More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 17, 2024, 20:12 (9 hours, 14 minutes ago) @ dhw

Cancer and cellular autonomy

They become this way through a bad set of mutations.

DAVID (under “kinesins”): Molecular mistakes are not decisions in normal cells. See above re cancer.

dhw: You always try to change “cell” to “molecules” or “proteins” when we discuss autonomy. If cancer cells are able to take their own autonomous decisions, then there has to be some kind of decision-making mechanism that directs their molecules to “rebel”. Why would your God give them that mechanism, but not give it to “normal” cells?

They become this way through a bad set of mutations. God does not do it. Don't you realize cells come from organized proteins, all of which are free-floating and those actively producing product are the point of mistakes happening?

God’s purposes for creating life

dhw: See the “evolution” thread for your absurd argument that despite the various purposes you have proposed, including his one and only purpose for creating life (us and our food),your purposeful God may not have a purpose or “reason” for his actions.

He may not have any reason!! HE isn't human and needs no reasoning for His actions.

Double standards

DAVID: Back to your beloved 'double standards' your protective blanket. My faith is not irrational but based upon valid reasons to believe.

dhw: We are talking about the vastness of the universe. Your belief that it was necessary for the production of life on Earth is based on belief/faith, not on reason. The atheist could argue that the vastness of the universe makes it inevitable that eventually chance would assemble the materials needed for life on Earth. If this is their belief, will you accept it? Of course you won’t. It’s OK for you to have faith in your irrational theory (you don’t know why), but not OK for them to have faith in theirs. Neither of you knows the truth, but each of you will condemn the other’s theory on the grounds of irrationality. Hence double standards.

Wrap yourself in a nice safe no-position stance. I choose faith with reasoning 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as a juror would.

Human evolution: Lots of interbreeding

dhw: All these comings and goings look like a free-for-all to me, or possibly – still with your designer – lots of experimenting.

DAVID: Perhaps He allowed nature to do some experimentation. You want one jump from apes to sapiens? Talk about de novo!

dhw: But one jump is precisely what you advocate for the species you believe your God created “de novo” in the Cambrian! I’m delighted to hear that you have room in your beliefs for nature to conduct experiments. Do you regard nature as a conscious mind separate from your God?

DAVID: I believe a designer God manages nature.

dhw: If nature doesn’t have a mind of its own, then it’s the “manager” who does the experimenting.

No, God has let organisms do minor adaptations which you can call experimenting.

Australopithecus; early hand use

DAVID: Always seeking God's reasons as if He were a human. Adler did not say God had reasons.

dhw: We’re not talking about Adler’s beliefs, and your schizophrenic theories about a purposeful God who might be purposeless, and who may have thought patterns like ours but is not human in any way, are dealt with on the “evolution” thread.

Adler as a philosophe of religion is a great guide for me.

*************

dhw: Thank you for the other articles you have posted. They don't call for any comments from me, but in effect these are what keeps the website going - you provide us with a constant flow of
information about current research. Invaluable!

Thank you.