DAVID This article shows that what develops in evolution is not a sudden appearance of a new innovation, but a step based upon much older preparatory developments.
Welcome to Darwin’s theory of common descent.
DAVID: This answers dhw's complaint that God made 99.9% of unnecessary organisms just to throw them away. They were all part of a purposeful development, step-by-step to a goal, or as in evolution steps to many, many goals.
I don’t know what “many, many goals” you are referring to, since you insist that your God only had one goal (us plus food.) When lines diverge, it’s common sense that they will keep whatever is useful (= natural selection), and as conditions change, it’s also common sense that more changes may take place in order to meet the new requirements. Clearly the sympathetic nerve system was not one of the innovations you announce as having been divinely invented “de novo” by your God, i.e. without any predecessors, and the lamprey is still here as one of 0.1% of surviving lines, and not descended from the 99.9% which your God inefficiently “had to” design and cull for reasons known only to himself.
Global warming
QUOTES: "The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all."
"More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated."
DAVID: presented to give some balance to the garbage produced constantly that the Earth is getting too warm.
The “experts” disagree. I’m surprised that you yourself are so expert that you know which of them are right.
Viral biome calms mice:
DAVID: like bacteria, viruses play a helpful role in living organisms. Note the bold. we need to recognize the good they do and realize the bad events are a necessary byproduct of the actions of free-acting organisms. This is a real answer to dhw's theodical complaints about God. Obviously, God created viruses and bacteria to play helpful roles in life, which this study clearly shows. The problem is these organisms are running on their own controls and are free to get us trouble. An all-knowing God has produced what He had to produce to fill specific needs. We need to stop fearing viruses and bacteria. They are here for our good.
They are here for our good, but your all-powerful, all-knowing God gave them free will to kill 50 million people in a single year. You have explicitly BLAMED your God for this evil, but now you tell us not to be afraid of the bacteria and viruses which can kill us, because God made them all for our good, although he “had to” let them kill us as well, so that they could do us good. I wonder which theologians support this theory of yours.
More Miscellany
by David Turell , Friday, May 10, 2024, 20:31 (195 days ago) @ dhw
Early barred spiral galaxies
dhw: The desire to create something interesting does not make your God into a “total” human being! See the thread on “evolution” for your own theories that do not belong to any form of recognizable theism, and the pride you take in your independent thinking.
Yes, I do.
Reznick’s guppies
dhw: The second post adds: "Organisms are problem-solving entities not passive objects being shaped by the environment.”
Yet more support for Shapiro, though a few weeks ago you were telling us that his theory was already dead and buried.
i remember noting this Shapiro support somewhere.
A snake feigns deathDAVID: It is obviously designed into these animals, not a learned instinct.
And under “fungus to fight wasps”:
DAVID: a learned instinct or a designed action? Since the activity is seen in several types of insects and such activity would protect species from extinction, i believe it is a designed instinct. How would a species survive with totally unprotected eggs?dhw: In order to survive, all species find ways to protect themselves and their young, and it only takes one discovery (by accident or by clever thinking) to hit on an idea. If it doesn’t work, it will be jettisoned mighty fast. If it does work, it will survive and be passed on. Hence, an action initially designed by the organism and then passed on as a learned instinct.
Another just-so story. The action requires conceptualizing a good result. Not likely in these species.
Origin of sympathetic nervous systemDAVID: This answers dhw's complaint that God made 99.9% of unnecessary organisms just to throw them away. They were all part of a purposeful development, step-by-step to a goal, or as in evolution steps to many, many goals.
dhw: I don’t know what “many, many goals” you are referring to, since you insist that your God only had one goal (us plus food.) When lines diverge, it’s common sense that they will keep whatever is useful (= natural selection), and as conditions change, it’s also common sense that more changes may take place in order to meet the new requirements. Clearly the sympathetic nerve system was not one of the innovations you announce as having been divinely invented “de novo” by your God, i.e. without any predecessors, and the lamprey is still here as one of 0.1% of surviving lines, and not descended from the 99.9% which your God inefficiently “had to” design and cull for reasons known only to himself.
You hate God running evolution, the same evolution that supposedly happened with complex designs like our brain. See brain entry.
Global warmingQUOTES: "The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all."
"More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated."
DAVID: presented to give some balance to the garbage produced constantly that the Earth is getting too warm.
dhw: The “experts” disagree. I’m surprised that you yourself are so expert that you know which of them are right.
You'd be surprised how much weather background articles I have studied over the years out of interest. I've logically picked my group of experts.
Viral biome calms mice:DAVID: like bacteria, viruses play a helpful role in living organisms. Note the bold. we need to recognize the good they do and realize the bad events are a necessary byproduct of the actions of free-acting organisms. This is a real answer to dhw's theodical complaints about God. Obviously, God created viruses and bacteria to play helpful roles in life, which this study clearly shows. The problem is these organisms are running on their own controls and are free to get us trouble. An all-knowing God has produced what He had to produce to fill specific needs. We need to stop fearing viruses and bacteria. They are here for our good.
dhw: They are here for our good, but your all-powerful, all-knowing God gave them free will to kill 50 million people in a single year. You have explicitly BLAMED your God for this evil, but now you tell us not to be afraid of the bacteria and viruses which can kill us, because God made them all for our good, although he “had to” let them kill us as well, so that they could do us good. I wonder which theologians support this theory of yours.
Surprise! The folks who produce theodicy articles.
More Miscellany
Reznick’s guppies
dhw: The second post adds: "Organisms are problem-solving entities not passive objects being shaped by the environment.”
Yet more support for Shapiro, though a few weeks ago you were telling us that his theory was already dead and buried.
DAVID: I remember noting this Shapiro support somewhere.
Plenty of somewheres, and I always commend you for your integrity in producing such articles.
Snakes and funguses
DAVID: a learned instinct or a designed action? Since the activity is seen in several types of insects and such activity would protect species from extinction, i believe it is a designed instinct. How would a species survive with totally unprotected eggs?
dhw: In order to survive, all species find ways to protect themselves and their young, and it only takes one discovery (by accident or by clever thinking) to hit on an idea. If it doesn’t work, it will be jettisoned mighty fast. If it does work, it will survive and be passed on. Hence, an action initially designed by the organism and then passed on as a learned instinct.
DAVID: Another just-so story. The action requires conceptualizing a good result. Not likely in these species.
All our fellow creatures devise ways of protecting themselves and their young. If they don’t, they won’t survive. You present us with article after article demonstrating their problem-solving intelligence – usually in pursuit of food – but you still refuse to believe that they can work out ways of surviving when their lives are at stake.
Origin of sympathetic nervous system
DAVID: This answers dhw's complaint that God made 99.9% of unnecessary organisms just to throw them away. They were all part of a purposeful development, step-by-step to a goal, or as in evolution steps to many, many goals.
dhw: I don’t know what “many, many goals” you are referring to, since you insist that your God only had one goal (us plus food.) When lines diverge, it’s common sense that they will keep whatever is useful (= natural selection), and as conditions change, it’s also common sense that more changes may take place in order to meet the new requirements. Clearly the sympathetic nerve system was not one of the innovations you announce as having been divinely invented “de novo” by your God, i.e. without any predecessors, and the lamprey is still here as one of 0.1% of surviving lines, and not descended from the 99.9% which your God inefficiently “had to” design and cull for reasons known only to himself.
DAVID: You hate God running evolution, the same evolution that supposedly happened with complex designs like our brain. See brain entry.
Please stop pretending that my opposition to your illogical theory of God’s messy, inefficient handling of evolution means that I hate God running evolution. I hate your silly theory. All my alternatives have your God running evolution in a different way or for a different purpose.
Global warming
dhw: The “experts” disagree. I’m surprised that you yourself are so expert that you know which of them are right.
DAVID: You'd be surprised how much weather background articles I have studied over the years out of interest. I've logically picked my group of experts.
And you assume that the other group of experts has not studied the subject for years, or if they have, they are not as well informed as you.
Viral biome calms mice:
DAVID: We need to stop fearing viruses and bacteria. They are here for our good.
dhw: They are here for our good, but your all-powerful, all-knowing God gave them free will to kill 50 million people in a single year. You have explicitly BLAMED your God for this evil, but now you tell us not to be afraid of the bacteria and viruses which can kill us, because God made them all for our good, although he “had to” let them kill us as well, so that they could do us good. I wonder which theologians support this theory of yours.
DAVID: Surprise! The folks who produce theodicy articles.
I will graciously refrain from making any comment.
One cubic millimetre of brain
QUOTE: "It's just a millimeter on each side – but 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses, and 230 millimeters of ultrafine veins are all packed into that microscopic space.
DAVID: see the mind-blowing illustrations in the article, a three-minute adventure. We can never fully understand the connectome. Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
Absolutely stunning. It’s a pity you have to muddy the waters with your usual sideswipe at Darwin. Of course he knew nothing about these complexities, but his focus is on the development from simple to complex. When discussing the evolution of the eye, he looks back at gradations from the current “perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple", but “how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”. Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, May 11, 2024, 19:09 (194 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes and funguses
dhw: All our fellow creatures devise ways of protecting themselves and their young. If they don’t, they won’t survive.
To repeat, the acts require conceptualization recognizing how the predator may react to teh event created. We humans easily understand, but can an opossum? A snake?
Origin of sympathetic nervous systemDAVID: This answers dhw's complaint that God made 99.9% of unnecessary organisms just to throw them away. They were all part of a purposeful development, step-by-step to a goal, or as in evolution steps to many, many goals.
dhw: I don’t know what “many, many goals” you are referring to, since you insist that your God only had one goal (us plus food.) ... Clearly the sympathetic nerve system was not one of the innovations you announce as having been divinely invented “de novo” by your God, i.e. without any predecessors, and the lamprey is still here as one of 0.1% of surviving lines, and not descended from the 99.9% which your God inefficiently “had to” design and cull for reasons known only to himself.
DAVID: You hate God running evolution, the same evolution that supposedly happened with complex designs like our brain. See brain entry.
dhw: Please stop pretending that my opposition to your illogical theory of God’s messy, inefficient handling of evolution means that I hate God running evolution. I hate your silly theory. All my alternatives have your God running evolution in a different way or for a different purpose.
All those purposes are purely humanizing God!!! I hate this silly God of yours. In a theology class you would be laughed out the door. You have no idea how to think about God as true theologians do.
Global warming
dhw: And you assume that the other group of experts has not studied the subject for years, or if they have, they are not as well informed as you.
Get informed about climate theory. before swallowing all the Guardian's alarmism. Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice?
One cubic millimetre of brainQUOTE: "It's just a millimeter on each side – but 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses, and 230 millimeters of ultrafine veins are all packed into that microscopic space.
DAVID: see the mind-blowing illustrations in the article, a three-minute adventure. We can never fully understand the connectome. Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: Absolutely stunning. It’s a pity you have to muddy the waters with your usual sideswipe at Darwin. Of course he knew nothing about these complexities, but his focus is on the development from simple to complex. When discussing the evolution of the eye, he looks back at gradations from the current “perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple", but “how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”. Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.
Bechly:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/05/fossil-friday-discontinuities-in-the-fossil-record-a-...
"Many people think that our own species is connected to apes by a gradual transitional series of apeman fossils from East and South Africa. However, in reality there is a distinct anatomical gap between the ape-like australopithecines and the first representatives of our own human genus Homo. Hawks et al. (2000) suggested that the genus Homo originated abruptly 2 million years ago with sudden interrelated anatomical changes. They concluded that “In sum, the earliest Homo sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, the changes were sudden and not gradual... Hawks et al. also emphasized “that no gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species, and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional. This may seem unexpected because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species. But with a few exceptions, the known habiline specimens are now recognized to be less than 2 Myr old (Feibel et al. 1989) and therefore are too recent to be transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.”
***
"Middle Stone Age humans evolving in Africa may appear anatomically modern, but did not become cognitively modern until the Later Stone Age/Upper Palaeolithic. Symbolic culture emerged some 50,000 years ago, caused by a genetic mutation that re-wired the brain.” (Knight 2010). There is even strong evidence for a “Sudden Appearance” model for the saltational origin of human cognition and language (Lanyon 2005, 2010). And of course this was later followed by the Neolithic agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution. Revolutions clearly are a hallmark of intelligent agency, not of unguided natural mechanisms."
We did not appear gradually.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes and fungi
dhw: All our fellow creatures devise ways of protecting themselves and their young. If they don’t, they won’t survive.
DAVID: To repeat, the acts require conceptualization recognizing how the predator may react to the event created. We humans easily understand, but can an opossum? A snake?
I don’t know of any prey that does not make an effort to avoid being gobbled up by a predator. Simply running away is one strategy, but I don’t believe the prey “conceptualizes” before it runs. Our friend the first play-dead opossum may have realized running would be no help, may have once seen a predator sniff a dead body and walk away, and thought to itself: “Worth a try.” But it all boils down to the fact that I think our fellow creatures are more intelligent than you believe, and don’t require a divine dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions to try and protect themselves whenever there’s a threat to their survival.
Origin of sympathetic nervous system
DAVID: You hate God running evolution, the same evolution that supposedly happened with complex designs like our brain. See brain entry.
dhw: Please stop pretending that my opposition to your illogical theory of God’s messy, inefficient handling of evolution means that I hate God running evolution. I hate your silly theory. All my alternatives have your God running evolution in a different way or for a different purpose.
DAVID: All those purposes are purely humanizing God!!! I hate this silly God of yours. In a theology class you would be laughed out the door. You have no idea how to think about God as true theologians do.
On the other thread: “I won’t moan about your humanized God you have aptly described”, and here you are, moaning again and ignoring all your own humanizing. So true theologians all agree that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and his method was messy, cumbersome and inefficient; that he is to blame for the slaughter of 50 million people by the flu bug which he designed and could not control, but we shouldn’t be afraid of his bugs because they also do us good; that he did not want a Garden of Eden but allowed/created evil because otherwise he and we would have been bored; that he doesn’t want to be worshipped or recognized because that would make him self-interested; that he is/isn’t interested in his creations; and that although he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he is certainly not human in any sense. Who’s laughing?
Global warming
dhw: And you assume that the other group of experts has not studied the subject for years, or if they have, they are not as well informed as you.
DAVID: Get informed about climate theory. before swallowing all the Guardian's alarmism. Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice?
No, I can’t. And I’m not convinced that anyone can, since so many “experts” disagree. But the melting of the ice caps, the destruction of forests, the loss of species with their habitats, the ravages of pollution etc. are all real, and there are also powerful vested interests in maintaining the status quo. You are right, I can’t make an informed choice, and I don’t know to what extent the chaos is purely the result of climate change, but there is enough human-made destruction going on all around us for me to wish it could be stopped.
One cubic millimetre of brain
QUOTE: "It's just a millimeter on each side – but 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses, and 230 millimeters of ultrafine veins are all packed into that microscopic space.
DAVID: see the mind-blowing illustrations in the article, a three-minute adventure. We can never fully understand the connectome. Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: Absolutely stunning. It’s a pity you have to muddy the waters with your usual sideswipe at Darwin. Of course he knew nothing about these complexities, but his focus is on the development from simple to complex. When discussing the evolution of the eye, he looks back at gradations from the current “perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple", but “how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”. Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.
I ask you a straightforward question, and your answer is to present Bechly’s interpretation of the history of human evolution. What response do you expect from me? As far as I know, the orthodox view is that we are most likely descended from heidelbergiensis, we could have interbred with earlier homos like Neanderthals and Denisovans, and there are lots of similarities between their brains and ours. There are even similarities between chimp brains and ours. So do you think sapiens’ brain was created “de novo” or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? Please answer.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Sunday, May 12, 2024, 16:40 (193 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes and fungi
DAVID: To repeat, the acts require conceptualization recognizing how the predator may react to the event created. We humans easily understand, but can an opossum? A snake?
dhw; I don’t know of any prey that does not make an effort to avoid being gobbled up by a predator. Simply running away is one strategy, but I don’t believe the prey “conceptualizes” before it runs. But it all boils down to the fact that I think our fellow creatures are more intelligent than you believe, and don’t require a divine dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions to try and protect themselves whenever there’s a threat to their survival.
See today's wasp/virus entry for discussion of purpose conceptualizing.
Origin of sympathetic nervous systemDAVID: You hate God running evolution, the same evolution that supposedly happened with complex designs like our brain. See brain entry.
dhw: Please stop pretending that my opposition to your illogical theory of God’s messy, inefficient handling of evolution means that I hate God running evolution. I hate your silly theory. All my alternatives have your God running evolution in a different way or for a different purpose.
DAVID: All those purposes are purely humanizing God!!! I hate this silly God of yours. In a theology class you would be laughed out the door. You have no idea how to think about God as true theologians do.
dhw: On the other thread: “I won’t moan about your humanized God you have aptly described”, and here you are, moaning again and ignoring all your own humanizing. So true theologians all agree that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and his method was messy, cumbersome and inefficient; that he is to blame for the slaughter of 50 million people by the flu bug which he designed and could not control, but we shouldn’t be afraid of his bugs because they also do us good; that he did not want a Garden of Eden but allowed/created evil because otherwise he and we would have been bored; that he doesn’t want to be worshipped or recognized because that would make him self-interested; that he is/isn’t interested in his creations; and that although he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he is certainly not human in any sense. Who’s laughing?
Amazing that we believers still believe, isn't it? We see all the good even with the bad byproducts.
Global warmingdhw: And you assume that the other group of experts has not studied the subject for years, or if they have, they are not as well informed as you.
DAVID: Get informed about climate theory. before swallowing all the Guardian's alarmism. Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice?
dhw:No, I can’t. And I’m not convinced that anyone can, since so many “experts” disagree. But the melting of the ice caps, the destruction of forests, the loss of species with their habitats, the ravages of pollution etc. are all real, and there are also powerful vested interests in maintaining the status quo. You are right, I can’t make an informed choice, and I don’t know to what extent the chaos is purely the result of climate change, but there is enough human-made destruction going on all around us for me to wish it could be stopped.
Typical liberal, can't answer about climate so moan about everything else.
One cubic millimetre of brainQUOTE: "It's just a millimeter on each side – but 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses, and 230 millimeters of ultrafine veins are all packed into that microscopic space.
DAVID: see the mind-blowing illustrations in the article, a three-minute adventure. We can never fully understand the connectome. Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: Absolutely stunning. It’s a pity you have to muddy the waters with your usual sideswipe at Darwin. Of course he knew nothing about these complexities, but his focus is on the development from simple to complex. When discussing the evolution of the eye, he looks back at gradations from the current “perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple", but “how a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”. Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.
dhw: I ask you a straightforward question, and your answer is to present Bechly’s interpretation of the history of human evolution. What response do you expect from me? As far as I know, the orthodox view is that we are most likely descended from heidelbergiensis, we could have interbred with earlier homos like Neanderthals and Denisovans, and there are lots of similarities between their brains and ours. There are even similarities between chimp brains and ours. So do you think sapiens’ brain was created “de novo” or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? Please answer.
Bechly's answer is in bold view. De novo in a giant jump from previous, much simpler forms. We have a giant fore brain and cortex as does the generally equal Neanderthal. Denisovans have not offered us skulls so we don't know if they were equals.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes and fungi
DAVID: To repeat, the acts require conceptualization recognizing how the predator may react to the event created. We humans easily understand, but can an opossum? A snake?
dhw: I don’t know of any prey that does not make an effort to avoid being gobbled up by a predator. Simply running away is one strategy, but I don’t believe the prey “conceptualizes” before it runs. But it all boils down to the fact that I think our fellow creatures are more intelligent than you believe, and don’t require a divine dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions to try and protect themselves whenever there’s a threat to their survival.
DAVID: See today's wasp/virus entry for discussion of purpose conceptualizing.
DAVID: this is a purposeful event to protect eggs. The virus entered into an arrangement with the wasp 100 million years ago. The new protections, in fact, all the accommodations require a multitude of new mutations. Purpose by chance mutation, not likely. Logically, this is a designed mechanism.
Same as above. How the strategy originates is a matter of speculation, but QUOTE: “From then on, it was part of the wasp, passed on to each new generation.” And the chance theory clearly gives way to a form of intelligent control from within the community. QUOTE:: “The parts… still can talk to each other. And they still make products that cooperate with each other to make virus particles.”
Origin of sympathetic nervous system
DAVID: You hate God running evolution, the same evolution that supposedly happened with complex designs like our brain. See brain entry.
dhw: Please stop pretending that my opposition to your illogical theory of God’s messy, inefficient handling of evolution means that I hate God running evolution. I hate your silly theory. All my alternatives have your God running evolution in a different way or for a different purpose.
DAVID: All those purposes are purely humanizing God!!! I hate this silly God of yours. In a theology class you would be laughed out the door. You have no idea how to think about God as true theologians do.
dhw: […] So true theologians all agree that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and his method was messy, cumbersome and inefficient; that he is to blame for the slaughter of 50 million people by the flu bug which he designed and could not control, but we shouldn’t be afraid of his bugs because they also do us good; that he did not want a Garden of Eden but allowed/created evil because otherwise he and we would have been bored; that he doesn’t want to be worshipped or recognized because that would make him self-interested; that he is/isn’t interested in his creations; and that although he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he is certainly not human in any sense. Who’s laughing?
DAVID: Amazing that we believers still believe, isn't it? We see all the good even with the bad byproducts.
Do all “true” theologians share the laughable beliefs I have listed above?
Global warming
DAVID: Get informed about climate theory. before swallowing all the Guardian's alarmism. Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice? [...]
I don’t have enough knowledge to make an “informed” choice. Nor do you, and unfortunately nor do the experts, since they cannot agree. However, yesterday I listed some of the causes and some of the effects of climate change (melting ice caps, deforestation, lost species, pollution etc.). Are you denying that they are all threats to our planet?
One cubic millimetre of brain
DAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: […] Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.
dhw: I ask you a straightforward question, and your answer is to present Bechly’s interpretation of the history of human evolution.[…] the orthodox view is that we are most likely descended from heidelbergiensis, we could have interbred with earlier homos like Neanderthals and Denisovans, and there are lots of similarities between their brains and ours. There are even similarities between chimp brains and ours. So do you think sapiens’ brain was created “de novo” or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? Please answer.
DAVID: Bechly's answer is in bold view. De novo in a giant jump from previous, much simpler forms. We have a giant fore brain and cortex as does the generally equal Neanderthal. Denisovans have not offered us skulls so we don't know if they were equals.
We’re not talking about “equals”, and I’m talking to you, not to Bechly. Past brains, just like current animal brains including other primate brains, have many features in common with the sapiens brain. Yes or no? So do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Monday, May 13, 2024, 18:19 (192 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, May 13, 2024, 18:25
Snakes and fungi
DAVID: See today's wasp/virus entry for discussion of purpose conceptualizing.
DAVID: this is a purposeful event to protect eggs. The virus entered into an arrangement with the wasp 100 million years ago. The new protections, in fact, all the accommodations require a multitude of new mutations. Purpose by chance mutation, not likely. Logically, this is a designed mechanism.
dhw: How the strategy originates is a matter of speculation, but QUOTE: “From then on, it was part of the wasp, passed on to each new generation.” And the chance theory clearly gives way to a form of intelligent control from within the community. QUOTE:: “The parts… still can talk to each other. And they still make products that cooperate with each other to make virus particles.”
