Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 16, 2025, 17:09 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

dhw: If you and he believe that global warming is a fact, then clearly the dispute is over the degree of damage that it is causing/will cause. The “experts” disagree. I can quite believe that there is hype on one side, and understatement on the other, but since you and Watts agree that current practices must change, the only question that matters is how quickly we can find pragmatic solutions to the problems these practices are creating.

DAVID: I have just read an article describing new building materials to mitigate CO2 production. Over the years it would produce a 30% reduction in CO2 production. This is a reasonable approach.

dhw: It seems that you and I (and Watts, judging by the views expressed in the interview) are in agreement, although you are reluctant to say so. Global warming is a fact, and we need to adopt a pragmatic approach in order to restore the balance of nature. The only difference between us is the question of how urgently change is needed. Thank you for this example of how the problem might be solved.

The climate alarmists want immediate urgency. Gradual adaptations make the most sense from a monetary standpoint.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain]did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis
QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. I found the following quote, though I’m sorry I can’t provide an actual link.

The Conscious Cell - MARGULIS - 2001

‘The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities.’

DAVID: The link: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05707.x

dhw: Thank you for reproducing the whole quote (no need for me to repeat it here). Unfortunately, your comment could be taken as part of the quote, which of course it is not:
DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.

dhw: This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question.bbb Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

DAVID: Intelligence is a requirement for evolution. Implanting it as as driving force within cells begs the question of what was its source?

dhw: You have simply repeated my question. You say God, an atheist would say chance, and we agnostics say we don’t know.

No one knows! Some of us choose.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.