More miscellany (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, July 30, 2024, 17:06 (48 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolving anything follows one rule: improvement in design over several steps.

dhw: That does not mean your perfect, first-cause God invented an imperfect method which required a 99.9% failure rate of “trial and error”. You moan that I “humanize” God, and here you equate your God’s method of evolution with the inefficient trial and error method used by humans.

God chose His perfect system. Only humans criticize as I do. Your same human-God levels problem in understanding.

Biochemical controls (99.9% versus 0.1%).

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Once more: the 99.9% (approx.) of extinct species INCLUDE our extinct ancestors. The 0.1% are the modern survivors, some of whose ancestors are extinct. For example, out of 696 dinosaur species, only 4 either left descendants or have actually survived themselves (e.g. perhaps ostriches, emus and kiwis). Let’s say two are extinct, and two have survived. The two survivors and the two with extinct ancestors make up the 0.1% of present species that are linked to past. That means current species have survived or evolved from 0.57% of those that once lived [...] The current 0.1% are NOT descended from the 99.9% that ever lived, but only from the 0.1% of survivors, as you have agreed.

DAVID: Same nutty math. All living now are survivors: 0.1%. They are direct descendants of the 99.9% dying in the past. 100%.

dhw: 99.9% of creatures who you say were NOT our ancestors plus 0.1% who were our ancestors or who still exist = 100%, as you agreed in bold. Why do you continue to contradict yourself?

Your math is not 100%: 99.9% extinct ancestors, 0.1% surviving and us 0.1% living= 100.1%.

Symbiosis and theodicy

dhw: I’d have thought anyone who believes in a God who wanted to create us, would also want to know why. You suggested the above reasons/guesses. Any other human attributes you think might have driven him?

DAVID: Human attributes do not drive God!

dhw: That is your Mr Hyde contradicting your Dr Jekyll, who says God must enjoy creating, may want us to recognize and worship him, may care for us, and probably/possibly has human attributes. You have confessed that you are schizophrenic. That does not make for rational discussion.

It is only a possible possibility that God reflects any human attributes.

Attention structures

QUOTE: Words like 'this' and 'that' or 'here' and 'there' occur in all languages. In a study published in PNAS, researchers from Yale University and the Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics (MPI) in Nijmegen show that such 'demonstrative' words are used to direct listeners' focus of attention and to establish joint attention.

dhw: I’m applying for a grant to study the extent to which languages use nouns to indicate objects, adjectives to describe those objects, personal pronouns to indicate which person is being referred to, verbs to indicate actions and states, tenses of verbs to indicate the time of the action or state etc. All contributions will be welcome.

All patterns of contributions, checks, cash, bitcoins, counterfeits will be studied.