All you have done is redescribe the process, avoiding the conceptualization requirement issue.
Origin of sympathetic nervous systemDAVID: All those purposes are purely humanizing God!!! I hate this silly God of yours. In a theology class you would be laughed out the door. You have no idea how to think about God as true theologians do.
dhw: […] So true theologians all agree that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and his method was messy, cumbersome and inefficient; that he is to blame for the slaughter of 50 million people by the flu bug which he designed and could not control, but we shouldn’t be afraid of his bugs because they also do us good; that he did not want a Garden of Eden but allowed/created evil because otherwise he and we would have been bored; that he doesn’t want to be worshipped or recognized because that would make him self-interested; that he is/isn’t interested in his creations; and that although he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he is certainly not human in any sense. Who’s laughing?
DAVID: Amazing that we believers still believe, isn't it? We see all the good even with the bad byproducts.
dhw: Do all “true” theologians share the laughable beliefs I have listed above?
I haven't produced a paper to see the responses in percentages.
Global warmingDAVID: Get informed about climate theory. before swallowing all the Guardian's alarmism. Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice? [...]
dhw: I don’t have enough knowledge to make an “informed” choice. Nor do you, and unfortunately nor do the experts, since they cannot agree. However, yesterday I listed some of the causes and some of the effects of climate change (melting ice caps, deforestation, lost species, pollution etc.). Are you denying that they are all threats to our planet?
No threats. Problems to be logically addressed. You as a liberal live in fright. I am very conservative and much less emotional about issues.
One cubic millimetre of brainDAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: […] Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.
dhw: I ask you a straightforward question, and your answer is to present Bechly’s interpretation of the history of human evolution.[…] the orthodox view is that we are most likely descended from heidelbergiensis, we could have interbred with earlier homos like Neanderthals and Denisovans, and there are lots of similarities between their brains and ours. There are even similarities between chimp brains and ours. So do you think sapiens’ brain was created “de novo” or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? Please answer.
DAVID: Bechly's answer is in bold view. De novo in a giant jump from previous, much simpler forms. We have a giant fore brain and cortex as does the generally equal Neanderthal. Denisovans have not offered us skulls so we don't know if they were equals.
dhw: We’re not talking about “equals”, and I’m talking to you, not to Bechly. Past brains, just like current animal brains including other primate brains, have many features in common with the sapiens brain. Yes or no? So do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex?
Yes, what is in our brain has some less complex parts from previous brains. What has been added is a giant single step. Bechly's thought. I use experts to support my research. Bechly has talked to you. He won't go away. Why do you dislike a Ph.D. fellow you don't know.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
dhw (re wasps): How the strategy originates is a matter of speculation, but QUOTE: “From then on, it was part of the wasp, passed on to each new generation.” And the chance theory clearly gives way to a form of intelligent control from within the community. QUOTE:: “The parts… still can talk to each other. And they still make products that cooperate with each other to make virus particles.”
DAVID: All you have done is redescribe the process, avoiding the conceptualization requirement issue.
My point is that there is NO conceptualization, if by that you mean consciously formulating plans in advance. We don’t know how strategies originate, but the trigger has to be whatever problem needs to be solved. If bacteria can come up with solutions, why can’t snakes, wasps, and our old friend the possum? I find it hard to believe that they all receive precise instructions from your God – whether through a dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of solutions for all problems – and I think the likeliest explanation is a mixture of intelligence, problem-solving ability, trial and error, and sheer luck. Once the strategy has succeeded, it will be passed on.
How to think about God (formerly “origin of nervous system”)
DAVID: […] In a theology class you would be laughed out the door. You have no idea how to think about God as true theologians do.
dhw: […] So true theologians all agree that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and his method was messy, cumbersome and inefficient; that he is to blame for the slaughter of 50 million people by the flu bug which he designed and could not control, but we shouldn’t be afraid of his bugs because they also do us good; that he did not want a Garden of Eden but allowed/created evil because otherwise he and we would have been bored; that he doesn’t want to be worshipped or recognized because that would make him self-interested; that he is/isn’t interested in his creations; and that although he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he is certainly not human in any sense. […] Do all “true” theologians share the laughable beliefs I have listed above?
DAVID: I haven't produced a paper to see the responses in percentages.
I beg you not to.
Global warming
DAVID: Get informed about climate theory. […] Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice? [...]
dhw: I don’t have enough knowledge to make an “informed” choice. Nor do you, and unfortunately nor do the experts, since they cannot agree. However, yesterday I listed some of the causes and some of the effects of climate change (melting ice caps, deforestation, lost species, pollution etc.). Are you denying that they are all threats to our planet?
DAVID: No threats. Problems to be logically addressed. You as a liberal live in fright. I am very conservative and much less emotional about issues.
Why do you think a problem doesn’t represent a threat? I don’t care about political labels or degrees of emotion. The damage is real and is escalating. Yes, the problems need to be logically addressed and solved. I'm glad you agree.
One cubic millimetre of brain
DAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: […] Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.[…]
DAVID: Bechly's answer is in bold view. De novo in a giant jump from previous, much simpler forms. We have a giant fore brain and cortex as does the generally equal Neanderthal. Denisovans have not offered us skulls so we don't know if they were equals.
dhw: We’re not talking about “equals”, and I’m talking to you, not to Bechly. Past brains, just like current animal brains including other primate brains, have many features in common with the sapiens brain. Yes or no? So do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex?
DAVID: Yes, what is in our brain has some less complex parts from previous brains. What has been added is a giant single step. Bechly's thought. I use experts to support my research. Bechly has talked to you. He won't go away. Why do you dislike a Ph.D. fellow you don't know.
Why are you making this personal? Nobody knows the truth about how evolution works, and the fact that you prefer one expert view to another expert view does not get us very far. That is why I asked you my question, which you still haven’t answered. How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 14, 2024, 15:53 (191 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: All you have done is redescribe the process, avoiding the conceptualization requirement issue.
dhw: My point is that there is NO conceptualization, if by that you mean consciously formulating plans in advance. We don’t know how strategies originate, but the trigger has to be whatever problem needs to be solved. If bacteria can come up with solutions, why can’t snakes, wasps, and our old friend the possum? I find it hard to believe that they all receive precise instructions from your God – whether through a dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of solutions for all problems – and I think the likeliest explanation is a mixture of intelligence, problem-solving ability, trial and error, and sheer luck. Once the strategy has succeeded, it will be passed on.
Nuts!!! There is conceptualization: the prey must think if I do this will the predator do that, in deciding a life-saving maneuver. Problem solving requires conceptual thought.
Global warming
DAVID: Get informed about climate theory. […] Can you tell yourself you have enough background to make an informed choice? [...]
dhw: I don’t have enough knowledge to make an “informed” choice. Nor do you, and unfortunately nor do the experts, since they cannot agree. However, yesterday I listed some of the causes and some of the effects of climate change (melting ice caps, deforestation, lost species, pollution etc.). Are you denying that they are all threats to our planet?
DAVID: No threats. Problems to be logically addressed. You as a liberal live in fright. I am very conservative and much less emotional about issues.
dhw: Why do you think a problem doesn’t represent a threat? I don’t care about political labels or degrees of emotion. The damage is real and is escalating. Yes, the problems need to be logically addressed and solved. I'm glad you agree.
You use 'threat' and I use 'problem', a vast emotional difference.
One cubic millimetre of brainDAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: […] Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent.[…]
DAVID: Bechly's answer is in bold view. De novo in a giant jump from previous, much simpler forms. We have a giant fore brain and cortex as does the generally equal Neanderthal. Denisovans have not offered us skulls so we don't know if they were equals.
dhw: We’re not talking about “equals”, and I’m talking to you, not to Bechly. Past brains, just like current animal brains including other primate brains, have many features in common with the sapiens brain. Yes or no? So do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex?
DAVID: Yes, what is in our brain has some less complex parts from previous brains. What has been added is a giant single step. Bechly's thought. I use experts to support my research. Bechly has talked to you. He won't go away. Why do you dislike a Ph.D. fellow you don't know.
dhw: Why are you making this personal? Nobody knows the truth about how evolution works, and the fact that you prefer one expert view to another expert view does not get us very far. That is why I asked you my question, which you still haven’t answered. How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?
Our brain is vastly different from the erectus brain, based on size, shape, and what we accomplished compared to erectus when both coexisted. Of course, our brain is built upon past forms. It is the added complexity that forms a 'giant step'.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: All you have done is redescribe the process, avoiding the conceptualization requirement issue.
dhw: My point is that there is NO conceptualization, if by that you mean consciously formulating plans in advance. We don’t know how strategies originate, but the trigger has to be whatever problem needs to be solved. If bacteria can come up with solutions, why can’t snakes, wasps, and our old friend the possum? I find it hard to believe that they all receive precise instructions from your God – whether through a dabble or a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of solutions for all problems – and I think the likeliest explanation is a mixture of intelligence, problem-solving ability, trial and error, and sheer luck. Once the strategy has succeeded, it will be passed on.
DAVID: Nuts!!! There is conceptualization: the prey must think if I do this will the predator do that, in deciding a life-saving maneuver. Problem solving requires conceptual thought.
Strategies/problem-solving may originate through chance incidents (possum sees predator leave dead body), chance meetings (symbionts), no other choice (bird migration), trial and error (bacteria learning how to outwit us). But “conceptual thought” would perhaps come under intelligence, as in ants building bridges. I find that more likely than your divine dabbles or your 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.
Global warming
dhw:[…] yesterday I listed some of the causes and some of the effects of climate change (melting ice caps, deforestation, lost species, pollution tc.). Are you denying that they are all threats to our planet?
DAVID: No threats. Problems to be logically addressed. You as a liberal live in fright. I am very conservative and much less emotional about issues.
dhw: Why do you think a problem doesn’t represent a threat? I don’t care about political labels or degrees of emotion. The damage is real and is escalating. Yes, the problems need to be logically addressed and solved. I'm glad you agree.
DAVID: You use 'threat' and I use 'problem', a vast emotional difference.
So long as we agree that climate change is not a figment of some people’s imagination and needs to be tackled, I couldn’t care less about the degree of emotion expressed in our vocabulary.
One cubic millimetre of brain
DAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: […] Do you believe that the sapiens brain was created “de novo”, or that it evolved from earlier brains that were less complex? If it’s the latter, then it’s covered by Darwin’s theory of common descent. […]
DAVID: Yes, what is in our brain has some less complex parts from previous brains. What has been added is a giant single step. Bechly's thought. I use experts to support my research. Bechly has talked to you. He won't go away. Why do you dislike a Ph.D. fellow you don't know.
dhw: Why are you making this personal? Nobody knows the truth about how evolution works, and the fact that you prefer one expert view to another expert view does not get us very far. That is why I asked you my question, which you still haven’t answered. How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?
DAVID: Our brain is vastly different from the erectus brain, based on size, shape, and what we accomplished compared to erectus when both coexisted. Of course, our brain is built upon past forms. It is the added complexity that forms a 'giant step'.
If our brain is built upon past forms, your answer to ny question is no, the sapiens brain was not designed “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains that were less complex – which is in line with Darwin’s theory of common descent. Thank you.
Early water
QUOTE: "If the researchers are correct, lonely outposts of terra firma may have been jutting from the primordial waves earlier than we thought."
DAVID: it happened to our planet, and we ended up with two-thirds of the surface covered. Astronomers are not seeing this elsewhere. Why just us?
Atheists will ask the same question: Why all those trillions of planets etc., and just us with water? The more planets you have, the greater the chance of a stroke of luck. Who would plan trillions if only one was wanted?
New fossils found
DAVID: Yes, a new helpful fossil is found, but the main gap remains, and most likely will remain. The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. Darwin did not exclude God as the Creator, and you cannot exclude Darwin in your explanation of how evolution works.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 16:25 (190 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: There is conceptualization: the prey must think if I do this will the predator do that, in deciding a life-saving maneuver. Problem solving requires conceptual thought.
dhw: trategies/problem-solving may originate through chance incidents (possum sees predator leave dead body), chance meetings (symbionts), no other choice (bird migration), trial and error (bacteria learning how to outwit us). But “conceptual thought” would perhaps come under intelligence, as in ants building bridges. I find that more likely than your divine dabbles or your 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.
I agree lower animals demonstrate purpose in actions. I am arguing the level of conceptualization required for playing dead. How many occasions of a predator ignoring a corpse would make the concept stick!! Can you guess?
Global warmingDAVID: You use 'threat' and I use 'problem', a vast emotional difference.
dhw: So long as we agree that climate change is not a figment of some people’s imagination and needs to be tackled, I couldn’t care less about the degree of emotion expressed in our vocabulary.
Fine. Our emotions differ as we view isues.
One cubic millimetre of brainDAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.
dhw: Why are you making this personal? Nobody knows the truth about how evolution works, and the fact that you prefer one expert view to another expert view does not get us very far. That is why I asked you my question, which you still haven’t answered. How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?
DAVID: Our brain is vastly different from the erectus brain, based on size, shape, and what we accomplished compared to erectus when both coexisted. Of course, our brain is built upon past forms. It is the added complexity that forms a 'giant step'.
dhw: If our brain is built upon past forms, your answer to ny question is no, the sapiens brain was not designed “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains that were less complex – which is in line with Darwin’s theory of common descent. Thank you.
The Erectus Sapiens brain jump is a gap like all the gaps that exist in the entire record.
Dawin declared constantly in Latin nature didn't jump, a declaration the gaps defy.
r
Early waterQUOTE: "If the researchers are correct, lonely outposts of terra firma may have been jutting from the primordial waves earlier than we thought."
DAVID: it happened to our planet, and we ended up with two-thirds of the surface covered. Astronomers are not seeing this elsewhere. Why just us?
dhw: Atheists will ask the same question: Why all those trillions of planets etc., and just us with water? The more planets you have, the greater the chance of a stroke of luck. Who would plan trillions if only one was wanted?
GOD!!!
New fossils foundDAVID: Yes, a new helpful fossil is found, but the main gap remains, and most likely will remain. The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. Darwin did not exclude God as the Creator, and you cannot exclude Darwin in your explanation of how evolution works.
I agree, a little of Darwin is left intact.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: There is conceptualization: the prey must think if I do this will the predator do that, in deciding a life-saving maneuver. Problem solving requires conceptual thought.
dhw: Strategies/problem-solving may originate through chance incidents (possum sees predator leave dead body), chance meetings (symbionts), no other choice (bird migration), trial and error (bacteria learning how to outwit us). But “conceptual thought” would perhaps come under intelligence, as in ants building bridges. I find that more likely than your divine dabbles or your 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.
DAVID: I agree lower animals demonstrate purpose in actions. I am arguing the level of conceptualization required for playing dead. How many occasions of a predator ignoring a corpse would make the concept stick!! Can you guess?
One would be enough. Then Pete the possum tells all his family and friends, and the word spreads, and all his family and friends tell their families and friends, and the strategy is passed on through the generations because it works. No conceptualization required.
One cubic millimetre of brain
DAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.[…]
dhw: How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?
DAVID: […] Of course, our brain is built upon past forms. It is the added complexity that forms a 'giant step'.
dhw: If our brain is built upon past forms, your answer to my question is no, the sapiens brain was not designed “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains that were less complex – which is in line with Darwin’s theory of common descent. Thank you.
DAVID: The Erectus Sapiens brain jump is a gap like all the gaps that exist in the entire record. Darwin declared constantly in Latin nature didn't jump, a declaration the gaps defy.
Why have you picked on erectus? Heidelbergensis is regarded as our most probable direct ancestor, and his brain was almost the same size as ours, as was the Neanderthal brain.
Early water
QUOTE: "If the researchers are correct, lonely outposts of terra firma may have been jutting from the primordial waves earlier than we thought."
DAVID: it happened to our planet, and we ended up with two-thirds of the surface covered. Astronomers are not seeing this elsewhere. Why just us?
dhw: Atheists will ask the same question: Why all those trillions of planets etc., and just us with water? The more planets you have, the greater the chance of a stroke of luck. Who would plan trillions if only one was wanted?
DAVID: GOD!!!
Because……..???
New fossils found
DAVID: Yes, a new helpful fossil is found, but the main gap remains, and most likely will remain. The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. Darwin did not exclude God as the Creator, and you cannot exclude Darwin in your explanation of how evolution works.
DAVID: I agree, a little of Darwin is left intact.
There are multiple gaps and there are multiple connections. Each connection confirms Darwin.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Thursday, May 16, 2024, 19:23 (189 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: I agree lower animals demonstrate purpose in actions. I am arguing the level of conceptualization required for playing dead. How many occasions of a predator ignoring a corpse would make the concept stick!! Can you guess?
dhw; One would be enough. Then Pete the possum tells all his family and friends, and the word spreads, and all his family and friends tell their families and friends, and the strategy is passed on through the generations because it works. No conceptualization required.
Pete is not human!!! He can't tell his friends! You write children's books famously, but don't produce them here! Another example of how you put in a human in action where he doesn't belong.
One cubic millimetre of brainDAVID: Darwin theory type of evolution cannot create this.[…]
dhw: How giant is a giant step? Does it mean that the whole human brain had to be designed “de novo”, or could it be that just as preceding brains had complexified and expanded, the sapiens brain added extra cells and connections to those inherited from our ancestors, and these ultimately complexified to their modern state of superiority?
DAVID: […] Of course, our brain is built upon past forms. It is the added complexity that forms a 'giant step'.
dhw: If our brain is built upon past forms, your answer to my question is no, the sapiens brain was not designed “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains that were less complex – which is in line with Darwin’s theory of common descent. Thank you.
DAVID: The Erectus Sapiens brain jump is a gap like all the gaps that exist in the entire record. Darwin declared constantly in Latin nature didn't jump, a declaration the gaps defy.
dhw; Why have you picked on erectus? Heidelbergensis is regarded as our most probable direct ancestor, and his brain was almost the same size as ours, as was the Neanderthal brain.
Heidelbergensis is not that ancestor, per Bechly.
Early waterQUOTE: "If the researchers are correct, lonely outposts of terra firma may have been jutting from the primordial waves earlier than we thought."
DAVID: it happened to our planet, and we ended up with two-thirds of the surface covered. Astronomers are not seeing this elsewhere. Why just us?
dhw: Atheists will ask the same question: Why all those trillions of planets etc., and just us with water? The more planets you have, the greater the chance of a stroke of luck. Who would plan trillions if only one was wanted?
DAVID: GOD!!!
dhw: Because……..???
He wanted one special planet, ours.
New fossils foundDAVID: Yes, a new helpful fossil is found, but the main gap remains, and most likely will remain. The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. Darwin did not exclude God as the Creator, and you cannot exclude Darwin in your explanation of how evolution works.
DAVID: I agree, a little of Darwin is left intact.
dhw: There are multiple gaps and there are multiple connections. Each connection confirms Darwin.
A tiny portion of Darwin.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: I agree lower animals demonstrate purpose in actions. I am arguing the level of conceptualization required for playing dead. How many occasions of a predator ignoring a corpse would make the concept stick!! Can you guess?
dhw: One would be enough. Then Pete the possum tells all his family and friends, and the word spreads, and all his family and friends tell their families and friends, and the strategy is passed on through the generations because it works. No conceptualization required.
DAVID: Pete is not human!!! He can't tell his friends! You write children's books famously, but don't produce them here! Another example of how you put in a human in action where he doesn't belong.
Do you really believe that our fellow creatures can’t communicate? This is “large organisms chauvinism” gone crazy.
Early human hunting weapons
QUOTE: Not only did they communicate together to topple prey, but they were sophisticated enough to organize the butchering and roasting."
DAVID: This ancient big game hunting requires coordination of actions of a team of folks. They could not have done this without some understandable vocal communications. Not true organized language as we know it, but meaningful grunts and gestures. We think in our language, but I wonder how did they think to invent these weapons, so long ago.
You just cannot understand that any organisms that live in a community must have their own means of communication. For all you know, a single grunt might mean: “Look out, guys, there’s one of those sapiens idiots approaching who thinks we can’t communicate.”
Sea otters use tools
DAVID: Female dolphins, chimps and bonobos are also known to use tools.
Birds use tools too. Our fellow creatures are not as stupid as some people like to think.
One cubic millimetre of brain
dhw: If our brain is built upon past forms, your answer to my question is no, the sapiens brain was not designed “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains that were less complex – which is in line with Darwin’s theory of common descent. Thank you.
DAVID: The Erectus Sapiens brain jump is a gap like all the gaps that exist in the entire record. Darwin declared constantly in Latin nature didn't jump, a declaration the gaps defy.
dhw; Why have you picked on erectus? Heidelbergensis is regarded as our most probable direct ancestor, and his brain was almost the same size as ours, as was the Neanderthal brain.
DAVID: Heidelbergensis is not that ancestor, per Bechly.
I have no idea whether Bechly is the ultimate authority on our ancestry, but even if he is, it is nonsense to argue that our brain is a giant jump when there were Heidelhomos and Neanderhomos with brains of a similar size to ours.
Early water
DAVID: Astronomers are not seeing this elsewhere. Why just us?
dhw: Atheists will ask the same question: Why all those trillions of planets etc., and just us with water? The more planets you have, the greater the chance of a stroke of luck. Who would plan trillions if only one was wanted?
DAVID: GOD!!!
dhw: Because……..???
DAVID: He wanted one special planet, ours.
And therefore, despite his omnipotence and omniscience, he had to create trillions of planets etc. not like ours.
New fossils found
DAVID: Yes, a new helpful fossil is found, but the main gap remains, and most likely will remain. The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. Darwin did not exclude God as the Creator, and you cannot exclude Darwin in your explanation of how evolution works.
DAVID: A tiny portion of Darwin.
Please tell us the proportion of species proven to have been created “de novo” during the last 3.8 billion years.
INTEROCEPTION
QUOTE: "Powerful signals travel from the heart to the brain, affecting our perceptions, decisions and mental health. And the heart is not alone in talking back. Other organs also send mysterious signals to the brain in ways that scientists are just beginning to tease apart.
Yet again, we have confirmation that our bodies consist of cell communities that communicate with one another.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Friday, May 17, 2024, 19:36 (188 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: Pete is not human!!! He can't tell his friends! You write children's books famously, but don't produce them here! Another example of how you put in a human in action where he doesn't belong.
dhw: Do you really believe that our fellow creatures can’t communicate? This is “large organisms chauvinism” gone crazy.
Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.
Early human hunting weapons
dhw:You just cannot understand that any organisms that live in a community must have their own means of communication. For all you know, a single grunt might mean: “Look out, guys, there’s one of those sapiens idiots approaching who thinks we can’t communicate.”
I understand lots more than you seem to realize. I know we use meaningful hand gestures and facial expressions!
Sea otters use toolsdhw; Why have you picked on erectus? Heidelbergensis is regarded as our most probable direct ancestor, and his brain was almost the same size as ours, as was the Neanderthal brain.
