More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 05, 2024, 08:37 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

DNA hunts pathogens now developed into "free-for-all"

DAVID: Freedom of action rules the way life must work. Any rules cannot compensate for this freedom. Not God's fault a concept you are blind to.

dhw: If cells follow God’s instructions but fail, then clearly God and his instructions are at fault. But if God gave freedom of action to all cells and bugs (instead of giving them instructions), then the cells and bugs are responsible for success or failure. This is what we call a free-for-all. See the “evolution” thread.

DAVID: Freedom of action while following instructions is how life works. That allows mistakes to happen. Not God's fault.

If you follow instructions, you do not have freedom of action! And if the instructions don’t work, that can only be the fault of the instructor. What you call “mistakes” will only be the fault of the cells if they have the freedom to act independently of any instructions (or if, more likely, there are no instructions at all). If God exists, then of course he would have designed the means whereby the cells have the freedom to act independently.

Unconscious pattern learning

DAVID: Simple: each and every design is a concept.

dhw: No problem, then. Our brain designs means of coping with needs, whether present or anticipated because of past experiences. When you say “only a designer fits”, our brain is the designer. (And if God exists, he would have designed the cells that enable our brains to do the designing.)

DAVID: Fine!

It’s nice to agree.I'll make a note of this in case the subject comes up again.

Endosymbiosis

DAVID: This is the result of organisms adaptability for survival, I think designed by God.

dhw: Yes, organisms have the ability to adapt, and some would say they also have the ability to innovate. Sometimes it’s hard to draw a line between the two abilities, though you like to do so, as you grant organism the former and refuse to accept the possibility of the latter. (If God exists, then of course he would have designed the intelligence enabling both processes.)

DAVID: Only if He wished both processes.

dhw: Of course. In my view, your God – if he exists – would only design what he wished to design. See the “evolution” thread re your view of your God’s inefficiency and impotence.

DAVID: For answer see that thread.

Yes indeed. We can close this thread now.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE: Researchers have discovered inorganic nanostructures surrounding deep-ocean hydrothermal vents that are strikingly similar to molecules that make life as we know it possible.

DAVID: pitiful. Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it applies in the same way!

dhw: Life as we know it replicates itself, adapts itself, innovates, and produces millions of different organisms with a vast repertoire of functions. Inorganic nanostructures don’t. My thanks to David for his rapid and comprehensive demolition of the theory.

DAVID: Thank you.

I’ve left this in because it’s another gratifying moment of agreement between us!

Early galaxies

DAVID: the more we see, the more we learn and have to modify theories and models. Not at all surprising. In a fast-moving areas of study like this one theories have to be liquid, not fixed. We still do not know why the universe has to be as it is. I assume it is all purposeful.

A lovely comment. But if theories have to be liquid, may I suggest that you unfix your theory that the universe “has to be” as it is, and you qualify your assumption that it is all purposeful?