More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 23, 2024, 11:36 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Cancer and cellular autonomy

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

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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: In general cells act automatically under God's instructions for all needs. Cells cannot.

“In general” allows for some with autonomy, as you illustrate with cancer cells. “Cells cannot” is your opinion. Many scientists disagree.

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. […]

dhw: And that requires intelligence.

DAVID: I think it can be due to automatic responses.

Why would your God have to preprogramme/dabble such relationships in order to design us plus our food?

Biochemical controls: checking on harmful invaders

QUOTE:"The dendrites, when extended out, help dendritic cells sample the gut for foreign substances. When they find something dangerous, they activate immune cells like T cells.

DAVID:[…] We invite the bugs in to help us but it is not a one-way event. We must carefully screen both the bacteria and what they produce.

I don’t know why you say “we”. I don’t invite bugs, and I don’t screen anything. The quote informs me that some cells pass on information about different foreign substances, and other cells decide what to do about them. It all sounds very much like intelligent cooperation between different members of the cell community.

Double standards
DAVID: […] That you can't see purpose is beside the point to me. You negate first cause theory.

dhw:[…]. 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: And I simply choose God. No worry about standards.

They are two separate issues. In my view, your first cause is no more rational than the atheist’s. Double standards = attacking someone else’s theory for reasons equally applicable to your own theory. It’s akin to shooting yourself in the foot, but I guess you’re used to doing that!

The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran

DAVID: […]. Note that it looks nothing like later forms.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Or simply, planned designed evolution.

So your God designed (and had to cull) animals that had no connection with his sole purpose (us plus food), thereby earning your ridicule of him as a messy, inefficient designer.

Ecosystem importance: damage to nitrogen fixation
(Discussion repeated under “insects and spiders”, so I've cut it.)

DAVID: […] […] Every oddity I present here is an important part of the overall system. Nothing is unimportant, which dhw should note when he derides something.

dhw: 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, […] because without it, the human world would come to an end. Multiply the example by a few million.

DAVID: […] Nitpicking on a tiny irrelevant point of one tiny ecosystem, not seeing the whole.

You didn’t notice “multiply the example by a few million”. You agree that we and our food are not descended from 99.9% of creatures that ever lived, but only from 0.1%, and yet you think every past species and ecosystem was created for the sole purpose of creating us and our food, although your God may not have had any purpose at all! Total confusion!