DAVID: Heidelbergensis is not that ancestor, per Bechly.
dhw: I have no idea whether Bechly is the ultimate authority on our ancestry, but even if he is, it is nonsense to argue that our brain is a giant jump when there were Heidelhomos and Neanderhomos with brains of a similar size to ours.
But not near the complexity. Size is only one small issue. Note the recent entry on brain complexity.
Early water
dhw: Because……..???
DAVID: He wanted one special planet, ours.dhw: And therefore, despite his omnipotence and omniscience, he had to create trillions of planets etc. not like ours.
Yes, He did for His own reasons.
New fossils foundDAVID: Yes, a new helpful fossil is found, but the main gap remains, and most likely will remain. The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. Darwin did not exclude God as the Creator, and you cannot exclude Darwin in your explanation of how evolution works.
DAVID: A tiny portion of Darwin.
dhw: Please tell us the proportion of species proven to have been created “de novo” during the last 3.8 billion years.
See Bechly today:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/05/fossil-friday-three-modern-scientific-challenges-to-t...
"the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans and bursts of biological novelty within very short windows of time, which have been called revolutions, explosions, and ‘Big Bangs’ by mainstream evolutionary biologists for good reason (also see Bechly 2021, 2023a, Bechly & Meyer 2017). This phenomenon is ubiquitous in all periods of Earth history, in all geographical regions, and in all groups of organisms, from protists and plants to invertebrate and vertebrate animals.
"These discontinuities in the history of life not only contradict the Darwinian core prediction of gradualism (i.e., an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time), but also raises another fatal problem for the feasibility of any unguided process as adequate explanation for the major transitions in the history of life (macroevolution)."
Comment: an enormous article will all supporting evidence.
INTEROCEPTIONQUOTE: "Powerful signals travel from the heart to the brain, affecting our perceptions, decisions and mental health. And the heart is not alone in talking back. Other organs also send mysterious signals to the brain in ways that scientists are just beginning to tease apart.
dhw;Yet again, we have confirmation that our bodies consist of cell communities that communicate with one another.
All by design.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: Pete is not human!!! He can't tell his friends! You write children's books famously, but don't produce them here! Another example of how you put in a human in action where he doesn't belong.
dhw: Do you really believe that our fellow creatures can’t communicate? This is “large organisms chauvinism” gone crazy.
DAVID: Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.
So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning?
Early human hunting weapons
DAVID: We think in our language, but I wonder how did they think to invent these weapons so long ago.
dhw: You just cannot understand that any organisms that live in a community must have their own means of communication. [...]
DAVID: I understand lots more than you seem to realize. I know we use meaningful hand gestures and facial expressions!
Congratulations. So why do you wonder how our ancient ancestors managed to invent their weapons without the benefit of speaking American? Is it inconceivable to you that they might have had sophisticated modes of communication which helped them to manufacture sophisticated tools?
Sapiens brain
dhw: Why have you picked on erectus? Heidelbergensis is regarded as our most probable direct ancestor, and his brain was almost the same size as ours, as was the Neanderthal brain.
DAVID: Heidelbergensis is not that ancestor, per Bechly.
dhw: I have no idea whether Bechly is the ultimate authority on our ancestry, but even if he is, it is nonsense to argue that our brain is a giant jump when there were Heidelhomos and Neanderhomos with brains of a similar size to ours.
DAVID: But not near the complexity. Size is only one small issue. Note the recent entry on brain complexity.
It’s a major issue, since evolution has resulted in increasing sizes of brain. We agreed long ago that the sapiens brain stopped expanding and increased complexification took over. How does that indicate that there was a “giant step” from Heidelhomo and Neanderhomo to sapiens? Once more: do you believe your God created the sapiens brain “de novo”. If not, then you have accepted Darwin’s theory of common descent.
Early water
DAVID: He wanted one special planet, ours.
dhw: And therefore, despite his omnipotence and omniscience, he had to create trillions of planets etc. not like ours.
DAVID: Yes, He did for His own reasons.
If you can’t think of any reasons, we’re back to your agreement that your arguments are based on irrational faith. So be it.
New fossils found
DAVID: [...] The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. [...] .
DAVID: A tiny portion of Darwin.
dhw: Please tell us the proportion of species proven to have been created “de novo” during the last 3.8 billion years.
DAVID: See Bechly today:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/05/fossil-friday-three-modern-scientific-challenges-to-t...
"the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans and bursts of biological novelty within very short windows of time, which have been called revolutions, explosions, and ‘Big Bangs’ by mainstream evolutionary biologists for good reason (also see Bechly 2021, 2023a, Bechly & Meyer 2017). This phenomenon is ubiquitous in all periods of Earth history, in all geographical regions, and in all groups of organisms, from protists and plants to invertebrate and vertebrate animals.
"These discontinuities in the history of life not only contradict the Darwinian core prediction of gradualism (i.e., an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time), but also raises another fatal problem for the feasibility of any unguided process as adequate explanation for the major transitions in the history of life (macroevolution)."
I have no difficulty accepting that drastic changes in conditions might well lead to major changes within short periods (how short is short? Overnight?). And I agree with Bechley that macroevolution is too complex to have come into existence by chance (unguided process). Does he mention the theory that macroevolution is guided by the autonomous intelligence of cells?
INTEROCEPTION
QUOTE: "Powerful signals travel from the heart to the brain, affecting our perceptions, decisions and mental health. And the heart is not alone in talking back. Other organs also send mysterious signals to the brain in ways that scientists are just beginning to tease apart.
dhw: Yet again, we have confirmation that our bodies consist of cell communities that communicate with one another.
DAVID: All by design.
I’m an agnostic. I’m open to the suggestion that cells are sentient, communicative, inventive beings whose autonomous intelligence was designed by your God.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, May 18, 2024, 16:37 (187 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.
dhw: So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning?
It well could be programmed.
Early human hunting weaponsDAVID: I understand lots more than you seem to realize. I know we use meaningful hand gestures and facial expressions!
dhw: Congratulations. So why do you wonder how our ancient ancestors managed to invent their weapons without the benefit of speaking American? Is it inconceivable to you that they might have had sophisticated modes of communication which helped them to manufacture sophisticated tools?
Meaningful grunts and hand gestures might well work.
Sapiens braindhw: I have no idea whether Bechly is the ultimate authority on our ancestry, but even if he is, it is nonsense to argue that our brain is a giant jump when there were Heidelhomos and Neanderhomos with brains of a similar size to ours.
DAVID: But not near the complexity. Size is only one small issue. Note the recent entry on brain complexity.
dhw: It’s a major issue, since evolution has resulted in increasing sizes of brain. We agreed long ago that the sapiens brain stopped expanding and increased complexification took over. How does that indicate that there was a “giant step” from Heidelhomo and Neanderhomo to sapiens? Once more: do you believe your God created the sapiens brain “de novo”. If not, then you have accepted Darwin’s theory of common descent.
Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.
New fossils foundDAVID: [...] The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. [...] .
DAVID: A tiny portion of Darwin.
dhw: Please tell us the proportion of species proven to have been created “de novo” during the last 3.8 billion years.
DAVID: See Bechly today:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/05/fossil-friday-three-modern-scientific-challenges-to-t..."the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans and bursts of biological novelty within very short windows of time, which have been called revolutions, explosions, and ‘Big Bangs’ by mainstream evolutionary biologists for good reason (also see Bechly 2021, 2023a, Bechly & Meyer 2017). This phenomenon is ubiquitous in all periods of Earth history, in all geographical regions, and in all groups of organisms, from protists and plants to invertebrate and vertebrate animals.
"These discontinuities in the history of life not only contradict the Darwinian core prediction of gradualism (i.e., an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time), but also raises another fatal problem for the feasibility of any unguided process as adequate explanation for the major transitions in the history of life (macroevolution)[/i]."
dhw: I have no difficulty accepting that drastic changes in conditions might well lead to major changes within short periods (how short is short? Overnight?). And I agree with Bechley that macroevolution is too complex to have come into existence by chance (unguided process). Does he mention the theory that macroevolution is guided by the autonomous intelligence of cells?
No. Your favorite theory unsupported.
INTEROCEPTIONQUOTE: "Powerful signals travel from the heart to the brain, affecting our perceptions, decisions and mental health. And the heart is not alone in talking back. Other organs also send mysterious signals to the brain in ways that scientists are just beginning to tease apart.
dhw: Yet again, we have confirmation that our bodies consist of cell communities that communicate with one another.
DAVID: All by design.
dhw: I’m an agnostic. I’m open to the suggestion that cells are sentient, communicative, inventive beings whose autonomous intelligence was designed by your God.
Yes.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.
dhw: So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning?
DAVID: It well could be programmed.[/i]
Are you referring to the 3.8-billion-years-old instructions your God planted in the first cells for every species and every strategy, including death-feigning, for the rest of history, or to the ad hoc operations and courses he conducts whenever there's a new problem? Is this what all your theologians have taught you?
Early human hunting weapons
DAVID: I understand lots more than you seem to realize. I know we use meaningful hand gestures and facial expressions!
dhw: Congratulations. So why do you wonder how our ancient ancestors managed to invent their weapons without the benefit of speaking American? Is it inconceivable to you that they might have had sophisticated modes of communication which helped them to manufacture sophisticated tools?
DAVID: Meaningful grunts and hand gestures might well work.
What sounds like a meaningful grunt to you could be a language sophisticated enough to satisfy all the requirements of the grunters.
Sapiens brain
dhw: I have no idea whether Bechly is the ultimate authority on our ancestry, but even if he is, it is nonsense to argue that our brain is a giant jump when there were Heidelhomos and Neanderhomos with brains of a similar size to ours.
DAVID: But not near the complexity. Size is only one small issue. Note the recent entry on brain complexity.
dhw: It’s a major issue, since evolution has resulted in increasing sizes of brain. We agreed long ago that the sapiens brain stopped expanding and increased complexification took over. How does that indicate that there was a “giant step” from Heidelhomo and Neanderhomo to sapiens? Once more: do you believe your God created the sapiens brain “de novo”. If not, then you have accepted Darwin’s theory of common descent.
DAVID: Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.
So sapiens brain was not created “de novo” but evolved as per Darwin from earlier brains. Thank you.
New fossils found
DAVID: [...] The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. [...] .
dhw: I have no difficulty accepting that drastic changes in conditions might well lead to major changes within short periods (how short is short? Overnight?). And I agree with Bechley that macroevolution is too complex to have come into existence by chance (unguided process). Does he mention the theory that macroevolution is guided by the autonomous intelligence of cells?
DAVID: No. Your favorite theory unsupported.
There is growing support, as you have kindly shown with various articles, but yes, it’s only a theory. So is the existence of God, so is common descent, so is creation “de novo”, and so is your version of God’s messy, inefficient use of evolution to fulfil the theoretical purpose you impose on him.
INTEROCEPTION
dhw: I’m an agnostic. I’m open to the suggestion that cells are sentient, communicative, inventive beings whose autonomous intelligence was designed by your God.
DAVID: Yes.
May I take your “yes” to mean you are also open to the suggestion that cells have autonomous intelligence?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Sunday, May 19, 2024, 16:25 (186 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.
dhw: So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning?
DAVID: It well could be programmed.[/i]
dhw: Are you referring to the 3.8-billion-years-old instructions your God planted in the first cells for every species and every strategy, including death-feigning, for the rest of history, or to the ad hoc operations and courses he conducts whenever there's a new problem? Is this what all your theologians have taught you?
Nothing from theology here. Preprogramming or dabbling.
Early human hunting weaponsDAVID: Meaningful grunts and hand gestures might well work.
dhw: What sounds like a meaningful grunt to you could be a language sophisticated enough to satisfy all the requirements of the grunters.
A language of meaningful grunts is possible.
Sapiens brainDAVID: Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.
dhw: So sapiens brain was not created “de novo” but evolved as per Darwin from earlier brains. Thank you.
Like all the gaps in Darwinian evolution, the complexity gap is real.
New fossils foundDAVID: [...] The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. [...] .
dhw: I have no difficulty accepting that drastic changes in conditions might well lead to major changes within short periods (how short is short? Overnight?). And I agree with Bechley that macroevolution is too complex to have come into existence by chance (unguided process). Does he mention the theory that macroevolution is guided by the autonomous intelligence of cells?
DAVID: No. Your favorite theory unsupported.
dhw: There is growing support, as you have kindly shown with various articles, but yes, it’s only a theory. So is the existence of God, so is common descent, so is creation “de novo”, and so is your version of God’s messy, inefficient use of evolution to fulfil the theoretical purpose you impose on him.
Not much support for cell-committee-driven speciation.
INTEROCEPTIONdhw: I’m an agnostic. I’m open to the suggestion that cells are sentient, communicative, inventive beings whose autonomous intelligence was designed by your God.
DAVID: Yes.
dhw: May I take your “yes” to mean you are also open to the suggestion that cells have autonomous intelligence?
'Yes' to designed by God.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
DAVID: Yep, Pete described in detail his concept to other possums. More just-so stuff.
dhw: So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning?
DAVID: It well could be programmed.
dhw: Are you referring to the 3.8-billion-years-old instructions your God planted in the first cells for every species and every strategy, including death-feigning, for the rest of history, or to the ad hoc operations and courses he conducts whenever there's a new problem? Is this what all your theologians have taught you?
DAVID: Nothing from theology here. Preprogramming or dabbling.
And I strongly suspect there is nothing from theology even remotely like the contradictions I have listed on the evolution thread. And yet you say you follow theology’s strict attributes and guidelines.
Early human hunting weapons
DAVID: Meaningful grunts and hand gestures might well work.
dhw: What sounds like a meaningful grunt to you could be a language sophisticated enough to satisfy all the requirements of the grunters.
DAVID: A language of meaningful grunts is possible.
Thank you. The same applies to all animal sounds and all chemical modes of communication.
Sapiens brain
DAVID: Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.
dhw: So sapiens brain was not created “de novo” but evolved as per Darwin from earlier brains. Thank you.
DAVID: Like all the gaps in Darwinian evolution, the complexity gap is real.
But the complexity gap is the work of the brain cells and connections. Even you are surely not proposing that your God has twiddled every complexification.
New fossils found
DAVID: [...] The missing fossil argument is a prayer to save Darwinism a theory filled with multiple gaps in the record and multiple saltations of new species.
dhw: Every new link confirms the theory of common descent. At best, then, your belief has to be that Darwin’s theory is correct, but that your God also used direct creation when he wanted to. [...] .
dhw [re Bechly]: I have no difficulty accepting that drastic changes in conditions might well lead to major changes within short periods (how short is short? Overnight?). And I agree with Bechly that macroevolution is too complex to have come into existence by chance (unguided process). Does he mention the theory that macroevolution is guided by the autonomous intelligence of cells?
DAVID: No. Your favorite theory unsupported.
dhw: There is growing support, as you have kindly shown with various articles, but yes, it’s only a theory. So is the existence of God, so is common descent, so is creation “de novo”, and so is your version of God’s messy, inefficient use of evolution to fulfil the theoretical purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: Not much support for cell-committee-driven speciation.
You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Monday, May 20, 2024, 18:35 (185 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi, wasps and the possum
dhw: Are you referring to the 3.8-billion-years-old instructions your God planted in the first cells for every species and every strategy, including death-feigning, for the rest of history, or to the ad hoc operations and courses he conducts whenever there's a new problem? Is this what all your theologians have taught you?
DAVID: Nothing from theology here. Preprogramming or dabbling.
dhw: And I strongly suspect there is nothing from theology even remotely like the contradictions I have listed on the evolution thread. And yet you say you follow theology’s strict attributes and guidelines.
I follow guidelines of which you are ignorant. My resultant theology is mine alone.
Sapiens brainDAVID: Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.
dhw: So sapiens brain was not created “de novo” but evolved as per Darwin from earlier brains. Thank you.
DAVID: Like all the gaps in Darwinian evolution, the complexity gap is real.
dhw: But the complexity gap is the work of the brain cells and connections. Even you are surely not proposing that your God has twiddled every complexification.
God let the complexification process He gave our brain to work on its own.
New fossils found
DAVID: No. Your favorite theory unsupported.dhw: There is growing support, as you have kindly shown with various articles, but yes, it’s only a theory. So is the existence of God, so is common descent, so is creation “de novo”, and so is your version of God’s messy, inefficient use of evolution to fulfil the theoretical purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: Not much support for cell-committee-driven speciation.
dhw: You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
Scientists don't mention God, by rule.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Snakes, fungi etc.
dhw: So you believe our fellow creatures can’t pass on information. What’s your own theory then? That your God went round to all the possums, inserting a programme for death-feigning? […] Is this what all your theologians have taught you?
DAVID: Nothing from theology here. Preprogramming or dabbling.
And I strongly suspect there is nothing from theology even remotely like the contradictions I have listed on the evolution thread. And yet you say you follow theology’s strict attributes and guidelines.
Sapiens brain
DAVID: Sapiens brain added to past complex brains with a vast increase in complexity prior to future complexification by the same brain.
dhw: So sapiens brain was not created “de novo” but evolved as per Darwin from earlier brains. Thank you.
DAVID: Like all the gaps in Darwinian evolution, the complexity gap is real.
dhw: But the complexity gap is the work of the brain cells and connections. Even you are surely not proposing that your God has twiddled every complexification.
DAVID: God let the complexification process He gave our brain to work on its own.
Thank you. Even if your God created the process, our brain was not created “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains, as per Darwin.
New fossils found
dhw (re Shapiro’s theory): You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
DAVID: Scientists don't mention God, by rule.
I thought you said that many ID scientists now talk explicitly of God. How many of them support the above theory?
Neanderthal genes in humans
DAVID: this answers the question of why so many forms of human ancestors if God was in charge. Why not go directly to sapiens? Both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes have supplied helpful genes. That is an answer.
No it isn’t. You go on and on about his power to create species “de novo”, so if he’d only wanted sapiens, he could have popped in all the genes he’d wanted without bothering with all the genes that were irrelevant to sapiens. The many forms fit in perfectly, however, with an experimenting God.
Philosopher on free will
No need for analysis here, but it always surprises me that people discussing the subject don’t start off by defining what “will” is supposed to be free from. We had long discussions on this in the past. Clearly our will is not free to make impossible decisions. I can’t waggle my ears and fly, or break out of jail, or force peace on Hamas and the Israelis. And so the question is whether, within given constraints, we do or don’t have freedom. My own conclusion is that if you define it as being free from influences beyond your control, then you don’t have it. None of us can possibly know to what extent our decisions have been formed by our genes, upbringing, environment, illness, accident, chance occurrences etc. However, the converse argument will be that all those influences have gone to make up the unique identity of our individual self (see the Nibbana thread), and so every decision we make is made by our self and by nobody else. In that sense, it is free.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 21, 2024, 17:09 (184 days ago) @ dhw
Snakes, fungi etc.
DAVID: Nothing from theology here. Preprogramming or dabbling.
dhw: And I strongly suspect there is nothing from theology even remotely like the contradictions I have listed on the evolution thread. And yet you say you follow theology’s strict attributes and guidelines.
I do and you can't follow as prejudiced you are about strict guidelines as you admit you allow your imagination to wander
Sapiens brainDAVID: God let the complexification process He gave our brain to work on its own.
dhw: Thank you. Even if your God created the process, our brain was not created “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains, as per Darwin.
The enormous complexity of our brain was shown in a previous entry. It well may represent a huge gap, denying Darwinism.
New fossils founddhw (re Shapiro’s theory): You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
DAVID: Scientists don't mention God, by rule.
dhw: I thought you said that many ID scientists now talk explicitly of God. How many of them support the above theory?
ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them.
Neanderthal genes in humansDAVID: this answers the question of why so many forms of human ancestors if God was in charge. Why not go directly to sapiens? Both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes have supplied helpful genes. That is an answer.
dhw: No it isn’t. You go on and on about his power to create species “de novo”, so if he’d only wanted sapiens, he could have popped in all the genes he’d wanted without bothering with all the genes that were irrelevant to sapiens. The many forms fit in perfectly, however, with an experimenting God.
A woolly stumbling God who has to experiment? Find a theologian who supports that view of God!
Philosopher on free willdhw: No need for analysis here, but it always surprises me that people discussing the subject don’t start off by defining what “will” is supposed to be free from. We had long discussions on this in the past. Clearly our will is not free to make impossible decisions. I can’t waggle my ears and fly, or break out of jail, or force peace on Hamas and the Israelis. And so the question is whether, within given constraints, we do or don’t have freedom. My own conclusion is that if you define it as being free from influences beyond your control, then you don’t have it. None of us can possibly know to what extent our decisions have been formed by our genes, upbringing, environment, illness, accident, chance occurrences etc. However, the converse argument will be that all those influences have gone to make up the unique identity of our individual self (see the Nibbana thread), and so every decision we make is made by our self and by nobody else. In that sense, it is free.
Your usual good analysis.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Sapiens brain
DAVID: God let the complexification process He gave our brain to work on its own.
dhw: Thank you. Even if your God created the process, our brain was not created “de novo” but evolved from earlier brains, as per Darwin.
DAVID: The enormous complexity of our brain was shown in a previous entry. It well may represent a huge gap, denying Darwinism.
I am not denying the enormous complexity of our brain, which you have just agreed has been created by the brain itself. And the brain itself evolved from ancestral brains, as per Darwin.
New fossils found
dhw (re Shapiro’s theory): You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
DAVID: Scientists don't mention God, by rule.
dhw: I thought you said that many ID scientists now talk explicitly of God. How many of them support the above theory?
DAVID: ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them.
So it’s not true that scientists don’t mention God by rule. How many of your ID scientists tell us that their God inherited a rule that forced him to inefficiently design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
Neanderthal genes in humans
DAVID: this answers the question of why so many forms of human ancestors if God was in charge. Why not go directly to sapiens? Both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes have supplied helpful genes. That is an answer.
dhw: No it isn’t. You go on and on about his power to create species “de novo”, so if he’d only wanted sapiens, he could have popped in all the genes he’d wanted without bothering with all the genes that were irrelevant to sapiens. The many forms fit in perfectly, however, with an experimenting God.
DAVID: A woolly stumbling God who has to experiment? Find a theologian who supports that view of God!
If early forms of flight were successful and continued experimentation led to jet planes and rockets, or if early tools led to more and more new inventions, is that “woolly and stumbling”? Find a theologian who supports your view that your God is so inefficient that he deliberate designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species, because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose.
Philosopher on free will
dhw: No need for analysis here, but it always surprises me that people discussing the subject don’t start off by defining what “will” is supposed to be free from. We had long discussions on this in the past. Clearly our will is not free to make impossible decisions. I can’t waggle my ears and fly, or break out of jail, or force peace on Hamas and the Israelis. And so the question is whether, within given constraints, we do or don’t have freedom. My own conclusion is that if you define it as being free from influences beyond your control, then you don’t have it. None of us can possibly know to what extent our decisions have been formed by our genes, upbringing, environment, illness, accident, chance occurrences etc. However, the converse argument will be that all those influences have gone to make up the unique identity of our individual self (see the Nibbana thread), and so every decision we make is made by our self and by nobody else. In that sense, it is free.
DAVID: Your usual good analysis.
Thank you. Are you there, Matt? I’d like to hear your views on this.
