New Miscellany

I’m reluctant to devote whole threads to subjects which we shall only discuss very briefly, and so as you can see, I’m putting them under “New Miscellany”.
To David: please carry on with your own new headings, as usual. I’ll do the sorting.

LUCA

DAVID: The article provides a different estimate of LUCA age and size. The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: 4.2 billion years is “inferred” and approximate. How do you and the authors know the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

DAVID: Using mutation rates and times of obvious change in forms allows looking backward in time. Of course, the results are estimates.

And how do you and the authors know the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

The brain: concept cells

I’m a bit reluctant to comment, as again I find parts of it difficult to understand, but I’m afraid the following made me laugh out loud:

QUOTE: "Concept cells could code for anything and everything, but they are not used for object recognition. They’re too slow for that: These cells fire after a delay of about 300 milliseconds. “It’s unclear why it takes so long,”

300 milliseconds = so long? I wonder how “long” it takes for cells to recognize objects. Ah well, it’s all relative, as Einstein might have said. Any idea how they measure such timings?

QUOTE: "It’s possible that these neurons can play different roles and take on different identities based on the task at hand,” Buffalo said. When it needs to be a concept cell for Jennifer Aniston, that’s what it is. When it needs to be a place cell to help you navigate toward the martini at the bar, it is a place cell. “That cell is like a Swiss Army knife,” Miller suggested.

I do like this. It suggests to me that cells are living, cognitive entities which can perform different activities and take on different roles according to different requirements. Very much in line with Shapiro, wouldn’t you say?

DAVID: very early tentative research into memory function. Identifying specific neuron function is amazing. Animals must have place neurons but not concept ones I assume.

Does that mean your dog doesn't recognize you?

Post reply

533 views

I’m reluctant to devote whole threads to subjects which we shall only discuss very briefly, and so as you can see, I’m putting them under “New Miscellany”.
To David: please carry on with your own new headings, as usual. I’ll do the sorting.

LUCA

DAVID: Using mutation rates and times of obvious change in forms allows looking backward in time. Of course, the results are estimates.

dhw: And how do you and the authors know the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

The molecular clock approach uses sheer estimates. Earliest life was quite complex as LUCA is described.

The brain: concept cells

I’m a bit reluctant to comment, as again I find parts of it difficult to understand, but I’m afraid the following made me laugh out loud:

QUOTE: "Concept cells could code for anything and everything, but they are not used for object recognition. They’re too slow for that: These cells fire after a delay of about 300 milliseconds. “It’s unclear why it takes so long,”

dhw: 300 milliseconds = so long? I wonder how “long” it takes for cells to recognize objects. Ah well, it’s all relative, as Einstein might have said. Any idea how they measure such timings?

The electrodes record any new activity in neurons. Article:

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/science-saturday-understanding-the-speed-...

"Called the human connectome, this structural system of neural pathways develops as people age. A new study shows transmission speed among brain regions increases into early adulthood. Learning more about neuron transmission may improve the understanding of psychological disorders."

QUOTE: "It’s possible that these neurons can play different roles and take on different identities based on the task at hand,” Buffalo said. When it needs to be a concept cell for Jennifer Aniston, that’s what it is. When it needs to be a place cell to help you navigate toward the martini at the bar, it is a place cell. “That cell is like a Swiss Army knife,” Miller suggested.

dhw: I do like this. It suggests to me that cells are living, cognitive entities which can perform different activities and take on different roles according to different requirements. Very much in line with Shapiro, wouldn’t you say?

DAVID: very early tentative research into memory function. Identifying specific neuron function is amazing. Animals must have place neurons but not concept ones I assume.

Does that mean your dog doesn't recognize you?

He sees me and reacts immediately.

Post reply

514 views

LUCA

(David changed the quote at the start of this post.)

QUOTE: The inferred age of LUCA […] suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: […] how do you and the authors know the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

DAVID: The molecular clock approach uses sheer estimates. Earliest life was quite complex as LUCA is described.

And how does that tell you the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

The brain: concept cells

dhw: 300 milliseconds = so long? I wonder how “long” it takes for cells to recognize objects. Ah well, it’s all relative, as Einstein might have said. Any idea how they measure such timings?

DAVID: The electrodes record any new activity in neurons. Article:
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/science-saturday-understanding-the-speed-...
"Called the human connectome, this structural system of neural pathways develops as people age. A new study shows transmission speed among brain regions increases into early adulthood. Learning more about neuron transmission may improve the understanding of psychological disorders."

I asked how they were able to measure 300 milliseconds, and I found it laughable that this should be regarded as being slow.

dhw: I do like this. It suggests to me that cells are living, cognitive entities which can perform different activities and take on different roles according to different requirements. Very much in line with Shapiro, wouldn’t you say?

You wouldn't say.

DAVID: very early tentative research into memory function. Identifying specific neuron function is amazing. Animals must have place neurons but not concept ones I assume.

dhw: Does that mean your dog doesn't recognize you?

DAVID: He sees me and reacts immediately.

So how does that mean he has no concept cells? And are you sure that his recognition is immediate, rather than taking 300 milliseconds? :-)

Post reply

512 views

LUCA

DAVID: The molecular clock approach uses sheer estimates. Earliest life was quite complex as LUCA is described.

dhw: And how does that tell you the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

It doesn't. It tells when life appeared, not how long it took to develop.

The brain: concept cells

QUOTE: "It’s possible that these neurons can play different roles and take on different identities based on the task at hand,” Buffalo said. When it needs to be a concept cell for Jennifer Aniston, that’s what it is. When it needs to be a place cell to help you navigate toward the martini at the bar, it is a place cell. “That cell is like a Swiss Army knife,” Miller suggested.

dhw: I do like this. It suggests to me that cells are living, cognitive entities which can perform different activities and take on different roles according to different requirements. Very much in line with Shapiro, wouldn’t you say?

You wouldn't say.

No, I wouldn't say.

DAVID: very early tentative research into memory function. Identifying specific neuron function is amazing. Animals must have place neurons but not concept ones I assume.

dhw: Does that mean your dog doesn't recognize you?

DAVID: He sees me and reacts immediately.

dhw: So how does that mean he has no concept cells? And are you sure that his recognition is immediate, rather than taking 300 milliseconds?

Perhaps slower ;-)

Post reply

506 views

LUCA

DAVID: The molecular clock approach uses sheer estimates. Earliest life was quite complex as LUCA is described.

dhw: And how does that tell you the length of time it normally takes for life to appear and complexify?

DAVID: It doesn't. It tells when life appeared, not how long it took to develop.

You have edited out the relevant comments that led to my question:

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

Now perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

The brain: concept cells

dhw: […] It suggests to me that cells are living, cognitive entities which can perform different activities and take on different roles according to different requirements. Very much in line with Shapiro, wouldn’t you say?

dhw: You wouldn't say.

DAVID: No, I wouldn't say.

To be continued…See later.

DAVID: very early tentative research into memory function. Identifying specific neuron function is amazing. Animals must have place neurons but not concept ones I assume.

dhw: Does that mean your dog doesn't recognize you?

DAVID: He sees me and reacts immediately.

dhw: So how does that mean he has no concept cells? And are you sure that his recognition is immediate, rather than taking 300 milliseconds? :-)

DAVID: Perhaps slower. :-)

Ah well, I don’t suppose your dog cares much whether he does or doesn’t have concept cells! Let’s go on to the next example of cellular intelligence:

T-cells help gut immunity

QUOTES: New research [..] shows that pathogen-fighting immune cells called tissue-resident memory CD8 T cells (TRM cells) go through a surprising transformation -- and relocation -- as they fight infections in the small intestine.

"Looking at small intestines after a viral infection, the scientists found that the gut releases chemical signals to instruct immune cells where to go and what to do.“

DAVID: these specialized T cells are under tight chemical controls to place them exactly where needed. The control proteins are yet to be delineated. Another pure example of design.

The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism.

Post reply

508 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: Now perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

Impossible!!! We have evidence of first life, but it has an unknown starting point. we don't know how it started!!!

T-cells help gut immunity

QUOTES: New research [..] shows that pathogen-fighting immune cells called tissue-resident memory CD8 T cells (TRM cells) go through a surprising transformation -- and relocation -- as they fight infections in the small intestine.

"Looking at small intestines after a viral infection, the scientists found that the gut releases chemical signals to instruct immune cells where to go and what to do.“

DAVID: these specialized T cells are under tight chemical controls to place them exactly where needed. The control proteins are yet to be delineated. Another pure example of design.

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism.

I agree

Post reply

496 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: Now perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

DAVID: Impossible!!! We have evidence of first life, but it has an unknown starting point. we don't know how it started!!!

So you and the author have no possible grounds for telling us that life appeared surprisingly quickly (supporting the concept of design). This would only be a surprise if you knew how long life normally takes to appear! (Three exclamation marks if you like.)

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism.

DAVID: I agree.

This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the
concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

Post reply

495 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: Now perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

DAVID: Impossible!!! We have evidence of first life, but it has an unknown starting point. we don't know how it started!!!

dhw: So you and the author have no possible grounds for telling us that life appeared surprisingly quickly (supporting the concept of design). This would only be a surprise if you knew how long life normally takes to appear! (Three exclamation marks if you like.)

You are in lala land. There are fossils of ancient life at 3.8 billion year ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5. At 4.1 all of the necessary factors were in place for life to start as the fossils show. You are corrupted with the idea fossils have birthdays. How life starts is totally unknown. Where is unknown. When is unknown.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism.

DAVID: I agree.

This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the
concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

I agreed to your final comment above now bolded as it covers your God designer conclusion. It explains all of the preceding discussion you offer.

Post reply

485 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: Now perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

DAVID: Impossible!!! We have evidence of first life, but it has an unknown starting point. we don't know how it started!!!

dhw: So you and the author have no possible grounds for telling us that life appeared surprisingly quickly (supporting the concept of design). This would only be a surprise if you knew how long life normally takes to appear! (Three exclamation marks if you like.)

DAVID: You are in lala land. There are fossils of ancient life at 3.8 billion year ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5. At 4.1 all of the necessary factors were in place for life to start as the fossils show. You are corrupted with the idea fossils have birthdays. How life starts is totally unknown. Where is unknown. When is unknown.

Thank you for this summary of what is known and what is unknown. It is the unknown factors which show precisely why you and the author are “in lala land” when you claim that the time taken for life to appear on Earth was “surprisingly short”. It could only have been surprisingly short (you say “how quickly” it appeared) if you already knew how long it normally takes for life to appear anywhere. You don’t.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

DAVID: I agreed to your final comment above now bolded as it covers your God designer conclusion. It explains all of the preceding discussion you offer.

God as designer is not a conclusion but a rational possibility. In your original response, you did not bold the final comment. However, I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!

Post reply

493 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: You are in lala land. There are fossils of ancient life at 3.8 billion year ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5. At 4.1 all of the necessary factors were in place for life to start as the fossils show. You are corrupted with the idea fossils have birthdays. How life starts is totally unknown. Where is unknown. When is unknown.

dhw: Thank you for this summary of what is known and what is unknown. It is the unknown factors which show precisely why you and the author are “in lala land” when you claim that the time taken for life to appear on Earth was “surprisingly short”. It could only have been surprisingly short (you say “how quickly” it appeared) if you already knew how long it normally takes for life to appear anywhere. You don’t.

You are complaining about an impossible piece of knowledge. We only can show when life appeared, and since we do not know how it happened, when it started to form is unknown. It appeared right after the hellish bombardment period on Earth so it had a short time of formation.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

DAVID: I agreed to your final comment above now bolded as it covers your God designer conclusion. It explains all of the preceding discussion you offer.

dhw: God as designer is not a conclusion but a rational possibility. In your original response, you did not bold the final comment. However, I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!

The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

Post reply

483 views

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed.

dhw: Perhaps you will tell us how you and the author know how long life normally takes to appear.

dhw: Thank you for this summary of what is known and what is unknown. It is the unknown factors which show precisely why you and the author are “in lala land” when you claim that the time taken for life to appear on Earth was “surprisingly short”. It could only have been surprisingly short (you say “how quickly” it appeared) if you already knew how long it normally takes for life to appear anywhere. You don’t.

DAVID: You are complaining about an impossible piece of knowledge. We only can show when life appeared, and since we do not know how it happened, when it started to form is unknown. It appeared right after the hellish bombardment period on Earth so it had a short time of formation.

It is you who claim to have an impossible piece of knowledge. We have no criteria by which to judge what constitutes a short or a long period of formation, since the only formation of life we know about is our own! If your figures (and mine) are correct, it took 40,000,000 years for life to appear. Short in comparison to what?

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: The whole article exemplifies the manner in which cells can transform themselves in response to different requirements, and cooperate with other cells within their community. Cells “instructing” other cells as and when necessary suggests to me (as it does to many experts in the field) that cells have the autonomous ability to absorb and process information and take their own decisions on how to use it. The possible origin of this form of intelligence is, of course, an open question, and I for one can quite understand the view that it would require a designer God to create such a mechanism. (David’s bold)

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

DAVID: I agreed to your final comment above now bolded as it covers your God designer conclusion. It explains all of the preceding discussion you offer.

dhw: God as designer is not a conclusion but a rational possibility. In your original response, you did not bold the final comment. However, I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!

DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

What is the “programme”? One might say that they are “programmed” to communicate, just as we are: i.e. they were given the intelligence and means with which to communicate, but what they communicate and what decisions they take are the product of that autonomous intelligence. Or do you really believe they have all been programmed with every single message they give and receive, and with every decision they take in response to every situation they will meet for the whole history of life?

Post reply

495 views

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: You are in lala land. There are fossils of ancient life at 3.8 billion year ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5. At 4.1 all of the necessary factors were in place for life to start as the fossils show. You are corrupted with the idea fossils have birthdays. How life starts is totally unknown. Where is unknown. When is unknown.

dhw: Thank you for this summary of what is known and what is unknown. It is the unknown factors which show precisely why you and the author are “in lala land” when you claim that the time taken for life to appear on Earth was “surprisingly short”. It could only have been surprisingly short (you say “how quickly” it appeared) if you already knew how long it normally takes for life to appear anywhere. You don’t.

DAVID: You are complaining about an impossible piece of knowledge. We only can show when life appeared, and since we do not know how it happened, when it started to form is unknown. It appeared right after the hellish bombardment period on Earth so it had a short time of formation.

dhw: It is you who claim to have an impossible piece of knowledge. We have no criteria by which to judge what constitutes a short or a long period of formation, since the only formation of life we know about is our own! If your figures (and mine) are correct, it took 40,000,000 years for life to appear. Short in comparison to what?

In comparison to 13.78 billion years from the Big Bang. 40 million is the point of its appearance from an unknown time of its start. Your complaint is weird. The article is accepted science.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: This should be a red letter day, as you have hitherto been so resolutely opposed to the concept of cellular intelligence. I’ll hold onto your agreement while it lasts.

DAVID: I agreed to your final comment above now bolded as it covers your God designer conclusion. It explains all of the preceding discussion you offer.

dhw: God as designer is not a conclusion but a rational possibility. In your original response, you did not bold the final comment. However, I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!

DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

dhw: What is the “programme”? One might say that they are “programmed” to communicate, just as we are: i.e. they were given the intelligence and means with which to communicate, but what they communicate and what decisions they take are the product of that autonomous intelligence. Or do you really believe they have all been programmed with every single message they give and receive, and with every decision they take in response to every situation they will meet for the whole history of life?

All cell reactions are programmed.

Post reply

485 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: We have no criteria by which to judge what constitutes a short or a long period of formation, since the only formation of life we know about is our own! If your figures (and mine) are correct, it took 40,000,000 years for life to appear. Short in comparison to what?

DAVID: In comparison to 13.78 billion years from the Big Bang. 40 million is the point of its appearance from an unknown time of its start. Your complaint is weird. The article is accepted science.

You just don’t or won’t see the point. Your 13.78 billion years are totally irrelevant, since I’m sure even you will agree that life cannot start on a planet that doesn’t exist. I am not disputing the accepted science. I am disputing your claim that 40 million years is a surprisingly short time (and therefore proof of design) for life to appear. You cannot know how long it normally takes for life to appear if the only example of life that you know of is ours.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: […] I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!
DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

dhw: What is the “programme”? One might say that they are “programmed” to communicate, just as we are: i.e. they were given the intelligence and means with which to communicate, but what they communicate and what decisions they take are the product of that autonomous intelligence. Or do you really believe they have all been programmed with every single message they give and receive, and with every decision they take in response to every situation they will meet for the whole history of life?

DAVID: All cell reactions are programmed.

Just to confirm: you believe that, for instance, when a new virus attacks the immune system, your God either steps in personally to show the immune cells what to do, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme which all subsequent cells would automatically switch on, automatically choosing the correct response to the new virus – except of course when they fail to do so (i.e. when the new virus proves to be cleverer than God’s programme).

Post reply

484 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: We have no criteria by which to judge what constitutes a short or a long period of formation, since the only formation of life we know about is our own! If your figures (and mine) are correct, it took 40,000,000 years for life to appear. Short in comparison to what?

DAVID: In comparison to 13.78 billion years from the Big Bang. 40 million is the point of its appearance from an unknown time of its start. Your complaint is weird. The article is accepted science.

dhw: You just don’t or won’t see the point. Your 13.78 billion years are totally irrelevant, since I’m sure even you will agree that life cannot start on a planet that doesn’t exist. I am not disputing the accepted science. I am disputing your claim that 40 million years is a surprisingly short time (and therefore proof of design) for life to appear. You cannot know how long it normally takes for life to appear if the only example of life that you know of is ours.

We know life appeared in a 40 million year period. Of course we don't know what time life took to do this, the point is it appeared in the 40 million year period which seems short for such a complex development.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: […] I think there is still hope that you will also come round to the possibility that cells/cell communities have autonomous intelligence that enables them to make their own designs and decisions. After all, on the “balance of nature” thread, you have frequently accepted that our fellow creatures do have it (e.g. all birds except weavers), and we and they are all made of cell communities cooperating with other cell communities!
DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

dhw: What is the “programme”? One might say that they are “programmed” to communicate, just as we are: i.e. they were given the intelligence and means with which to communicate, but what they communicate and what decisions they take are the product of that autonomous intelligence. Or do you really believe they have all been programmed with every single message they give and receive, and with every decision they take in response to every situation they will meet for the whole history of life?

DAVID: All cell reactions are programmed.

dhw: Just to confirm: you believe that, for instance, when a new virus attacks the immune system, your God either steps in personally to show the immune cells what to do, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme which all subsequent cells would automatically switch on, automatically choosing the correct response to the new virus – except of course when they fail to do so (i.e. when the new virus proves to be cleverer than God’s programme).

The 3.8 byo program is the one I think works.

Post reply

470 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

DAVID: In comparison to 13.78 billion years from the Big Bang. 40 million is the point of its appearance from an unknown time of its start. Your complaint is weird. The article is accepted science.

dhw: You just don’t or won’t see the point. Your 13.78 billion years are totally irrelevant, since I’m sure even you will agree that life cannot start on a planet that doesn’t exist. I am not disputing the accepted science. I am disputing your claim that 40 million years is a surprisingly short time (and therefore proof of design) for life to appear. You cannot know how long it normally takes for life to appear if the only example of life that you know of is ours.

DAVID: We know life appeared in a 40 million year period. Of course we don't know what time life took to do this, the point is it appeared in the 40 million year period which seems short for such a complex development.

All we can is that is the time it took, whether there’s a God or not. We have absolutely no idea how long the development of life ought to take, but 40,000,000 years “seems” pretty long to me. This sort of conjecture is totally worthless since we have nothing to compare with the development of life on Earth.

T-cells help gut immunity

DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

DAVID: All cell reactions are programmed.

dhw: Just to confirm: you believe that, for instance, when a new virus attacks the immune system, your God either steps in personally to show the immune cells what to do, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme which all subsequent cells would automatically switch on, automatically choosing the correct response to the new virus – except of course when they fail to do so (i.e. when the new virus proves to be cleverer than God’s programme).

