More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 19, 2024, 09:15 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

Cancer and cellular autonomy

DAVID: Cancer cells are rebels. […] They act autonomously as rebels.

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: 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.

You have normal cells obeying God’s instructions and you have cancer cells mysteriously obeying his instructions in some perverse, rebellious manner because they have the ability to act autonomously. That is the level we are discussing. If cancer cells can work out their own ways of destroying “normal” cells, either God’s instructions are inadequate, or cancer cells are smarter than God.

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.

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

How can it be beyond a reasonable doubt that your God had to design billions of stars etc. in order to design us humans plus food???

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.

DAVID: You are so afraid to take sides!

Having reasonable doubts has nothing to do with fear, and your comment is a silly attempt to avoid the fact that you apply double standards in your judgement of your own views and those of others.

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: […] 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.

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

Don’t forget human free will as part of a free-for-all, especially since that would relieve your God of responsibility for much of the world’s evil. “Only at dog-eat-dog level” encompasses the whole history of life on Earth, as all organisms try to find ways of surviving. This entails surviving against one another AND surviving against changing conditions. You allow them autonomy for the former, but won’t even consider autonomy for the latter.

Ecosystem importance: insects and spiders contribute

DAVID: This in-depth study shows that ecosystems are important all the way to the lowest forms. Everything is here for a reason.

A striking contrast to the quote which opens today’s post on your theory of evolution: “Why must he have a reason?” But of course ecosystems are important to every life form that depends on them. But that does not mean every ecosystem that has existed for the last 3.8 billion years has been important for the design of humans plus our food, the only reason you will allow God for creating life on earth, although apparently he may not have any reason at all.

Predators among bacteria

Quote: […] Myxococcus xanthus, a predator capable of both single-cell, contact-dependent killing and multicellular “wolf pack” behavior involving coordinated movement of a group of predator cells.

DAVID: it is dog-eat-dog all the way down to microscopic predators who surprisingly have a Amory of different physical and chemical weapons.

Yes, their intelligence is astonishing, as is the ability of single cells to combine and cooperate at all levels of existence in the great free-for-all struggle for survival.