Stephen Talbott’s view
QUOTES: And given a human culture upon which all life and evolution on earth now depends, we are, you might say, the alpha and omega of the evolutionary story. What seems incontrovertible is that we represent the highest and furthest reach of the thinking — which is to say, the ideas and meaning — taking form in evolving earthly life."
And so we have the privilege of discovering ever more fully the connections, not only between our highest functioning and the intelligence of the cells in our bodies, but also between our own minds and the entire, far-from-mindless creative drama of life on this planet."
DAVID: for Talbott there is an agency which caused evolution. We are the pinnacle of that process, and now we control it. Do not denigrate our exceptionality! It has its own important meaning in this reality.
I don’t know who you think might denigrate our exceptionality. This is a superb summing-up of our exceptionality and our responsibilities (which I take to be a reference to the manner in which we are currently threatening life on earth), and even including a direct confirmation of the theory of cellular intelligence! Thank you, David and Stephen.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 17:55 (183 days ago) @ dhw
Sapiens brain
DAVID: The enormous complexity of our brain was shown in a previous entry. It well may represent a huge gap, denying Darwinism.
dhw: I am not denying the enormous complexity of our brain, which you have just agreed has been created by the brain itself. And the brain itself evolved from ancestral brains, as per Darwin.
As designed by God, as it is obvious natural evolution won't accomplish our brain.
New fossils founddhw (re Shapiro’s theory): You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
DAVID: Scientists don't mention God, by rule.
dhw: I thought you said that many ID scientists now talk explicitly of God. How many of them support the above theory?
DAVID: ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them.
dhw: So it’s not true that scientists don’t mention God by rule. How many of your ID scientists tell us that their God inherited a rule that forced him to inefficiently design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
ID scientists are the exception. 'ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them."
Neanderthal genes in humansDAVID: this answers the question of why so many forms of human ancestors if God was in charge. Why not go directly to sapiens? Both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes have supplied helpful genes. That is an answer.
dhw: No it isn’t. You go on and on about his power to create species “de novo”, so if he’d only wanted sapiens, he could have popped in all the genes he’d wanted without bothering with all the genes that were irrelevant to sapiens. The many forms fit in perfectly, however, with an experimenting God.
DAVID: A woolly stumbling God who has to experiment? Find a theologian who supports that view of God!
dhw: If early forms of flight were successful and continued experimentation led to jet planes and rockets, or if early tools led to more and more new inventions, is that “woolly and stumbling”? Find a theologian who supports your view that your God is so inefficient that he deliberate designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species, because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose.
All of ID folks.
Philosopher on free willdhw: No need for analysis here, but it always surprises me that people discussing the subject don’t start off by defining what “will” is supposed to be free from. We had long discussions on this in the past. Clearly our will is not free to make impossible decisions. I can’t waggle my ears and fly, or break out of jail, or force peace on Hamas and the Israelis. And so the question is whether, within given constraints, we do or don’t have freedom. My own conclusion is that if you define it as being free from influences beyond your control, then you don’t have it. None of us can possibly know to what extent our decisions have been formed by our genes, upbringing, environment, illness, accident, chance occurrences etc. However, the converse argument will be that all those influences have gone to make up the unique identity of our individual self (see the Nibbana thread), and so every decision we make is made by our self and by nobody else. In that sense, it is free.
DAVID: Your usual good analysis.
dhw: Thank you. Are you there, Matt? I’d like to hear your views on this.
Stephen Talbott’s view
QUOTES: And given a human culture upon which all life and evolution on earth now depends, we are, you might say, the alpha and omega of the evolutionary story. What seems incontrovertible is that we represent the highest and furthest reach of the thinking — which is to say, the ideas and meaning — taking form in evolving earthly life."
And so we have the privilege of discovering ever more fully the connections, not only between our highest functioning and the intelligence of the cells in our bodies, but also between our own minds and the entire, far-from-mindless creative drama of life on this planet."
DAVID: for Talbott there is an agency which caused evolution. We are the pinnacle of that process, and now we control it. Do not denigrate our exceptionality! It has its own important meaning in this reality.
dhw; I don’t know who you think might denigrate our exceptionality. This is a superb summing-up of our exceptionality and our responsibilities (which I take to be a reference to the manner in which we are currently threatening life on earth), and even including a direct confirmation of the theory of cellular intelligence! Thank you, David and Stephen.
Talbott is fascinated by purpose in all biological activity. He sees agency.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Sapiens brain
DAVID: The enormous complexity of our brain was shown in a previous entry. It well may represent a huge gap, denying Darwinism.
dhw: I am not denying the enormous complexity of our brain, which you have just agreed has been created by the brain itself. And the brain itself evolved from ancestral brains, as per Darwin.
DAVID: As designed by God, as it is obvious natural evolution won't accomplish our brain.
If by “natural” you mean random, then I have long ago accepted that the complexities of ALL organs and organisms are such that there is a potent argument for design. That does not alter your agreement that the sapiens brain evolved from earlier brains, and was not created “de novo”.
New fossils found
dhw (re Shapiro’s theory): You said “unsupported”. How many scientists actively support your theory that your God inherited a rule that forced him to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
DAVID: Scientists don't mention God, by rule.
dhw: I thought you said that many ID scientists now talk explicitly of God. How many of them support the above theory?
DAVID: ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them.
dhw: So it’s not true that scientists don’t mention God by rule. How many of your ID scientists tell us that their God inherited a rule that forced him to inefficiently design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only purpose?
DAVID: ID scientists are the exception. 'ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them."
And I’m sure ID supports the theory that God designed the mechanisms that created all of life (not just humans) and enabled evolution. Does it support your theory that your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose? Does Shapiro’s theory exclude the possibility that your God designed the mechanisms that created life and evolution?
Experimentation
DAVID: A woolly stumbling God who has to experiment? Find a theologian who supports that view of God!
dhw: If early forms of flight were successful and continued experimentation led to jet planes and rockets, or if early tools led to more and more new inventions, is that “woolly and stumbling”? Can you find a theologian who supports your view that your God is so inefficient that he deliberate designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species, because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose.
DAVID: All of ID folks.
I find it hard to accept that all ID-ers believe the theory that your God is an inefficient designer. Do they also support your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but is certainly not human in any sense?
Philosopher on free will
We can drop this now, but I’ll bring it back if Matt raises the subject again.
Stephen Talbott’s view
QUOTES: And given a human culture upon which all life and evolution on earth now depends, we are, you might say, the alpha and omega of the evolutionary story. What seems incontrovertible is that we represent the highest and furthest reach of the thinking — which is to say, the ideas and meaning — taking form in evolving earthly life."
"And so we have the privilege of discovering ever more fully the connections, not only between our highest functioning and the intelligence of the cells in our bodies, but also between our own minds and the entire, far-from-mindless creative drama of life on this planet."
DAVID: for Talbott there is an agency which caused evolution. We are the pinnacle of that process, and now we control it. Do not denigrate our exceptionality! It has its own important meaning in this reality.
dhw: I don’t know who you think might denigrate our exceptionality. This is a superb summing-up of our exceptionality and our responsibilities (which I take to be a reference to the manner in which we are currently threatening life on earth), and even including a direct confirmation of the theory of cellular intelligence! Thank you, David and Stephen.
DAVID: Talbott is fascinated by purpose in all biological activity. He sees agency.
I agree with him that there is purpose in all biological activity, and would suggest that the purpose is survival, for which his reference to cellular intelligence is highly relevant. I don’t know if elsewhere he evokes God as the “agent”, though I do know from elsewhere that he quite rightly rejects “natural selection” as a creative force – it creates nothing; it only determines which organisms will survive.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Thursday, May 23, 2024, 20:33 (182 days ago) @ dhw
Sapiens brain
DAVID: As designed by God, as it is obvious natural evolution won't accomplish our brain.
dhw: If by “natural” you mean random, then I have long ago accepted that the complexities of ALL organs and organisms are such that there is a potent argument for design. That does not alter your agreement that the sapiens brain evolved from earlier brains, and was not created “de novo”.
The jump from erectus to sapiens is a huge gap in brain ability.
DAVID: ID scientists are the exception. 'ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them."dhw: And I’m sure ID supports the theory that God designed the mechanisms that created all of life (not just humans) and enabled evolution. Does it support your theory that your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose? Does Shapiro’s theory exclude the possibility that your God designed the mechanisms that created life and evolution?
ID accepts God designed evolution as history presents. Shapiro's theory is intelligent cells did it, neve a comment about God's possible role.
ExperimentationDAVID: A woolly stumbling God who has to experiment? Find a theologian who supports that view of God!
dhw: If early forms of flight were successful and continued experimentation led to jet planes and rockets, or if early tools led to more and more new inventions, is that “woolly and stumbling”? Can you find a theologian who supports your view that your God is so inefficient that he deliberate designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species, because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose.
DAVID: All of ID folks.
dhw: I find it hard to accept that all ID-ers believe the theory that your God is an inefficient designer. Do they also support your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours but is certainly not human in any sense?
ID never defines God' person in any way. They assume He is a good designer at the speciation level.
Stephen Talbott’s viewQUOTES: And given a human culture upon which all life and evolution on earth now depends, we are, you might say, the alpha and omega of the evolutionary story. What seems incontrovertible is that we represent the highest and furthest reach of the thinking — which is to say, the ideas and meaning — taking form in evolving earthly life."
"And so we have the privilege of discovering ever more fully the connections, not only between our highest functioning and the intelligence of the cells in our bodies, but also between our own minds and the entire, far-from-mindless creative drama of life on this planet."
DAVID: for Talbott there is an agency which caused evolution. We are the pinnacle of that process, and now we control it. Do not denigrate our exceptionality! It has its own important meaning in this reality.
dhw: I don’t know who you think might denigrate our exceptionality. This is a superb summing-up of our exceptionality and our responsibilities (which I take to be a reference to the manner in which we are currently threatening life on earth), and even including a direct confirmation of the theory of cellular intelligence! Thank you, David and Stephen.
DAVID: Talbott is fascinated by purpose in all biological activity. He sees agency.
dhw: I agree with him that there is purpose in all biological activity, and would suggest that the purpose is survival, for which his reference to cellular intelligence is highly relevant. I don’t know if elsewhere he evokes God as the “agent”, though I do know from elsewhere that he quite rightly rejects “natural selection” as a creative force – it creates nothing; it only determines which organisms will survive.
Read him and learn about his thinking. He has a huge website.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Sapiens brain
DAVID: As designed by God, as it is obvious natural evolution won't accomplish our brain.
dhw: If by “natural” you mean random, then I have long ago accepted that the complexities of ALL organs and organisms are such that there is a potent argument for design. That does not alter your agreement that the sapiens brain evolved from earlier brains, and was not created “de novo”.
DAVID: The jump from erectus to sapiens is a huge gap in brain ability.
There is virtually no jump from Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal to early sapiens. You have agreed that your God did not create sapiens brain “de novo”. Why are you dragging this out?
DAVID: ID scientists are the exception. 'ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them."
dhw: And I’m sure ID supports the theory that God designed the mechanisms that created all of life (not just humans) and enabled evolution. Does it support your theory that your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose? Does Shapiro’s theory exclude the possibility that your God designed the mechanisms that created life and evolution?
DAVID: ID accepts God designed evolution as history presents. Shapiro's theory is intelligent cells did it, neve a comment about God's possible role.
Initially you told us ID scientists didn’t mention God either. Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God – he simply doesn’t go into the origin of cellular intelligence. Do ID scientists agree with you that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only goal (us plus food) was “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”?
DAVID: ID never defines God' person in any way. They assume He is a good designer at the speciation level.
So it’s no use calling on ID-ers to support your various self-contradictory theories, including that of inefficient evolution. You’re just left with the thousands of theologians with their different theories from your own, but apparently all supporting you by obeying certain guidelines you won’t tell us about.
Stephen Talbott’s view
DAVID: Talbott is fascinated by purpose in all biological activity. He sees agency.
dhw: I agree with him that there is purpose in all biological activity, and would suggest that the purpose is survival, for which his reference to cellular intelligence is highly relevant. I don’t know if elsewhere he evokes God as the “agent”, though I do know from elsewhere that he quite rightly rejects “natural selection” as a creative force – it creates nothing; it only determines which organisms will survive.
DAVID: Read him and learn about his thinking. He has a huge website.
If I were to follow your instructions, I would spend the rest of my life reading every book you think might support your own invention of the God you wish to believe in! I find most of the articles you post very interesting and often educational, but I often disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. That is why we have discussions!
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: This is an extraordinary paper as it describes a brain as an organ that runs its own show. It actually decides what to record with what degree of importance to ascribe to it!!
The brain is a community of cell communities, and so this means that the cells actually run their own show and actually decide what to record etc. If brain cells run this show and make decisions, perhaps you will acknowledge that other cells (whose autonomous intelligence was possibly designed by your God) might do the same?
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal
DAVID: Bechly continues with a wry look at Darwinist just-so explanations: swimming, rafting, the geology is wrong, there were archipelagoes to skip along, etc. Any excuse to explain the fossil dispersal.
So what is Bechly’s explanation?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, May 25, 2024, 21:39 (180 days ago) @ dhw
Sapiens brain
DAVID: ID scientists are the exception. 'ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them."
dhw: And I’m sure ID supports the theory that God designed the mechanisms that created all of life (not just humans) and enabled evolution. Does it support your theory that your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose? Does Shapiro’s theory exclude the possibility that your God designed the mechanisms that created life and evolution?
DAVID: ID accepts God designed evolution as history presents. Shapiro's theory is intelligent cells did it, never a comment about God's possible role.
Initially you told us ID scientists didn’t mention God either. Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God – he simply doesn’t go into the origin of cellular intelligence. Do ID scientists agree with you that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only goal (us plus food) was “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”?
Never discussed.
DAVID: ID never defines God' person in any way. They assume He is a good designer at the speciation level.dhw; So it’s no use calling on ID-ers to support your various self-contradictory theories, including that of inefficient evolution. You’re just left with the thousands of theologians with their different theories from your own, but apparently all supporting you by obeying certain guidelines you won’t tell us about.
I've given you the guidelines, follow them. God is not a person. Any characteristics are allegorical in meaning. His desires about us are 50/50, a neutral view.
Stephen Talbott’s viewDAVID: Talbott is fascinated by purpose in all biological activity. He sees agency.
dhw: I agree with him that there is purpose in all biological activity, and would suggest that the purpose is survival, for which his reference to cellular intelligence is highly relevant. I don’t know if elsewhere he evokes God as the “agent”, though I do know from elsewhere that he quite rightly rejects “natural selection” as a creative force – it creates nothing; it only determines which organisms will survive.
DAVID: Read him and learn about his thinking. He has a huge website.
dhw: If I were to follow your instructions, I would spend the rest of my life reading every book you think might support your own invention of the God you wish to believe in! I find most of the articles you post very interesting and often educational, but I often disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. That is why we have discussions!
Agreed.
The brain: studies on memoryDAVID: This is an extraordinary paper as it describes a brain as an organ that runs its own show. It actually decides what to record with what degree of importance to ascribe to it!!
dhw: The brain is a community of cell communities, and so this means that the cells actually run their own show and actually decide what to record etc. If brain cells run this show and make decisions, perhaps you will acknowledge that other cells (whose autonomous intelligence was possibly designed by your God) might do the same?
God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersalDAVID: Bechly continues with a wry look at Darwinist just-so explanations: swimming, rafting, the geology is wrong, there were archipelagoes to skip along, etc. Any excuse to explain the fossil dispersal.
dhw: So what is Bechly’s explanation?
A designer did it.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
ID science
DAVID: ID accepts God designed evolution as history presents. Shapiro's theory is intelligent cells did it, never a comment about God's possible role.
dhw: Initially you told us ID scientists didn’t mention God either. Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God – he simply doesn’t go into the origin of cellular intelligence. Do ID scientists agree with you that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only goal (us plus food) was “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”?
DAVID: Never discussed.
So unlike Shapiro, you don’t have any scientists supporting your theory of evolution.
DAVID: ID never defines God' person in any way. They assume He is a good designer at the speciation level.
dhw: So it’s no use calling on ID-ers to support your various self-contradictory theories, including that of inefficient evolution. You’re just left with the thousands of theologians with their different theories from your own, but apparently all supporting you by obeying certain guidelines you won’t tell us about.
DAVID: I've given you the guidelines, follow them. God is not a person.
I don’t know of anyone who thought he was.
DAVID: Any characteristics are allegorical in meaning. His desires about us are 50/50, a neutral view.
So there is a 50/50 chance that he has some thought patterns and emotions like ours – as opposed to your current view that he is “certainly not human in any sense”. (See the evolution thread.)
Stephen Talbott’s view
DAVID: Read him and learn about his thinking. He has a huge website.
dhw: If I were to follow your instructions, I would spend the rest of my life reading every book you think might support your own invention of the God you wish to believe in! I find most of the articles you post very interesting and often educational, but I often disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. That is why we have discussions!
DAVID: Agreed.
Long may it continue.
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: This is an extraordinary paper as it describes a brain as an organ that runs its own show. It actually decides what to record with what degree of importance to ascribe to it!!
dhw: The brain is a community of cell communities, and so this means that the cells actually run their own show and actually decide what to record etc. If brain cells run this show and make decisions, perhaps you will acknowledge that other cells (whose autonomous intelligence was possibly designed by your God) might do the same?
DAVID: God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.
Your God has planted instructions in every cell for every reaction to every new situation, has he?
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal
DAVID: Bechly continues with a wry look at Darwinist just-so explanations: swimming, rafting, the geology is wrong, there were archipelagoes to skip along, etc. Any excuse to explain the fossil dispersal.
dhw: So what is Bechly’s explanation?
DAVID: A designer did it.
Did what? Carried duckbill dinosaurs across the ocean? Or decided to create brand new duckbill dinosaurs “de novo” on the other side of the ocean, as they were so essential for his design of humans and our food?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Sunday, May 26, 2024, 17:30 (179 days ago) @ dhw
ID science
dhw: Initially you told us ID scientists didn’t mention God either. Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God – he simply doesn’t go into the origin of cellular intelligence. Do ID scientists agree with you that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only goal (us plus food) was “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”?
DAVID: Never discussed.
dhw: So unlike Shapiro, you don’t have any scientists supporting your theory of evolution.
ID believes God used a designed evolution to design humans!! Most are religious, but some like Bechly simply accept the idea of a designer did it.
DAVID: ID never defines God' person in any way. They assume He is a good designer at the speciation level.dhw: So it’s no use calling on ID-ers to support your various self-contradictory theories, including that of inefficient evolution. You’re just left with the thousands of theologians with their different theories from your own, but apparently all supporting you by obeying certain guidelines you won’t tell us about.
DAVID: I've given you the guidelines, follow them. God is not a person.
I don’t know of anyone who thought he was.
DAVID: Any characteristics are allegorical in meaning. His desires about us are 50/50, a neutral view.
dhw: So there is a 50/50 chance that he has some thought patterns and emotions like ours – as opposed to your current view that he is “certainly not human in any sense”. (See the evolution thread.)
See thread for a full discussion of the word 'neutral'.
The brain: studies on memoryDAVID: This is an extraordinary paper as it describes a brain as an organ that runs its own show. It actually decides what to record with what degree of importance to ascribe to it!!
dhw: The brain is a community of cell communities, and so this means that the cells actually run their own show and actually decide what to record etc. If brain cells run this show and make decisions, perhaps you will acknowledge that other cells (whose autonomous intelligence was possibly designed by your God) might do the same?
DAVID: God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.
dhw: Your God has planted instructions in every cell for every reaction to every new situation, has he?
No, some minor adaptations occur without God.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersalDAVID: Bechly continues with a wry look at Darwinist just-so explanations: swimming, rafting, the geology is wrong, there were archipelagoes to skip along, etc. Any excuse to explain the fossil dispersal.
dhw: So what is Bechly’s explanation?
DAVID: A designer did it.
dhw: Did what? Carried duckbill dinosaurs across the ocean? Or decided to create brand new duckbill dinosaurs “de novo” on the other side of the ocean, as they were so essential for his design of humans and our food?
I don't know Bechly's exact thinking. He believes in the designer, so that would probably
mean de novo in two places. His main thrust is Darwin is totally inadequate to explain it.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
ID science
dhw: Initially you told us ID scientists didn’t mention God either. Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God – he simply doesn’t go into the origin of cellular intelligence. Do ID scientists agree with you that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only goal (us plus food) was “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”?
DAVID: Never discussed.
dhw: So unlike Shapiro, you don’t have any scientists supporting your theory of evolution.
DAVID: ID believes God used a designed evolution to design humans!!
But they apparently don’t share your belief that we plus food were his one and only purpose, and so he messily and inefficiently had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose.
DAVID: Most are religious, but some like Bechly simply accept the idea of a designer did it.
This of course is the major problem for agnostics like myself. The general argument for design and against chance is powerful, but the argument against a nebulous, eternal, unknowable, sourceless designer that has always been there and can create universes is equally powerful. If we skip the question of origin, though, and focus only on evolution, we certainly have an alternative to chance and to divine creation of every species. And that is Shapiro’s theory.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal
DAVID: Bechly continues with a wry look at Darwinist just-so explanations: swimming, rafting, the geology is wrong, there were archipelagoes to skip along, etc. Any excuse to explain the fossil dispersal.
dhw: So what is Bechly’s explanation?
DAVID: A designer did it.
dhw: Did what? Carried duckbill dinosaurs across the ocean? Or decided to create brand new duckbill dinosaurs “de novo” on the other side of the ocean, as they were so essential for his design of humans and our food?
DAVID: I don't know Bechly's exact thinking. He believes in the designer, so that would probably mean de novo in two places. His main thrust is Darwin is totally inadequate to explain it.
Understandable, but the mystery remains unsolved. Darwin did not claim to have solved all the mysteries - he devoted a whole chapter to "Difficulties on theory" - but individual anomalies do not invalidate the main thrust of his theory, which is common descent, with natural selection determining which organs and organisms survive.
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: This is an extraordinary paper as it describes a brain as an organ that runs its own show. It actually decides what to record with what degree of importance to ascribe to it!!
dhw: The brain is a community of cell communities, and so this means that the cells actually run their own show and actually decide what to record etc. If brain cells run this show and make decisions, perhaps you will acknowledge that other cells (whose autonomous intelligence was possibly designed by your God) might do the same?
DAVID: God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.
dhw: Your God has planted instructions in every cell for every reaction to every new situation, has he?
DAVID: No, some minor adaptations occur without God.
An organ that “runs its own show” and “decides what do record and what degree of importance to attach to it” is not a “minor adaptation”.
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: again, it raises the question of adaption by design or by incremental steps of natural evolution. The level of complexity in acoustic science is obvious to us, but at the moth level I think they had designer help.
You simply cannot bear the thought that all forms of life might have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Monday, May 27, 2024, 16:49 (178 days ago) @ dhw
ID science
DAVID: ID believes God used a designed evolution to design humans!!
dhw: But they apparently don’t share your belief that we plus food were his one and only purpose, and so he messily and inefficiently had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose.
I don't know. Never discussed.
