More Miscellany: Bechly reappears (General)

by David Turell , Monday, May 13, 2024, 18:19 (44 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 system

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.

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 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? [...]

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 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.

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.