DAVID: The 3.8 byo program is the one I think works.

You often use the expression “just-so stories”, and we sometimes refer to Occam’s razor (the simplest explanation is the most likely). If God exists, I’d have thought the simplest explanation for every decision made by every cell and cell community in every situation for every species throughout the whole of life’s history was that God had given them all the ability to take their own decisions. I would label a 3.8 byo set of instructions for every single decision by every cell/cell community for every situation for the whole of life’s history a just-so story.

Post reply

461 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: We know life appeared in a 40 million year period. Of course we don't know what time life took to do this, the point is it appeared in the 40 million year period which seems short for such a complex development.

dhw: All we can is that is the time it took, whether there’s a God or not. We have absolutely no idea how long the development of life ought to take, but 40,000,000 years “seems” pretty long to me. This sort of conjecture is totally worthless since we have nothing to compare with the development of life on Earth.

The issue you muddied is after the Earth became habitable life appeared in a 40 million year period, not knowing how long the process took.

T-cells help gut immunity

DAVID: The cell communities are programmed to do that communication.

dhw: What is the “programme”? One might say that they are “programmed” to communicate, just as we are: i.e. they were given the intelligence and means with which to communicate, but what they communicate and what decisions they take are the product of that autonomous intelligence. Or do you really believe they have all been programmed with every single message they give and receive, and with every decision they take in response to every situation they will meet for the whole history of life?

DAVID: All cell reactions are programmed.

dhw: Just to confirm: you believe that, for instance, when a new virus attacks the immune system, your God either steps in personally to show the immune cells what to do, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme which all subsequent cells would automatically switch on, automatically choosing the correct response to the new virus – except of course when they fail to do so (i.e. when the new virus proves to be cleverer than God’s programme).

DAVID: The 3.8 byo program is the one I think works.

dhw: You often use the expression “just-so stories”, and we sometimes refer to Occam’s razor (the simplest explanation is the most likely). If God exists, I’d have thought the simplest explanation for every decision made by every cell and cell community in every situation for every species throughout the whole of life’s history was that God had given them all the ability to take their own decisions. I would label a 3.8 byo set of instructions for every single decision by every cell/cell community for every situation for the whole of life’s history a just-so story.

But when you put your nose into cell reactions, they all look automatic. All proteins fold automatically. All controls are invisible.

Post reply

461 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: We know life appeared in a 40 million year period. Of course we don't know what time life took to do this, the point is it appeared in the 40 million year period BBBwhich seems short for such a complex development.

dhw: All we can say is that is the time it took, whether there’s a God or not. We have absolutely no idea how long the development of life ought to take, but 40,000,000 years “seems” pretty long to me. This sort of conjecture is totally worthless since we have nothing to compare with the development of life on Earth.

DAVID: The issue you muddied is after the Earth became habitable life appeared in a 40 million year period, not knowing how long the process took.

You are now twisting yourself in knots. You wrote: “There are fossils of life at 3.8 billion years ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5.” It’s not in a vague 40 million year period if we know the age of the fossils, but life may even have taken as “long” as 70 million years to develop if the suggestive fossils are not fossils. And you still have nothing to compare it with.

T-cells help gut immunity

DAVID: The 3.8 byo program is the one I think works.

dhw: You often use the expression “just-so stories”, and we sometimes refer to Occam’s razor (the simplest explanation is the most likely). If God exists, I’d have thought the simplest explanation for every decision made by every cell and cell community in every situation for every species throughout the whole of life’s history was that God had given them all the ability to take their own decisions. I would label a 3.8 byo set of instructions for every single decision by every cell/cell community for every situation for the whole of life’s history a just-so story.

DAVID: But when you put your nose into cell reactions, they all look automatic. All proteins fold automatically. All controls are invisible.

Of course most of them work automatically most of the time. If they didn’t, every cell community would be in a state of flux! Their intelligence is only manifested when new conditions require new responses: e.g. when the existing community is threatened by a new virus and so new decisions are required in order to preserve the status quo, or when a new environment 1) requires or 2) allows changes to the status quo, either through 1) adaptation or 2) innovation. For every such case, you have your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions. I would regard autonomous intelligence as an infinitely simpler explanation (Occam’s razor), and that would also account for the vast number of failures (extinctions), which you have to attribute to your God’s inefficiency.

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: another study of extreme life demonstrating how pliable life is, covering the Earth in every place possible.

This raises three thoughts and feelings in me. One is sheer wonderment at it all. The second is that the greater the variety of life forms and environments, the more life’s history seems to be of a vast free-for-all, regardless of whether or not there is a God who set it in motion in the first place. The third is again wonderment at our human dedication to investigating the miracles and the mysteries. It’s the reverse side of our dedication to finding new ways of killing one another, but we should still be proud of the positives!

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

QUOTE: His research revealed that this protein emerged from the fusion of two protein fragments: a chromatin factor and a transcription factor.

DAVID: the ARF appeared long before required its current use. If it had a use at its appearance, none is known. If it is a de novo phenomenon, if is evidence for pure design, not Darwinian natural selection.

Two existing protein fragments fused to create something new. The first cells fused into different communities which eventually evolved into every new organ and organism. Yes, yes, the whole of life can be called evidence for design, though why your God had to specially design every extinct and extant extremophile and plant and animal if he only wanted to design us and our food must remain a mystery of your making. As for “Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism”, that is also a muddle of your own making. Darwin was an agnostic, and the theory that all species evolved from earlier species |as opposed to being created separately) should not “shock the religious feelings of anyone” (Origin). Indeed, Darwin fell over backwards in later editions of Origin to stop the nonsense that you are now spouting: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” When will you realize that Darwinism is not atheistic?

Post reply

464 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: The issue you muddied is after the Earth became habitable life appeared in a 40 million year period, not knowing how long the process took.

dhw: You are now twisting yourself in knots. You wrote: “There are fossils of life at 3.8 billion years ago and suggestive fossils at 4.1, with the Earth formed at 4.5.” It’s not in a vague 40 million year period if we know the age of the fossils, but life may even have taken as “long” as 70 million years to develop if the suggestive fossils are not fossils. And you still have nothing to compare it with.

Solid fossil evidence is at 3.8 bya. When life started is unknown so all we have is their presence at a given time. What are you arguing about?

T-cells help gut immunity

DAVID: But when you put your nose into cell reactions, they all look automatic. All proteins fold automatically. All controls are invisible.

dhw: Of course most of them work automatically most of the time. If they didn’t, every cell community would be in a state of flux! Their intelligence is only manifested when new conditions require new responses: e.g. when the existing community is threatened by a new virus and so new decisions are required in order to preserve the status quo, or when a new environment 1) requires or 2) allows changes to the status quo, either through 1) adaptation or 2) innovation. For every such case, you have your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions. I would regard autonomous intelligence as an infinitely simpler explanation (Occam’s razor), and that would also account for the vast number of failures (extinctions), which you have to attribute to your God’s inefficiency.

According to Raup all extinctions are programmed into the process. They are required.

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: another study of extreme life demonstrating how pliable life is, covering the Earth in every place possible.

dhw: This raises three thoughts and feelings in me. One is sheer wonderment at it all. The second is that the greater the variety of life forms and environments, the more life’s history seems to be of a vast free-for-all, regardless of whether or not there is a God who set it in motion in the first place. The third is again wonderment at our human dedication to investigating the miracles and the mysteries. It’s the reverse side of our dedication to finding new ways of killing one another, but we should still be proud of the positives!

All diversity is organized into finely-tuned ecosystems

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

QUOTE: His research revealed that this protein emerged from the fusion of two protein fragments: a chromatin factor and a transcription factor.

DAVID: the ARF appeared long before required its current use. If it had a use at its appearance, none is known. If it is a de novo phenomenon, if is evidence for pure design, not Darwinian natural selection.

dhw: Two existing protein fragments fused to create something new. The first cells fused into different communities which eventually evolved into every new organ and organism. Yes, yes, the whole of life can be called evidence for design, though why your God had to specially design every extinct and extant extremophile and plant and animal if he only wanted to design us and our food must remain a mystery of your making. As for “Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism”, that is also a muddle of your own making. Darwin was an agnostic, and the theory that all species evolved from earlier species |as opposed to being created separately) should not “shock the religious feelings of anyone” (Origin). Indeed, Darwin fell over backwards in later editions of Origin to stop the nonsense that you are now spouting: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” When will you realize that Darwinism is not atheistic?

See full answer in a new entry today.

Post reply

460 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

DAVID: Solid fossil evidence is at 3.8 bya. When life started is unknown so all we have is their presence at a given time. What are you arguing about?

I am arguing about the quote above and your own statement which you have omitted: “The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.”

It is absurd to tell us that 70 million (or 40 million) years is a surprisingly short time and proof of God’s design when you have absolutely no way of knowing what would be a “normal” time for life to appear.

T-cells help gut immunity

DAVID: But when you put your nose into cell reactions, they all look automatic. All proteins fold automatically. All controls are invisible.

dhw: Of course most of them work automatically most of the time. If they didn’t, every cell community would be in a state of flux! Their intelligence is only manifested when new conditions require new responses […] For every such case, you have your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions. I would regard autonomous intelligence as an infinitely simpler explanation (Occam’s razor), and that would also account for the vast number of failures (extinctions), which you have to attribute to your God’s inefficiency.

DAVID: According to Raup all extinctions are programmed into the process. They are required.

Why bring Raup into this? He never mentions your God, and sees survival as a matter of luck. Your all-powerful and yet inefficient God designed and had to cull 99 out of 100 species for the purpose you impose on him. If he deliberately gave organisms autonomy, their extinction would be due to THEIR inefficiency, and not his.

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: another study of extreme life demonstrating how pliable life is, covering the Earth in every place possible.

dhw: […] the greater the variety of life forms and environments, the more life’s history seems to be of a vast free-for-all, regardless of whether or not there is a God who set it in motion in the first place. […]

DAVID: All diversity is organized into finely-tuned ecosystems.

And these have constantly changed throughout life’s history, which makes a mockery of your theory that they were all designed for the sake of humans.

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

dhw: […]Darwin was an agnostic, and the theory that all species evolved from earlier species |as opposed to being created separately) should not “shock the religious feelings of anyone” (Origin). [...] When will you realize that Darwinism is not atheistic?

DAVID: See full answer in a new entry today.
Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: From dhw who does not understand Darwinism depends totally on chance mutations, nothing organized for design.

I keep rejecting the theory of chance mutations, but that is only one part of Darwinism, the essence of which is that all organisms (except “the first few forms or one”) have developed from earlier organisms, and natural selection determines which organs and organisms will survive. These basic factors remain intact. There is clearly a link between the environment and new developments (not random), and we don’t accept that nature does not make jumps, but even the random mutations are not atheistic, because Darwin's theory does not cover the origin of life itself. He explicitly allows for God being “the Creator” of the whole system.

DAVID: An answer:
https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/asteroid-bennu-contains-the-seeds-of-life-osiris-...

The article makes no mention of God or of design. Hardly an answer.

DAVID: if I were a designer setting up the alphabet for my code controls of life, I would have them available from the beginning in the terrestrial substances. I am not attacking Darwin's degree of theism. I don't care what he believed theistically.

Then you should not use misleading headings like “Theistic evolution vs Darwinism”. Darwinism is not atheistic.

DAVID: He believed chance mutations drove evolution, seasoned by natural selection. And that mess made our brain! No way!

I agree. I find Shapiro’s theory of design by intelligent cells far more convincing. Same theory of evolution, but different interpretation of how it works.

Return to David's theory of evolution III

DAVID: I think major evolution has run its course:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZSsKtxVwsKCJfFFSbLkqRhzlf

QUOTE: Global study finds species are losing genetic diversity.

Again no need for me to repeat the article.

DAVID: evolution can only advance if the available DNA is rich in diversity. I don't see humans taking over the designer's job. Major evolution producing totally new families is over.

This article has nothing to do with your illogical theory about God’s purpose, method and nature, but simply deals with reasons for declining diversity. Whether we are the endpoint of evolution remains to be seen. As you agree on the “balance” thread, “nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now.”

Post reply

458 views

LUCA

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

dhw: It is absurd to tell us that 70 million (or 40 million) years is a surprisingly short time and proof of God’s design when you have absolutely no way of knowing what would be a “normal” time for life to appear.

We are discussing a time frame for first life. The article expresses surprise it is so small, representing an underlying belief the arrival of life should have taken longer.

T-cells help gut immunity

DAVID: According to Raup all extinctions are programmed into the process. They are required.

dhw: Why bring Raup into this? He never mentions your God, and sees survival as a matter of luck. Your all-powerful and yet inefficient God designed and had to cull 99 out of 100 species for the purpose you impose on him. If he deliberately gave organisms autonomy, their extinction would be due to THEIR inefficiency, and not his.

God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability.to use. That is what fails. No issue of inefficiency.

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: All diversity is organized into finely-tuned ecosystems.

dhw: And these have constantly changed throughout life’s history, which makes a mockery of your theory that they were all designed for the sake of humans.

All ecosystems evolve along with human evolving. You have no point.

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: From dhw who does not understand Darwinism depends totally on chance mutations, nothing organized for design.

dhw: I keep rejecting the theory of chance mutations, but that is only one part of Darwinism, the essence of which is that all organisms (except “the first few forms or one”) have developed from earlier organisms, and natural selection determines which organs and organisms will survive. These basic factors remain intact. There is clearly a link between the environment and new developments (not random), and we don’t accept that nature does not make jumps, but even the random mutations are not atheistic, because Darwin's theory does not cover the origin of life itself. He explicitly allows for God being “the Creator” of the whole system.

Lots of blather. We both agree chance mutations don't work. I didn't mention atheism.

DAVID: An answer:
https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/asteroid-bennu-contains-the-seeds-of-life-osiris-...

dhw: The article makes no mention of God or of design. Hardly an answer.

A proper designer would have needed seeds-of-life in place before designing life itself.!

DAVID: He believed chance mutations drove evolution, seasoned by natural selection. And that mess made our brain! No way!

dhw: I agree. I find Shapiro’s theory of design by intelligent cells far more convincing. Same theory of evolution, but different interpretation of how it works.

Cells with minds equal to God. A totally improbable interpretation.

DAVID: evolution can only advance if the available DNA is rich in diversity. I don't see humans taking over the designer's job. Major evolution producing totally new families is over.

dhw: This article has nothing to do with your illogical theory about God’s purpose, method and nature, but simply deals with reasons for declining diversity. Whether we are the endpoint of evolution remains to be seen. As you agree on the “balance” thread, “nobody can possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now.”

The article's point was only about the end of evolution, nothing more. Stop beating on my theory when it isn't present.

Post reply

467 views

First life

QUOTE: The inferred age suggests that the process required a surprisingly short interval of geologic time.

You have again omitted your own agreement:

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: It is absurd to tell us that 70 million (or 40 million) years is a surprisingly short time and proof of God’s design when you have absolutely no way of knowing what would be a “normal” time for life to appear.

DAVID: We are discussing a time frame for first life. The article expresses surprise it is so small, representing an underlying belief the arrival of life should have taken longer.

I know what you and the article’s author express, and I’m pointing out to you that you have absolutely no idea how long life normally takes to appear, and so it is totally pointless for him and you to tell us that 70,000,000 years (or 40,000,000 years) is a surprisingly short time!

T-cells help gut immunity

You digressed with a misleading reference to Raup. Our subject was your belief that cells automatically follow your God’s 3.8-billion-year old instructions for every new situation. I pointed out that every failure (extinction) must therefore be an example of your God’s inefficiency, whereas:
dhw: […]If he deliberately gave organisms autonomy, their extinction would be due to THEIR inefficiency, and not his.

DAVID: God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use. That is what fails. No issue of inefficiency.

What do you mean by a “degree of adaptability” if it’s not a degree of intelligence to organize themselves and make decisions independently of his instructions?

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: All diversity is organized into finely-tuned ecosystems.

dhw: And these have constantly changed throughout life’s history, which makes a mockery of your theory that they were all designed for the sake of humans.

DAVID: All ecosystems evolve along with human evolving. You have no point.

For 3.X thousand million years , ecosystems came and went, and there were no humans on the scene! So how can they have “evolved with human evolving”? You’re back where you started, with your God’s nonsensical method of fulfilling the only purpose you allow him to have: producing us and our food.

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: From dhw who does not understand Darwinism depends totally on chance mutations, nothing organized for design.

dhw: I keep rejecting the theory of chance mutations, but that is only one part of Darwinism […] even the random mutations are not atheistic, because Darwin's theory does not cover the origin of life itself. He explicitly allows for God being “the Creator” of the whole system.

DAVID: […] We both agree chance mutations don't work. I didn't mention atheism.

“Theistic evolution versus Darwinism” implies that Darwinism is atheistic. But if all you wanted to do was point out that chance mutations don’t work, then you are flogging a horse which died 17 years ago, because I have always agreed with you. So what is it that "dhw doesn't understand"?

DAVID: [Darwin] believed chance mutations drove evolution, seasoned by natural selection. And that mess made our brain! No way!

dhw: I agree. I find Shapiro’s theory of design by intelligent cells far more convincing. Same theory of evolution, but different interpretation of how it works.

DAVID: Cells with minds equal to God. A totally improbable interpretation.

As humans are proving day by day, designers can design mechanisms capable of extraordinary feats. Why do you think your all-powerful, all-knowing God was incapable of designing minds clever enough to do their own designing? I can also hear the atheists cry: "How come clever cells need a designer, but a designer clever enough to design such cells does not need a designer?"

DAVID: An answer:
https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/asteroid-bennu-contains-the-seeds-of-life-osiris-...

dhw: The article makes no mention of God or of design. Hardly an answer.

DAVID: A proper designer would have needed seeds-of-life in place before designing life itself.

The seeds of life must have been present before they combined to make life, whether it was designed or not. What are you answering?

Return to David's theory of evolution III

DAVID: evolution can only advance if the available DNA is rich in diversity. I don't see humans taking over the designer's job. Major evolution producing totally new families is over.

dhw: This article has nothing to do with your illogical theory about God’s purpose, method and nature, but simply deals with reasons for declining diversity. Whether we are the endpoint of evolution remains to be seen. As you agree on the “balance” thread, “nobody can
possibly know what will happen a few hundred years from now.”

DAVID: The article's point was only about the end of evolution, nothing more. Stop beating on my theory when it isn't present.

So why did you put it under the heading “Return to David’s Theory of Evolution III”?

Post reply

451 views

First life

DAVID: We are discussing a time frame for first life. The article expresses surprise it is so small, representing an underlying belief the arrival of life should have taken longer.[/b]

dhw: I know what you and the article’s author express, and I’m pointing out to you that you have absolutely no idea how long life normally takes to appear, and so it is totally pointless for him and you to tell us that 70,000,000 years (or 40,000,000 years) is a surprisingly short time!

It comes from the above belief. You want exactitude but it doesn't exist.

T-cells help gut immunity

You digressed with a misleading reference to Raup. Our subject was your belief that cells automatically follow your God’s 3.8-billion-year old instructions for every new situation. I pointed out that every failure (extinction) must therefore be an example of your God’s inefficiency, whereas:
dhw: […]If he deliberately gave organisms autonomy, their extinction would be due to THEIR inefficiency, and not his.

DAVID: God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use. That is what fails. No issue of inefficiency.

dhw: What do you mean by a “degree of adaptability” if it’s not a degree of intelligence to organize themselves and make decisions independently of his instructions?

At the cellular level the instructions are followed.

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: All ecosystems evolve along with human evolving. You have no point.

dhw: For 3.X thousand million years , ecosystems came and went, and there were no humans on the scene! So how can they have “evolved with human evolving”? You’re back where you started, with your God’s nonsensical method of fulfilling the only purpose you allow him to have: producing us and our food.

