More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 22, 2024, 12:47 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

Cancer and cellular autonomy

DAVID: Cancer cells are rebels. […] They act autonomously as rebels. (dhw’s bold)

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: God didn't do it!!! The cells changed themselves as described above.

That is the whole point. That is why you say they act autonomously, whereas the poor old “normal” cells can only automatically obey your God’s inadequate instructions.

General recap: you agree that life’s history is that of dog-eat-dog survival and dog-help-dog cooperation (see later), all requiring a degree of autonomous intelligence, with human free will the most obvious example. All living things are composed of cells. Proposal: dog-eat-dog and cooperation also apply to micro-organisms and individual cells. If God exists, he would have designed the autonomous intelligence that operates at all levels.

DAVID: (under “human evolution”): We have brains, cells don't.

dhw: You have produced countless examples of brainless intelligence from the plant world.

DAVID: Minor adaptations.

They still require intelligence. Perhaps less without and more with a brain?

Sponges collect molybdenum

dhw: I must confess, whenever there is talk of symbiosis, I think of Lynn Margulis, who not only established its massive importance to evolution but was also a champion of cellular intelligence. It sounds as if the sponge protected Entotheonella because the bacterium protected the sponge. Sounds like intelligent cooperation to me.

DAVID: Cooperation, no question. […]

And that requires intelligence.

Double standards

DAVID: Your disbelief of the vast universe forgets God made the Big Bang to start and evolve it. That you can't see purpose is beside the point to me. You negate first cause theory.

You have lost the plot. Both you and the atheist condemn one another for ignoring evidence for or against your God. Hence double standards – pot calling kettle black. Re first cause, how many more times? The choice is between your immaterial, sourceless, super-intelligent mind that is simply there, and the atheist’s endless mixing of matter and energy ultimately combining into the first forms of life which then evolve into ever more complex forms. I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe. No double standards on my part.

DAVID: All your use of double standards accusations is a blanket protection for yourself.

dhw: How can it protect me if you attack atheists for being irrational while at the same time you agree that you cannot find a single reason to defend your irrational theory of evolution […]?

DAVID: When do you think God actually gave me His reasoning?

He didn’t. That is why I question the plausibility of your theories about his reasoning, with all their contradictions.

Human evolution: Lots of interbreeding and Early Hand Use

Dealt with elsewhere.

Ecosystem importance: insects and spiders contribute

DAVID: Early systems evolve into today's systems. Have you forgotten how evolution works?

dhw: Your usual attempt to lump the whole history of planet Earth into preparation for us. Do you really believe that every organism and ecosystem that ever existed led to today’s organisms and ecosystems?

DAVID: Yes. See next:

DAVID: Of course the past is dead! All current ecosystems interlock.

How does the interlocking of current systems prove that every organism and ecosystem that ever existed led to us and our food? It doesn’t even prove that every current ecosystem is essential for us! Would we all die without the weaverbird’s nest?

Predators among bacteria

Covered by the cancer thread.

The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran

DAVID: the appearance of animals had to happen at some point. Note that it looks nothing like later forms.

New discoveries are turning up all the time! The fact that it looks nothing like later forms presents another challenge to your theory that your God designed every species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Once again, the discovery favours a free-for-all – whether there is a God or not – or if there is, the possibility of experimentation.

Ecosystem importance: damage to nitrogen fixation

DAVID: […] The Earth is covered by ecosystems that influence each other in important ways. Every oddity I present here is an important part of the overall system. Nothing is unimportant, which dhw should note when he derides something.

You are incorrigible. I am just as aware as you are of the fact that we humans are wrecking the ecosystems on which we and other life forms depend for our existence. My objection is to your theory that your God created every species, ecosystem, natural wonder etc. that ever existed for the sole purpose of creating us and our food. Even within our present ecosystems, I do not believe your God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest, or did so solely for our use, and I do not believe he designed it because without it, the human world would come to an end. Multiply the example by a few million.