DAVID: Most are religious, but some like Bechly simply accept the idea of a designer did it.This of course is the major problem for agnostics like myself. The general argument for design and against chance is powerful, but the argument against a nebulous, eternal, unknowable, sourceless designer that has always been there and can create universes is equally powerful. If we skip the question of origin, though, and focus only on evolution, we certainly have an alternative to chance and to divine creation of every species. And that is Shapiro’s theory.
All Shapiro showed was bacteria can edit their DNA. His theory is an extrapolation of that fact.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersaldhw: Did what? Carried duckbill dinosaurs across the ocean? Or decided to create brand new duckbill dinosaurs “de novo” on the other side of the ocean, as they were so essential for his design of humans and our food?
DAVID: I don't know Bechly's exact thinking. He believes in the designer, so that would probably mean de novo in two places. His main thrust is Darwin is totally inadequate to explain it.
dhw: Understandable, but the mystery remains unsolved. Darwin did not claim to have solved all the mysteries - he devoted a whole chapter to "Difficulties on theory" - but individual anomalies do not invalidate the main thrust of his theory, which is common descent, with natural selection determining which organs and organisms survive.
A designer building forward from changes to past forms will create a common descent pattern.
DAVID: God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.dhw: Your God has planted instructions in every cell for every reaction to every new situation, has he?
DAVID: No, some minor adaptations occur without God.
dhw:An organ that “runs its own show” and “decides what do record and what degree of importance to attach to it” is not a “minor adaptation”.
That is a God design, not a minor adaptation.
Moths fake out batsDAVID: again, it raises the question of adaption by design or by incremental steps of natural evolution. The level of complexity in acoustic science is obvious to us, but at the moth level I think they had designer help.
dhw: You simply cannot bear the thought that all forms of life might have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.
When well designed by God they survive beautifully.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
ID science
DAVID: ID believes God used a designed evolution to design humans!!
dhw: But they apparently don’t share your belief that we plus food were his one and only purpose, and so he messily and inefficiently had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose.
DAVID: I don't know. Never discussed.
Of course not. Your theory has no scientific backing even from ID-ers.
DAVID: Most are religious, but some like Bechly simply accept the idea of a designer did it.
dhw: This of course is the major problem for agnostics like myself. The general argument for design and against chance is powerful, but the argument against a nebulous, eternal, unknowable, sourceless designer that has always been there and can create universes is equally powerful. If we skip the question of origin, though, and focus only on evolution, we certainly have an alternative to chance and to divine creation of every species. And that is Shapiro’s theory.
DAVID: All Shapiro showed was bacteria can edit their DNA. His theory is an extrapolation of that fact.
Most theories are extrapolations from known facts – if they had no factual basis, nobody would take them seriously. The theory of cellular intelligence has been endorsed by growing numbers of scientists from other fields. Please don’t pretend that it cannot be regarded as an alternative to chance and separate creation by God.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal
DAVID: I don't know Bechly's exact thinking. He believes in the designer, so that would probably mean de novo in two places. His main thrust is Darwin is totally inadequate to explain it.
dhw: Understandable, but the mystery remains unsolved. Darwin did not claim to have solved all the mysteries - he devoted a whole chapter to "Difficulties on theory" - but individual anomalies do not invalidate the main thrust of his theory, which is common descent, with natural selection determining which organs and organisms survive.
DAVID: A designer building forward from changes to past forms will create a common descent pattern.
Yes indeed. And Darwin emphasized that his theory should not “shock the religious feelings of anyone”. Thank you for once more endorsing the theory of common descent.
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.
dhw: Your God has planted instructions in every cell for every reaction to every new situation, has he?
DAVID: No, some minor adaptations occur without God.
dhw: An organ that “runs its own show” and “decides what to record and what degree of importance to attach to it” is not a “minor adaptation”.
DAVID: That is a God design, not a minor adaptation.
An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: again, it raises the question of adaption by design or by incremental steps of natural evolution. The level of complexity in acoustic science is obvious to us, but at the moth level I think they had designer help.
dhw: You simply cannot bear the thought that all forms of life might have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.
DAVID: When well designed by God they survive beautifully.
So were the 99.9% of extinct species not designed or badly designed by your God?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 28, 2024, 18:44 (177 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, May 28, 2024, 18:50
ID science>
DAVID: Most are religious, but some like Bechly simply accept the idea of a designer did it.
dhw: This of course is the major problem for agnostics like myself. The general argument for design and against chance is powerful, but the argument against a nebulous, eternal, unknowable, sourceless designer that has always been there and can create universes is equally powerful. If we skip the question of origin, though, and focus only on evolution, we certainly have an alternative to chance and to divine creation of every species. And that is Shapiro’s theory.
DAVID: All Shapiro showed was bacteria can edit their DNA. His theory is an extrapolation of that fact.
dhw: Most theories are extrapolations from known facts – if they had no factual basis, nobody would take them seriously. The theory of cellular intelligence has been endorsed by growing numbers of scientists from other fields. Please don’t pretend that it cannot be regarded as an alternative to chance and separate creation by God.
It is an unproven alternative. Everyone acknowledges cells act as if intelligent in what they currently do. Planning a very new adaptation requires more intelligence than they show.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersalDAVID: I don't know Bechly's exact thinking. He believes in the designer, so that would probably mean de novo in two places. His main thrust is Darwin is totally inadequate to explain it.
dhw: Understandable, but the mystery remains unsolved. Darwin did not claim to have solved all the mysteries - he devoted a whole chapter to "Difficulties on theory" - but individual anomalies do not invalidate the main thrust of his theory, which is common descent, with natural selection determining which organs and organisms survive.
DAVID: A designer building forward from changes to past forms will create a common descent pattern.
dhw: Yes indeed. And Darwin emphasized that his theory should not “shock the religious feelings of anyone”. Thank you for once more endorsing the theory of common descent.
My form is not your form.
The brain: studies on memoryDAVID: God instructs cells how to react in instructions in DNA.
dhw: Your God has planted instructions in every cell for every reaction to every new situation, has he?
DAVID: No, some minor adaptations occur without God.
dhw: An organ that “runs its own show” and “decides what to record and what degree of importance to attach to it” is not a “minor adaptation”.
DAVID: That is a God design, not a minor adaptation.
dhw: An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
That is exactly what it can mean.
Moths fake out batsDAVID: again, it raises the question of adaption by design or by incremental steps of natural evolution. The level of complexity in acoustic science is obvious to us, but at the moth level I think they had designer help.
dhw: You simply cannot bear the thought that all forms of life might have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.
DAVID: When well designed by God they survive beautifully.
dhw: So were the 99.9% of extinct species not designed or badly designed by your God?
Again, your distorted view of the pattern-method of evolution. It requires extinctions.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
ID science
dhw: If we skip the question of origin, though, and focus only on evolution, we certainly have an alternative to chance and to divine creation of every species. And that is Shapiro’s theory.
DAVID: All Shapiro showed was bacteria can edit their DNA. His theory is an extrapolation of that fact.
dhw: Most theories are extrapolations from known facts – if they had no factual basis, nobody would take them seriously. The theory of cellular intelligence has been endorsed by growing numbers of scientists from other fields. Please don’t pretend that it cannot be regarded as an alternative to chance and separate creation by God.
DAVID: It is an unproven alternative. Everyone acknowledges cells act as if intelligent in what they currently do. Planning a very new adaptation requires more intelligence than they show.
If a theory was “proven”, it would become a fact. It is your belief that cells/cell communities are not intelligent enough to innovate, or even to think up a strategy like feigning death, or making loud noises in order to deter predators. Your God has to write a book of instructions, or pop in and give them all a course. Even your God’s existence is an unproven theory. Cellular intelligence is an unproven alternative to other equally unproven theories.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal
dhw: Darwin did not claim to have solved all the mysteries - he devoted a whole chapter to "Difficulties on theory" - but individual anomalies do not invalidate the main thrust of his theory, which is common descent, with natural selection determining which organs and organisms survive.
DAVID: A designer building forward from changes to past forms will create a common descent pattern.
dhw: Yes indeed. And Darwin emphasized that his theory should not “shock the religious feelings of anyone”. Thank you for once more endorsing the theory of common descent.
DAVID: My form is not your form.
You are still accepting Darwin’s theory of common descent.
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
DAVID: That is exactly what it can mean.
It runs its own show, but God runs it. It decides what to record, but God decides what it should record. Your use of language is bewildering.
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: again, it raises the question of adaption by design or by incremental steps of natural evolution. The level of complexity in acoustic science is obvious to us, but at the moth level I think they had designer help.
dhw: You simply cannot bear the thought that all forms of life might have the intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.
DAVID: When well designed by God they survive beautifully.
dhw: So were the 99.9% of extinct species not designed or badly designed by your God?
DAVID: Again, your distorted view of the pattern-method of evolution. It requires extinctions.
So your God deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose because somebody told him that’s what you have to do if you want evolution. You can’t understand the basic explanation: that evolution proceeds only through changing conditions, which result in extinctions but also in the innovations which produce new species. There is no law that your God must obey. If he exists, this is the system he invented, and so it is fair to assume that instead of being a messy, inefficient designer, he may have had a good reason for WANTING the ever changing history of life. But you prefer to insult him.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 29, 2024, 18:09 (176 days ago) @ dhw
ID science
i] > DAVID: It is an unproven alternative. Everyone acknowledges cells act as if intelligent in what they currently do. Planning a very new adaptation requires more intelligence than they show.
dhw; If a theory was “proven”, it would become a fact. It is your belief that cells/cell communities are not intelligent enough to innovate, or even to think up a strategy like feigning death, or making loud noises in order to deter predators. Your God has to write a book of instructions, or pop in and give them all a course. Even your God’s existence is an unproven theory. Cellular intelligence is an unproven alternative to other equally unproven theories.
Accepted. So don't tout brilliant cell committees every chance you get.
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersalDAVID: My form is not your form.
dhw: You are still accepting Darwin’s theory of common descent.
No, mine mimics Darwin's.
The brain: studies on memorydhw: An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
DAVID: That is exactly what it can mean.
dhw: It runs its own show, but God runs it. It decides what to record, but God decides what it should record. Your use of language is bewildering.
No, God built in all those plasticity mechanisms to run on their own.
Moths fake out batsdhw: So were the 99.9% of extinct species not designed or badly designed by your God?>
DAVID: Again, your distorted view of the pattern-method of evolution. It requires extinctions.dhw: So your God deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose because somebody told him that’s what you have to do if you want evolution. You can’t understand the basic explanation: that evolution proceeds only through changing conditions, which result in extinctions but also in the innovations which produce new species.
You are arguing from the position of natural evolution. I follow God-designed evolution.
dhw: There is no law that your God must obey. If he exists, this is the system he invented, and so it is fair to assume that instead of being a messy, inefficient designer, he may have had a good reason for WANTING the ever changing history of life. But you prefer to insult him.
I have not insulted Him. I have simply pointed out that God chose this messy system for His own reasons. Therefore, it must be the BEST system available. You do not know how to defend God because you don't know how to think about him.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Cellular intelligence
DAVID: It is an unproven alternative. Everyone acknowledges cells act as if intelligent in what they currently do. Planning a very new adaptation requires more intelligence than they show.
dhw: If a theory was “proven”, it would become a fact. It is your belief that cells/cell communities are not intelligent enough to innovate, or even to think up a strategy like feigning death, or making loud noises in order to deter predators. Your God has to write a book of instructions, or pop in and give them all a course. Even your God’s existence is an unproven theory. Cellular intelligence is an unproven alternative to other equally unproven theories.
DAVID: Accepted. So don't tout brilliant cell committees every chance you get.
I only tout it because you never stop touting your theory that your God dabbles or preprogrammed every innovation, strategy, lifestyle etc, for the whole history of life, even down to the possum being taught how to feign death!
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal (Theory of common descent)
DAVID: My form is not your form.
dhw: You are still accepting Darwin’s theory of common descent.
DAVID: No, mine mimics Darwin's.
I’m sure Darwin would have been pleased.
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
DAVID: That is exactly what it can mean.
dhw: It runs its own show, but God runs it. It decides what to record, but God decides what it should record. Your use of language is bewildering.
DAVID: No, God built in all those plasticity mechanisms to run on their own.
I have no problem with the theory that your God may have designed autonomous cellular intelligence. It is your refusal to accept the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence that I object to.
Moths fake out bats
dhw: So were the 99.9% of extinct species not designed or badly designed by your God?>
DAVID: Again, your distorted view of the pattern-method of evolution. It requires extinctions.
dhw: So your God deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose because somebody told him that’s what you have to do if you want evolution. You can’t understand the basic explanation: that evolution proceeds only through changing conditions, which result in extinctions but also in the innovations which produce new species.
DAVID: You are arguing from the position of natural evolution. I follow God-designed evolution.
As an agnostic, I don’t have a problem with the theory that there may be a God, and if there is, he designed evolution. My objection is to your invention of your God’s purpose coupled with a method of achieving that purpose which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.
The rest of this post is covered on the "evolution" thread.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Thursday, May 30, 2024, 20:02 (175 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence
DAVID: Accepted. So don't tout brilliant cell committees every chance you get.
dhw: I only tout it because you never stop touting your theory that your God dabbles or preprogrammed every innovation, strategy, lifestyle etc, for the whole history of life, even down to the possum being taught how to feign death!
I won't if you won't
Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal (Theory of common descent)DAVID: My form is not your form.
dhw: You are still accepting Darwin’s theory of common descent.
DAVID: No, mine mimics Darwin's.
dhw: I’m sure Darwin would have been pleased.
I doubt it.
The brain: studies on memorydhw: An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
DAVID: That is exactly what it can mean.
dhw: It runs its own show, but God runs it. It decides what to record, but God decides what it should record. Your use of language is bewildering.
DAVID: No, God built in all those plasticity mechanisms to run on their own.
dhw: I have no problem with the theory that your God may have designed autonomous cellular intelligence. It is your refusal to accept the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence that I object to.
I know.
Moths fake out batsdhw: So were the 99.9% of extinct species not designed or badly designed by your God?>
DAVID: Again, your distorted view of the pattern-method of evolution. It requires extinctions.
dhw: So your God deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose because somebody told him that’s what you have to do if you want evolution. You can’t understand the basic explanation: that evolution proceeds only through changing conditions, which result in extinctions but also in the innovations which produce new species.
DAVID: You are arguing from the position of natural evolution. I follow God-designed evolution.
dhw: As an agnostic, I don’t have a problem with the theory that there may be a God, and if there is, he designed evolution. My objection is to your invention of your God’s purpose coupled with a method of achieving that purpose which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.
Funny how you defend my God.
The rest of this post is covered on the "evolution" thread.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Cellular intelligence
DAVID: Accepted. So don't tout brilliant cell committees every chance you get.
dhw: I only tout it because you never stop touting your theory that your God dabbles or preprogrammed every innovation, strategy, lifestyle etc, for the whole history of life, even down to the possum being taught how to feign death!
DAVID: I won't if you won't.
You never stop.
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: An organism which, in your own words, “runs its own show” and “decides what to record” etc. works autonomously. God may have given it this autonomous ability, but that does not mean that its “show” and its decisions are preprogrammed by instructions.
DAVID: That is exactly what it can mean.
dhw: It runs its own show, but God runs it. It decides what to record, but God decides what it should record. Your use of language is bewildering.
DAVID: No, God built in all those plasticity mechanisms to run on their own.
dhw: I have no problem with the theory that your God may have designed autonomous cellular intelligence. It is your refusal to accept the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence that I object to.
DAVID: I know.
“God built the mechanisms to run on their own” means he gave the cells/cell communities their autonomy. Since the show and the decisions clearly require intelligence, thank you for informing us that your God gave cells autonomous intelligence.
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: You are arguing from the position of natural evolution. I follow God-designed evolution.
dhw: As an agnostic, I don’t have a problem with the theory that there may be a God, and if there is, he designed evolution. My objection is to your invention of your God’s purpose coupled with a method of achieving that purpose which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.
DAVID: Funny how you defend my God.
Funny how you attack your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-purposeful God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you have learned to live with all your contradictions, because first you choose the God you wish for, and you can then shut your eyes to anything that doesn’t make sense.
Ferns attract defenders
QUOTES: "Plants and the animals that eat them have evolved together in fascinating ways, creating a dynamic interplay of survival strategies”.
"'Our research highlights a fascinating example of convergent evolution, where ferns and flowering plants independently developed similar strategies to defend themselves against predation by recruiting ant defenders with nectarines.”
'The evolutionary history of fern nectaries not only demonstrates the complex relationships between plants and insects—relationships that have been previously underestimated—but also underscores the ability of ferns to adapt to ecological challenges.”
DAVID: this adaptation shows clear purpose, which suggests design in action.
Yes it does. And by “design” you usually mean God did it. And so I will suggest that the clear purpose is survival, and the design would have been carried out through the intelligence (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities that make up the different organisms, plants as well as insects and animals.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Friday, May 31, 2024, 16:39 (174 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: No, God built in all those plasticity mechanisms to run on their own.
dhw: I have no problem with the theory that your God may have designed autonomous cellular intelligence. It is your refusal to accept the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence that I object to.
DAVID: I know.
dhw: “God built the mechanisms to run on their own” means he gave the cells/cell communities their autonomy. Since the show and the decisions clearly require intelligence, thank you for informing us that your God gave cells autonomous intelligence.
It is a designed autonomy in appearance.
Moths fake out batsDAVID: You are arguing from the position of natural evolution. I follow God-designed evolution.
dhw: As an agnostic, I don’t have a problem with the theory that there may be a God, and if there is, he designed evolution. My objection is to your invention of your God’s purpose coupled with a method of achieving that purpose which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.
DAVID: Funny how you defend my God.
dhw: Funny how you attack your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-purposeful God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you have learned to live with all your contradictions, because first you choose the God you wish for, and you can then shut your eyes to anything that doesn’t make sense.
Only His evolutionary method is imperfect. But that He chose it makes it OK! You are ignorant of that way of thinking.
Ferns attract defendersQUOTES: "Plants and the animals that eat them have evolved together in fascinating ways, creating a dynamic interplay of survival strategies”.
"'Our research highlights a fascinating example of convergent evolution, where ferns and flowering plants independently developed similar strategies to defend themselves against predation by recruiting ant defenders with nectarines.”
'The evolutionary history of fern nectaries not only demonstrates the complex relationships between plants and insects—relationships that have been previously underestimated—but also underscores the ability of ferns to adapt to ecological challenges.”DAVID: this adaptation shows clear purpose, which suggests design in action.
dhw: Yes it does. And by “design” you usually mean God did it. And so I will suggest that the clear purpose is survival, and the design would have been carried out through the intelligence (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities that make up the different organisms, plants as well as insects and animals.
Your unchanged approach.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: No, God built in all those plasticity mechanisms to run on their own.[…]
dhw: “God built the mechanisms to run on their own” means he gave the cells/cell communities their autonomy. Since the show and the decisions clearly require intelligence, thank you for informing us that your God gave cells autonomous intelligence.
DAVID: It is a designed autonomy in appearance.
So instead of “God built those mechanisms to run on their own”, you actually meant: “God built those mechanisms to look as if they were running on their own, but in fact he laid out all the instructions for all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or he keeps popping in to give them instructions whenever they need to take a decision.” As I’ve said before, your theories change from one post to another, and ironically you dismiss Shapiro’s theory as unproven, but cling to the above as if it were a fact!
Moths fake out bats
dhw: As an agnostic, I don’t have a problem with the theory that there may be a God, and if there is, he designed evolution. My objection is to your invention of your God’s purpose coupled with a method of achieving that purpose which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.
DAVID: Funny how you defend my God.
dhw: Funny how you attack your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-purposeful God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you have learned to live with all your contradictions, because first you choose the God you wish for, and you can then shut your eyes to anything that doesn’t make sense.
DAVID: Only His evolutionary method is imperfect. But that He chose it makes it OK! You are ignorant of that way of thinking.
I am certainly ignorant of how anyone who believes in an omniscient, omnipotent God can also believe that his God would choose an imperfect, inefficient, messy method to achieve his one and only goal. My way of thinking is that an omniscient, omnipotent God would only do what he wanted to do, and so whatever method he invented would be perfectly suited to the purpose for which he invented it rather than being imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But “you are ignorant of that way of thinking”.
Ferns attract defenders
DAVID: this adaptation shows clear purpose, which suggests design in action.
dhw: Yes it does. And by “design” you usually mean God did it. And so I will suggest that the clear purpose is survival, and the design would have been carried out through the intelligence (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities that make up the different organisms, plants as well as insects and animals.
DAVID: Your unchanged approach.
An alternative suggestion, since any readers of this will know that by “design” you mean the direct work of God
Plate tectonics
DAVID: all of this can only happen if a planet has plate tectonics. Gould said our arrival depended upon contingencies. Plate tectonics is a major one.
This seems to fit in with Raup’s contention that whichever species survived new conditions or resulted from new conditions was a matter of luck.
Cuckoos
QUOTE: "Soon after hatching, the cuckoo evicts the host eggs or chicks from the nest to become the sole occupant. The host parents not only lose all their own offspring, but also invest several weeks rearing the cuckoo, which eventually grows to around twice the size of its foster parents."
I didn’t know that the process gave rise to new species resembling the “foster parents”. A new evolutionary twist. Back in 1981 I wrote a play for children called Maxitweet the Cocoa, which told exactly the story above. The play has had quite a few productions in schools, and it contains a scene in which the parent birds send for Doctor Jay in the hope that he will be able to explain how Mrs Tweet could give birth to such a monster. Just for your amusement, here is the first verse of the song Doctor Jay sings in reply:
Every now and then you’ll find upon our Mother Earth
A bird, a fish, a plant, a mammal suddenly gives birth
To a creature with a feature that its forebears never had,
And so it turns out different from its Mum and from its Dad.
It’s only thanks to science now that we have understood
What gives the woody woodpecker power to peck on wood,
Why booby birds are silly and why foxes are so sly,
Why angler fish angle and why flying fish fly.
The answer? B’dair…mutalution.”
(“B’dair” is the squawky sound jays make, but...b'dair...what did he know anyway?) I’m pleased to tell you that at the end of the play, Mr and Mrs Tweet finally kick the cuckoo out of their nest, and Mrs Tweet has laid four more eggs.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, June 01, 2024, 16:56 (173 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: It is a designed autonomy in appearance.
dhw: So instead of “God built those mechanisms to run on their own”, you actually meant: “God built those mechanisms to look as if they were running on their own, but in fact he laid out all the instructions for all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or he keeps popping in to give them instructions whenever they need to take a decision.” As I’ve said before, your theories change from one post to another, and ironically you dismiss Shapiro’s theory as unproven, but cling to the above as if it were a fact!
My theories do not change. Our brain was designed by God with the attributes it demonstrates.
Moths fake out batsdhw: As an agnostic, I don’t have a problem with the theory that there may be a God, and if there is, he designed evolution. My objection is to your invention of your God’s purpose coupled with a method of achieving that purpose which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.
DAVID: Funny how you defend my God.
dhw: Funny how you attack your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-purposeful God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you have learned to live with all your contradictions, because first you choose the God you wish for, and you can then shut your eyes to anything that doesn’t make sense.