Yes, you and I are nonsensical results. Really?

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: [Darwin] believed chance mutations drove evolution, seasoned by natural selection. And that mess made our brain! No way!

dhw: I agree. I find Shapiro’s theory of design by intelligent cells far more convincing. Same theory of evolution, but different interpretation of how it works.

DAVID: Cells with minds equal to God. A totally improbable interpretation.

dhw: As humans are proving day by day, designers can design mechanisms capable of extraordinary feats. Why do you think your all-powerful, all-knowing God was incapable of designing minds clever enough to do their own designing? I can also hear the atheists cry: "How come clever cells need a designer, but a designer clever enough to design such cells does not need a designer?"

Back to a first cause discussion?

DAVID: An answer:

https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/asteroid-bennu-contains-the-seeds-of-life-osiris-...

dhw: The article makes no mention of God or of design. Hardly an answer.

DAVID: A proper designer would have needed seeds-of-life in place before designing life itself.

dhw: The seeds of life must have been present before they combined to make life, whether it was designed or not. What are you answering?

God made this universe with all elements needed for life.

Return to David's theory of evolution III

DAVID: The article's point was only about the end of evolution, nothing more. Stop beating on my theory when it isn't present.

dhw: So why did you put it under the heading “Return to David’s Theory of Evolution III”?

Under a discussion of evolution it fits.

Post reply

451 views

First life

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: We are discussing a time frame for first life. The article expresses surprise it is so small, representing an underlying belief the arrival of life should have taken longer.

dhw: I know what you and the article’s author express, and I’m pointing out to you that you have absolutely no idea how long life normally takes to appear, and so it is totally pointless for him and you to tell us that 70,000,000 years (or 40,000,000 years) is a surprisingly short time!

DAVID: It comes from the above belief. You want exactitude but it doesn't exist.

Your belief that 70,000,000 years is a surprisingly short time and is evidence for God’s design comes from your belief that 70,000,000 years is a surprisingly short time and is evidence for God’s design. I understand! My point is that you have no criteria for your belief, which you and the author worded as if it were a statement of fact.

T-cells help gut immunity

dhw: Our subject was your belief that cells automatically follow your God’s 3.8-billion-year old instructions […]If he deliberately gave organisms autonomy, their extinction would be due to THEIR inefficiency, and not his.

DAVID: God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use. That is what fails. No issue of inefficiency.

dhw: What do you mean by a “degree of adaptability” if it’s not a degree of intelligence to organize themselves and make decisions independently of his instructions?

DAVID: At the cellular level the instructions are followed.

All physical changes must be at the cellular level, or have you not realized that you are made of cells?

T-cells and immunity

QUOTE: "'We discovered that ID3+ T cell formation could be promoted by specific inflammatory cues, potentially offering new strategies to boost the number of immune cells that excel at fighting cancer in patients..."

DAVID: a necessary fighter in the immune system, allowing for a long term resistance. It demonstrates 'purpose' as do all evolutionary processes like it. It supports a designer theory.

New strategies are essential whenever conditions change, and it supports the theory that cells have the intelligence to design them, the purpose being to enhance their chances of survival. Sadly, they are not always successful – e.g. millions of people are still dying from cancer - which means your God’s 3.8-billion-years-old instructions have failed. Another example of the inefficiency of your God.

NEW EXTREMOPHILES

DAVID: All ecosystems evolve along with human evolving. You have no point.

dhw: For 3.X thousand million years, ecosystems came and went, and there were no humans on the scene! So how can they have “evolved with human evolving”? You’re back where you started, with your God’s nonsensical method of fulfilling the only purpose you allow him to have: producing us and our food.[/i]

DAVID: Yes, you and I are nonsensical results. Really?

The nonsense is bolded above, and your explanation is your God’s inefficiency.

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: [Darwin] believed chance mutations drove evolution, seasoned by natural selection. And that mess made our brain! No way!

dhw: I agree. I find Shapiro’s theory of design by intelligent cells far more convincing. Same theory of evolution, but different interpretation of how it works.

DAVID: Cells with minds equal to God. A totally improbable interpretation.

dhw: As humans are proving day by day, designers can design mechanisms capable of extraordinary feats. Why do you think your all-powerful, all-knowing God was incapable of designing minds clever enough to do their own designing? I can also hear the atheists cry: "How come clever cells need a designer, but a designer clever enough to design such cells does not need a designer?"

DAVID: Back to a first cause discussion?

Precisely. And each possible first cause (God versus a mindless mass of ever changing matter and energy) raises unanswerable questions. Now please tell us why you think your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells clever enough to do their own designing.

DAVID: An answer:
https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/asteroid-bennu-contains-the-seeds-of-life-osiris-...

DAVID: A proper designer would have needed seeds-of-life in place before designing life itself.

dhw: The seeds of life must have been present before they combined to make life, whether it was designed or not. What are you answering?

DAVID: God made this universe with all elements needed for life.

That is not an answer but is simply a reiteration of your belief. See above for the alternative first causes.

Return to David's theory of evolution III

DAVID: The article's point was only about the end of evolution, nothing more. Stop beating on my theory when it isn't present.

dhw: So why did you put it under the heading “Return to David’s Theory of Evolution III”?

DAVID: Under a discussion of evolution it fits.

OK. You prophesy that there will be no more evolution. Let's meet up in ten thousand years' time to see if you're right. ;-)

Post reply

447 views

First life

DAVID: It comes from the above belief. You want exactitude but it doesn't exist.

dhw: Your belief that 70,000,000 years is a surprisingly short time and is evidence for God’s design comes from your belief that 70,000,000 years is a surprisingly short time and is evidence for God’s design. I understand! My point is that you have no criteria for your belief, which you and the author worded as if it were a statement of fact.

The criteria is belief in God.

T-cells and immunity

QUOTE: "'We discovered that ID3+ T cell formation could be promoted by specific inflammatory cues, potentially offering new strategies to boost the number of immune cells that excel at fighting cancer in patients..."

DAVID: a necessary fighter in the immune system, allowing for a long term resistance. It demonstrates 'purpose' as do all evolutionary processes like it. It supports a designer theory.

dhw: New strategies are essential whenever conditions change, and it supports the theory that cells have the intelligence to design them, the purpose being to enhance their chances of survival. Sadly, they are not always successful – e.g. millions of people are still dying from cancer - which means your God’s 3.8-billion-years-old instructions have failed. Another example of the inefficiency of your God.

from our cancer society: in a nation of over 300 million about 600,000 will die this year of cancer. Where are dhw's millions? Let's see support .

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: Back to a first cause discussion?

dhw: Precisely. And each possible first cause (God versus a mindless mass of ever changing matter and energy) raises unanswerable questions. Now please tell us why you think your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells clever enough to do their own designing.

Compare your brain to that of a living cell. Which one can see design and perform it.

Return to David's theory of evolution III

DAVID: The article's point was only about the end of evolution, nothing more. Stop beating on my theory when it isn't present.

dhw: So why did you put it under the heading “Return to David’s Theory of Evolution III”?

DAVID: Under a discussion of evolution it fits.

dhw: OK. You prophesy that there will be no more evolution. Let's meet up in ten thousand years' time to see if you're right.

If only we could :-|

Post reply

447 views

First life

dhw: Your belief that 70,000,000 years is a surprisingly short time and is evidence for God’s design comes from your belief that 70,000,000 years is a surprisingly short time and is evidence for God’s design. I understand! My point is that you have no criteria for your belief, which you and the author worded as if it were a statement of fact.

DAVID: The criteria is belief in God.

Of course it’s not. I might just as well ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so LONG to develop life. Just as I can ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so long and designed so many irrelevant species and ecosystems if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: a necessary fighter in the immune system, allowing for a long term resistance. It demonstrates 'purpose' as do all evolutionary processes like it. It supports a designer theory.

dhw: New strategies are essential whenever conditions change, and it supports the theory that cells have the intelligence to design them, the purpose being to enhance their chances of survival. Sadly, they are not always successful – e.g. millions of people are still dying from cancer - which means your God’s 3.8-billion-years-old instructions have failed. Another example of the inefficiency of your God.

DAVID: from our cancer society: in a nation of over 300 million about 600,000 will die this year of cancer. Where are dhw's millions? Let's see support.

You always seem to forget that your nation is not the only nation in the world. The 600,000 cases of God’s failed instructions are enough in themselves to prove the appalling inefficiency of your God’s so-called "instructions". As for the world, try this for size:

The American Cancer Society released its Global Cancer Statistics, 2024, report which estimates that approximately 20 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed in 2022 and approximately 9.7 million individuals died from cancer during that time. Moreover, the number of global cancer cases is predicted to reach 35 million by 2050.

How many more do you need to prove how inefficient your version of God is? Why don’t you consider the possibility that if he exists, he gave cells/cell communities the intelligence to make their own decisions, and to succeed or fail in one great free-for-all?

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: Back to a first cause discussion?

dhw: Precisely. And each possible first cause (God versus a mindless mass of ever changing matter and energy) raises unanswerable questions. Now please tell us why you think your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells clever enough to do their own designing.

DAVID: Compare your brain to that of a living cell. Which one can see design and perform it.

I don’t understand your second sentence. My brain is a community of cell communities, which perform different functions but cooperate with one another. According to you, your God did in fact give our brains autonomous intelligence, which means he gave autonomy to the cell communities that form our brain. So why do you think he was incapable of doing the same for all other cells? Meanwhile, I trust you have now realized that Darwinism is not atheistic.

Return to David's theory of evolution III

DAVID: The article's point was only about the end of evolution, nothing more. Stop beating on my theory when it isn't present.

dhw: So why did you put it under the heading “Return to David’s Theory of Evolution III”?

DAVID: Under a discussion of evolution it fits.

dhw: OK. You prophesy that there will be no more evolution. Let's meet up in ten thousand years' time to see if you're right. ;-)

DAVID: If only we could. :-|

Yeah. You can prophesy whatever you like. This discussion is pointless.

Extremophiles

DAVID: another study that demonstrates the tenacity of life. It is ecosystems all the way down. In a universe fine-tuned for life, the outcome is not surprising.

Yes, we’ve seen several articles on this subject. I don’t know about the universe being fine-tuned for life, since ours is the only planet we know that actually hosts it, but my response is different from yours, as I find all the diversity simply astonishing. In the context of your theory of evolution, I would say this astonishing diversity supports the concept of a massive free-for-all (perhaps initiated by a designer God), as cells and cell communities seek to survive in all sorts of environments. I have no idea why your God would want to create so many different ecosystems all the way down and all the billions of years back, solely in order to design and provide for us humans. But of course, you have no idea either.

Post reply

442 views

First life

DAVID: The criteria is belief in God.

dhw: Of course it’s not. I might just as well ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so LONG to develop life. Just as I can ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so long and designed so many irrelevant species and ecosystems if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

Your usual total distortion of the history of evolution. All that evolved is here today for our use.

T-cells and immunity

QUOTE: "'We discovered that ID3+ T cell formation could be promoted by specific inflammatory cues, potentially offering new strategies to boost the number of immune cells that excel at fighting cancer in patients..."

DAVID: a necessary fighter in the immune system, allowing for a long term resistance. It demonstrates 'purpose' as do all evolutionary processes like it. It supports a designer theory.

DAVID: from our cancer society: in a nation of over 300 million about 600,000 will die this year of cancer. Where are dhw's millions? Let's see support.

dhw: You always seem to forget that your nation is not the only nation in the world. The 600,000 cases of God’s failed instructions are enough in themselves to prove the appalling inefficiency of your God’s so-called "instructions". As for the world, try this for size:

The American Cancer Society released its Global Cancer Statistics, 2024, report which estimates that approximately 20 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed in 2022 and approximately 9.7 million individuals died from cancer during that time. Moreover, the number of global cancer cases is predicted to reach 35 million by 2050.

I prefer a reasonable view: In 2050 when the Earth's population will be 10 billion+ of course the total will increase. Current death rate: 0.00000032% of Total Earth population.

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: Back to a first cause discussion?

dhw: Precisely. And each possible first cause (God versus a mindless mass of ever changing matter and energy) raises unanswerable questions. Now please tell us why you think your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells clever enough to do their own designing.

DAVID: Compare your brain to that of a living cell. Which one can see design and perform it.

dhw: I don’t understand your second sentence: It means Brain vs. single cell

dhw: I trust you have now realized that Darwinism is not atheistic.

Agnostic, I know.

Extremophiles

DAVID: another study that demonstrates the tenacity of life. It is ecosystems all the way down. In a universe fine-tuned for life, the outcome is not surprising.

dhw: Yes, we’ve seen several articles on this subject. I don’t know about the universe being fine-tuned for life, since ours is the only planet we know that actually hosts it, but my response is different from yours, as I find all the diversity simply astonishing. In the context of your theory of evolution, I would say this astonishing diversity supports the concept of a massive free-for-all (perhaps initiated by a designer God), as cells and cell communities seek to survive in all sorts of environments. I have no idea why your God would want to create so many different ecosystems all the way down and all the billions of years back, solely in order to design and provide for us humans. But of course, you have no idea either.

No, I don't. Have you forgotten all the fine-tuning philosophy?

Post reply

432 views

First life

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

I pointed out to you that since ours is the only life we know, you have no criteria for assuming that 70,000,000 (or even 40,000,000) years are a short time for life to appear.

DAVID: The criteria is belief in God.

dhw: Of course it’s not. I might just as well ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so LONG to develop life.

You have completely ignored this obvious point.

dhw: Just as I can ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so long and designed so many irrelevant species and ecosystems if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

DAVID: Your usual total distortion of the history of evolution. All that evolved is here today for our use.

Your usual astonishing disortion of the history of evolutiion: has nobody ever told you that approximately 99% of what evolved is NOT here today? Only approximately 1% of what evolved is here today. And even the fact that we are able to use whatever is here today does not mean that whatever is here today was specially designed for us to use!

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: a necessary fighter in the immune system, allowing for a long term resistance. It demonstrates 'purpose' as do all evolutionary processes like it. It supports a designer theory.

You keep telling us that the cells follow your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old instructions. I pointed out that in that case, the millions of deaths from cancer must be God’s failures – yet another example of the inefficiency of the God you believe in.

DAVID: from our cancer society: in a nation of over 300 million about 600,000 will die this year of cancer. Where are dhw's millions? Let's see support.

dhw: You always seem to forget that your nation is not the only nation in the world. The 600,000 cases of God’s failed instructions are enough in themselves to prove the appalling inefficiency of your God’s so-called "instructions". As for the world, try this for size:

"The American Cancer Society released its Global Cancer Statistics, 2024, report which estimates that approximately 20 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed in 2022 and approximately 9.7 million individuals died from cancer during that time. Moreover, the number of global cancer cases is predicted to reach 35 million by 2050."

DAVID: I prefer a reasonable view: In 2050 when the Earth's population will be 10 billion+ of course the total will increase. Current death rate: 0.00000032% of Total Earth population.

You asked me where were my millions, and I have told you. Cancer is only one of the diseases that kill us, and so there are many more million examples of your God’s instructions proving inadequate. Please give us your own explanation for the failure of your God’s instructions, if it is not inefficiency.

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: Back to a first cause discussion?

DAVID: Compare your brain to that of a living cell. Which one can see design and perform it.

dhw: I don’t understand your second sentence:

DAVID: It means Brain vs. single cell

I have pointed out that the brain is a community of cell communities, all of which cooperate with one another. If your God gave our brain cells autonomy, why do you think he was incapable of giving autonomy to all cells?

dhw: I trust you have now realized that Darwinism is not atheistic.

DAVID: Agnostic, I know.

That’s progress.

Extremophiles

DAVID: another study that demonstrates the tenacity of life. It is ecosystems all the way down. In a universe fine-tuned for life, the outcome is not surprising.

dhw: I don’t know about the universe being fine-tuned for life, since ours is the only planet we know that actually hosts it. […] I have no idea why your God would want to create so many different ecosystems all the way down and all the billions of years back, solely in order to design and provide for us humans. But of course, you have no idea either.

DAVID: No, I don't. Have you forgotten all the fine-tuning philosophy?

Considering that approximately 95% of the universe is unknown to us, and the only life we actually know of us is ours, I think it’s a bit premature to say that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

Post reply

433 views

First life

dhw: I might just as well ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so LONG to develop life.

You have completely ignored this obvious point.

You've asked me about my surprise as to when lie appeared. Do you know how long is necessary?

dhw: Just as I can ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so long and designed so many irrelevant species and ecosystems if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

DAVID: Your usual total distortion of the history of evolution. All that evolved is here today for our use.

dhw: Your usual astonishing disortion of the history of evolutiion: has nobody ever told you that approximately 99% of what evolved is NOT here today? Only approximately 1% of what evolved is here today. And even the fact that we are able to use whatever is here today does not mean that whatever is here today was specially designed for us to use!

Yes, I'm fully aware just 0.1% survived, but look at the glorious result: the magnificent variety of living resources for human to use.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: from our cancer society: in a nation of over 300 million about 600,000 will die this year of cancer. Where are dhw's millions? Let's see support.

dhw: You always seem to forget that your nation is not the only nation in the world. The 600,000 cases of God’s failed instructions are enough in themselves to prove the appalling inefficiency of your God’s so-called "instructions". As for the world, try this for size:

"The American Cancer Society released its Global Cancer Statistics, 2024, report which estimates that approximately 20 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed in 2022 and approximately 9.7 million individuals died from cancer during that time. Moreover, the number of global cancer cases is predicted to reach 35 million by 2050."

DAVID: I prefer a reasonable view: In 2050 when the Earth's population will be 10 billion+ of course the total will increase. Current death rate: 0.00000032% of Total Earth population.

dhw: You asked me where were my millions, and I have told you. Cancer is only one of the diseases that kill us, and so there are many more million examples of your God’s instructions proving inadequate. Please give us your own explanation for the failure of your God’s instructions, if it is not inefficiency.

Fully explained previously: side effects of God's good works. He gave us life. Should He take it back?

Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism: design evidence

DAVID: Compare your brain to that of a living cell. Which one can see design and perform it.

dhw: I don’t understand your second sentence:

DAVID: It means Brain vs. single cell

dhw: I have pointed out that the brain is a community of cell communities, all of which cooperate with one another. If your God gave our brain cells autonomy, why do you think he was incapable of giving autonomy to all cells?

It was not required While you constantly plead for nonexistent intelligent deigning cells.

Extremophiles

DAVID: another study that demonstrates the tenacity of life. It is ecosystems all the way down. In a universe fine-tuned for life, the outcome is not surprising.

dhw: I don’t know about the universe being fine-tuned for life, since ours is the only planet we know that actually hosts it. […] I have no idea why your God would want to create so many different ecosystems all the way down and all the billions of years back, solely in order to design and provide for us humans. But of course, you have no idea either.

DAVID: No, I don't. Have you forgotten all the fine-tuning philosophy?

dhw: Considering that approximately 95% of the universe is unknown to us, and the only life we actually know of us is ours, I think it’s a bit premature to say that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life.

At least this portion certainly is.

dhw: And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

All evolutionary preparation for our arrival.

Post reply

429 views

First life

DAVID: You've asked me about my surprise as to when life appeared. Do you know how long is necessary?

Of course not. Nobody knows whether our 70,000,000 (or even 40,000,000) years were long or short, because we have no other life to compare it with! And so you have no grounds for saying this was a surprisingly quick development, thus supporting the design theory.

dhw: Just as I can ask why your all-knowing, all-powerful God took so long and designed so many irrelevant species and ecosystems if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

DAVID: Your usual total distortion of the history of evolution. All that evolved is here today for our use.

dhw: Your usual distortion of the history of evolution: has nobody ever told you that approximately 99% of what evolved is NOT here today? Only approximately 1% of what evolved is here today.

DAVID: Yes, I'm fully aware just 0.1% survived, but look at the glorious result: the magnificent variety of living resources for human to use.

