Miscellaneous (General)

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 13, 2024, 16:45 (8 days ago) @ dhw

Immunity system complexity

QUOTES: “To thrive in their new hosts, bacteria seek out iron. To protect their iron supplies, which are stored in mitochondria, the worms activate a defense tactic.”

"Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”

DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.

dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?

Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.

Introducing the brain; its fractal organizstion

DAVID: There is no question an amoeba acts with purpose. The question is how automatic are those actions based upon built-in designed responses. A designing God and chance are the only two possible answers.

dhw: By built-in designed responses I presume you mean detailed instructions on how the amoeba should respond to all situations and conditions for the rest of time, and the appropriate set of instructions will automatically switch itself on when each particular problem arises. You cannot or will not countenance the possibility that your God might have endowed the amoeba or any other brainless organism or indeed most cell communities with the intelligence to work out their own solutions.

DAVID: Your interpretation is correct. I believe it is all automatic.

dhw: Same again: your God preprogrammed the first cells with instructions not only for every species, but also for every response by every cell to every new condition/problem that might arise for the rest of time (except when he popped in to do a dabble). And you tell us that your views keep evolving and you explore possibilities.

I won't leave the obvious automaticity.

A theoretical God

DAVID: Considering what has been created, especially the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life, one must presume a God with endless capacities and knowledge.

I’m not sure about “endless”, but if God exists, then we can certainly assume that he knows (or finds out) how to create what he has created.

DAVID: That is how I start my view of God. Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.

dhw: We’ve been through this before, and your first sentence already tells us that the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.

Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.

DAVID: How we relate to God is an endless discussion here, along with how He relates to us. You have one fixed view of a humanized God while my views keep evolving and many steps I've taken are contradictory to past positions. But at least I am exploring possibilities.

dhw: I have never ever offered any fixed view of a God which for all I know does not even exist, and I have never suggested that God is a human being. You have agreed that he may have certain thought patterns and emotions like our own, and I have offered you various alternative theistic explanations of how and why a theoretical God might have used evolution for different purposes and methods from those you have fixed your mind on. Some of these followed on from your own proposals or agreements (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship). Your contradictions persist into the present – you accept that the latter purposes are possible, but you say they are not possible because your God is selfless and is not human in any way. Similarly, your God is 100% benevolent, but there is only a 50/50 chance that he cares about us, and you then exclude any possibility that he might care about us because caring is a human emotion and your God is not human in any way. Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind! (See the “evolution” thread for further discussion.)

At least I keep trying.