DAVID: Only His evolutionary method is imperfect. But that He chose it makes it OK! You are ignorant of that way of thinking.
dhw: I am certainly ignorant of how anyone who believes in an omniscient, omnipotent God can also believe that his God would choose an imperfect, inefficient, messy method to achieve his one and only goal. My way of thinking is that an omniscient, omnipotent God would only do what he wanted to do, and so whatever method he invented would be perfectly suited to the purpose for which he invented it rather than being imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But “you are ignorant of that way of thinking”.
You are stuck outside of theism. Of course, God thought evolution was the perfect way to create us. Our human opinion is it looks cumbersome to us. No matter how much you try, you can't outthink God.
Ferns attract defendersDAVID: this adaptation shows clear purpose, which suggests design in action.
dhw: Yes it does. And by “design” you usually mean God did it. And so I will suggest that the clear purpose is survival, and the design would have been carried out through the intelligence (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities that make up the different organisms, plants as well as insects and animals.
DAVID: Your unchanged approach.
dhw: An alternative suggestion, since any readers of this will know that by “design” you mean the direct work of God.
Yes, God the designer.
Plate tectonicsDAVID: all of this can only happen if a planet has plate tectonics. Gould said our arrival depended upon contingencies. Plate tectonics is a major one.
dhw: This seems to fit in with Raup’s contention that whichever species survived new conditions or resulted from new conditions was a matter of luck.
Yes.
CuckoosQUOTE: "Soon after hatching, the cuckoo evicts the host eggs or chicks from the nest to become the sole occupant. The host parents not only lose all their own offspring, but also invest several weeks rearing the cuckoo, which eventually grows to around twice the size of its foster parents."
dhw: I didn’t know that the process gave rise to new species resembling the “foster parents”. A new evolutionary twist. Back in 1981 I wrote a play for children called Maxitweet the Cocoa, which told exactly the story above. The play has had quite a few productions in schools, and it contains a scene in which the parent birds send for Doctor Jay in the hope that he will be able to explain how Mrs Tweet could give birth to such a monster. Just for your amusement, here is the first verse of the song Doctor Jay sings in reply:
Every now and then you’ll find upon our Mother Earth
A bird, a fish, a plant, a mammal suddenly gives birth
To a creature with a feature that its forebears never had,
And so it turns out different from its Mum and from its Dad.
It’s only thanks to science now that we have understood
What gives the woody woodpecker power to peck on wood,
Why booby birds are silly and why foxes are so sly,
Why angler fish angle and why flying fish fly.
The answer? B’dair…mutalution.”(“B’dair” is the squawky sound jays make, but...b'dair...what did he know anyway?) I’m pleased to tell you that at the end of the play, Mr and Mrs Tweet finally kick the cuckoo out of their nest, and Mrs Tweet has laid four more eggs.
Lovely! Another of your wonderful works of which I was unaware.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: It is a designed autonomy in appearance.
dhw: So instead of “God built those mechanisms to run on their own”, you actually meant: “God built those mechanisms to look as if they were running on their own, but in fact he laid out all the instructions for all their decisions 3.8 billion years ago, or he keeps popping in to give them instructions whenever they need to take a decision.” As I’ve said before, your theories change from one post to another, and ironically you dismiss Shapiro’s theory as unproven, but cling to the above as if it were a fact!
DAVID: My theories do not change. Our brain was designed by God with the attributes it demonstrates.
And the attributes it demonstrates are the ability to “run the show on its own”, and to “take its own decisions”, which = autonomy. Thank you for repeating your agreement.
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: Funny how you defend my God.
dhw: Funny how you attack your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-purposeful God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you have learned to live with all your contradictions, because first you choose the God you wish for, and you can then shut your eyes to anything that doesn’t make sense.
DAVID: Only His evolutionary method is imperfect. But that He chose it makes it OK! You are ignorant of that way of thinking.
dhw: I am certainly ignorant of how anyone who believes in an omniscient, omnipotent God can also believe that his God would choose an imperfect, inefficient, messy method to achieve his one and only goal. My way of thinking is that an omniscient, omnipotent God would only do what he wanted to do, and so whatever method he invented would be perfectly suited to the purpose for which he invented it rather than being imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But “you are ignorant of that way of thinking”.
DAVID: You are stuck outside of theism. Of course, God thought evolution was the perfect way to create us. Our human opinion is it looks cumbersome to us. No matter how much you try, you can't outthink God.
You are stuck with a human view of theism that insults your God, and with the blinkered attitude that no other view of theism is of any consequence to you. No matter how hard you try, you cannot find a single reason why your omniscient, omnipotent God would choose an imperfect and inefficient way to achieve the single purpose you allow him to have (us and our food). I am not trying to outthink your God. I am presuming that if he exists, his actions would logically and efficiently fulfil his purpose.
Ferns attract defenders
DAVID: this adaptation shows clear purpose, which suggests design in action.
dhw: Yes it does. And by “design” you usually mean God did it. And so I will suggest that the clear purpose is survival, and the design would have been carried out through the intelligence (perhaps God-given) of the cell communities that make up the different organisms, plants as well as insects and animals.
DAVID: Your unchanged approach.
dhw: An alternative suggestion to your unchanged approach, since any readers of this will know that by “design” you mean the direct work of God.
DAVID: Yes, God the designer.
And that is why I repeat an alternative explanation.
New stromatolites
QUOTE: That oxygen initially wiped out stromatolites' competition, enabling their prominence in the Archean and early Proterozoic environment. However, as more life forms adapted their metabolism to an oxygenated atmosphere, stromatolites started to decline, popping up in the geologic record only after mass extinctions or in difficult environments.
DAVID: I had thought stromatolites were all fossils. That there living ones as a remnant of the distant past shows how tough they are.
And it shows precisely how Raup’s view of evolution works: species come and go, depending on their ability to respond to changing conditions. All by luck, as opposed to design.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
QUOTE: "Evolution is often thought of as a haphazard process acting on an assortment of traits that randomly appear through genetic variation.”
QUOTE: "Our results imply that evolution is both repeatable and complex for the same trait," Nosil and colleagues write in their published paper. (David’s bold)
DAVID: this is the usual Darwin-speak propaganda. The bold is absolutely on point. The insects have a built-in set of adaptions to fit the circumstances of their environment. The headline calling it evolution is totally overblown. Science writers Have this slant built into their thought patterns. Why? Current science is tearing down pure Darwinism.
But it’s not “Darwin-speak”. The first quote emphasizes the randomness of Darwin’s theory, whereas the article emphasizes the fact that repeated conditions will trigger the same responses, much like convergent evolution. What would originally have been an innovation in response to new conditions is repeated when similar conditions arise. There is no randomness - and in this context I would say the article contradicts that part of Darwin’s theory (as you and I do, too.)
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Monday, June 03, 2024, 17:50 (171 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: My theories do not change. Our brain was designed by God with the attributes it demonstrates.
dhw: And the attributes it demonstrates are the ability to “run the show on its own”, and to “take its own decisions”, which = autonomy. Thank you for repeating your agreement.
No agreement. The brain's ability for plasticity is designed by God.
Moths fake out batsDAVID: You are stuck outside of theism. Of course, God thought evolution was the perfect way to create us. Our human opinion is it looks cumbersome to us. No matter how much you try, you can't outthink God.
dhw: You are stuck with a human view of theism that insults your God, and with the blinkered attitude that no other view of theism is of any consequence to you. No matter how hard you try, you cannot find a single reason why your omniscient, omnipotent God would choose an imperfect and inefficient way to achieve the single purpose you allow him to have (us and our food). I am not trying to outthink your God. I am presuming that if he exists, his actions would logically and efficiently fulfil his purpose.
The bold is correct. God chose to evolve us as the best way to do it.
New stromatolites
QUOTE: That oxygen initially wiped out stromatolites' competition, enabling their prominence in the Archean and early Proterozoic environment. However, as more life forms adapted their metabolism to an oxygenated atmosphere, stromatolites started to decline, popping up in the geologic record only after mass extinctions or in difficult environments.
DAVID: I had thought stromatolites were all fossils. That there living ones as a remnant of the distant past shows how tough they are.
dhw: And it shows precisely how Raup’s view of evolution works: species come and go, depending on their ability to respond to changing conditions. All by luck, as opposed to design.
God may design the bad luck scenarios.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsQUOTE: "Evolution is often thought of as a haphazard process acting on an assortment of traits that randomly appear through genetic variation.”
QUOTE: "Our results imply that evolution is both repeatable and complex for the same trait," Nosil and colleagues write in their published paper. (David’s bold)
DAVID: this is the usual Darwin-speak propaganda. The bold is absolutely on point. The insects have a built-in set of adaptions to fit the circumstances of their environment. The headline calling it evolution is totally overblown. Science writers Have this slant built into their thought patterns. Why? Current science is tearing down pure Darwinism.
dhw: But it’s not “Darwin-speak”. The first quote emphasizes the randomness of Darwin’s theory, whereas the article emphasizes the fact that repeated conditions will trigger the same responses, much like convergent evolution. What would originally have been an innovation in response to new conditions is repeated when similar conditions arise. There is no randomness - and in this context I would say the article contradicts that part of Darwin’s theory (as you and I do, too.)
See my now bolded. The headline is Darwin-speak! that was my point. The article itself is critical of Darwin.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: My theories do not change. Our brain was designed by God with the attributes it demonstrates.
dhw: And the attributes it demonstrates are the ability to “run the show on its own”, and to “take its own decisions”, which = autonomy. Thank you for repeating your agreement.
DAVID: No agreement. The brain's ability for plasticity is designed by God.
The expressions you used were the ability to “run the show” and to “take its own decisions”. I agree that this requires plasticity. How does this come to mean that he did NOT design the brain’s autonomous ability to run the show and take decisions?
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: You are stuck outside of theism. Of course, God thought evolution was the perfect way to create us. Our human opinion is it looks cumbersome to us. No matter how much you try, you can't outthink God.
dhw: You are stuck with a human view of theism that insults your God, and with the blinkered attitude that no other view of theism is of any consequence to you. No matter how hard you try, you cannot find a single reason why your omniscient, omnipotent God would choose an imperfect and inefficient way to achieve the single purpose you allow him to have (us and our food). I am not trying to outthink your God. I am presuming that if he exists, his actions would logically and efficiently fulfil his purpose.
DAVID: The bold is correct. God chose to evolve us as the best way to do it.
But you’ve forgotten that he also chose to evolve (by which you mean design) and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus our food. So your omnipotent and omniscient God had to use an imperfect, inefficient way to do what he chose to do. And this makes sense to you, though you cannot find a single reason why he would act in such a way.
New stromatolites
QUOTE: That oxygen initially wiped out stromatolites' competition, enabling their prominence in the Archean and early Proterozoic environment. However, as more life forms adapted their metabolism to an oxygenated atmosphere, stromatolites started to decline, popping up in the geologic record only after mass extinctions or in difficult environments.
DAVID: I had thought stromatolites were all fossils. That there living ones as a remnant of the distant past shows how tough they are.
dhw: And it shows precisely how Raup’s view of evolution works: species come and go, depending on their ability to respond to changing conditions. All by luck, as opposed to design.
DAVID: God may design the bad luck scenarios.
Yes indeed. That would mean he designed the scenarios for a free-for-all. Scenarios for luck do not fit in with an omnipotent, omniscient God in pursuit of a single purpose!
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
QUOTE: "Evolution is often thought of as a haphazard process acting on an assortment of traits that randomly appear through genetic variation.”
QUOTE: "Our results imply that evolution is both repeatable and complex for the same trait," Nosil and colleagues write in their published paper. (David’s bold)
DAVID: this is the usual Darwin-speak propaganda. The bold is absolutely on point. The insects have a built-in set of adaptions to fit the circumstances of their environment. The headline calling it evolution is totally overblown. Science writers Have this slant built into their thought patterns. Why? Current science is tearing down pure Darwinism.
dhw: But it’s not “Darwin-speak”. The first quote emphasizes the randomness of Darwin’s theory, whereas the article emphasizes the fact that repeated conditions will trigger the same responses, much like convergent evolution. What would originally have been an innovation in response to new conditions is repeated when similar conditions arise. There is no randomness - and in this context I would say the article contradicts that part of Darwin’s theory (as you and I do, too.)
DAVID: See my now bolded. The headline is Darwin-speak! that was my point. The article itself is critical of Darwin.
I’d have thought that convergent evolution and repetition of features that enable species to deal with the same environmental conditions are a part of the evolutionary process. The headline is: “Astonishing study shows evolution really does repeat itself”. How does this = “totally overblown” Darwin-speak propaganda, when the study actually runs counter to Darwin’s theory of randomness? Your hatred of Darwin is verging on the paranoid! 
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 04, 2024, 21:43 (170 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: No agreement. The brain's ability for plasticity is designed by God.
dhw: The expressions you used were the ability to “run the show” and to “take its own decisions”. I agree that this requires plasticity. How does this come to mean that he did NOT design the brain’s autonomous ability to run the show and take decisions?
God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
Moths fake out batsDAVID: You are stuck outside of theism. Of course, God thought evolution was the perfect way to create us. Our human opinion is it looks cumbersome to us. No matter how much you try, you can't outthink God.
dhw: You are stuck with a human view of theism that insults your God, and with the blinkered attitude that no other view of theism is of any consequence to you. No matter how hard you try, you cannot find a single reason why your omniscient, omnipotent God would choose an imperfect and inefficient way to achieve the single purpose you allow him to have (us and our food). I am not trying to outthink your God. I am presuming that if he exists, his actions would logically and efficiently fulfil his purpose.
DAVID: The bold is correct. God chose to evolve us as the best way to do it.
dhw: But you’ve forgotten that he also chose to evolve (by which you mean design) and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus our food. So your omnipotent and omniscient God had to use an imperfect, inefficient way to do what he chose to do. And this makes sense to you, though you cannot find a single reason why he would act in such a way.
See other thread. Adler says we cannot ever know God's reasons and it is not wise to try.
New stromatolites
QUOTE: That oxygen initially wiped out stromatolites' competition, enabling their prominence in the Archean and early Proterozoic environment. However, as more life forms adapted their metabolism to an oxygenated atmosphere, stromatolites started to decline, popping up in the geologic record only after mass extinctions or in difficult environments.
DAVID: I had thought stromatolites were all fossils. That there living ones as a remnant of the distant past shows how tough they are.
dhw: And it shows precisely how Raup’s view of evolution works: species come and go, depending on their ability to respond to changing conditions. All by luck, as opposed to design.
DAVID: God may design the bad luck scenarios.
dhw: Yes indeed. That would mean he designed the scenarios for a free-for-all. Scenarios for luck do not fit in with an omnipotent, omniscient God in pursuit of a single purpose!
Not luck if by design.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsQUOTE: "Evolution is often thought of as a haphazard process acting on an assortment of traits that randomly appear through genetic variation.”
QUOTE: "Our results imply that evolution is both repeatable and complex for the same trait," Nosil and colleagues write in their published paper. (David’s bold)
DAVID: this is the usual Darwin-speak propaganda. The bold is absolutely on point. The insects have a built-in set of adaptions to fit the circumstances of their environment. The headline calling it evolution is totally overblown. Science writers Have this slant built into their thought patterns. Why? Current science is tearing down pure Darwinism.
dhw: But it’s not “Darwin-speak”. The first quote emphasizes the randomness of Darwin’s theory, whereas the article emphasizes the fact that repeated conditions will trigger the same responses, much like convergent evolution. What would originally have been an innovation in response to new conditions is repeated when similar conditions arise. There is no randomness - and in this context I would say the article contradicts that part of Darwin’s theory (as you and I do, too.)
DAVID: See my now bolded. The headline is Darwin-speak! that was my point. The article itself is critical of Darwin.
dhw: I’d have thought that convergent evolution and repetition of features that enable species to deal with the same environmental conditions are a part of the evolutionary process. The headline is: “Astonishing study shows evolution really does repeat itself”. How does this = “totally overblown” Darwin-speak propaganda, when the study actually runs counter to Darwin’s theory of randomness? Your hatred of Darwin is verging on the paranoid!
My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: No agreement. The brain's ability for plasticity is designed by God.
dhw: The expressions you used were the ability to “run the show” and to “take its own decisions”. I agree that this requires plasticity. How does this come to mean that he did NOT design the brain’s autonomous ability to run the show and take decisions?
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
Moths fake out bats
DAVID: [..] God chose to evolve us as the best way to do it.
dhw: But you’ve forgotten that he also chose to evolve (by which you mean design) and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus our food. So your omnipotent and omniscient God had to use an imperfect, inefficient way to do what he chose to do. And this makes sense to you, though you cannot find a single reason why he would act in such a way.
DAVID: See other thread. Adler says we cannot ever know God's reasons and it is not wise to try.
Adler says: “Divine inscrutability precludes us from ever asking the reason why God does anything.” It is therefore totally against Adler’s guidelines to announce that the one and only reason why your God designed life was to produce us and our food, and that the one and only reason why your omniscient and omnipotent God inefficiently designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food was that there was no better way he could do it. Stop defying your mentor.
New stromatolites
dhw: And it shows precisely how Raup’s view of evolution works: species come and go, depending on their ability to respond to changing conditions. All by luck, as opposed to design.
DAVID: God may design the bad luck scenarios.
dhw: Yes indeed. That would mean he designed the scenarios for a free-for-all. Scenarios for luck do not fit in with an omnipotent, omniscient God in pursuit of a single purpose!
DAVID: Not luck if by design.
If your God wanted a free-for-all, he would have designed the conditions that would lead to a free-for-all. Survival by luck (Raup) does not mean survival by design (Turell).
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID:The headline is Darwin-speak! that was my point. The article itself is critical of Darwin.
dhw: I’d have thought that convergent evolution and repetition of features that enable species to deal with the same environmental conditions are a part of the evolutionary process. The headline is: “Astonishing study shows evolution really does repeat itself”. How does this = “totally overblown” Darwin-speak propaganda, when the study actually runs counter to Darwin’s theory of randomness? Your hatred of Darwin is verging on the paranoid!
DAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
GIRAFFES' NECKS (LAMARCK)
QUOTE: Why do giraffes have such long necks? A study led by Penn State biologists explores how this trait might have evolved and lends new insight into this iconic question. The reigning hypothesis is that competition among males influenced neck length, but the research team found that female giraffes have proportionally longer necks than males -- suggesting that high nutritional needs of females may have driven the evolution of this trait.
My word, we are truly facing the “iconic” issues of life now. Slight muddle I detect: why do giraffes have such long necks is a different question from why do females have proportionally longer necks than male giraffes. These are surely two separate projects which should have been given separate funding. The possibility that giraffes have long necks to enable them to reach food other animals can’t reach seems very reasonable to me, although I’m not a giraffologist. As for the fact that female necks are “proportionally” longer than male necks, this is clearly part of what we now call “woke” culture. I mean, dammit, why should male giraffes have access to leaves that female giraffes can’t reach? Male giraffes have longer forelegs than females, and it is obviously far easier to stretch the neck than it is to stretch the legs. A few generations of neck-stretching to put the female on a level with the male would therefore have led to proportionally longer necks. And so the male can no longer say: “Yah boo, I got nicer leaves than you did!” Female giraffes were way ahead of their time. Nobel Prize beckoning?
Meanwhile, I am applying for a grant to investigate why human males generally have hairier chests than human females. All contributions will be gratefully received.
.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 05, 2024, 18:28 (169 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
Moths fake out batsDAVID: [..] God chose to evolve us as the best way to do it.
dhw: But you’ve forgotten that he also chose to evolve (by which you mean design) and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus our food. So your omnipotent and omniscient God had to use an imperfect, inefficient way to do what he chose to do. And this makes sense to you, though you cannot find a single reason why he would act in such a way.
DAVID: See other thread. Adler says we cannot ever know God's reasons and it is not wise to try.
dhw: Adler says: “Divine inscrutability precludes us from ever asking the reason why God does anything.” It is therefore totally against Adler’s guidelines to announce that the one and only reason why your God designed life was to produce us and our food, and that the one and only reason why your omniscient and omnipotent God inefficiently designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food was that there was no better way he could do it. Stop defying your mentor.
Not defying your ignorance. I know more than you do about Adler: " And His purpose was defined in Adler's book: "The difference in Man and the Difference it Makes", that is a proof of God because humans are so unusual. You don't know Adler."
New stromatolites
DAVID: Not luck if by design.
dhw: If your God wanted a free-for-all, he would have designed the conditions that would lead to a free-for-all. Survival by luck (Raup) does not mean survival by design (Turell).
God does not deal in Raupian luck.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsDAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
GIRAFFES' NECKS (LAMARCK)QUOTE: Why do giraffes have such long necks? A study led by Penn State biologists explores how this trait might have evolved and lends new insight into this iconic question. The reigning hypothesis is that competition among males influenced neck length, but the research team found that female giraffes have proportionally longer necks than males -- suggesting that high nutritional needs of females may have driven the evolution of this trait.
dhw: My word, we are truly facing the “iconic” issues of life now. Slight muddle I detect: why do giraffes have such long necks is a different question from why do females have proportionally longer necks than male giraffes. These are surely two separate projects which should have been given separate funding. The possibility that giraffes have long necks to enable them to reach food other animals can’t reach seems very reasonable to me, although I’m not a giraffologist. As for the fact that female necks are “proportionally” longer than male necks, this is clearly part of what we now call “woke” culture. I mean, dammit, why should male giraffes have access to leaves that female giraffes can’t reach? Male giraffes have longer forelegs than females, and it is obviously far easier to stretch the neck than it is to stretch the legs. A few generations of neck-stretching to put the female on a level with the male would therefore have led to proportionally longer necks. And so the male can no longer say: “Yah boo, I got nicer leaves than you did!” Female giraffes were way ahead of their time. Nobel Prize beckoning?
I'm delighted you enjoyed this gobbledygook
dhw: Meanwhile, I am applying for a grant to investigate why human males generally have hairier chests than human females. All contributions will be gratefully received.
And male lions have their giant manes.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
DAVID: No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
He who issues instructions runs the show. He who issues instructions on decisions makes the decisions. He who says that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions ought to support the theory that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions.
Moths fake out bats (evolved into a discussion about Adler)
All dealt with on the evolution thread. Once again, though, the discussion should not be about what Adler said or didn't say. It should be about the feasibility of the theories on offer.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
Other items are already covered elsewhere, but I’m glad you enjoyed the giraffological neck theory!
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Thursday, June 06, 2024, 15:07 (168 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
DAVID: No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
dhw: He who issues instructions runs the show. He who issues instructions on decisions makes the decisions. He who says that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions ought to support the theory that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions.
My piano teacher taught me to play. I play, she doesn't. God instructed/designed the brain to make decisions. It does.
Moths fake out bats (evolved into a discussion about Adler)All dealt with on the evolution thread. Once again, though, the discussion should not be about what Adler said or didn't say. It should be about the feasibility of the theories on offer.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
Because you are steeped in it!!
dhw: Other items are already covered elsewhere, but I’m glad you enjoyed the giraffological neck theory!