Your statement had nothing to with the wonders of the present world. Your claim that “All that evolved is here today for our use” is sheer nonsense, because approx. 99% of what evolved is not here today, and could not have been for our use. Only 1% is here today, and even that does not mean it was all designed for our use!

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: from our cancer society: in a nation of over 300 million about 600,000 will die this year of cancer. Where are dhw's millions? Let's see support.

I gave you the figure of approx. 9.7 million worldwide in 2022, as announced by your American Cancer Society.

DAVID: Fully explained previously: side effects of God's good works. He gave us life. Should He take it back?

Stop dodging! You challenged my point that millions of people died from cancer, which means your God’s 3.8-billion-years-old instructions failed in millions of cases. Another example of his inefficiency. Why do you keep ridiculing him? Maybe you’re wrong, and he did NOT issue instructions 3.8 billion years ago! Let’s consider your new entry on the same subject:

QUOTES: "Indeed, this study […]supports the involvement of multiple APC types in the cascade of events leading to long-term tolerance of food antigens. […] The authors proposed that these RORγt-expressing cells played an important part in tolerance induction immediately following food antigen exposure, while cDCs took on a larger role at slightly later time points.

“So, it's a compartmentalization of dietary versus pathogen-derived antigens by different antigen-presenting cells.'”

DAVID: […] This could not develop by chance since it manages the diet of hominins from early Erectus to sapiens over millions of years, constantly changing antigens to handle.

I don’t know why you’ve singled out hominins, since these experiments were carried out on mice. I agree as regards chance. The article shows how the process has developed through cells communicating, adapting, changing roles and cooperating in response to different demands at different times. And so maybe instead of your God issuing inefficient instructions 3.8 billion years ago, he gave cells the autonomous ability to make their own designs and decisions, and success or failure depended on them and not on him. Worth considering? Or do you still insist on your God's inefficiency?

The brain

dhw: I have pointed out that the brain is a community of cell communities, all of which cooperate with one another. If your God gave our brain cells autonomy, why do you think he was incapable of giving autonomy to all cells?

DAVID: It was not required While you constantly plead for nonexistent intelligent deigning cells.

What was not required? Some sort of intelligence was/is required for survival, adaptation and innovation. You plead for a 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions which sometimes fail, but you agree that our brain cells do their own intelligent designing. Why do you think it is impossible for God to have given the same ability to all kinds of cells?

Extremophiles

DAVID: […] It is ecosystems all the way down. In a universe fine-tuned for life, the outcome is not surprising.

dhw: I don’t know about the universe being fine-tuned for life, since ours is the only planet we know that actually hosts it. […]

DAVID: […] Have you forgotten all the fine-tuning philosophy?

dhw: Considering that approximately 95% of the universe is unknown to us, and the only life we actually know of us is ours, I think it’s a bit premature to say that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: At least this portion certainly is.

Nobody will deny that this portion has conditions suitable for life! That does not mean that the unknown rest of the universe is also “fine-tuned” for life.

dhw: And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

DAVID: All evolutionary preparation for our arrival.

There we go again! 99% of species and ecosystems had no connection with us and our food. You have confirmed above that only 1% have evolved into the current world, but you still disagree with yourself.

Post reply

430 views

First life

DAVID: Yes, I'm fully aware just 0.1% survived, but look at the glorious result: the magnificent variety of living resources for human to use.

dhw: Your statement had nothing to with the wonders of the present world. Your claim that “All that evolved is here today for our use” is sheer nonsense, because approx. 99% of what evolved is not here today, and could not have been for our use. Only 1% is here today, and even that does not mean it was all designed for our use!

When one realized God did it as His goal, it all makes sense.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: Fully explained previously: side effects of God's good works. He gave us life. Should He take it back?

Stop dodging! You challenged my point that millions of people died from cancer, which means your God’s 3.8-billion-years-old instructions failed in millions of cases. Another example of his inefficiency. Why do you keep ridiculing him? Maybe you’re wrong, and he did NOT issue instructions 3.8 billion years ago! Let’s consider your new entry on the same subject:

QUOTES: "Indeed, this study […]supports the involvement of multiple APC types in the cascade of events leading to long-term tolerance of food antigens. […] The authors proposed that these RORγt-expressing cells played an important part in tolerance induction immediately following food antigen exposure, while cDCs took on a larger role at slightly later time points.

“So, it's a compartmentalization of dietary versus pathogen-derived antigens by different antigen-presenting cells.'”

DAVID: […] This could not develop by chance since it manages the diet of hominins from early Erectus to sapiens over millions of years, constantly changing antigens to handle.

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve singled out hominins, since these experiments were carried out on mice. I agree as regards chance. The article shows how the process has developed through cells communicating, adapting, changing roles and cooperating in response to different demands at different times. And so maybe instead of your God issuing inefficient instructions 3.8 billion years ago, he gave cells the autonomous ability to make their own designs and decisions, and success or failure depended on them and not on him. Worth considering? Or do you still insist on your God's inefficiency?

My use of the word inefficiency applied only to His use of evolution. Don't expand its meanings to specific DN A instructions.

The brain

dhw: I have pointed out that the brain is a community of cell communities, all of which cooperate with one another. If your God gave our brain cells autonomy, why do you think he was incapable of giving autonomy to all cells?

DAVID: It was not required While you constantly plead for nonexistent intelligent deigning cells.

dhw: What was not required? Some sort of intelligence was/is required for survival, adaptation and innovation. You plead for a 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions which sometimes fail, but you agree that our brain cells do their own intelligent designing. Why do you think it is impossible for God to have given the same ability to all kinds of cells?

Neurons self-design following instructions.

Extremophiles

dhw: Nobody will deny that this portion has conditions suitable for life! That does not mean that the unknown rest of the universe is also “fine-tuned” for life.

It is assumed so.

dhw: And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

DAVID: All evolutionary preparation for our arrival.

dhw: There we go again! 99% of species and ecosystems had no connection with us and our food. You have confirmed above that only 1% have evolved into the current world, but you still disagree with yourself.

I don't slice up a continuous evolution as you do.

Post reply

436 views

First life

You have abandoned the subject of 70,000,000 years being a surprisjngly short time for the development of life and therefore evidence of design. I presume you have now realized that as there are no criteria, your surprise and evidence were without any foundation.

Evolution

DAVID: Yes, I'm fully aware just 0.1% survived, but look at the glorious result: the magnificent variety of living resources for human to use.

dhw: Your statement had nothing to do with the wonders of the present world. Your claim that “All that evolved is here today for our use” is sheer nonsense, because approx. 99% of what evolved is not here today, and could not have been for our use. Only 1% is here today, and even that does not mean it was all designed for our use!

DAVID: When one realized God did it as His goal, it all makes sense.

How can it make sense if your God’s one and only goal was to design the 1% but he also designed and then disposed of 99% which had nothing to do with his goal? That is why you ridicule him as being a messy, inefficient designer!

T-cells and immunity

dhw: You challenged my point that millions of people died from cancer, which means your God’s 3.8-billion-years-old instructions failed in millions of cases. Another example of his inefficiency. Why do you keep ridiculing him? Maybe you’re wrong, and he did NOT issue instructions 3.8 billion years ago! Let’s consider your new entry on the same subject:

(No need to repeat the quotes.)

DAVID: […] This could not develop by chance since it manages the diet of hominins from
early Erectus to sapiens over millions of years, constantly changing antigens to handle.

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve singled out hominins, since these experiments were carried out on mice. I agree as regards chance. The article shows how the process has developed through cells communicating, adapting, changing roles and cooperating in response to different demands at different times. And so maybe instead of your God issuing inefficient instructions 3.8 billion years ago, he gave cells the autonomous ability to make their own designs and decisions, and success or failure depended on them and not on him. Worth considering? Or do you still insist on your God's inefficiency?

DAVID: My use of the word inefficiency applied only to His use of evolution. Don't expand its meanings to specific DNA instructions.

I have said that this is another example of his inefficiency: if millions of people die in spite of his 3.8-billion-year-old instructions, then clearly his instructions don’t always work. That = inefficiency.

The brain

DAVID: It was not required While you constantly plead for nonexistent intelligent deigning cells.

dhw: What was not required? Some sort of intelligence was/is required for survival, adaptation and innovation. You plead for a 3.8-billion-year-old set of instructions which sometimes fail, but you agree that our brain cells do their own intelligent designing. Why do you think it is impossible for God to have given the same ability to all kinds of cells?

DAVID: Neurons self-design following instructions.

More word games. Are you now saying that every design made by your brain cells was predetermined 3.8 billion years ago? If not, what did these “instructions” consist of?

Extremophiles

dhw: Nobody will deny that this portion has conditions suitable for life! That does not mean that the unknown rest of the universe is also “fine-tuned” for life.

DAVID: It is assumed so.

An assumption based on 5% and ignoring 95% leaves a lot to be desired.

dhw: And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

DAVID: All evolutionary preparation for our arrival.

dhw: There we go again! 99% of species and ecosystems had no connection with us and our food. You have confirmed above that only 1% have evolved into the current world, but you still disagree with yourself.

DAVID: I don't slice up a continuous evolution as you do.

The continuity consists of the 1%. There is no continuity for the 99%. They went extinct. Remember?

Post reply

428 views

First life

dhw: You have abandoned the subject of 70,000,000 years being a surprisjngly short time for the development of life and therefore evidence of design. I presume you have now realized that as there are no criteria, your surprise and evidence were without any foundation.

The answer is really life is so complex and surprising, its sudden appearance is shocking. It becomes an issue of when did God start to do it.

Evolution

DAVID: When one realized God did it as His goal, it all makes sense.

dhw: How can it make sense if your God’s one and only goal was to design the 1% but he also designed and then disposed of 99% which had nothing to do with his goal? That is why you ridicule him as being a messy, inefficient designer!

Wrong. I'm disturbed about God's use of evolution, not His designer ability.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: My use of the word inefficiency applied only to His use of evolution. Don't expand its meanings to specific DNA instructions.

dhw: I have said that this is another example of his inefficiency: if millions of people die in spite of his 3.8-billion-year-old instructions, then clearly his instructions don’t always work. That = inefficiency.

The design of life is not insufficient design. Your usual complaint has missed the reply of proportionality of side effects of His good works.

The brain

DAVID: Neurons self-design following instructions.

dhw: More word games. Are you now saying that every design made by your brain cells was predetermined 3.8 billion years ago? If not, what did these “instructions” consist of?

We know where thoughts are handled but not how neurons follow instructions to accommodate thinking.

Extremophiles

dhw: Nobody will deny that this portion has conditions suitable for life! That does not mean that the unknown rest of the universe is also “fine-tuned” for life.

DAVID: It is assumed so.

dhw: An assumption based on 5% and ignoring 95% leaves a lot to be desired.

The whole 100% universe is shown in the CMB with no different areas. Fine-tuning is accepted as universal. Your thinking is oddball.

dhw: And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

We are in charge, taking everything for our use. The present tells the story of God's intent.

DAVID: All evolutionary preparation for our arrival.

dhw: There we go again! 99% of species and ecosystems had no connection with us and our food. You have confirmed above that only 1% have evolved into the current world, but you still disagree with yourself.

DAVID: I don't slice up a continuous evolution as you do.

dhw: The continuity consists of the 1%. There is no continuity for the 99%. They went extinct. Remember?

Yes, evolution 'extincted' them away to reach the surviving 0.1%. That's evidence of continuity.

Post reply

437 views

First life

DAVID: The answer is really life is so complex and surprising, its sudden appearance is shocking. It becomes an issue of when did God start to do it.

Yes, life and evolution are both complex and surprising, especially as we know of no other life anywhere in the universe. But when the process started is NOT the issue we are discussing. The first organisms may have emerged 3.8 billion years ago or even earlier. The first “issue” is HOW it started, and the God theory is one explanation – it is not a fact. The issue you raised, however, was that 70,000,000 years (or 40,000,000 years) was a surprisingly short time for life to have developed, which you regard as evidence for the existence of your God. As we know of no other life, we have absolutely no criteria by which to judge the “normal” length of time it takes for life to appear. Your argument was totally without foundation.

Evolution

DAVID: When one realized God did it as His goal, it all makes sense.

dhw: How can it make sense if your God’s one and only goal was to design the 1% but he also designed and then disposed of 99% which had nothing to do with his goal? That is why you ridicule him as being a messy, inefficient designer!

DAVID: Wrong. I'm disturbed about God's use of evolution, not His designer ability.

If his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he found himself designing and then having to cull 99 out of 100 species because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, he was clearly an inefficient designer! Stop dodging!

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: My use of the word inefficiency applied only to His use of evolution. Don't expand its meanings to specific DNA instructions.

dhw: I have said that this is another example of his inefficiency: if millions of people die in spite of his 3.8-billion-year-old instructions, then clearly his instructions don’t always work. That = inefficiency.

DAVID: The design of life is not insufficient design. Your usual complaint has missed the reply of proportionality of side effects of His good works.

You believe that your God issued instructions for every immune response to every threat. The fact that the instructions failed in millions of cases can only mean that his instructions were inadequate. If a surgeon saves 9 patients but through his inefficiency kills one, do you congratulate him on grounds of proportionality?

The brain

DAVID: Neurons self-design following instructions.

dhw: More word games. Are you now saying that every design made by your brain cells was predetermined 3.8 billion years ago? If not, what did these “instructions” consist of?

DAVID: We know where thoughts are handled but not how neurons follow instructions to accommodate thinking.

What instructions? We are not discussing the source of consciousness, but the autonomy of organisms and their thinking. You believe we humans make our own designs and decisions without “instructions” from your God. Why do you insist that he could not possibly have given the same autonomy to other forms of life, right down to the single cell?

Fine-tuning

dhw: Nobody will deny that this portion has conditions suitable for life! That does not mean that the unknown rest of the universe is also “fine-tuned” for life.

DAVID: It is assumed so.

dhw: An assumption based on 5% and ignoring 95% leaves a lot to be desired.

DAVID: The whole 100% universe is shown in the CMB with no different areas. Fine-tuning is accepted as universal. Your thinking is oddball.

I had to look up CMB: “The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe. This 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, was released soon after the Big Bang.”
How does this come to mean that the 95% of the universe which no telescope can see is fine-tuned for life, although we have yet to discover life anywhere else in the universe?

dhw: And we needn’t dwell on your absurd belief that every species and ecosystem for the first 3.X000,000,000 years of life’s history was specially designed for the sake of the humans who were not even around at the time.

DAVID: We are in charge, taking everything for our use. The present tells the story of God's intent.

If God exists, the history of life makes a mockery of your conclusion, which you can only justify by ridiculing him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: All evolutionary preparation for our arrival.

DAVID: I don't slice up a continuous evolution as you do.

dhw: The continuity consists of the 1%. There is no continuity for the 99%. They went extinct. Remember?

DAVID: Yes, evolution 'extincted' them away to reach the surviving 0.1%. That's evidence of continuity.

Thank you for recognizing that the surviving 1% are the “continuity”. Every extinction by definition denotes discontinuity. You’ve got it (almost)! :-)

Post reply

424 views

;-) > First life

DAVID: The answer is really life is so complex and surprising, its sudden appearance is shocking. It becomes an issue of when did God start to do it.

dhw: Yes, life and evolution are both complex and surprising, especially as we know of no other life anywhere in the universe. But when the process started is NOT the issue we are discussing. The first organisms may have emerged 3.8 billion years ago or even earlier. The first “issue” is HOW it started, and the God theory is one explanation – it is not a fact. The issue you raised, however, was that 70,000,000 years (or 40,000,000 years) was a surprisingly short time for life to have developed, which you regard as evidence for the existence of your God. As we know of no other life, we have absolutely no criteria by which to judge the “normal” length of time it takes for life to appear. Your argument was totally without foundation.

It is without foundation for you, without God. The author and I had a surprising viewpoint considering how complex life is, how could it appear so quickly right after the severe Hadean period of formation. If so complex, how come so quick is a reasonable thought.

Evolution

dhw: If his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he found himself designing and then having to cull 99 out of 100 species because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, he was clearly an inefficient designer! Stop dodging!

You just duplicated my thought. Great designer of organisms, in a slow inefficient system.

T-cells and immunity

dhw: You believe that your God issued instructions for every immune response to every threat. The fact that the instructions failed in millions of cases can only mean that his instructions were inadequate. If a surgeon saves 9 patients but through his inefficiency kills one, do you congratulate him on grounds of proportionality?

You don't understand the cells at work. One mechanism makes the antibodies from one reactive system placing a foreign antigen into a destructive molecule. It uses the enemy to fight it.
Not endless specific instructions for each threat, just one.

The brain

DAVID: We know where thoughts are handled but not how neurons follow instructions to accommodate thinking.

dhw: What instructions? We are not discussing the source of consciousness, but the autonomy of organisms and their thinking. You believe we humans make our own designs and decisions without “instructions” from your God. Why do you insist that he could not possibly have given the same autonomy to other forms of life, right down to the single cell?

Your brainy cells are based on an unproven theory from the fact only bacteria code self DNA.

Fine-tuning

dhw: I had to look up CMB: “The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe. This 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, was released soon after the Big Bang.”
How does this come to mean that the 95% of the universe which no telescope can see is fine-tuned for life, although we have yet to discover life anywhere else in the universe?

As the CMB is the early blueprint for all the universe there are no odd ball areas. It is the same everywhere. In all fine-tuning discussions years ago, no one raised your point. You might want to join the multiverse folks.

DAVID: I don't slice up a continuous evolution as you do.

dhw: The continuity consists of the 1%. There is no continuity for the 99%. They went extinct. Remember?

DAVID: Yes, evolution 'extincted' them away to reach the surviving 0.1%. That's evidence of continuity.

dhw: Thank you for recognizing that the surviving 1% are the “continuity”. Every extinction by definition denotes discontinuity. You’ve got it (almost)!

The appearance of one generation after another or one species after another is not discontinuity when recognizing how evolution works. ;-)

Post reply

418 views

dhw: The issue you raised, however, was that 70,000,000 years (or 40,000,000 years) was a surprisingly short time for life to have developed, which you regard as evidence for the existence of your God. As we know of no other life, we have absolutely no criteria by which to judge the “normal” length of time it takes for life to appear. Your argument was totally without foundation.

DAVID: It is without foundation for you, without God. The author and I had a surprising viewpoint considering how complex life is, how could it appear so quickly right after the severe Hadean period of formation. If so complex, how come so quick is a reasonable thought.

In addition to my objection above: If there is an omniscient and omnipotent God who created the universe 13.7 billion years ago, and planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and his only aim was to produce us and our food, I could ask why it took him so long (9.2000,000,000 years and countless stars and solar systems) to produce a planet suitable for life. (Same problem as below.) If there is no God, we’re still none the wiser as to how long it ought to take for life to develop. An atheist would presumably say that the chance combination could have occurred at any time.

Evolution

dhw: If his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he found himself designing and then having to cull 99 out of 100 species because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, he was clearly an inefficient designer! Stop dodging!

DAVID: You just duplicated my thought. Great designer of organisms, in a slow inefficient system.

And who, according to you, designed the inefficient system?

T-cells and immunity
DAVID: Your usual complaint has missed the reply of proportionality of side effects of His good works.

dhw: You believe that your God issued instructions for every immune response to every threat. The fact that the instructions failed in millions of cases can only mean that his instructions were inadequate. If a surgeon saves 9 patients but through his inefficiency kills one, do you congratulate him on grounds of proportionality?

DAVID: You don't understand the cells at work. One mechanism makes the antibodies from one reactive system placing a foreign antigen into a destructive molecule. It uses the enemy to fight it. Not endless specific instructions for each threat, just one.

You told us “God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use.” Every new threat demands a different response, so I take this “adaptability” to mean the ability or mechanism or intelligence to adapt their responses accordingly. What else could it mean? Meanwhile, the death of millions denotes the inefficiency of your God’s “instructions”, whatever you mean by that. The bad doesn’t disappear just because his instructions have led to more good than bad.

