More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, October 18, 2024, 19:35 (4 days ago) @ dhw

Cancer and cellular autonomy

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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?

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by free-floating proteins that produce product are the point of mistakes. You wrote cancer cells "act autonomously as rebels”. If your God created them and gave them the ability to act autonomously as rebels, where do “bad mutations” fit in?

You don't understand the biochemistry of life. What makes mistakes in cells are the free-floating productive molecules at a deeper level than your concept using whole cells. Cells don't do anything unless at this deeper level.

dhw: You keep telling us that normal cells follow your God’s instructions. If his instructions lead to mistakes, then it’s his fault. If he gives cells the freedom to make mistakes, it’s their fault.

The mistakes are molecular, not cellular.

Double standards

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

dhw: We are talking about the vastness of the universe. So it is “beyond all reasonable doubt” that God needed to create billions of stars and planets and galaxies extant and extinct for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food, but you can’t think of a single reason why. Belief devoid of reason is irrational.

Agreed. You are not absorbing what I write as above: 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

dhw: But if an atheist suggests that the vastness of the universe would allow for chance beginnings to life, you would regard the theory as irrational, and would dismiss it. It’s OK for you to accept an irrational theory, but it’s not OK for you if atheists accept an irrational theory. Double standards.

You are so afraid to take sides!

Human evolution: Lots of interbreeding and Early Hand Use

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. […]

dhw: […] 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.

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

dhw: So your God gave organisms (= cell communities) the autonomy to do their own experimenting. We are making great progress towards the theories of cellular intelligence and evolution as the history of a free-for-all, and also the possibility of a God experimenting. You can accept all of them, and the only question is one of degree.

Cellular intelligence at minimal degree. Free-for-all only at as dog-eat-dog level.