The neck has been weaponized in male combat according to another weird theory.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Thursday, June 06, 2024, 15:08 (168 days ago) @ David Turell
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
DAVID: No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
dhw: He who issues instructions runs the show. He who issues instructions on decisions makes the decisions. He who says that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions ought to support the theory that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions.
My piano teacher taught me to play. I play, she doesn't. God instructed/designed the brain to make decisions. It does following/using His instructions.
Moths fake out bats (evolved into a discussion about Adler)
dhw: All dealt with on the evolution thread. Once again, though, the discussion should not be about what Adler said or didn't say. It should be about the feasibility of the theories on offer.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsDAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
Because you are steeped in it!!
> dhw: Other items are already covered elsewhere, but I’m glad you enjoyed the giraffological neck theory!
The neck has been weaponized in male combat according to another weird theory.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
DAVID: No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
dhw: He who issues instructions runs the show. He who issues instructions on decisions makes the decisions. He who says that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions ought to support the theory that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions.
DAVID: My piano teacher taught me to play. I play, she doesn't. God instructed/designed the brain to make decisions. It does following/using His instructions.
Do you decide what you want to play, or has your teacher given you instructions on what you must play? With my theist cap on, I am happy to accept that God may have designed the brain to make decisions. This does not mean that God instructs the brain on what decisions it must take.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
DAVID: Because you are steeped in it!!
Do you deny that the major thesis (common descent) behind Darwin’s “undefendable” theory is defendable? And please explain why, although you agree that the article criticizes the “randomness” theory (as I do too), you think “evolution repeats itself” is totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Friday, June 07, 2024, 18:01 (167 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
DAVID: No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
dhw: He who issues instructions runs the show. He who issues instructions on decisions makes the decisions. He who says that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions ought to support the theory that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions.
DAVID: My piano teacher taught me to play. I play, she doesn't. God instructed/designed the brain to make decisions. It does following/using His instructions.
dhw: Do you decide what you want to play, or has your teacher given you instructions on what you must play? With my theist cap on, I am happy to accept that God may have designed the brain to make decisions. This does not mean that God instructs the brain on what decisions it must take.
Why can't His instructions make plasticity by DNA code.? We both know we make brain=based decisions, not God.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsDAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
DAVID: Because you are steeped in it!!
dhw: Do you deny that the major thesis (common descent) behind Darwin’s “undefendable” theory is defendable? And please explain why, although you agree that the article criticizes the “randomness” theory (as I do too), you think “evolution repeats itself” is totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.
The article was about simple species adaptations, not real evolution. Its headline is phony.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
DAVID: God designed the brains' plasticity which mimics autonomy.
dhw: So the brain “runs the show” and “takes its own decisions”, actually means that the brain doesn’t run the show and doesn’t take its own decisions, but God runs the show and takes all the decisions. It’s amazing what one can do with language.
DAVID: No God doesn't run the show. His DNA instructions do it.
dhw: He who issues instructions runs the show. He who issues instructions on decisions makes the decisions. He who says that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions ought to support the theory that the brain runs the show and makes the decisions.
DAVID: My piano teacher taught me to play. I play, she doesn't. God instructed/designed the brain to make decisions. It does following/using His instructions.
dhw: Do you decide what you want to play, or has your teacher given you instructions on what you must play? With my theist cap on, I am happy to accept that God may have designed the brain to make decisions. This does not mean that God instructs the brain on what decisions it must take.
DAVID: Why can't His instructions make plasticity by DNA code.? We both know we make brain=based decisions, not God.
We are not arguing about plasticity! Thank you for agreeing that we/our brains autonomously make our own decisions (and presumably also run the show), and we have agreed that your God may have given us/our brains the wherewithal to autonomously make our own decisions (and run the show). End of discussion.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
DAVID: Because you are steeped in it!!
dhw: Do you deny that the major thesis (common descent) behind Darwin’s “undefendable” theory is defendable? And please explain why, although you agree that the article criticizes the “randomness” theory (as I do too), you think “evolution repeats itself” is totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.
DAVID: The article was about simple species adaptations, not real evolution. Its headline is phony.
Nothing to do with Darwin, then, but adaptation plays an enormous role in evolution, sometimes in preserving a species, but sometimes in giving rise to new ones. This adaptation is akin to “convergent evolution”. Nothing “phony” about that, is there?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, June 08, 2024, 19:06 (166 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: Do you decide what you want to play, or has your teacher given you instructions on what you must play? With my theist cap on, I am happy to accept that God may have designed the brain to make decisions. This does not mean that God instructs the brain on what decisions it must take.DAVID: Why can't His instructions make plasticity by DNA code.? We both know we make brain=based decisions, not God.
dhw: We are not arguing about plasticity! Thank you for agreeing that we/our brains autonomously make our own decisions (and presumably also run the show), and we have agreed that your God may have given us/our brains the wherewithal to autonomously make our own decisions (and run the show). End of discussion.
Yes, as compatibilists.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsDAVID: My hatred is of total misuse of Darwin.
dhw: I still don’t know why “evolution really does repeat itself” constitutes totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda, but it’s refreshing to hear you defending Darwin against those who “misuse” him.
DAVID: Darwinists constantly subtilty defend his undefendable theory.
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions), and natural selection as an explanation of survival and extinction is pure common sense. The article only attacks the theory of random mutations. And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”!
DAVID: Because you are steeped in it!!
dhw: Do you deny that the major thesis (common descent) behind Darwin’s “undefendable” theory is defendable? And please explain why, although you agree that the article criticizes the “randomness” theory (as I do too), you think “evolution repeats itself” is totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.
DAVID: The article was about simple species adaptations, not real evolution. Its headline is phony.
dhw: Nothing to do with Darwin, then, but adaptation plays an enormous role in evolution, sometimes in preserving a species, but sometimes in giving rise to new ones. This adaptation is akin to “convergent evolution”. Nothing “phony” about that, is there?
Suddenly convergent evolution appears to save the day. Nothing in the article about convergence. Species adaptations are simple adaptations, not speciation..
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: […] With my theist cap on, I am happy to accept that God may have designed the brain to make decisions. This does not mean that God instructs the brain on what decisions it must take.
DAVID: Why can't His instructions make plasticity by DNA code.? We both know we make brain=based decisions, not God.
dhw: We are not arguing about plasticity! Thank you for agreeing that we/our brains autonomously make our own decisions (and presumably also run the show), and we have agreed that your God may have given us/our brains the wherewithal to autonomously make our own decisions (and run the show). End of discussion.
DAVID: Yes, as compatibilists.
I don’t know why you have dragged compatibilism into this. “Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.” (Wikipedia) You have just agreed that we/our brains make the decisions and your God doesn’t. What is this supposed to be “compatible” with?
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions) […]And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”! […]
DAVID: The article was about simple species adaptations, not real evolution. Its headline is phony.
dhw: Nothing to do with Darwin, then, but adaptation plays an enormous role in evolution, sometimes in preserving a species, but sometimes in giving rise to new ones. This adaptation is akin to “convergent evolution”. Nothing “phony” about that, is there?
DAVID: Suddenly convergent evolution appears to save the day. Nothing in the article about convergence. Species adaptations are simple adaptations, not speciation.
The fact that certain species repeat earlier solutions to the same problems is “akin to” the fact that different species come up with the same solutions to the same problems. The borderline between adaptation and innovation is difficult to draw: for instance, pre-whale legs turned into flippers. All irrelevant to your labelling Darwin’s whole theory as undefendable, and your description of “evolution repeats itself” as phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”. I suppose you’d only be happy if the authors said: “God repeats himself”.
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
Oxygen and the Cambrian
QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Sunday, June 09, 2024, 17:10 (165 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: We are not arguing about plasticity! Thank you for agreeing that we/our brains autonomously make our own decisions (and presumably also run the show), and we have agreed that your God may have given us/our brains the wherewithal to autonomously make our own decisions (and run the show). End of discussion.
DAVID: Yes, as compatibilists.
dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged compatibilism into this. “Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.” (Wikipedia) You have just agreed that we/our brains make the decisions and your God doesn’t. What is this supposed to be “compatible” with?
We both are compatibilists, I think, but you've expressed doubts about free will.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptationsdhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions) […]And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”! […]
DAVID: The article was about simple species adaptations, not real evolution. Its headline is phony.
dhw: Nothing to do with Darwin, then, but adaptation plays an enormous role in evolution, sometimes in preserving a species, but sometimes in giving rise to new ones. This adaptation is akin to “convergent evolution”. Nothing “phony” about that, is there?
DAVID: Suddenly convergent evolution appears to save the day. Nothing in the article about convergence. Species adaptations are simple adaptations, not speciation.
dhw: The fact that certain species repeat earlier solutions to the same problems is “akin to” the fact that different species come up with the same solutions to the same problems. The borderline between adaptation and innovation is difficult to draw: for instance, pre-whale legs turned into flippers. All irrelevant to your labelling Darwin’s whole theory as undefendable, and your description of “evolution repeats itself” as phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”. I suppose you’d only be happy if the authors said: “God repeats himself”.
Is the heaadline phony or not?
CyanobacteriaDAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
dhw: Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
Oxygen and the CambrianQUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
dhw: It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
Yes, God works in mysterious ways.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: We are not arguing about plasticity! Thank you for agreeing that we/our brains autonomously make our own decisions (and presumably also run the show), and we have agreed that your God may have given us/our brains the wherewithal to autonomously make our own decisions (and run the show). End of discussion.
DAVID: Yes, as compatibilists.
dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged compatibilism into this. “Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.” (Wikipedia) You have just agreed that we/our brains make the decisions and your God doesn’t. What is this supposed to be “compatible” with?
DAVID: We both are compatibilists, I think, but you've expressed doubts about free will.
Why have you switched the subject to free will, which we finished with months ago? Our discussion here is the autonomy of the brain, which “runs the show” and takes its own decisions, and which may have been designed by your God. You have agreed. End of discussion.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
dhw: Your hatred of Darwin is abundantly clear when you label his whole theory “undefendable”! Even you support the theory of common descent (with exceptions) […]And I still don’t know why you think “evolution repeats itself” is “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”! […]
DAVID: The article was about simple species adaptations, not real evolution. Its headline is phony.
dhw: Nothing to do with Darwin, then, but adaptation plays an enormous role in evolution, sometimes in preserving a species, but sometimes in giving rise to new ones. This adaptation is akin to “convergent evolution”. Nothing “phony” about that, is there?
DAVID: Suddenly convergent evolution appears to save the day. Nothing in the article about convergence. Species adaptations are simple adaptations, not speciation.
dhw: The fact that certain species repeat earlier solutions to the same problems is “akin to” the fact that different species come up with the same solutions to the same problems. The borderline between adaptation and innovation is difficult to draw: for instance, pre-whale legs turned into flippers. All irrelevant to your labelling Darwin’s whole theory as undefendable, and your description of “evolution repeats itself” as phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”. I suppose you’d only be happy if the authors said: “God repeats himself”.
DAVID: Is the headline phony or not?
Of course it’s not phony. It’s a variation on the well-known saying “history repeats itself”, simply pointing out that in certain cases, species repeat the solutions to problems they’d already solved in the past. “Phony” = falsified with a view to deceit. What is false and deceitful about this plain statement of fact, confirmed by the article itself?
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
dhw: Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
Oxygen and the Cambrian
QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
dhw: It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
DAVID: Yes, God works in mysterious ways.
Ways which you describe as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you prefer your own theory to others which suggest that he accomplishes exactly what he wants to accomplish. Mysterious indeed.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Monday, June 10, 2024, 16:29 (164 days ago) @ dhw
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: Why have you switched the subject to free will, which we finished with months ago? Our discussion here is the autonomy of the brain, which “runs the show” and takes its own decisions, and which may have been designed by your God. You have agreed. End of discussion.
fine.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: Is the headline phony or not?
dhw: Of course it’s not phony. It’s a variation on the well-known saying “history repeats itself”, simply pointing out that in certain cases, species repeat the solutions to problems they’d already solved in the past. “Phony” = falsified with a view to deceit. What is false and deceitful about this plain statement of fact, confirmed by the article itself?
The headline called within species adaptations evidence of evolution! Phony Darwin speak.
CyanobacteriaDAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
dhw: Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
Obviously. No other proof indicated.
Oxygen and the CambrianQUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
dhw: It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
DAVID: Yes, God works in mysterious ways.
dhw: Ways which you describe as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you prefer your own theory to others which suggest that he accomplishes exactly what he wants to accomplish. Mysterious indeed.
You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
The brain: studies on memory
dhw: Why have you switched the subject to free will, which we finished with months ago? Our discussion here is the autonomy of the brain, which “runs the show” and takes its own decisions, and which may have been designed by your God. You have agreed. End of discussion.
DAVID: fine.
Thank you.
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: Is the headline phony or not?
dhw: Of course it’s not phony. It’s a variation on the well-known saying “history repeats itself”, simply pointing out that in certain cases, species repeat the solutions to problems they’d already solved in the past. “Phony” = falsified with a view to deceit. What is false and deceitful about this plain statement of fact, confirmed by the article itself?
DAVID: The headline called within species adaptations evidence of evolution! Phony Darwin speak.
There is nothing whatsoever in the headline about evidence! The headline is: “Astonishing study shows evolution really does repeat itself”, and the article gives us examples to show how evolution repeats itself. It simply takes for granted that evolution happened, just as you do in your own wacky theory of evolution.
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
dhw: Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.
The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.
Oxygen and the Cambrian
QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
dhw: It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
DAVID: Yes, God works in mysterious ways.
dhw: Ways which you describe as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you prefer your own theory to others which suggest that he accomplishes exactly what he wants to accomplish. Mysterious indeed.
DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 11, 2024, 18:46 (163 days ago) @ dhw
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: The headline called within species adaptations evidence of evolution! Phony Darwin speak.
dhw: There is nothing whatsoever in the headline about evidence! The headline is: “Astonishing study shows evolution really does repeat itself”, and the article gives us examples to show how evolution repeats itself. It simply takes for granted that evolution happened, just as you do in your own wacky theory of evolution.
The article is at the level of species adaptation, not speciation which is the real evolution. You always defend Darwinists.
CyanobacteriaDAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
dhw: Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.
dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.
Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
Oxygen and the CambrianQUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
dhw: It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
DAVID: Yes, God works in mysterious ways.
dhw: Ways which you describe as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you prefer your own theory to others which suggest that he accomplishes exactly what he wants to accomplish. Mysterious indeed.
DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.
A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: The headline called within species adaptations evidence of evolution! Phony Darwin speak.
dhw: There is nothing whatsoever in the headline about evidence! The headline is: “Astonishing study shows evolution really does repeat itself”, and the article gives us examples to show how evolution repeats itself. It simply takes for granted that evolution happened, just as you do in your own wacky theory of evolution.
DAVID: The article is at the level of species adaptation, not speciation which is the real evolution. You always defend Darwinists.
The article deals with an aspect of evolution which clearly opposes Darwin’s theory of randomness. Do you disagree that the process of evolution includes repetitions? There is nothing pro or anti Darwin in the title, so why do you claim that the headline is phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: this is one of the major Gould contingencies that led to us. For me there is an issue as to what advantage cyanobacteria gained from increasing the range of chlorophyll activity? It allowed a larger range of ecosystems. This is why I look at purpose as a driving force from a designer.
dhw: Of course purpose is a driving force for any action! That does not mean that every action in the history of evolution was driven by the one and only purpose of creating us plus food.
DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.
dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
Oxygen and the Cambrian
QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: an interesting theory based on solid work. To be clear, oxygen allowed diversification, but was not the cause of the Cambrian Explosion or the later diversifications.
dhw: It is interesting, and I agree: an increase in oxygen won’t CAUSE speciation unless there are already species present which can use the oxygen to diversify. Or, in your theory, to enable your omnipotent and omniscient God at long, long last – after designing and culling all those irrelevant species - to create “de novo” the only species he actually wanted to create (us plus food) from the very beginning.
DAVID: Yes, God works in mysterious ways.
dhw: Ways which you describe as imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you prefer your own theory to others which suggest that he accomplishes exactly what he wants to accomplish. Mysterious indeed.
DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.
DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.
A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans.Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 12, 2024, 17:02 (162 days ago) @ dhw
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: The article is at the level of species adaptation, not speciation which is the real evolution. You always defend Darwinists.
dhw: The article deals with an aspect of evolution which clearly opposes Darwin’s theory of randomness. Do you disagree that the process of evolution includes repetitions? There is nothing pro or anti Darwin in the title, so why do you claim that the headline is phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.
Species adaptation is not evolution!!! And yes, adaptations are repetitious. True use of the word evolution requires speciation. My point, to which you are blinded as usual, the word 'evolution' is over sold.
CyanobacteriaDAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.
dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.
Oxygen and the CambrianQUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.
DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.
dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.
I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: The article is at the level of species adaptation, not speciation which is the real evolution. You always defend Darwinists.
dhw: The article deals with an aspect of evolution which clearly opposes Darwin’s theory of randomness. Do you disagree that the process of evolution includes repetitions? There is nothing pro or anti Darwin in the title, so why do you claim that the headline is phony and “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.
DAVID: Species adaptation is not evolution!!! And yes, adaptations are repetitious. True use of the word evolution requires speciation. My point, to which you are blinded as usual, the word 'evolution' is over sold.
You have convinced yourself that “evolution repeats itself” is phony, “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, even though it introduces an article which attacks Darwin’s theory of randomness. If I said that God's use of "evolution requires extinctions", or "has resulted in countless varieties of organisms, lifestyles, strategies etc.", would that be overblown Darwin-speak propaganda" just because I haven't said evolution requires speciation?
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.
dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.
You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.
Oxygen and the Cambrian
QUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.
DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.
dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.
DAVID: I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.
You have admitted that “everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in”, “there are as many forms of God as people invent him”, whoever he is, is “up for grabs”, and he is “totally unknown”. If someone chooses to invent a God who creates a free-for-all, enjoys what he does, wants to be worshipped, hates boredom, then it is totally absurd for you to claim that their invention must be wrong, just because it conflicts with your own invention.
Oxidation
QUOTES: "Poulton, Bekker and colleagues discovered that the rare sulfur isotope signatures disappear but then reappear, suggesting multiple O2 rises and falls in the atmosphere during the GOE. This was no single "event."
"'Earth wasn't ready to be oxygenated when oxygen starts to be produced. Earth needed time to evolve biologically, geologically and chemically to be conducive to oxygenation," Ostrander said. "It's like a teeter totter. You have oxygen production, but you have so much oxygen destruction, nothing's happening. We're still trying to figure out when we've completely tipped the scales and Earth could not go backwards to an anoxic atmosphere."
If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Friday, June 14, 2024, 01:03 (160 days ago) @ dhw
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
DAVID: Species adaptation is not evolution!!! And yes, adaptations are repetitious. True use of the word evolution requires speciation. My point, to which you are blinded as usual, the word 'evolution' is over sold.
dhw: You have convinced yourself that “evolution repeats itself” is phony, “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, even though it introduces an article which attacks Darwin’s theory of randomness. If I said that God's use of "evolution requires extinctions", or "has resulted in countless varieties of organisms, lifestyles, strategies etc.", would that be overblown Darwin-speak propaganda" just because I haven't said evolution requires speciation?
The headline called it "EVOLUTION" Did the article describe evolution? No! It described repeated similar adaptations within species.
CyanobacteriaDAVID: Purpose is the result of mental activity. Thank you.
dhw: Obviously. How does that prove your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food???
DAVID: Obviously. No other proof indicated.
dhw: The fact that purpose indicates mental activity proves nothing except that if you believe all living things pursue the purpose of survival, you will have to agree that this indicates mental activity on their part. Enter James A. Shapiro.
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.
dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.
I know where it extends.
Oxygen and the CambrianQUOTE: "It seems these bursts of oxygen, assisted by the worms' excavations, helped life's spectacular diversity boom on Earth."
DAVID: You humanized version of God's actions are not worth any preference.
dhw: An eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which enjoys creating, learning, discovering, experimenting, and always does precisely what it wants to do, seems to me to be at least as feasible as an omniscient, omnipotent mind which has to use an imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving its one and only purpose. But as you have so wisely observed, there are as many forms of God as people that invent them.
DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.
dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.
DAVID: I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.
dhw: You have admitted that “everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in”, “there are as many forms of God as people invent him”, whoever he is, is “up for grabs”, and he is “totally unknown”. If someone chooses to invent a God who creates a free-for-all, enjoys what he does, wants to be worshipped, hates boredom, then it is totally absurd for you to claim that their invention must be wrong, just because it conflicts with your own invention.
I am allowed to choose what I wish.
OxidationQUOTES: "Poulton, Bekker and colleagues discovered that the rare sulfur isotope signatures disappear but then reappear, suggesting multiple O2 rises and falls in the atmosphere during the GOE. This was no single "event."
"'Earth wasn't ready to be oxygenated when oxygen starts to be produced. Earth needed time to evolve biologically, geologically and chemically to be conducive to oxygenation," Ostrander said. "It's like a teeter totter. You have oxygen production, but you have so much oxygen destruction, nothing's happening. We're still trying to figure out when we've completely tipped the scales and Earth could not go backwards to an anoxic atmosphere."dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
No, I would call it a designer adjusting.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Examples of Darwinist thinking: Insect adaptations
dhw: You have convinced yourself that “evolution repeats itself” is phony, “totally overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, even though it introduces an article which attacks Darwin’s theory of randomness. If I said that God's use of "evolution requires extinctions", or "has resulted in countless varieties of organisms, lifestyles, strategies etc.", would that be overblown Darwin-speak propaganda" just because I haven't said evolution requires speciation?
DAVID: The headline called it "EVOLUTION" Did the article describe evolution? No! It described repeated similar adaptations within species.
This is one of the silliest discussions we have ever had. I will leave you to your Darwinophobic interpretation of a title which introduces the fact that in the course of evolution, the same species may repeat earlier solutions to the same problems. (See also under “bacteria use bacteriophages”.)
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.
dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.
DAVID: I know where it extends.
So please stop pretending that it is confined to DNA editing bacteria.
Oxygen and the Cambrian (now the nature of God)
DAVID: A purposeful God created humans. The many forms come from a major problem. Whoever God is, is up for grabs. We are faced with a totally unknown personage.
dhw: A purposeful God must have had a purpose for all life forms, including the 99.9% that had no connection with humans. Your acknowledgement of “up for grabs” and “totally unknown” completely demolishes your prejudiced insistence that your God is certainly not human in any way. Dealt with on the other thread, but worth repeating here, as I shall keep note of it for whenever you present your own preconceived ideas and object to any alternatives.
DAVID: I have simply admitted the form of the deity has as many forms are there are religions, Eastern and Western.
dhw: You have admitted that “everyone chooses the God he wishes to believe in”, “there are as many forms of God as people invent him”, whoever he is, is “up for grabs”, and he is “totally unknown”. If someone chooses to invent a God who creates a free-for-all, enjoys what he does, wants to be worshipped, hates boredom, then it is totally absurd for you to claim that their invention must be wrong, just because it conflicts with your own invention.
DAVID: I am allowed to choose what I wish.