The brain

dhw: You believe we humans make our own designs and decisions without “instructions” from your God. Why do you insist that he could not possibly have given the same autonomy to other forms of life, right down to the single cell?

DAVID: Your brainy cells are based on an unproven theory from the fact only bacteria code self DNA.

Your belief that there is a God who preprogrammed all responses 3.8 billion years ago is an unproven theory based on no facts at all.

Fine-tuning

dhw (quoting definition of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): “This 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, was released soon after the Big Bang.”
How does this come to mean that the 95% of the universe which no telescope can see is fine-tuned for life, although we have yet to discover life anywhere else in the universe?

DAVID: As the CMB is the early blueprint for all the universe there are no odd ball areas. It is the same everywhere. In all fine-tuning discussions years ago, no one raised your point. You might want to join the multiverse folks.

For all we know, ours is the oddball area, and indeed you keep telling us how unique it is! I don’t know who raised what points years ago, but please explain to me why YOU are so sure that the 95% of the universe that we do not know is fine-tuned for life.

Evolution

DAVID: I don't slice up a continuous evolution as you do.

dhw: The continuity consists of the 1%. There is no continuity for the 99%. They went extinct. Remember? […]

DAVID: […] The appearance of one generation after another or one species after another is not discontinuity when recognizing how evolution works.

Evolution works by species developing from earlier species in a continuous process which ends when a particular line of descent becomes extinct. You agree that only 1% of species have survived continuously to form the current population, and that should mark the end of this discussion.

Emmy Noether

DAVID: she has not been publicized until now. She is Einstein in female form. The Nazi's forced her to come to Bryn Mawr College in the U.S in 1933. She died in 1935. If she had survived, I can imagine imagine her working with the atomic bomb development group.

I won’t pretend to understand the work that she did, but I find her personal story rather moving. Thank you.

Post reply

419 views

DAVID: It is without foundation for you, without God. The author and I had a surprising viewpoint considering how complex life is, how could it appear so quickly right after the severe Hadean period of formation. If so complex, how come so quick is a reasonable thought.

dhw: In addition to my objection above: If there is an omniscient and omnipotent God who created the universe 13.7 billion years ago, and planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and his only aim was to produce us and our food, I could ask why it took him so long (9.2000,000,000 years and countless stars and solar systems) to produce a planet suitable for life. (Same problem as below.) If there is no God, we’re still none the wiser as to how long it ought to take for life to develop. An atheist would presumably say that the chance combination could have occurred at any time.

Your human brain is challenging God's choice of method, just a I do. Are we right/wrong?

Evolution

DAVID: You just duplicated my thought. Great designer of organisms, in a slow inefficient system.

dhw: And who, according to you, designed the inefficient system?

God. Again, why not direct creation? Didn't happen as God chose His method.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: You don't understand the cells at work. One mechanism makes the antibodies from one reactive system placing a foreign antigen into a destructive molecule. It uses the enemy to fight it. Not endless specific instructions for each threat, just one.

dhw: You told us “God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use.” Every new threat demands a different response, so I take this “adaptability” to mean the ability or mechanism or intelligence to adapt their responses accordingly. What else could it mean? Meanwhile, the death of millions denotes the inefficiency of your God’s “instructions”, whatever you mean by that. The bad doesn’t disappear just because his instructions have led to more good than bad.

Reread what I just presented. That is how it works; stop reaching for something out of context.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: As the CMB is the early blueprint for all the universe there are no odd ball areas. It is the same everywhere. In all fine-tuning discussions years ago, no one raised your point. You might want to join the multiverse folks.

dhw: For all we know, ours is the oddball area, and indeed you keep telling us how unique it is! I don’t know who raised what points years ago, but please explain to me why YOU are so sure that the 95% of the universe that we do not know is fine-tuned for life.

I explained it to you above. Take a look at what was discussed by experts years ago in their books and papers. It is a vacuum to you,

Emmy Noether

DAVID: she has not been publicized until now. She is Einstein in female form. The Nazi's forced her to come to Bryn Mawr College in the U.S in 1933. She died in 1935. If she had survived, I can imagine imagine her working with the atomic bomb development group.

dhw: I won’t pretend to understand the work that she did, but I find her personal story rather moving. Thank you.

It is a sad tale.

Post reply

413 views

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth Formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

I have pointed out that there are no criteria by which to judge whether 70,000,000 (or even 40,000,000) years make for a long or short time, since we do not know of any other form of life. Your statement has no foundation. One could also ask why it took an omnipotent, omniscient God 9.2000,000,000 years and countless solar systems to produce a planet suitable for life. Surprisingly “short” time? And why your God had to design and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to what you say was his only goal (us and our food).

DAVID: Your human brain is challenging God's choice of method, just a I do. Are we right/wrong?

I am not challenging your God’s choice of method! I am challenging your THEORY concerning his choice of purpose and method, and your conclusion that he is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. As below:

Evolution

DAVID: […] Great designer of organisms, in a slow inefficient system.

dhw: And who, according to you, designed the inefficient system?

DAVID: God. Again, why not direct creation? Didn't happen as God chose His method.

And the designer of an inefficient system is an inefficient designer. You have asked a highly pertinent question, but you simply refuse to accept that your God (if he exists) might have had other reasons for starting evolution.

T-cells and immunity

dhw: You told us “God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use.” Every new threat demands a different response, so I take this “adaptability” to mean the ability or mechanism or intelligence to adapt their responses accordingly. What else could it mean?

DAVID: Reread what I just presented. That is how it works; stop reaching for something out of context.

Yes, you have described the process (“how it works”), but you have glossed over what you mean by the “mechanism” which is what directs the process. And you refuse to explain what you mean by a “degree of adaptability”. The mechanism must be able to adapt to every new threat, and that requires the processing of new information and making decisions based on that information. Hallmarks of intelligence. Please explain what else your degree of adaptability might consist of. (See also the spliceosome article.)

dhw: Meanwhile, the death of millions denotes the inefficiency of your God’s “instructions”, whatever you mean by that. The bad doesn’t disappear just because his instructions have led to more good than bad.

Ignored.

Genome complexity: the spliceosome makes mRNA

QUOTE: "Based on this structural information, the scientists were able to understand which errors occur during splicing, how the spliceosome recognizes faulty processes and subsequently aborts the splicing, thereby sorting out the faulty complex. […] The scientists therefore assume that the mechanisms for recognizing and sorting out faulty spliceosomes have remained largely unchanged over the course of evolution."

DAVID: more evidence for design. Something this complex cannot appear by chance mutations.

I agree. The complexity is a good argument for theism. (We needn’t repeat the arguments against theism here, as that is not our subject.) I also agree that the “mechanisms” must have been present from the start of evolution. And I suggest that “recognition” and “sorting out” require some form of intelligence.

Fine-tuning

dhw: For all we know, ours is the oddball area, and indeed you keep telling us how unique it is! I don’t know who raised what points years ago, but please explain to me why YOU are so sure that the 95% of the universe that we do not know is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: explained it to you above. Take a look at what was discussed by experts years ago in their books and papers. It is a vacuum to you.

What is a vacuum to me? Please stop telling me to read books and papers from years ago, and explain to me why YOU are so sure that because the 5% of the universe which we know is “fine-tuned” for life, the 95% that we don’t know must also be fine-tuned for life. And do you think the stars and systems that have gone extinct were also fine-tuned for life?

Post reply

409 views

DAVID: The striking point is how quickly life appeared after the Earth Formed. Strongly supports the concept of a designer at work.

dhw: I have pointed out that there are no criteria by which to judge whether 70,000,000 (or even 40,000,000) years make for a long or short time, since we do not know of any other form of life. Your statement has no foundation..... Surprisingly “short” time? And why your God had to design and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to what you say was his only goal (us and our food).

As we learn time periods in the billions regarding the appearance of life, we see how long it took in reference to the Big Bang beginning, but then on Earth right after the Hadean period. Yes, we do not know life's time period for design but considering the context of timing it's appearance seems brief.

Evolution

DAVID: […] Great designer of organisms, in a slow inefficient system.

dhw: And who, according to you, designed the inefficient system?

DAVID: God. Again, why not direct creation? Didn't happen as God chose His method.

dhw: And the designer of an efficient system is an inefficient designer. You have asked a highly pertinent question, but you simply refuse to accept that your God (if he exists) might have had other reasons for starting evolution.

The only goal we know is humans. Don't invent 'facts' from your mind.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: You don't understand the cells at work. One mechanism makes the antibodies from one reactive system placing a foreign antigen into a destructive molecule. It uses the enemy to fight it. Not endless specific instructions for each threat, just one.

dhw: You told us “God gave all organisms a degree of adaptability to use.” Every new threat demands a different response, so I take this “adaptability” to mean the ability or mechanism or intelligence to adapt their responses accordingly. What else could it mean?

DAVID: Reread what I just presented. That is how it works; stop reaching for something out of context.

dhw: Yes, you have described the process (“how it works”), but you have glossed over what you mean by the “mechanism” which is what directs the process. And you refuse to explain what you mean by a “degree of adaptability”. The mechanism must be able to adapt to every new threat, and that requires the processing of new information and making decisions based on that information. Hallmarks of intelligence. Please explain what else your degree of adaptability might consist of. (See also the spliceosome article.)

Explicitly: DNA instructions make a mechanical mechanism that repeatedly identify enemy, take a protein piece and imbed it into an antibody that kills. Same event over and over. Automatically recognizing self from not-self'

dhw: Meanwhile, the death of millions denotes the inefficiency of your God’s “instructions”, whatever you mean by that. The bad doesn’t disappear just because his instructions have led to more good than bad.

Ignored.

Same old theodicy attack not worth replying.

Genome complexity: the spliceosome makes mRNA

QUOTE: "Based on this structural information, the scientists were able to understand which errors occur during splicing, how the spliceosome recognizes faulty processes and subsequently aborts the splicing, thereby sorting out the faulty complex. […] The scientists therefore assume that the mechanisms for recognizing and sorting out faulty spliceosomes have remained largely unchanged over the course of evolution."

DAVID: more evidence for design. Something this complex cannot appear by chance mutations.

dhw: I agree. The complexity is a good argument for theism. (We needn’t repeat the arguments against theism here, as that is not our subject.) I also agree that the “mechanisms” must have been present from the start of evolution. And I suggest that “recognition” and “sorting out” require some form of intelligence.

The intelligence of the designer's instructions for action.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: As the CMB is the early blueprint for all the universe there are no odd ball areas. It is the same everywhere. In all fine-tuning discussions years ago, no one raised your point. You might want to join the multiverse folks.

dhw: For all we know, ours is the oddball area, and indeed you keep telling us how unique it is! I don’t know who raised what points years ago, but please explain to me why YOU are so sure that the 95% of the universe that we do not know is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: explained it to you above. Take a look at what was discussed by experts years ago in their books and papers. It is a vacuum to you.

dhw: What is a vacuum to me? Please stop telling me to read books and papers from years ago, and explain to me why YOU are so sure that because the 5% of the universe which we know is “fine-tuned” for life, the 95% that we don’t know must also be fine-tuned for life. And do you think the stars and systems that have gone extinct were also fine-tuned for life?

Fine tuning is recognizing all the physical factors that allow this universe to exist. Based on the CMB no oddball exist!!! Yes, all fine tuned to exist and allow life.

Post reply

402 views

First life

DAVID: As we learn time periods in the billions regarding the appearance of life, we see how long it took in reference to the Big Bang beginning, but then on Earth right after the Hadean period. Yes, we do not know life's time period for design but considering the context of timing it's appearance seems brief.

This is a long-winded way of repeating that you think 9.2000,000,000 years is a short time for the appearance of a planet that can sustain life, and 70,000,000 (or 40,000,000) years is a short time for life to have appeared, and the shortness supports the concept of a designer. How do you know the normal time for the appearance of a life-sustaining planet and for life itself?

Evolution

DAVID: […] Great designer of organisms, in a slow inefficient system.

dhw: And who, according to you, designed the inefficient system?

DAVID: God. Again, why not direct creation? Didn't happen as God chose His method.

dhw: And the designer of an inefficient system is an inefficient designer. You have asked a highly pertinent question, but you simply refuse to accept that your God (if he exists) might have had other reasons for starting evolution than us and our food..

DAVID: The only goal we know is humans. Don't invent 'facts' from your mind.

It is not a “fact” that humans were his one and only goal. Your refusal to believe he might have had a different purpose, and/or used a different method for creating life and evolution’s history, including the 99 out 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, leads you to the conclusion that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. I’d say this is a pretty weird reflection of omnipotence and omniscience.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: Explicitly: DNA instructions make a mechanical mechanism that repeatedly identify enemy, take a protein piece and imbed it into an antibody that kills. Same event over and over. Automatically recognizing self from not-self'.

So every enemy is identical, and there should be no problem when, say, flu or malaria or Covid or AIDS come to kill us. Same event over and over. A “mechanical mechanism” has been given instructions by...DNA? So what instructions were given by God 3.8 billion years ago? Please answer. And how come these instructions from an omniscient and omnipotent God fail, with millions of people dying? And please let us know what you mean by the “degree of adaptability” you think God did give to cells if it is not the autonomous means of processing new information and making decisions on how to use it.

The spliceosome

QUOTE: The scientists therefore assume that the mechanisms for recognizing and sorting out faulty spliceososmes have remained largely unchanged over the course of evolution.

dhw: […] I agree that the “mechanisms” must have been present from the start of evolution. And I suggest that “recognition” and “sorting out” require some form of intelligence.

DAVID: The intelligence of the designer's instructions for action.

Does this mean he gave cells the mechanisms with which to act, or he tells the cells exactly what they have to do in each individual case, as above?

Ignored.

DAVID: Same old theodicy attack not worth replying.

First you challenged my reference to “millions”, then you wanted us to focus only on people who didn’t die, as if "proportionality" made the evil disappear, and your basic solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that there is no problem.

Fine-tuning

dhw: Please […] explain to me why YOU are so sure that because the 5% of the universe which we know is “fine-tuned” for life, the 95% that we don’t know must also be fine-tuned for life. And do you think the stars and systems that have gone extinct were also fine-tuned for life?

DAVID: Fine tuning is recognizing all the physical factors that allow this universe to exist. Based on the CMB no oddball exist!!! Yes, all fine tuned to exist and allow life.

We know that life exists, and so of course the universe, no matter what it consists of, can be said to have allowed life to live. And we know that our part of the universe is “fine-tuned” for life because we live in it. But 95% per cent of the universe is not known to us, so how do you know it is “fine-tuned for life” unless we find life in those parts of the universe that we do not know?

Post reply

397 views

First life

DAVID: As we learn time periods in the billions regarding the appearance of life, we see how long it took in reference to the Big Bang beginning, but then on Earth right after the Hadean period. Yes, we do not know life's time period for design but considering the context of timing it's appearance seems brief.

dhw: This is a long-winded way of repeating that you think 9.2000,000,000 years is a short time for the appearance of a planet that can sustain life, and 70,000,000 (or 40,000,000) years is a short time for life to have appeared, and the shortness supports the concept of a designer. How do you know the normal time for the appearance of a life-sustaining planet and for life itself?

The only times we know are historical. Only God knows the truth.

Evolution

DAVID: The only goal we know is humans. Don't invent 'facts' from your mind.

dhw: It is not a “fact” that humans were his one and only goal. Your refusal to believe he might have had a different purpose, and/or used a different method for creating life and evolution’s history, including the 99 out 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, leads you to the conclusion that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. I’d say this is a pretty weird reflection of omnipotence and omniscience.

The bold is a deliberate distortion: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: Explicitly: DNA instructions make a mechanical mechanism that repeatedly identify enemy, take a protein piece and imbed it into an antibody that kills. Same event over and over. Automatically recognizing self from not-self'.

dhw: So every enemy is identical, and there should be no problem when, say, flu or malaria or Covid or AIDS come to kill us. Same event over and over.

No, the process is identical for each different enemy.

dhw: A “mechanical mechanism” has been given instructions by...DNA? So what instructions were given by God 3.8 billion years ago? Please answer.

How to make antibodies against so many enemies with one simple system.

The spliceosome

DAVID: The intelligence of the designer's instructions for action.

dhw: Does this mean he gave cells the mechanisms with which to act, or he tells the cells exactly what they have to do in each individual case, as above?

He gave them a mechanism as above.

dhw: your basic solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that there is no problem.

No, it is to point out the large proportionality of good reality vs. evil.

Fine-tuning

dhw: Please […] explain to me why YOU are so sure that because the 5% of the universe which we know is “fine-tuned” for life, the 95% that we don’t know must also be fine-tuned for life. And do you think the stars and systems that have gone extinct were also fine-tuned for life?

DAVID: Fine tuning is recognizing all the physical factors that allow this universe to exist. Based on the CMB no oddball exist!!! Yes, all fine tuned to exist and allow life.

dhw: We know that life exists, and so of course the universe, no matter what it consists of, can be said to have allowed life to live. And we know that our part of the universe is “fine-tuned” for life because we live in it. But 95% per cent of the universe is not known to us, so how do you know it is “fine-tuned for life” unless we find life in those parts of the universe that we do not know?

Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

Post reply

404 views

First life

dhw: […]you think 9.2000,000,000 years is a short time for the appearance of a planet that can sustain life, and 70,000,000 (or 40,000,000) years is a short time for life to have appeared, and the shortness supports the concept of a designer. How do you know the normal time for the appearance of a life-sustaining planet and for life itself?

DAVID: The only times we know are historical. Only God knows the truth.

If he exists. I presume from this reply that you now accept that there are no criteria by which one can say the relevant periods are short or long.

Evolution

DAVID: The only goal we know is humans. Don't invent 'facts' from your mind.

dhw: It is not a “fact” that humans were his one and only goal. Your refusal to believe he might have had a different purpose, and/or used a different method for creating life and evolution’s history, including the 99 out 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, leads you to the conclusion that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: The bold is a deliberate distortion: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system.

If he exists, he designed your messy, inefficient evolution system. And that would make him a messy, inefficient designer.

T-cells and immunity

dhw: So every enemy is identical, and there should be no problem when, say, flu or malaria or Covid or AIDS come to kill us. Same event over and over.

DAVID: No, the process is identical for each different enemy.

The process of analysing and deciding how to use new information is the same, but the information is different, which means each new enemy requires new analysis and decision-making. Hence what you call the “adaptability”, which I suggest requires intelligence.

dhw: […] So what instructions were given by God 3.8 billion years ago? Please answer.

DAVID: How to make antibodies against so many enemies with one simple system.

And I suggest the “simple system” is a “mechanism” (perhaps God-given) that gives cells the autonomous ability to process and decide how to use new information (= adaptability). What else could it be if your God’s 3.8-billion-year old “instructions” do not cover every new threat?

Theodicy

dhw: [...] your basic solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that there is no problem.

DAVID: No, it is to point out the large proportionality of good reality vs. evil.

But that does not solve the problem of how an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God came to create evil!

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Fine tuning is recognizing all the physical factors that allow this universe to exist. Based on the CMB no oddball exist!!! Yes, all fine tuned to exist and allow life.

dhw: We know that life exists, and so of course the universe, no matter what it consists of, can be said to have allowed life to live. And we know that our part of the universe is “fine-tuned” for life because we live in it. But 95% per cent of the universe is not known to us, so how do you know it is “fine-tuned for life” unless we find life in those parts of the universe that we do not know?

DAVID: Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) No one can deny that the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, and it’s fair enough to point out the “constants” without which life would not be possible. But the presence of the ingredients and of the constants does not in itself create life! You are the first to lay enormous emphasis on the uniqueness of our planet and the unusualness of our galaxy. It is the “adjustments” that make life possible, and so far as we know, ours is the only planet in which all the adjustments have been made. The universe provides the basic elements, but the whole of the universe is NOT fine-tuned to support life. This is perfectly clear from our knowledge of the 5% we know. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

Post reply

412 views

First life

DAVID: The only times we know are historical. Only God knows the truth.

dhw: If he exists. I presume from this reply that you now accept that there are no criteria by which one can say the relevant periods are short or long.

