More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 26, 2024, 10:54 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

Disordered proteins (and glue your predator)

DAVID: In the one area of cellular mistakes, you refuse to recognize the necessary lousy-goosy functions that create life.

dhw: I am quite happy to recognize all the mistakes. I am at a loss as to why you insist that they cannot possibly indicate your God’s creation of a free-for-all, and why you think an all-powerful God was not only forced to create such a fallible system, but was also weak enough to require our help in solving the problems.

DAVID: How about accepting the reason for mistakes? Do you understand what I present about the biochemistry of life?

Of course: life as God designed it cannot exist without the potential for mistakes. Do you understand why this could indicate that your God created a free-for-all, and why his vain efforts to correct the mistakes and his consequent need to be helped by us humans contradict the view that he is omnipotent and omniscient?

DNA hunts pathogens

DAVID: how can a complex system like this develop? Can an evolutionary system based on chance mutations achieve it? I strongly doubt it. It had to be designed. What is amazing is how many different ways the immune system protects us.

dhw: The cell communities of the immune system change step by step as they defend themselves against new pathogens. But of course they don’t always succeed. The dispute between you and me is not over the theory of chance mutations, but over your insistence that your God – if he exists - is dabbling every inch of the way, as opposed to the possibility that he may have given the cells themselves the ability to design their defences. This “free-for-all” would explain why – if your God exists – it is the cells that may prove inefficient, and not your God. But for some reason, you cannot accept that possibility.

DAVID: God did give immune system cells many defenses to use. If God started life with cells, why shouldn't He design them to do their immunity job? I agree, if they fail, it is not God's fault.

dhw: This sounds like a very grudging acceptance that your God may have given cells the autonomous ability to change themselves as and when new threats arise. If he has to dabble each new “cure”, then of course it is he who fails and not the cells.

DAVID: God gave the cells full instructions no current dabbling needed.

So 3.8 billion years ago, your God gave cells full instructions on how to defend themselves against every single threat they would encounter for the rest of life’s history. And it’s entirely his fault if and when his instructions fail.

Octopus and fish hunt together

QUOTE: "It turns out solitary octopuses actually like to partake in multi-species hunting parties. They join fish on their revels and have even been caught disciplining unruly hunting companions with a sly punch.”

DAVID: […] Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: Another delightful example of animal intelligences combining to mutual advantage. Thank you. I’m never quite sure what you are implying with the term “learned behavior”. It must have had a beginning, when octopus and fish first cooperated and registered the benefits. Its success would have meant that it was then passed on and became a normal feature of their everyday lives. The same process would have applied to all symbiotic relationships, strategies, lifestyles etc.

DAVID: Exactly what I mean.

Thank you. I’m happy with your agreement that this is an example of animal intelligences cooperating, registering the benefits, and passing the strategy on.

Early mammalian evolution

QUOTE: "These findings suggest that mammalian ancestors experimented with different jaw functions, leading to the evolution of 'mammalian' traits independently in various lineages. The early evolution of mammals, it turns out, was far more complex and varied than previously understo

DAVID: mammals are very different unique branch of evolution that led to us. What was the natural necessity that drove these developments? There is none that is obvious. Still an evidence for design with purpose.

New findings are continually changing our knowledge of life’s history. Meanwhile, your question becomes all the more pertinent if you apply it to your theory of evolution: what was the necessity that drove your all-powerful, all-knowing God to perform all these experiments if his one and only goal was to design us and our food? And do you accept the term “experiments” in the context of your “design with purpose”.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: as previously discussed in theodicy threads, there are built-in correction processes. Obviously, they are not perfect. I think this is the best God could do.

So your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, first-cause designer God is not perfect, omniscient or omnipotent after all.