And so is everyone else, which is why we have these discussions concerning the feasibility of our invented versions.
Oxidation
dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.
So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare
“QUOTE: The bacteria had taken a phage and repurposed it for warfare with other bacteria, now using it to kill competing bacteria."
DAVID: God designs what we need if we look for it.
Sounds as if your God (if he exists) designed a great big free-for-all, as all organisms are left to work out their own ways of winning the war for survival.
QUOTE…evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.
I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Friday, June 14, 2024, 17:44 (160 days ago) @ dhw
Cyanobacteria
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.
dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.
DAVID: I know where it extends.
dhw: So please stop pretending that it is confined to DNA editing bacteria.
That is its only source of fact basis.
Oxidation
dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.
dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?
God does not control each cyanobacterium at work,
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare“QUOTE: The bacteria had taken a phage and repurposed it for warfare with other bacteria, now using it to kill competing bacteria."
DAVID: God designs what we need if we look for it.
dhw: Sounds as if your God (if he exists) designed a great big free-for-all, as all organisms are left to work out their own ways of winning the war for survival.
QUOTE…evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.
dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda.
I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Cyanobacteriam
DAVID: Purpose is built into all of life's activities by design.
dhw: And I have no objection to the theory that the means (autonomous cellular intelligence) of fulfilling their purpose (survival) may have been built into all life forms by design. Shapiro is still with us.
DAVID: Ah, yes, DNA editing bacteria.
dhw: You seem to have forgotten that Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence – supported by many scientists from different disciplines – extends to all organisms.
DAVID: I know where it extends.
dhw: So please stop pretending that it is confined to DNA editing bacteria.
DAVID: That is its only source of fact basis.
And what is the “fact basis” for your theory that there is a God who designs every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc.? Meanwhile, the splendid article “Consciousness: is sentience everywhere?” called upon the evidence (your own word to underpin your God theories) provided by a famous evolutionary biologist, a cognitive psychologist, a plant biologist and a medical scientist. And I have no doubt that Shapiro himself would have drawn upon the evidence collated from other sources. And here comes yet more evidence:
Plant responses to predators
QUOTE: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-flower-could-be-defined-as-intelligent-scientists-say...
QUOTE: "In a fascinating and contentious new paper, Andre Kessler, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, and his doctoral student, Michael Mueller, argue that the behavior of some plants can fit into a certain definition of intelligence.
DAVID: this is either a naturally developed defense mechanism or an intelligently designed system. dhw will pick the former.
I’m delighted to see that here you are no longer denying the concept of cellular intelligence, as demonstrated through certain plants and championed for many decades by authors such as McClintock and Margulis and further developed by Shapiro. I have always qualified my support for this theory by acknowledging that cellular intelligence may or may not have been designed by your God – depending on whether he actually exists,
Oxidation
dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.
dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?
DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.
We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose (which also happened to involve the special design and culling of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose). Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare
QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.
dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."
DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.
Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.
Our heart differs from that of the great apes
QUOTE"A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body.
DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.
Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, June 15, 2024, 15:34 (159 days ago) @ dhw
Plant responses to predators
QUOTE: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-flower-could-be-defined-as-intelligent-scientists-say...
QUOTE: "In a fascinating and contentious new paper, Andre Kessler, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, and his doctoral student, Michael Mueller, argue that the behavior of some plants can fit into a certain definition of intelligence.
DAVID: this is either a naturally developed defense mechanism or an intelligently designed system. dhw will pick the former.
dhw: I’m delighted to see that here you are no longer denying the concept of cellular intelligence, as demonstrated through certain plants and championed for many decades by authors such as McClintock and Margulis and further developed by Shapiro. I have always qualified my support for this theory by acknowledging that cellular intelligence may or may not have been designed by your God – depending on whether he actually exists,
Delighted you are delighted
Oxidationdhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.
dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?
DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.
dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose (which also happened to involve the special design and culling of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose). Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?
Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfareQUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale," he said.
dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."
DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.
dhw: Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.
I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
Our heart differs from that of the great apesQUOTE"A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body.
DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.
dhw: Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.
Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Plant responses to predators
QUOTE: "In a fascinating and contentious new paper, Andre Kessler, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, and his doctoral student, Michael Mueller, argue that the behavior of some plants can fit into a certain definition of intelligence".
DAVID: this is either a naturally developed defense mechanism or an intelligently designed system. dhw will pick the former.
dhw: I’m delighted to see that here you are no longer denying the concept of cellular intelligence. [...] I have always qualified my support for this theory by acknowledging that cellular intelligence may or may not have been designed by your God – depending on whether he actually exists.
DAVID: Delighted you are delighted.
And you will continue to delight me by not contradicting yourself in future posts.
Oxidation
dhw: If there is a God, I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Wouldn’t you agree?
DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting.
dhw: So despite his omnipotence and omniscience, you believe he has to keep making changes as he goes along. What does he adjust to? Sounds more like experimentation than knowledge of exactly what is required, don’t you think?
DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.
dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?
DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.
Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale."
dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."
DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.
dhw: Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.
DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.
Our heart differs from that of the great apes
QUOTE: "A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body."
DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.
dhw: Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.
DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Sunday, June 16, 2024, 18:39 (158 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.
dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?
DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.
dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)QUOTE: ...evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants over the century-scale."
dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t objected vehemently to this statement about evolution as "phony, overblown Darwin speak propaganda."
DAVID: I discriminate my responses. You are so steeped in old Darwin, you don't recognize Darwin-speak. This article is fine.
dhw: Both articles are fine, according to you, but you object to the title “evolution repeats itself” as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”, because “true use of the word evolution requires speciation”, and yet you accept the statement that “evolution has maintained the diversity of tailocin variants”, which focuses purely on bacterial warfare and not on speciation. You are so steeped in your hatred of Darwin, you can’t even see that “evolution repeats itself” is a perfectly straightforward observation of what has happened in the course of evolution, as is the second example of the word’s usage.
DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.
I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.
Our heart differs from that of the great apesQUOTE: "A human's larger brain and greater physical activity compared to other great apes can also be linked to higher metabolic demand, which requires a heart that can pump a greater volume of blood to the body."
DAVID: we were different in design from the beginning. Our heart was built to meet the demands of high-speed running.
dhw: Or perhaps the demands of high speed running led to an increase in heart size, just as the demands of living in the sea would have led to whale flippers replacing pre-whale legs.
DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Oxidation
DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.
dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?
DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.
dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.
Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.
DAVID: I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.
If by “naturalist” you mean “atheist” then of course you are not a naturalist. However, if you believe that your God developed new life forms out of earlier life forms, then you accept the theory of common descent.
Our heart differs from that of the great apes
DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.
Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Monday, June 17, 2024, 18:38 (157 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.
dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?
DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.
dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.
dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?
I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.
DAVID: I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.
dhw: If by “naturalist” you mean “atheist” then of course you are not a naturalist. However, if you believe that your God developed new life forms out of earlier life forms, then you accept the theory of common descent.
Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.
Our heart differs from that of the great apesDAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.
dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.
Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Oxidation
dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.
dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?
DAVID: I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.
Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.”
No reason offered.
dhw: Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.
DAVID: Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.
“Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.
Our heart differs from that of the great apes
DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.
dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.
DAVID: Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.
Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 18, 2024, 20:54 (156 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?
DAVID: I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.
dhw: Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
God controls all.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.
dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.”
No reason offered.
Forced repeat: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.">
dhw: Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.DAVID: Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.
dhw: “Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.
Agreed.
Our heart differs from that of the great apes
DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.
dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.
DAVID: Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.
dhw: Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.
Thank you.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Oxidation
dhw: I can’t help feeling that all this teeter tottering is far more redolent of experimentation than of a precise knowledge of what is required for the fulfilment of a single purpose. Would’t you agree?
DAVID: No, I would call it a designer adjusting. […]
dhw: Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
DAVID: God controls all.
So in order to produce us and our food, your omniscient and omnipotent God kept changing environmental conditions and deliberately designing new species which he knew he would have to cull because they were not the species he actually wanted to design, and he deliberately kept “adjusting” for some 3+ billion years’ worth of unsuitable conditions and irrelevant species until he had finished adjusting, got rid of the 99.9% of irrelevant conditions and species, and finally produced us plus food. But this could not possibly have been a process of experimentation. It simply had to be his very own imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you devised for him.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
DAVID: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."
It’s nice of you to stand up for Darwin, although you call his theory “undefendable”. But I still don’t understand how the straightforward statement of fact that “evolution repeats itself” can be viewed as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.
Common descent
DAVID: Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.
dhw: “Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.
DAVID: Agreed.
Thank you. At least some of Darwin’s theory is therefore defendable.
Our heart differs from that of the great apes
DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.
dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.
DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.
dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.
DAVID: Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.
dhw: Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.
DAVID: Thank you.
You’re welcome.
Black holes
DAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.
Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 19, 2024, 17:40 (155 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
DAVID: God controls all.
dhw: So in order to produce us and our food, your omniscient and omnipotent God kept changing environmental conditions and deliberately designing new species which he knew he would have to cull because they were not the species he actually wanted to design, and he deliberately kept “adjusting” for some 3+ billion years’ worth of unsuitable conditions and irrelevant species until he had finished adjusting, got rid of the 99.9% of irrelevant conditions and species, and finally produced us plus food. But this could not possibly have been a process of experimentation. It simply had to be his very own imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you devised for him.
As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
DAVID: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."
dhw: It’s nice of you to stand up for Darwin, although you call his theory “undefendable”. But I still don’t understand how the straightforward statement of fact that “evolution repeats itself” can be viewed as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.
It was a misuse of the word evolution when all that is shown is repeated adaptations, not new species which is true evolution.
Black holesDAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.
dhw: Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.
Well, I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Oxidation
DAVID: God controls all.
dhw: So in order to produce us and our food, your omniscient and omnipotent God kept changing environmental conditions and deliberately designing new species which he knew he would have to cull because they were not the species he actually wanted to design, and he deliberately kept “adjusting” for some 3+ billion years’ worth of unsuitable conditions and irrelevant species until he had finished adjusting, got rid of the 99.9% of irrelevant conditions and species, and finally produced us plus food. But this could not possibly have been a process of experimentation. It simply had to be his very own imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you devised for him.
DAVID: As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."
As in the other thread, you have completely ignored the problem under discussion, which is why your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
DAVID: "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."
dhw: It’s nice of you to stand up for Darwin, although you call his theory “undefendable”. But I still don’t understand how the straightforward statement of fact that “evolution repeats itself” can be viewed as "phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda”.
DAVID: It was a misuse of the word evolution when all that is shown is repeated adaptations, not new species which is true evolution.
“Evolution repeats itself” is not a definition but an observation. Evolution is defined as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. Do you disagree? Of course this process entails repetition – otherwise there would be no link between organisms and their ancestors. And so it is a simple statement of fact that (the process of) evolution repeats itself in different ways. Nothing phony, overblown or Darwin-speak propaganda about it.
Black holes
DAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.
dhw: Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.
DAVID: Well, I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.
Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.
Brain stem controls
QUOTE: “How far does the brain’s control over body biology go?”
A fascinating question. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Thursday, June 20, 2024, 23:39 (154 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
DAVID: As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."
dhw: As in the other thread, you have completely ignored the problem under discussion, which is why your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.
Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.
bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)
DAVID: It was a misuse of the word evolution when all that is shown is repeated adaptations, not new species which is true evolution.
dhw: Evolution repeats itself” is not a definition but an observation. Evolution is defined as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. Do you disagree? Of course this process entails repetition – otherwise there would be no link between organisms and their ancestors. And so it is a simple statement of fact that (the process of) evolution repeats itself in different ways. Nothing phony, overblown or Darwin-speak propaganda about it.
We are now arguing at a different level. You are now defending evolution as if I attacked the term. I attacked the constant misuse of the term by Darwinians. The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.
Black holesDAVID: When I say God designed it, dhw will ask why did God make it so big and complex. Why should the issue of God change the way we look at the universe? The atheist views it and accepts it as a natural result of chance events. From both viewpoints the universe simply is what it is.
dhw: Not quite. We all agree that the universe is as it is, but you as a theist insist that there is a particular purpose behind all that is – namely, the creation of us and our food. The atheist says it has no purpose. The agnostic says we don’t and can’t know if there is a purpose.
DAVID: Well, I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.
dhw: Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.
So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.
Brain stem controlsQUOTE: “How far does the brain’s control over body biology go?”
dhw: A fascinating question. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.
Another dhw jibe at how un-'special' humans are. Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Oxidation
DAVID: As in the other thread: " You rail about God's use of evolution, but that is His way of creating: a universe evolving from the Big Bang, an Earth evolving in its galaxy, which also evolved over time. Life is much more complicated than the universe it lives in. So God evolved it from Archaea to us."
dhw: As in the other thread, you have completely ignored the problem under discussion, which is why your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.
DAVID: Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.
There is no distortion other than your own. Raup says that the 99.9% of extinctions are caused by changing conditions, and the survival of the 0.1% is a matter of luck. I have no problem with this argument. You, on the other hand, introduce your God (never mentioned by Raup) and interpret the statistics as meaning that God had to obey some weird law that forces him to design and cull 99.9% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose. Sheer nonsense.
“Overblown Darwin-speak”
Quote: Evolution repeats itself.
David calls this “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda".
dhw: Evolution is defined as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. Do you disagree? Of course this process entails repetition – otherwise there would be no link between organisms and their ancestors. And so it is a simple statement of fact that (the process of) evolution repeats itself in different ways. Nothing phony, overblown or Darwin-speak propaganda about it.
DAVID: We are now arguing at a different level. You are now defending evolution as if I attacked the term. I attacked the constant misuse of the term by Darwinians. The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.
The article went on to attack Darwin’s theory of randomness. The established fact that evolution repeats itself is not “touting” Darwin’s theory. You yourself constantly tell us that your God used evolution to produce the universe, the planet, and all life forms, including us. Are you touting Darwin’s theory?
Black holes
DAVID: I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.
dhw: Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.
DAVID: So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.
You insist that God created the billions of stars etc. and the 99.9% of extinct species for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food, you can't tell us why, and you even tell us that his method was imperfect and inefficient, and then you tell me that I think he did it wrong! No, YOU do! I have no idea why he would have created the billions of stars etc., and they are a factor in my uncertainty over his existence. However, as far as the 99.9% are concerned, I have offered you three THEISTIC reasons for their existence and extinction, but you prefer your own theory that God made a mess of things.
Brain stem controls
dhw:. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.
DAVID: Another dhw jibe at how un-'special' humans are. Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.
The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Friday, June 21, 2024, 20:15 (153 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
DAVID: Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.
dhw: There is no distortion other than your own. Raup says that the 99.9% of extinctions are caused by changing conditions, and the survival of the 0.1% is a matter of luck. I have no problem with this argument. You, on the other hand, introduce your God (never mentioned by Raup) and interpret the statistics as meaning that God had to obey some weird law that forces him to design and cull 99.9% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose. Sheer nonsense.
No weird law, but simply an all-perfect God choosing the best way. You don't know how to think about God in true theological ways.
“Overblown Darwin-speak”Quote: Evolution repeats itself.
DAVID: We are now arguing at a different level. You are now defending evolution as if I attacked the term. I attacked the constant misuse of the term by Darwinians. The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.
dhw: The article went on to attack Darwin’s theory of randomness. The established fact that evolution repeats itself is not “touting” Darwin’s theory. You yourself constantly tell us that your God used evolution to produce the universe, the planet, and all life forms, including us. Are you touting Darwin’s theory?
I refer to Darwin's theory properly, pointing out its inefficiency in explaining evolution.
Black holesDAVID: I'll stick to a teleological approach since every new level shows a purposeful response to need.
dhw: Does it? Please tell us the need for the billions of stars, solar systems etc. extant and extinct, and the 99.9% of species not needed for the implementation of the one and only purpose you allow your God: the design of us and our food.
DAVID: So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.
dhw: You insist that God created the billions of stars etc. and the 99.9% of extinct species for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food, you can't tell us why, and you even tell us that his method was imperfect and inefficient, and then you tell me that I think he did it wrong! No, YOU do! I have no idea why he would have created the billions of stars etc., and they are a factor in my uncertainty over his existence. However, as far as the 99.9% are concerned, I have offered you three THEISTIC reasons for their existence and extinction, but you prefer your own theory that God made a mess of things.
Your humanizing theories of God show your lack of theological instruction in this area of thought.
Brain stem controlsdhw:. Many thanks for yet another wonderfully educational article. The mind boggles not only at the complexity of the brain but also at the promise such research has for the treatment of diseases. Also to be noted is the fact that all these complexities are to be found in mice and no doubt in other mammals that were here long before sapiens arrived on the scene.
DAVID: Another dhw jibe at how un-'special' humans are. Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.
dhw;The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.
I think we were His prime purpose. Our very special brain proves it. The mouse brain cannot design commercial aircraft. It is only competent for mouse survival.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
Oxidation
DAVID: Not a dodge. Ignoring your baseless distortion of evolutionary statistics from Raup.
dhw: There is no distortion other than your own. Raup says that the 99.9% of extinctions are caused by changing conditions, and the survival of the 0.1% is a matter of luck. I have no problem with this argument. You, on the other hand, introduce your God (never mentioned by Raup) and interpret the statistics as meaning that God had to obey some weird law that forces him to design and cull 99.9% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose. Sheer nonsense.
DAVID: No weird law, but simply an all-perfect God choosing the best way. You don't know how to think about God in true theological ways.
Please stop pretending that you and you alone know the “true” theological way. Go to any church, synagogue or mosque and inform the vicar, rabbi or imam that God certainly has no human attributes, and therefore certainly doesn’t love us, care for us, or want us to worship him. As for evolution, please tell us how many theologians you know who inform us that their God used an imperfect, inefficient method to produce us, having designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 life forms although he could have produced us "de novo".
“Overblown Darwin-speak”
Headline: Evolution repeats itself.
DAVID: The headline touted evolution and then proceeded to define intraspecies adaptations. You wouldn't recognize Darwin-speak if it slapped you in the face.
dhw: The article went on to attack Darwin’s theory of randomness. The established fact that evolution repeats itself is not “touting” Darwin’s theory. You yourself constantly tell us that your God used evolution to produce the universe, the planet, and all life forms, including us. Are you touting Darwin’s theory?
DAVID: I refer to Darwin's theory properly, pointing out its inefficiency in explaining evolution.
How does the statement “God used evolution to produce humans” point out the inefficiency of Darwin’s theory. How does the statement “evolution repeats itself” tout the efficiency of Darwin’s theory? Your complaint that these three words are phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda is overblown anti-Darwin propaganda. I suggest we drop this subject as it's leading us nowhere.
Black holes
DAVID: So, your human mind thinks God did it wrong. That is why God is incomprehensible to you.
dhw: You insist that God created the billions of stars etc. and the 99.9% of extinct species for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food, you can't tell us why, and you even tell us that his method was imperfect and inefficient, and then you tell me that I think he did it wrong! No, YOU do! I have no idea why he would have created the billions of stars etc., and they are a factor in my uncertainty over his existence. However, as far as the 99.9% are concerned, I have offered you three THEISTIC reasons for their existence and extinction, but you prefer your own theory that God made a mess of things.
DAVID: Your humanizing theories of God show your lack of theological instruction in this area of thought.
As above: If you preached your theories about God’s inefficiency and your certainty that he has no “human” attributes like love, or wanting to be worshipped, you would be laughed out of every church, synagogue and mosque in the world.
Brain stem controls
DAVID: […] Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.
dhw: The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.
DAVID: I think we were His prime purpose.
Please tell us his other purposes - especially for designing the 99.9% of species unconnected with us.
DAVID: Our very special brain proves it. The mouse brain cannot design commercial aircraft. It is only competent for mouse survival.
Nobody would claim that mice are as intelligent as humans. Yes, our brains are special. Now tell us why he also specially designed and had to cull the 99.9 out of 100.
Intelligence
dhw: You agree that solving problems, taking decisions etc. denote autonomous intelligence in our fellow animals. Thank you.
DAVID: I'm sure they have some simple solutions to simple challenges.
Excellent news: our fellow organisms have autonomous intelligence. So now it’s a matter of the degree of autonomous intelligence. For instance, how about ants?
DAVID (under “ant intelligence” which went off subject:): The issue remains, God is unknowable, but we can guess at His purposes from His creations.
And we can guess at his methods and his nature, and since nobody knows the truth, it is utterly absurd to pontificate that he is certainly not human in any way.
More Miscellany: Bechly reappears
by David Turell , Saturday, June 22, 2024, 18:32 (152 days ago) @ dhw
Oxidation
DAVID: No weird law, but simply an all-perfect God choosing the best way. You don't know how to think about God in true theological ways.
dhw: Please stop pretending that you and you alone know the “true” theological way. Go to any church, synagogue or mosque and inform the vicar, rabbi or imam that God certainly has no human attributes, and therefore certainly doesn’t love us, care for us, or want us to worship him. As for evolution, please tell us how many theologians you know who inform us that their God used an imperfect, inefficient method to produce us, having designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 life forms although he could have produced us "de novo".
Adler used Darwin's natural theory of evolution explicitly to prove God. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion. In his mind God designed humans by my described evolution.
Black holesDAVID: Your humanizing theories of God show your lack of theological instruction in this area of thought.
dhw: As above: If you preached your theories about God’s inefficiency and your certainty that he has no “human” attributes like love, or wanting to be worshipped, you would be laughed out of every church, synagogue and mosque in the world.
I don't follow what religions sell. You don't either.
Brain stem controlsDAVID: […] Our brain is not explainable by Darwin theory. Why? Based on survivability it is overkill. Apes and Chimps could easily have continued on their own without us barging in.
dhw: The complexities of the mouse brain are also unexplainable by Darwin’s theory of random mutations. But all its complexities have been passed on to us, which would seem to confirm Darwin’s theory of common descent. You have also confirmed that early sapiens would have used their brains primarily for survival. I have never disagreed that we have special gifts. I only disagree with your belief that your God must have specially dabbled them, and that we and our brains (plus our food) must have been his one and only purpose.
DAVID: I think we were His prime purpose.
dhw: Please tell us his other purposes - especially for designing the 99.9% of species unconnected with us.
Our food supply created by the 99.9% extinct, and the Earth's mineral resources for our use.
DAVID: Our very special brain proves it. The mouse brain cannot design commercial aircraft. It is only competent for mouse survival.Nobody would claim that mice are as intelligent as humans. Yes, our brains are special. Now tell us why he also specially designed and had to cull the 99.9 out of 100.
Answered above and many times in the past.
Intelligencedhw: You agree that solving problems, taking decisions etc. denote autonomous intelligence in our fellow animals. Thank you.
DAVID: I'm sure they have some simple solutions to simple challenges.
dhw: Excellent news: our fellow organisms have autonomous intelligence. So now it’s a matter of the degree of autonomous intelligence. For instance, how about ants?
Of course, individuals make decisions based on pheromones they sense.
DAVID (under “ant intelligence” which went off subject:): The issue remains, God is unknowable, but we can guess at His purposes from His creations.dhw: And we can guess at his methods and his nature, and since nobody knows the truth, it is utterly absurd to pontificate that he is certainly not human in any way.
I didn't know you knew Him personally.