True

Evolution

DAVID: The bold is a deliberate distortion: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system.

dhw:If he exists, he designed your messy, inefficient evolution system. And that would make him a messy, inefficient designer.

Emphatically no. He is a magnificent designer of living organisms biochemistry.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: No, the process is identical for each different enemy.

dhw: The process of analysing and deciding how to use new information is the same, but the information is different, which means each new enemy requires new analysis and decision-making. Hence what you call the “adaptability”, which I suggest requires intelligence.

Wrong. Recognizing non-self, taking a part of it and adding a killer portion is all automatic.

dhw: […] So what instructions were given by God 3.8 billion years ago? Please answer.

DAVID: How to make antibodies against so many enemies with one simple system.

dhw: And I suggest the “simple system” is a “mechanism” (perhaps God-given) that gives cells the autonomous ability to process and decide how to use new information (= adaptability). What else could it be if your God’s 3.8-billion-year old “instructions” do not cover every new threat?

The system is built to cover all as described above.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Fine tuning is recognizing all the physical factors that allow this universe to exist. Based on the CMB no oddball exist!!! Yes, all fine tuned to exist and allow life.

dhw: We know that life exists, and so of course the universe, no matter what it consists of, can be said to have allowed life to live. And we know that our part of the universe is “fine-tuned” for life because we live in it. But 95% per cent of the universe is not known to us, so how do you know it is “fine-tuned for life” unless we find life in those parts of the universe that we do not know?

DAVID: Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

dhw: Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) No one can deny that the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, and it’s fair enough to point out the “constants” without which life would not be possible. But the presence of the ingredients and of the constants does not in itself create life! You are the first to lay enormous emphasis on the uniqueness of our planet and the unusualness of our galaxy. It is the “adjustments” that make life possible, and so far as we know, ours is the only planet in which all the adjustments have been made. The universe provides the basic elements, but the whole of the universe is NOT fine-tuned to support life. This is perfectly clear from our knowledge of the 5% we know. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.

Post reply

394 views

First life

DAVID: The only times we know are historical. Only God knows the truth.

dhw: If he exists. I presume from this reply that you now accept that there are no criteria by which one can say the relevant periods are short or long.

DAVID: True.

Settled.

Evolution

DAVID: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system.

dhw:If he exists, he designed your messy, inefficient evolution system. And that would make him a messy, inefficient designer.

DAVID: Emphatically no. He is a magnificent designer of living organisms biochemistry.

Like many of us humans, he seems to be a mixture – good at one thing and bad at another! Magnificent designer of organisms. Messy, inefficient designer of systems. See also the next item:

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: No, the process is identical for each different enemy.

dhw: The process of analysing and deciding how to use new information is the same, but the information is different, which means each new enemy requires new analysis and decision-making. Hence what you call the “adaptability”, which I suggest requires intelligence.

DAVID: Wrong. Recognizing non-self, taking a part of it and adding a killer portion is all automatic.

So please explain how an all-powerful, all-knowing God can design an automatic system which is so incompetent that its different enemies can kill millions of people before our intelligent scientists are able to figure out what your God’s automatic programme has been unable to cope with? (I’m thinking of diseases such as flu, malaria, AIDS, Covid etc.) See also the next exchange re adaptability.

dhw: […] So what instructions were given by God 3.8 billion years ago? Please answer.

DAVID: How to make antibodies against so many enemies with one simple system.

dhw: And I suggest the “simple system” is a “mechanism” (perhaps God-given) that gives cells the autonomous ability to process and decide how to use new information (= adaptability). What else could it be if your God’s 3.8-billion-year old “instructions” do not cover every new threat?

DAVID: The system is built to cover all as described above.

It clearly doesn’t cover all, since we humans have to use all our intelligence to provide ways of dealing with new enemies that are not “covered”. If cellular “adaptability” entailed an autonomous (but limited) intelligence, the failures would make sense: we can say that our human intelligence is less limited than that of cells. But with your system, we can say that human intelligence is greater than that of your God, since we can (sometimes) correct the errors in his inefficient design.

Fine-tuning

dhw: Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) No one can deny that the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, and it’s fair enough to point out the “constants” without which life would not be possible. But the presence of the ingredients and of the constants does not in itself create life! You are the first to lay enormous emphasis on the uniqueness of our planet and the unusualness of our galaxy. It is the “adjustments” that make life possible, and so far as we know, ours is the only planet in which all the adjustments have been made. The universe provides the basic elements, but the whole of the universe is NOT fine-tuned to support life. This is perfectly clear from our knowledge of the 5% we know. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.

I’m sorry, but the theory of “fine-tuning” does not mean the universe is fine-tuned to be itself, and if it was not itself, it would not exist! The whole theory relates to LIFE, and Earth is the only example we know of in which all the necessary factors have come together (or been adjusted, or “fine-tuned”) in such a way as to produce life. At best, you might argue that our galaxy is “fine-tuned” for life. What evidence is there that the billions of other galaxies extant and extinct are/were also “fine-tuned” for life? Perhaps you will now respond to the points I have raised above.

Post reply

385 views

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: No, the process is identical for each different enemy.

dhw: The process of analysing and deciding how to use new information is the same, but the information is different, which means each new enemy requires new analysis and decision-making. Hence what you call the “adaptability”, which I suggest requires intelligence.

DAVID: Wrong. Recognizing non-self, taking a part of it and adding a killer portion is all automatic.

dhw: So please explain how an all-powerful, all-knowing God can design an automatic system which is so incompetent that its different enemies can kill millions of people before our intelligent scientists are able to figure out what your God’s automatic programme has been unable to cope with? (I’m thinking of diseases such as flu, malaria, AIDS, Covid etc.) See also the next exchange re adaptability.

Same reply to your theodicy question. Proportionality. Almost everyone lives.

dhw: […] So what instructions were given by God 3.8 billion years ago? Please answer.

DAVID: How to make antibodies against so many enemies with one simple system.

dhw: And I suggest the “simple system” is a “mechanism” (perhaps God-given) that gives cells the autonomous ability to process and decide how to use new information (= adaptability). What else could it be if your God’s 3.8-billion-year old “instructions” do not cover every new threat?

DAVID: The system is built to cover all as described above.

dhw: It clearly doesn’t cover all, since we humans have to use all our intelligence to provide ways of dealing with new enemies that are not “covered”. If cellular “adaptability” entailed an autonomous (but limited) intelligence, the failures would make sense: we can say that our human intelligence is less limited than that of cells. But with your system, we can say that human intelligence is greater than that of your God, since we can (sometimes) correct the errors in his inefficient design.

Same reply to your theodicy question. Proportionality. Almost everyone lives.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

dhw: Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) No one can deny that the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, and it’s fair enough to point out the “constants” without which life would not be possible. But the presence of the ingredients and of the constants does not in itself create life! You are the first to lay enormous emphasis on the uniqueness of our planet and the unusualness of our galaxy. It is the “adjustments” that make life possible, and so far as we know, ours is the only planet in which all the adjustments have been made. The universe provides the basic elements, but the whole of the universe is NOT fine-tuned to support life. This is perfectly clear from our knowledge of the 5% we know. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.

dhw: I’m sorry, but the theory of “fine-tuning” does not mean the universe is fine-tuned to be itself, and if it was not itself, it would not exist! The whole theory relates to LIFE, and Earth is the only example we know of in which all the necessary factors have come together (or been adjusted, or “fine-tuned”) in such a way as to produce life. At best, you might argue that our galaxy is “fine-tuned” for life. What evidence is there that the billions of other galaxies extant and extinct are/were also “fine-tuned” for life? Perhaps you will now respond to the points I have raised above.

Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

Post reply

386 views

Evolution

DAVID: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system. […]

dhw: Magnificent designer of organisms. Messy, inefficient designer of systems. See also the next item.

You have not responded, but the implication could hardly be clearer, and is one of several examples of inefficiency with which you inadvertently ridicule your all-powerful, all-knowing God.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: […] the process is identical for each different enemy.

dhw: The process of analysing and deciding how to use new information is the same, but the information is different, which means each new enemy requires new analysis and decision-
making. Hence what you call the “adaptability”, which I suggest requires intelligence.

DAVID: Wrong. Recognizing non-self, taking a part of it and adding a killer portion is all automatic.
And:
DAVID: The system is built to cover all as described above.

dhw: So please explain how an all-powerful, all-knowing God can design an automatic system which is so incompetent that its different enemies can kill millions of people before our intelligent scientists are able to figure out what your God’s automatic programme has been unable to cope with? (I’m thinking of diseases such as flu, malaria, AIDS, Covid etc.) See also the next exchange re adaptability.

DAVID: Same reply to your theodicy question. Proportionality. Almost everyone lives.

That does not explain how your all-powerful, all-knowing God can invent a system which is not perfect, i.e. does not “cover all”, but leads to millions of deaths before intelligent humans can "cover" the gaps left by the inefficiency you keep imposing on your God. Stop dodging!

Fine-tuning

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.

dhw: I’m sorry, but the theory of “fine-tuning” does not mean the universe is fine-tuned to be itself, and if it was not itself, it would not exist! The whole theory relates to LIFE, and Earth is the only example we know of in which all the necessary factors have come together (or been adjusted, or “fine-tuned”) in such a way as to produce life. At best, you might argue that our galaxy is “fine-tuned” for life. What evidence is there that the billions of other galaxies extant and extinct are/were also “fine-tuned” for life? Perhaps you will now respond to the points I have raised above. (Please refer to yesterday’s post.)

DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

Wikipedia:
"The fine-tuned universe is the hypothesis that, because "life as we know it" could not exist if the constants of nature – such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant and others – had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life. In practice, this hypothesis is formulated in terms of dimensionless physical constants.

STANFORD Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe. “

A quote from Paul Davies:

Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".

The latter links up with my own arguments, so perhaps now you will deign to respond to them instead of ignoring them.

Post reply

408 views

Evolution

DAVID: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system. […]

dhw: Magnificent designer of organisms. Messy, inefficient designer of systems. See also the next item.

dhw: You have not responded, but the implication could hardly be clearer, and is one of several examples of inefficiency with which you inadvertently ridicule your all-powerful, all-knowing God.

I view it differently. An all-knowing God will chose the best system to achieve His goal.

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: Same reply to your theodicy question. Proportionality. Almost everyone lives.

dhw: That does not explain how your all-powerful, all-knowing God can invent a system which is not perfect, i.e. does not “cover all”, but leads to millions of deaths before intelligent humans can "cover" the gaps left by the inefficiency you keep imposing on your God. Stop dodging!

No dodge: God is not an inefficient designer. No need to repeat answers above.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

dhw: Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) […]. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.

dhw: I’m sorry, but the theory of “fine-tuning” does not mean the universe is fine-tuned to be itself, and if it was not itself, it would not exist! The whole theory relates to LIFE, and Earth is the only example we know of in which all the necessary factors have come together (or been adjusted, or “fine-tuned”) in such a way as to produce life. At best, you might argue that our galaxy is “fine-tuned” for life. What evidence is there that the billions of other galaxies extant and extinct are/were also “fine-tuned” for life? Perhaps you will now respond to the points I have raised above. (Please refer to yesterday’s post.)

DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

No I haven't. You have argued fine-tuning is only on this galaxy. It is universe-wide.

Wikipedia:
"The fine-tuned universe is the hypothesis that, because "life as we know it" could not exist if the constants of nature – such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant and others – had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life. In practice, this hypothesis is formulated in terms of dimensionless physical constants.

STANFORD Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe. “

I don't accept the multiverse alternative.

dhw: A quote from Paul Davies:

Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".

dhw: The latter links up with my own arguments, so perhaps now you will deign to respond to them instead of ignoring them.

All the quotes are correct. They accept fine-tuning is universe-wide to allow life. Remember you wanted it limited to this galaxy.

Post reply

392 views

Evolution

DAVID: He is a magnificent designer, using a messy evolution system. […]

dhw: Magnificent designer of organisms. Messy, inefficient designer of systems. See also the next item.

dhw: You have not responded, but the implication could hardly be clearer, and is one of several examples of inefficiency with which you inadvertently ridicule your all-powerful, all-knowing God.

DAVID: I view it differently. An all-knowing God will chose the best system to achieve His goal.

You insist that the method he used (designing and having to cull 99 out of 100 species) to achieve the goal you impose on him (us and our food) was messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Those are the adjectives you used, so how come you view it differently from the way you view it?

T-cells and immunity

DAVID: Same reply to your theodicy question. Proportionality. Almost everyone lives.

dhw: That does not explain how your all-powerful, all-knowing God can invent a system which is not perfect, i.e. does not “cover all”, but leads to millions of deaths before intelligent humans can "cover" the gaps left by the inefficiency you keep imposing on your God. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge: God is not an inefficient designer. No need to repeat answers above.

You say he's a magnificent designer of organisms and an inefficient designer of systems (evolution and immunity). If a designer designs an inefficient design, he is an inefficient designer.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely..
And:
DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

DAVID: No I haven't.

You have argued twice that fine-tuning applies to the existence of the universe, instead of to the existence of life in the universe! You even say the adjustments (= fine tuning) which have produced life on Earth are a different issue!

DAVID: You have argued fine-tuning is only on this galaxy. It is universe-wide.

I have argued that although all the ingredients for life are present in the universe, “fine- tuning” refers to all the adjustments that have to be made in order for them to produce life. The only galaxy we know of in which this fine-tuning takes place is ours. Meanwhile, two quotes correcting your blunder:

STANFORD Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe. “

DAVID: I don't accept the multiverse alternative.

I'm pointing out that fine-tuning does not refer to the existence of the universe but to the existence of life. And I'm disputing the claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned to produce life, because the only life we know is confined to our planet.

dhw: A quote from Paul Davies:

Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".

dhw: The latter links up with my own arguments, so perhaps now you will deign to respond to them instead of ignoring them.

DAVID: All the quotes are correct. They accept fine-tuning is universe-wide to allow life. Remember you wanted it limited to this galaxy.

Thank you for indirectly acknowledging your blunder in insisting that fine tuning referred to the existence of the universe instead of to the existence of life. I don’t “want” anything. As Davies points out, the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, which is obviously true. But once more: that does not mean the whole universe is fine-tuned to produce life, since the only life we know of is in our galaxy.

Post reply

388 views

Evolution

DAVID: I view it differently. An all-knowing God will chose the best system to achieve His goal.

dhw: You insist that the method he used (designing and having to cull 99 out of 100 species) to achieve the goal you impose on him (us and our food) was messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Those are the adjectives you used, so how come you view it differently from the way you view it?

I differentiate organism design from designed evolution as a process. His organismal designs are perfect. The evolutionary process is messy but effective, as we agree here.

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Do you fully understand what the CMB tells us? It is the embryo of the universe? All the same with no oddball areas. An embryo can only follow its design. When fine tuning was a hot topic thirty years ago, no expert voiced your contrary point.

dhw: Do you know the meaning of "fine tuning"? Definitions for you: “to adjust precisely so as to bring to the highest level of performance or effectiveness”. (Merriam-Webster) - or. “to make very small changes to something so that it is as good as it can possibly be.” (Oxford) […]. Ours is the only planet is which all the adjustments have been made. We know nothing about adjustments in the unknown 95% of the universe.

DAVID: For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely..
And:
DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

DAVID: No I haven't.

dhw: You have argued twice that fine-tuning applies to the existence of the universe, instead of to the existence of life in the universe! You even say the adjustments (= fine tuning) which have produced life on Earth are a different issue!

DAVID: You have argued fine-tuning is only on this galaxy. It is universe-wide.

dhw: I have argued that although all the ingredients for life are present in the universe, “fine- tuning” refers to all the adjustments that have to be made in order for them to produce life. The only galaxy we know of in which this fine-tuning takes place is ours. Meanwhile, two quotes correcting your blunder:>

STANFORD Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Various reactions to the universe’s fine-tuning for life have been proposed: that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics; that the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions; and that fine-tuning for life indicates the existence of multiple other universes with conditions very different from those in our own universe. “

DAVID: I don't accept the multiverse alternative.

dhw; I'm pointing out that fine-tuning does not refer to the existence of the universe but to the existence of life. And I'm disputing the claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned to produce life, because the only life we know is confined to our planet.

dhw: A quote from Paul Davies:

Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".

dhw: The latter links up with my own arguments, so perhaps now you will deign to respond to them instead of ignoring them.

DAVID: All the quotes are correct. They accept fine-tuning is universe-wide to allow life. Remember you wanted it limited to this galaxy.

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging your blunder in insisting that fine tuning referred to the existence of the universe instead of to the existence of life. I don’t “want” anything. As Davies points out, the universe contains all the ingredients necessary for life, which is obviously true. But once more: that does not mean the whole universe is fine-tuned to produce life, since the only life we know of is in our galaxy.

The entire universe can only exist if the fine-tuning factors are correct. That is the fine-tuning understanding I use from thirty years ago, not confined to only our galaxy. Davies is correctly coming at it from a different viewpoint.

Post reply

389 views

Evolution and T-cells and immunity

DAVID: I view it differently. An all-knowing God will chose the best system to achieve His goal.

dhw: You insist that the method he used (designing and having to cull 99 out of 100 species) to achieve the goal you impose on him (us and our food) was messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Those are the adjectives you used, so how come you view it differently from the way you view it?

DAVID: I differentiate organism design from designed evolution as a process. His organismal designs are perfect.

That is why I wrote: “Like many of us humans, he seems to be a mixture – good at one thing and bad at another!” His inefficient system of evolution, his inadequate programme for immunity (you dismiss the millions of failures because lots more people survive), and his creation of evil are also possible examples of YOUR God’s inefficiency. I emphasize “YOUR”, because when I put on my theist hat, I have offered you alternatives which show God efficiently achieving precisely what he wanted to achieve.

DAVID: The evolutionary process is messy but effective, as we agree here.

I have never ever agreed that YOUR version of the evolutionary process is “effective”. How can it be, if it is messy and cumbersome and inefficient?

Fine-tuning

DAVID: [i]For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.[/i]
And:
DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

DAVID: No I haven't.

dhw: You have argued twice that fine-tuning applies to the existence of the universe, instead of to the existence of life in the universe! You even say the adjustments (= fine tuning) which have produced life on Earth are a different issue!
I offered you three quotes confirming the fact that “fine-tuning” refers to the existence of life, and not of the universe.

DAVID: The entire universe can only exist if the fine-tuning factors are correct. That is the fine-tuning understanding I use from thirty years ago, not confined to only our galaxy. Davies is correctly coming at it from a different viewpoint.

Your understanding of fine-tuning as referring to the existence of the universe simply means that if the universe was not as it is, it would not exist as it is! Not much of a revelation, is it? So please stop dodging! The discussion is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life, and I am simply pointing out that although all the ingredients for life are of course present in the universe, the only instance we know of in which those ingredients plus all the necessary environmental conditions have come together to produce life is Planet Earth, which at most means that our galaxy is fine- tuned for life. It is the combination that makes for the “fine tuning” – not the mere existence of the materials. And so I suggest to you that unless life is found throughout the entire universe, we cannot say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life. Now will you please explain why you disagree.

Post reply

379 views

Evolution and T-cells and immunity

DAVID: I differentiate organism design from designed evolution as a process. His organismal designs are perfect.

dhw: That is why I wrote: “Like many of us humans, he seems to be a mixture – good at one thing and bad at another!” His inefficient system of evolution, his inadequate programme for immunity (you dismiss the millions of failures because lots more people survive), and his creation of evil are also possible examples of YOUR God’s inefficiency. I emphasize “YOUR”, because when I put on my theist hat, I have offered you alternatives which show God efficiently achieving precisely what he wanted to achieve.

Your humanized God will never be acceptable.

DAVID: The evolutionary process is messy but effective, as we agree here.

dhw: I have never ever agreed that YOUR version of the evolutionary process is “effective”. How can it be, if it is messy and cumbersome and inefficient?

It is effective. What don't you like about current reality ?

Fine-tuning

DAVID: [i]For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.[/i]
And:
DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

DAVID: No I haven't.

dhw: You have argued twice that fine-tuning applies to the existence of the universe, instead of to the existence of life in the universe! You even say the adjustments (= fine tuning) which have produced life on Earth are a different issue!
I offered you three quotes confirming the fact that “fine-tuning” refers to the existence of life, and not of the universe.

DAVID: The entire universe can only exist if the fine-tuning factors are correct. That is the fine-tuning understanding I use from thirty years ago, not confined to only our galaxy. Davies is correctly coming at it from a different viewpoint.

dhw: Your understanding of fine-tuning as referring to the existence of the universe simply means that if the universe was not as it is, it would not exist as it is! Not much of a revelation, is it? So please stop dodging! The discussion is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life, and I am simply pointing out that although all the ingredients for life are of course present in the universe, the only instance we know of in which those ingredients plus all the necessary environmental conditions have come together to produce life is Planet Earth, which at most means that our galaxy is fine- tuned for life. It is the combination that makes for the “fine tuning” – not the mere existence of the materials. And so I suggest to you that unless life is found throughout the entire universe, we cannot say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life. Now will you please explain why you disagree.

Reread above: This specific whole universe exists only because 20+ factors are fine-tuned. The same factors apply to the appearance of life, because if this universe varied the factors only a little. life could not appear. Thus fine-tuning is throughout the universe while life appeared so far only on Earth. We think life might be out there somewhere because the same factors are everywhere, so we discuss possible alien life.

Post reply

382 views

Fine-tuning

DAVID: [i]For the whole universe to exist all the factors must be fine-tuned, to exquisitely narrow points of accuracy. Earth's life allowing adjustments are a different issue entirely.[/i]
And:
DAVID: Apparently you weren't following the discussions thirty years ago. The whole universe exists because of the fine-tuning factors, about 20+ of them. It is all very sophisticated physics. "Universes" by John Leslie will explain it.

dhw: Apparently you have totally misunderstood the focus of the debate:

DAVID: No I haven't.

dhw: You have argued twice that fine-tuning applies to the existence of the universe, instead of to the existence of life in the universe! You even say the adjustments (= fine tuning) which have produced life on Earth are a different issue!
I offered you three quotes confirming the fact that “fine-tuning” refers to the existence of life, and not of the universe.

DAVID: The entire universe can only exist if the fine-tuning factors are correct. That is the fine-tuning understanding I use from thirty years ago, not confined to only our galaxy. Davies is correctly coming at it from a different viewpoint.

dhw: Your understanding of fine-tuning as referring to the existence of the universe simply means that if the universe was not as it is, it would not exist as it is! Not much of a revelation, is it? So please stop dodging! The discussion is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life, and I am simply pointing out that although all the ingredients for life are of course present in the universe, the only instance we know of in which those ingredients plus all the necessary environmental conditions have come together to produce life is Planet Earth, which at most means that our galaxy is fine- tuned for life. It is the combination that makes for the “fine tuning” – not the mere existence of the materials. And so I suggest to you that unless life is found throughout the entire universe, we cannot say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life. Now will you please explain why you disagree.

Reread above: This specific whole universe exists only because 20+ factors are fine-tuned. The same factors apply to the appearance of life, because if this universe varied the factors only a little. life could not appear. Thus fine-tuning is throughout the universe while life appeared so far only on Earth. We think life might be out there somewhere because the same factors are everywhere, so we discuss possible alien life.

Note this study on alien life:

https://phys.org/news/2025-02-planetary-evolution-favor-human-life.html

Humanity may not be extraordinary but rather the natural evolutionary outcome for our planet and likely others, according to a new model for how intelligent life developed on Earth.

The model, which upends the decades-old "hard steps" theory that intelligent life was an incredibly improbable event, suggests that maybe it wasn't all that hard or improbable. A team of researchers at Penn State, who led the work, said the new interpretation of humanity's origin increases the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

***

In the new study, a team of researchers that included astrophysicists and geobiologists argued that Earth's environment was initially inhospitable to many forms of life, and that key evolutionary steps only became possible when the global environment reached a "permissive" state.

For example, complex animal life requires a certain level of oxygen in the atmosphere, so the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere through photosynthesizing microbes and bacteria was a natural evolutionary step for the planet, which created a window of opportunity for more recent life forms to develop, explained Dan Mills, postdoctoral researcher at The University of Munich and lead author on the paper.

***

The researchers said they plan to test their alternative model, including questioning the unique status of the proposed evolutionary "hard steps." The recommended research projects are outlined in the current paper and include such work as searching the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system for biosignatures, like the presence of oxygen.

Comment: This study presumes fine-tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitability as it did on Earth. With universal fine-tuning life can be invited anywhere.

Post reply

398 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: This specific whole universe exists only because 20+ factors are fine-tuned.

Fine-tuned for what? All this means is that if this specific universe was not what it is, it would not be what it is, or it would not exist. You can say the same about anything! If you were not who you are, you would not be who you are, or you might never have existed.

DAVID: The same factors apply to the appearance of life, because if this universe varied the factors only a little, life could not appear.

Once again you are stating the blindingly obvious: of course life could not appear if the universe did not contain all the “factors” necessary for life. But the “fine tuning” for life comes with selection and combination of those factors! And the only place in the universe which we know has combined them all and produced life is Planet Earth!

DAVID: Thus fine-tuning is throughout the universe while life appeared so far only on Earth. We think life might be out there somewhere because the same factors are everywhere, so we discuss possible alien life.

How can anyone claim that the fine-tuning for life exists throughout the universe if we only know of one planet that harbours life? Yes, we can discuss the possibility of life elsewhere, but that is a far, far cry from the claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: In the new study, a team of researchers that included astrophysicists and geobiologists argued that Earth's environment was initially inhospitable to many forms of life, and that key evolutionary steps only became possible when the global environment reached a "permissive" state.

“Global” hits the nail on the head. Life only became possible when Earth’s environment was sufficiently fine-tuned to allow life, just as it only became possible when all the components of living organisms were fused together, i.e. fine-tuned.

QUOTE: “For example, complex animal life requires a certain level of oxygen in the atmosphere, so the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere through photosynthesizing microbes and bacteria was a natural evolutionary step for the planet, which created a window of opportunity for more recent life forms to develop…”

Precisely. And how many places in the universe do we know of in which all of these factors have come together? So far, none. And this means that so far we cannot say any other part of the universe is “fine-tuned” for life!

QUOTE: “The researchers said they plan to test their alternative model, including questioning the unique status of the proposed evolutionary "hard steps." The recommended research projects are outlined in the current paper and include such work as searching the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system for biosignatures, like the presence of oxygen.”

DAVID: This study presumes fine-tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitability as it did on Earth. With universal fine-tuning life can be invited anywhere.

It presumes no such thing. It recommends research into atmospheres to see whether they are indeed fine-tuned for life, although even if individual factors are present, that still doesn’t guarantee there will be life. The only way you can prove that ANYWHERE is fine-tuned for life is if you find life!

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types." This all indicates that these structures and circuits are not homologous, but rather the result of convergent evolution, meaning that "they have independently developed these essential neural circuits through different evolutionary paths."

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. "Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”

Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

Post reply

378 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: This specific whole universe exists only because 20+ factors are fine-tuned.

dhw: Fine-tuned for what? All this means is that if this specific universe was not what it is, it would not be what it is, or it would not exist. You can say the same about anything! If you were not who you are, you would not be who you are, or you might never have existed.

The 20+ factors are so interrelated, if one is off a tiny bit, the whole universe collapses. Life is not an issue at this point. If this universe is life-allowing, it is another tangential issue.

DAVID: The same factors apply to the appearance of life, because if this universe varied the factors only a little, life could not appear.

dhw: Once again you are stating the blindingly obvious: of course life could not appear if the universe did not contain all the “factors” necessary for life. But the “fine tuning” for life comes with selection and combination of those factors! And the only place in the universe which we know has combined them all and produced life is Planet Earth!

Fine-tuning has two meanings: a fine-tuned group of factors allowed this particular universe to exist. Secondarily the same fine-tuning allows life to appear. This means this universe is unique.

DAVID: Thus fine-tuning is throughout the universe while life appeared so far only on Earth. We think life might be out there somewhere because the same factors are everywhere, so we discuss possible alien life.

dhw: How can anyone claim that the fine-tuning for life exists throughout the universe if we only know of one planet that harbours life? Yes, we can discuss the possibility of life elsewhere, but that is a far, far cry from the claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is a single unit. It does not differ from itself anywhere. Life is a totally separate issue.

QUOTE: “The researchers said they plan to test their alternative model, including questioning the unique status of the proposed evolutionary "hard steps." The recommended research projects are outlined in the current paper and include such work as searching the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system for biosignatures, like the presence of oxygen.”

DAVID: This study presumes fine-tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitability as it did on Earth. With universal fine-tuning life can be invited anywhere.

dhw: It presumes no such thing. It recommends research into atmospheres to see whether they are indeed fine-tuned for life, although even if individual factors are present, that still doesn’t guarantee there will be life. The only way you can prove that ANYWHERE is fine-tuned for life is if you find life!

Still confused. This unique universe is fine-tuned as it exists based on all the unique interrelated factors physicists describe. That it allows life is a secondary issue, not primary as you make it.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types." This all indicates that these structures and circuits are not homologous, but rather the result of convergent evolution, meaning that "they have independently developed these essential neural circuits through different evolutionary paths."

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. "Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

Post reply

384 views

Fine tuning

The focus of the fine-tuning debate is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. Clearly if the universe did not exist, there would be no life, and if the universe did not contain all the factors necessary for life, there would be no life. But I maintain that the “fine-tuning” consists in the selection and combination of all those factors, both biochemical and environmental. The only place we know of that has brought all of them together to create life is Planet Earth, and so I find it absurd to claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. Only if we find life elsewhere will be able to say that a particular heavenly body is also fine-tuned for life.

David’s response to these points is initially to ignore them completely, and to focus solely on the existence and uniqueness of the universe itself, as follows:

DAVID: The 20+ factors are so interrelated, if one is off a tiny bit, the whole universe collapses.
DAVID: Fine-tuning has two meanings: a fine-tuned group of factors allowed this particular universe to exist. Secondarily the same fine-tuning allows life to appear. This means this universe is unique.
DAVID: The universe is a single unit. It does not differ from itself anywhere. Life is a totally separate issue.

I doubt if anyone would disagree that the universe exists and depends on a number of factors for its existence, and is itself and nothing but itself. But why must we confine the discussion to the existence of the universe? I have always been under the impression that you believed in a God who created the universe, and that your God had a purpose, and his purpose was to create us and our food, and to do that he had to create life. But now apparently “life is a secondary issue”! However, let’s look at the following exchange:

dhw: It presumes no such thing. It recommends research into atmospheres to see whether they are indeed fine-tuned for life, although even if individual factors are present, that still doesn’t guarantee there will be life. The only way you can prove that ANYWHERE is fine-tuned for life is if you find life!

DAVID: This unique universe is fine-tuned as it exists based on all the unique interrelated factors physicists describe. That it allows life is a secondary issue, not primary as you make it.

A complete dodge. You have supported the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and the moment I point out the obvious fallacy, you scuttle back to the uniqueness of the universe and life being a “secondary issue”. There is no “primary” and “secondary” issue. We can agree that the universe is as it is, and that it contains all the factors necessary for life. So now you can move on and explain to me how you know that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life even though Planet Earth is the only place we know that is fine-tuned for life.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types." This all indicates that these structures and circuits are not homologous, but rather the result of convergent evolution, meaning that "they have independently developed these essential neural circuits through different evolutionary paths.[/i]"

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. bbb"Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, bbbwithout following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

Post reply

381 views

Fine tuning

dhw: The focus of the fine-tuning debate is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. Clearly if the universe did not exist, there would be no life, and if the universe did not contain all the factors necessary for life, there would be no life. But I maintain that the “fine-tuning” consists in the selection and combination of all those factors, both biochemical and environmental. The only place we know of that has brought all of them together to create life is Planet Earth, and so I find it absurd to claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. Only if we find life elsewhere will be able to say that a particular heavenly body is also fine-tuned for life.

Yes, the appearance of life requires a climate for life, but life can appear anywhere in that universe such a climate exists. Therefore, the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear! Life always requires a special universe.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree that the universe exists and depends on a number of factors for its existence, and is itself and nothing but itself. But why must we confine the discussion to the existence of the universe? I have always been under the impression that you believed in a God who created the universe, and that your God had a purpose, and his purpose was to create us and our food, and to do that he had to create life. But now apparently “life is a secondary issue”! However, let’s look at the following exchange:

QUOTE: “The researchers said they plan to test their alternative model, including questioning the unique status of the proposed evolutionary "hard steps." The recommended research projects are outlined in the current paper and include such work as searching the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system for biosignatures, like the presence of oxygen.”

DAVID: This study presumes fine-tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitability as it did on Earth. With universal fine-tuning life can be invited anywhere. [dhw: I’m not sure what you meant by “invited”. Invented, perhaps?)

dhw: It presumes no such thing. It recommends research into atmospheres to see whether they are indeed fine-tuned for life, although even if individual factors are present, that still doesn’t guarantee there will be life. The only way you can prove that ANYWHERE is fine-tuned for life is if you find life!

DAVID: This unique universe is fine-tuned as it exists based on all the unique interrelated factors physicists describe. That it allows life is a secondary issue, not primary as you make it.

dhw: A complete dodge. You have supported the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and the moment I point out the obvious fallacy, you scuttle back to the uniqueness of the universe and life being a “secondary issue”. There is no “primary” and “secondary” issue. We can agree that the universe is as it is, and that it contains all the factors necessary for life. So now you can move on and explain to me how you know that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life even though Planet Earth is the only place we know that is fine-tuned for life.

This is a special unique universe that allows life. That is the primary concept. It's exact factor values make it that way. Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable environment.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types." This all indicates that these structures and circuits are not homologous, but rather the result of convergent evolution, meaning that "they have independently developed these essential neural circuits through different evolutionary paths.[/i]"

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. bbb"Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, bbbwithout following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

And you have your brilliant cell committees.

Post reply

377 views

Fine-tuning

dhw: The focus of the fine-tuning debate is on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. Clearly if the universe did not exist, there would be no life, and if the universe did not contain all the factors necessary for life, there would be no life. But I maintain that the “fine-tuning” consists in the selection and combination of all those factors, both biochemical and environmental. The only place we know of that has brought all of them together to create life is Planet Earth, and so I find it absurd to claim that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. Only if we find life elsewhere will be able to say that a particular heavenly body is also fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: Yes, the appearance of life requires a climate for life, but life can appear anywhere in that universe such a climate exists. Therefore, the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear! Life always requires a special universe.

You have left out the important word IF (such a climate exists). All you are saying is that if conditions are right, life can appear, and therefore conditions are right everywhere in the universe! No, they're not. You can only say conditions are “fine-tuned” if you know that life has appeared! You have also left out virtually every biochemical and environmental factor which you harp on when you discuss the complexity of life as evidence of design! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! “Always”? How many examples of special universes and life production do you know?

DAVID: This is a special unique universe that allows life. That is the primary concept. It's exact factor values make it that way. Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable environment.

This is the only universe we know, and we know that it allows life. Stop stating the obvious. Dawkins & Co will certainly agree with you that theoretically, given the right conditions, “life can pop up anywhere” – who needs design? But even that does not mean that the right conditions exist all over the universe, let alone that the right conditions are all that is needed to breathe life into blobs of matter, and therefore everywhere in the universe is fine-tuned to produce and sustain life. For the umpteenth time: only if we find life can we say that somewhere is fine-tuned for life.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types."

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

I don’t dislike your “committees” image, though I would never use it. Virtually every article on cellular behaviour that you present to us draws attention to the manner in which cells/cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another as they process new information and decide how to handle it. But they don’t sit round a table sipping their pints of beer.

Post reply

377 views

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Yes, the appearance of life requires a climate for life, but life can appear anywhere in that universe such a climate exists. Therefore, the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear! Life always requires a special universe.

dhw: You have left out the important word IF (such a climate exists). All you are saying is that if conditions are right, life can appear, and therefore conditions are right everywhere in the universe! No, they're not. You can only say conditions are “fine-tuned” if you know that life has appeared! You have also left out virtually every biochemical and environmental factor which you harp on when you discuss the complexity of life as evidence of design! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! “Always”? How many examples of special universes and life production do you know?

You have it backwards as usual. All necessary fine-tuning factors are known. If they are present, life is allowed to appear. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO APPEAR TO MAKE/PROVE THE POINT.

DAVID: This is a special unique universe that allows life. That is the primary concept. It's exact factor values make it that way. Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable environment.

dhw: This is the only universe we know, and we know that it allows life. Stop stating the obvious. Dawkins & Co will certainly agree with you that theoretically, given the right conditions, “life can pop up anywhere” – who needs design? But even that does not mean that the right conditions exist all over the universe, let alone that the right conditions are all that is needed to breathe life into blobs of matter, and therefore everywhere in the universe is fine-tuned to produce and sustain life. For the umpteenth time: only if we find life can we say that somewhere is fine-tuned for life.

You demand a proof that is not necessary. Everywhere fine-tuning factors exists life can appear in the right environmental conditions.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types."

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. bbb"Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, bbbwithout following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

dhw: I don’t dislike your “committees” image, though I would never use it. Virtually every article on cellular behaviour that you present to us draws attention to the manner in which cells/cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another as they process new information and decide how to handle it. But they don’t sit round a table sipping their pints of beer.

No, they automatically communicate.

Post reply

376 views

dhw: You have left out the important word IF (such a climate exists). All you are saying is that if conditions are right, life can appear, and therefore conditions are right everywhere in the universe! No, they're not. You can only say conditions are “fine-tuned” if you know that life has appeared! You have also left out virtually every biochemical and environmental factor which you harp on when you discuss the complexity of life as evidence of design! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! “Always”? How many examples of special universes and life production do you know?

DAVID: You have it backwards as usual. All necessary fine-tuning factors are known. If they are present, life is allowed to appear. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO APPEAR TO MAKE/PROVE THE POINT.

1) All necessary fine-tuning factors are not known. Nobody knows how life originated! If all factors were known, we would be able to create living organisms out of inanimate matter in the laboratory. 2) What do you mean “allowed to appear”? Do you think “life” is waiting around in space for the right environment, and then toddles along to introduce itself? 3) Of course life has to appear in order to prove that there is life!!! 4) I find it doubly surprising that someone who believes his God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, also believes – as you go on to tell us – that given the right environment, life can pop up anywhere! But your version of a God has never been one for logical behaviour, has he?

DAVID: This is a special unique universe that allows life. That is the primary concept. It's exact factor values make it that way. Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable environment.

dhw: This is the only universe we know, and we know that it allows life. Stop stating the obvious. Dawkins & Co will certainly agree with you that theoretically, given the right conditions, “life can pop up anywhere” – who needs design? But even that does not mean that the right conditions exist all over the universe, let alone that the right conditions are all that is needed to breathe life into blobs of matter.[…]. For the umpteenth time: only if we find life can we say that somewhere is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: You demand a proof that is not necessary. Everywhere fine-tuning factors exists life can appear in the right environmental conditions.

But (a) fine-tuning factors do not exist everywhere, and (b) life “can” appear does not mean that life does appear, and (c) once more: the only place we know of in which all fine-tuning factors ARE present and life HAS appeared is Planet Earth. Stop fabricating silly rules about unproven hypotheses. Once more: ONLY IF WE FIND LIFE CAN WE SAY THAT SOMEWHERE IS FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE. Please explain why you find this statement illogical.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types."

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

dhw: I don’t dislike your “committees” image, though I would never use it. Virtually every article on cellular behaviour that you present to us draws attention to the manner in which cells/cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another as they process new information and decide how to handle it. But they don’t sit round a table sipping their pints of beer.

DAVID: No, they automatically communicate.

What does that mean? One set of cells is programmed to quote your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old instructions to other sets? Or God pops in and tells one set what to tell the other sets?

Post reply

371 views

DAVID: You have it backwards as usual. All necessary fine-tuning factors are known. If they are present, life is allowed to appear. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO APPEAR TO MAKE/PROVE THE POINT.

dhw: 1) All necessary fine-tuning factors are not known. Nobody knows how life originated!

The discussion has nothing to do with origin of life. This universe is a life allowing place to begin with.

dhw: If all factors were known, we would be able to create living organisms out of inanimate matter in the laboratory.

Wrong set of factors! The theory does not include origin of life!

dhw: ....... 4) I find it doubly surprising that someone who believes his God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, also believes – as you go on to tell us – that given the right environment, life can pop up anywhere! But your version of a God has never been one for logical behaviour, has he?

It is you who are illogical. Fine-tuning allows life to appear anywhere, nothing more. Fine tuning factors do not make life.

DAVID: You demand a proof that is not necessary. Everywhere fine-tuning factors exists life can appear in the right environmental conditions.

dhw: But (a) fine-tuning factors do not exist everywhere, and (b) life “can” appear does not mean that life does appear, and (c) once more: the only place we know of in which all fine-tuning factors ARE present and life HAS appeared is Planet Earth. Stop fabricating silly rules about unproven hypotheses. Once more: ONLY IF WE FIND LIFE CAN WE SAY THAT SOMEWHERE IS FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE. Please explain why you find this statement illogical.

This life allowing universe cannot exist unless physical factors adjusted just-so are set up within it. It is a unique universe. Leslie concludes it is either God making it the one or there are multiverses, with no evidence for them.

Bird brains

QUOTES: "The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types."

“Our studies show that evolution has found multiple solutions for building complex brains," explains Dr. García-Moreno. bbb"Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, bbbwithout following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: Evolution does not find anything. Evolution is a process, not an agent. The emphasis is always on how cells/cell communities develop or change their functions as they respond in their different ways to the conditions they are exposed to. You will no doubt tell us that every variation was divinely planned 3.8 billion years ago, or dabbled ad hoc. Shapiro suggests that all such changes are made by intelligent cells/cell communities that work out their own solutions (if they are clever enough – otherwise, they go extinct). You and I both reject Darwin’s theory of random mutations. Of the three explanations, I must confess I find Shapiro’s by far the most convincing, and to forestall your usual objection, his theory does not exclude your God, who may have designed the intelligent cell in the first place.

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

dhw: I don’t dislike your “committees” image, though I would never use it. Virtually every article on cellular behaviour that you present to us draws attention to the manner in which cells/cell communities communicate and cooperate with one another as they process new information and decide how to handle it. But they don’t sit round a table sipping their pints of beer.

DAVID: No, they automatically communicate.

dhw; What does that mean? One set of cells is programmed to quote your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old instructions to other sets? Or God pops in and tells one set what to tell the other sets?

No popping. All automatic from the beginning. LUCA indicates it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26535311-100-when-did-life-begin-on-earth-new-ev...

"...genetics points to an early origin. In a study published in July 2024, Donoghue and his colleagues attempted to date the last universal common ancestor (LUCA): the organism that is the ancestor of all life today. They did so by identifying genes found in all living organisms, which probably date back to LUCA. Their best estimate was that LUCA lived 4.2 billion years ago. That’s just 300 million years after Earth formed. And things would have got started far earlier than that. “LUCA isn’t the origin of life by any stretch of the imagination,” says Donoghue. It seems to have been a fairly advanced microorganism, the product of a long period of evolution and growing complexity."

All we can predict is complexity al the way back.

Post reply

369 views

DAVID: You have it backwards as usual. All necessary fine-tuning factors are known. If they are present, life is allowed to appear. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO APPEAR TO MAKE/PROVE THE POINT.

dhw: 1) All necessary fine-tuning factors are not known. Nobody knows how life originated!

DAVID: The discussion has nothing to do with origin of life. […]

This is the daftest of all your arguments. How can you possibly say that everywhere in the universe is fine-tuned for life if our planet is the only place we know that has produced life?

DAVID: Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable environment.

dhw: ....... 4) I find it doubly surprising that someone who believes his God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, also believes […] that given the right environment, life can pop up anywhere! But your version of a God has never been one for logical behaviour, has he?

DAVID: It is you who are illogical. Fine-tuning allows life to appear anywhere, nothing more. Fine tuning factors do not make life.

How can you tell that a place is fine-tuned for life if there is no life? One moment you say “life can pop up”, and the next moment, it’s so complex that only your God could create and combine all the necessary factors. If “fine-tuning” for life is not the combination of all the necessary factors that results in life, what is it? And if “fine-tuning” has nothing to do with the origin of life, what function can it possibly have?

Biological complexity

QUOTE: We hope that one day we will be able to unlock the secret of how nature produces all the oxygen molecules that surround us and that we breathe every day," says Ablyasova."

DAVID: it took highly sophisticated lab work to do it. How do natural mutations achieve such a complex enzyme? Not by chance.

So it’s all part of the “fine-tuning”, and you think the whole universe combines all of these highly sophisticated factors, and life can pop up anywhere. Once more: you can only know that a place is fine-tuned for life if it harbours or has harboured life! What other proof can you possibly have?

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

DAVID: No, they automatically communicate.

dhw: What does that mean? One set of cells is programmed to quote your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old instructions to other sets? Or God pops in and tells one set what to tell the other sets?

DAVID: No popping. All automatic from the beginning.

So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: LUCA indicates it:

LUCA has nothing to do with it!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26535311-100-when-did-life-begin-on-earth-new-ev...

QUOTE: "...genetics points to an early origin. In a study published in July 2024, Donoghue and his colleagues attempted to date the last universal common ancestor (LUCA): the organism that is the ancestor of all life today. They did so by identifying genes found in all living organisms, which probably date back to LUCA. Their best estimate was that LUCA lived 4.2 billion years ago. That’s just 300 million years after Earth formed. And things would have got started far earlier than that. “LUCA isn’t the origin of life by any stretch of the imagination,” says Donoghue. It seems to have been a fairly advanced microorganism, the product of a long period of evolution and growing complexity."

DAVID: All we can predict is complexity al the way back.

I agree. The very first cells would have been complex. How does that come to mean that they contained instructions for the whole of evolution etc.?

Post reply

377 views

DAVID: The discussion has nothing to do with origin of life. […]

dhw: This is the daftest of all your arguments. How can you possibly say that everywhere in the universe is fine-tuned for life if our planet is the only place we know that has produced life?

Because the 20+ necessary factors make this universe exist! That is the level of this discussion, not the appearance of life. Your view is absolutely wrong.

DAVID: It is you who are illogical. Fine-tuning allows life to appear anywhere, nothing more. Fine tuning factors do not make life.

dhw: How can you tell that a place is fine-tuned for life if there is no life? One moment you say “life can pop up”, and the next moment, it’s so complex that only your God could create and combine all the necessary factors. If “fine-tuning” for life is not the combination of all the necessary factors that results in life, what is it? And if “fine-tuning” has nothing to do with the origin of life, what function can it possibly have?

Still wrong. It is the makeup of this universe that allows life to appear. That is the primary concept you miss.

Biological complexity

QUOTE: We hope that one day we will be able to unlock the secret of how nature produces all the oxygen molecules that surround us and that we breathe every day," says Ablyasova."

DAVID: it took highly sophisticated lab work to do it. How do natural mutations achieve such a complex enzyme? Not by chance.

dhw: So it’s all part of the “fine-tuning”, and you think the whole universe combines all of these highly sophisticated factors, and life can pop up anywhere. Once more: you can only know that a place is fine-tuned for life if it harbours or has harboured life! What other proof can you possibly have?

The real history of fine-tuning: Life is here and physicists have worked backward to define the requirements. Amazingly they are precisely fine-tuned!

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

dhw: So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!

DAVID: LUCA indicates it:

dhw: LUCA has nothing to do with it!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26535311-100-when-did-life-begin-on-earth-new-ev...

QUOTE: "...genetics points to an early origin. In a study published in July 2024, Donoghue and his colleagues attempted to date the last universal common ancestor (LUCA): the organism that is the ancestor of all life today. They did so by identifying genes found in all living organisms, which probably date back to LUCA. Their best estimate was that LUCA lived 4.2 billion years ago. That’s just 300 million years after Earth formed. And things would have got started far earlier than that. “LUCA isn’t the origin of life by any stretch of the imagination,” says Donoghue. It seems to have been a fairly advanced microorganism, the product of a long period of evolution and growing complexity."

DAVID: All we can predict is complexity al the way back.

dhw: I agree. The very first cells would have been complex. How does that come to mean that they contained instructions for the whole of evolution etc.?

The immune system proves it. See above.

Post reply

380 views

DAVID: The discussion has nothing to do with origin of life. […]

dhw: This is the daftest of all your arguments. How can you possibly say that everywhere in the universe is fine-tuned for life if our planet is the only place we know that has produced life?

DAVID: Because the 20+ necessary factors make this universe exist! That is the level of this discussion, not the appearance of life. Your view is absolutely wrong.

“The universe is fine-tuned for life” has nothing to do with the appearance of life in the universe? Are you joking? Once more: How do you know the whole universe is fine-tuned for life if the only life we know of is our own?

DAVID: It is the makeup of this universe that allows life to appear. That is the primary concept you miss.
And:
DAVID: The real history of fine-tuning: Life is here and physicists have worked backward to define the requirements. Amazingly they are precisely fine-tuned!

They have defined the requirements for life, and amazingly the requirements are what is required for life, and this has nothing to do with the origin of life! Yes, life is here, and so all the fine-tuning necessary for life has occurred here. Yes, the universe is as it is, and it has “allowed” life to happen. Otherwise, it could not have happened! But you tell us that “fine tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitality as it did on Earth.” Your theoretical “can” doesn’t mean that it does, and “any spot” will still only be a minuscule fragment of the universe – not the entire universe. Yes, we know some of the material requirements for life, but that does not mean life can “pop up” just because conditions are suitable. How inanimate matter can be “fine-tuned” to become animate remains a mystery. That’s what we mean by the “origin of life”. It is the ultimate piece of fine-tuning, and the only fine-tuned “spot” we know of in the entire universe is Planet Earth. Your next item illustrates your own illogicality:

Biological complexity

QUOTE: We hope that one day we will be able to unlock the secret of how nature produces all the oxygen molecules that surround us and that we breathe every day," says Ablyasova."

DAVID: it took highly sophisticated lab work to do it. How do natural mutations achieve such a complex enzyme? Not by chance.

dhw: So it's all part of the "fine-tuning", and you think the whole universe combines all of these highly sophisticated factors, and life can pop up [= originate] anywhere. Once more: you can only know that a place is fine-tuned for life if it harbours or has harboured life! What other proof can you possibly have?

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: Yes, I know you prefer your theory of ad hoc divine dabbles or the first cells being provided with 3.8000,000,000 years’ worth of instructions.

DAVID: And you have your brilliant cell committees.

dhw: So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!

One “system” (the brain) invents rockets, writes symphonies, fights diseases, discusses the mysteries of life. It can do what it does because it has its own autonomous intelligence. Its thoughts are not programmed. The “system” is the mechanism which acts or reacts to create something new. The intelligent cell processes new information, communicates with other cells, and takes decisions in order to make new antibodies in response to new invaders. I propose that this is a more likely “system” than a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every future situation. No need to repeat the LUCA section, since the same argument applies.

Post reply

391 views

DAVID: The discussion has nothing to do with origin of life. […]

dhw: This is the daftest of all your arguments. How can you possibly say that everywhere in the universe is fine-tuned for life if our planet is the only place we know that has produced life?

DAVID: Because the 20+ necessary factors make this universe exist! That is the level of this discussion, not the appearance of life. Your view is absolutely wrong.

dhw: “The universe is fine-tuned for life” has nothing to do with the appearance of life in the universe? Are you joking? Once more: How do you know the whole universe is fine-tuned for life if the only life we know of is our own?

Don't you read what I say. The composition of this universe is fine-tuned because the 20+ factors that define this universe and create this universe as it is.

DAVID: It is the makeup of this universe that allows life to appear. That is the primary concept you miss.
And:
DAVID: The real history of fine-tuning: Life is here and physicists have worked backward to define the requirements. Amazingly they are precisely fine-tuned!

dhw: They have defined the requirements for life, and amazingly the requirements are what is required for life, and this has nothing to do with the origin of life! Yes, life is here, and so all the fine-tuning necessary for life has occurred here. Yes, the universe is as it is, and it has “allowed” life to happen. Otherwise, it could not have happened! But you tell us that “fine tuning for life is everywhere in the universe. Life can then appear in any spot that evolves life hospitality as it did on Earth.” Your theoretical “can” doesn’t mean that it does, and “any spot” will still only be a minuscule fragment of the universe – not the entire universe. Yes, we know some of the material requirements for life, but that does not mean life can “pop up” just because conditions are suitable.

We do not know how life decides to appear. We do not know how life originates. We know this universe is hospitable for life. And we know that it is possible for life to appear anywhere within the universe. We search for aliens!

dhw: How inanimate matter can be “fine-tuned” to become animate remains a mystery. That’s what we mean by the “origin of life”. It is the ultimate piece of fine-tuning, and the only fine-tuned “spot” we know of in the entire universe is Planet Earth.

Nonsense! Origin of life is a separate package which can only appear in a specific fine-tuned universe waiting for it.

Biological complexity

QUOTE: We hope that one day we will be able to unlock the secret of how nature produces all the oxygen molecules that surround us and that we breathe every day," says Ablyasova."

DAVID: it took highly sophisticated lab work to do it. How do natural mutations achieve such a complex enzyme? Not by chance.

dhw: So it's all part of the "fine-tuning", and you think the whole universe combines all of these highly sophisticated factors, and life can pop up [= originate] anywhere. Once more: you can only know that a place is fine-tuned for life if it harbours or has harboured life! What other proof can you possibly have?

Do you deliberately forget my presentations? The CMB tells us the universe is uniform throughout. The 20+ factors that define and form this universe are everywhere.

Bird brains

dhw: So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!

dhw: One “system” (the brain) invents rockets, writes symphonies, fights diseases, discusses the mysteries of life. It can do what it does because it has its own autonomous intelligence. Its thoughts are not programmed. The “system” is the mechanism which acts or reacts to create something new. The intelligent cell processes new information, communicates with other cells, and takes decisions in order to make new antibodies in response to new invaders. I propose that this is a more likely “system” than a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every future situation. No need to repeat the LUCA section, since the same argument applies.

One simple immune system makes antibodies for every enemy. Take a piece of the invader, add a killer portion to it and an antibody appears.

Post reply

374 views

DAVID: […] the 20+ necessary factors make this universe exist! That is the level of this discussion, not the appearance of life. Your view is absolutely wrong.

dhw: “The universe is fine-tuned for life” has nothing to do with the appearance of life in the universe? Are you joking? Once more: How do you know the whole universe is fine-tuned for life if the only life we know of is our own?

DAVID: Don't you read what I say. The composition of this universe is fine-tuned because the 20+ factors that define this universe and create this universe as it is.

Unfortunately for you, I do read what you say, and you say three separate things which, true to form, are self-contradictory.

1) The universe is as it is because of certain factors, and if the universe did not exist as it is, life would not be possible. There is no disagreement. But fine tuning for life must include whatever factors change inanimate matter into living matter!

2)“The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” Contrast that with: “Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable climate.” We know for a fact that even large parts of our own galaxy do not have a hospitable climate, and so you are quite rightly limiting the possibility to particular spots in the universe that are “fine-tuned for life to appear”, as opposed to the entire universe. And even if a spot did have a hospitable climate, that still wouldn’t mean life existed there, because a hospitable climate is not the only factor that determines whether inanimate matter becomes animate. We can only say a place is/was fine-tuned for life if we know there is/was life in that place!

3) You have spent years and written books pointing out the uniqueness of our planet, and you insist that your God’s only purpose for creating the universe was to design us and our food. How does this equate with life “popping up” wherever there is a hospitable climate?

See square brackets for my answers to your next statement:

DAVID: We do not know how life decides to appear. [I didn't know life was a conscious decision-maker. I thought you thought it was your God who took the decision to do the fine-tuning.] We do not know how life originates. [Correct] We know this universe is hospitable for life. [So far we only know that one part of it is hospitable for life.] And we know that it is possible for life to appear anywhere within the universe. [That is our assumption: anywhere, but certainly not everywhere.] We search for aliens! [And only if we find them can we say their particular spot in the universe is fine-tuned for life.]

dhw: How inanimate matter can be “fine-tuned” to become animate remains a mystery. That’s what we mean by the “origin of life”. It is the ultimate piece of fine-tuning, and the only fine-tuned “spot” we know of in the entire universe is Planet Earth.

DAVID: Nonsense! Origin of life is a separate package which can only appear in a specific fine-tuned universe waiting for it.

Back to 2). You say “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” But life can only appear where the climate is "hospitable for life". Are conditions throughout the entire universe hospitable for life? Please answer.

Bird brains

QUOTES: “The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types.”
“Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”

You explained this as being due to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions; we both reject Darwin’s random mutations, and I prefer Sheldrake’s theory of cellular intelligence. You then repeated your mantra:

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!
And:
DAVID: One simple immune system makes antibodies for every enemy. Take a piece of the invader, add a killer portion to it and an antibody appears.

You have managed to change the subject from bird brains (see above) to the immune system, and you have dodged the fact that your theory also embraces every species, strategy, lifestyle, response to new threats/opportunities etc. I have challenged even this example, since intelligent communication between cells is still essential, and clearly your all-knowing God’s automatic system sometimes breaks down when new threats proceed to kill millions of people – e,g, ‘flu, malaria, AIDS, Covid – which means viruses can outsmart your God instead of outsmarting our cells. But your example is a mere dot in the vast collection of instructions your God apparently implanted in those first cells. If you want simplicity, Shapiro’s theory wins by a vast distance!

Post reply

389 views

dhw: Unfortunately for you, I do read what you say, and you say three separate things which, true to form, are self-contradictory.

1) The universe is as it is because of certain factors, and if the universe did not exist as it is, life would not be possible. There is no disagreement. But fine tuning for life must include whatever factors change inanimate matter into living matter!

The 20+ physical factors presented in this universe are not biochemical in any way. We do not know enough about the biochemistry of the origin of life to know if physical fine-tuning is involved. Stop lumping the biochemistry of life with the physical attributes of this universe that allow life. The physical structure of this life allowing universe is a separate issue from the biochemical steps that start life.

dhw: 2)“The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” Contrast that with: “Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable climate.” We know for a fact that even large parts of our own galaxy do not have a hospitable climate, and so you are quite rightly limiting the possibility to particular spots in the universe that are “fine-tuned for life to appear”, as opposed to the entire universe. And even if a spot did have a hospitable climate, that still wouldn’t mean life existed there, because a hospitable climate is not the only factor that determines whether inanimate matter becomes animate. We can only say a place is/was fine-tuned for life if we know there is/was life in that place!

Still confused. The physical makeup of this universe allows life wherever there is a hospitable climate. The origin of life is a separate biochemical issue.

dhw: 3) You have spent years and written books pointing out the uniqueness of our planet, and you insist that your God’s only purpose for creating the universe was to design us and our food. How does this equate with life “popping up” wherever there is a hospitable climate?

Of course God would put life in hospitable places.

dhw: See square brackets for my answers to your next statement:

dhw: How inanimate matter can be “fine-tuned” to become animate remains a mystery. That’s what we mean by the “origin of life”. It is the ultimate piece of fine-tuning, and the only fine-tuned “spot” we know of in the entire universe is Planet Earth.

DAVID: Nonsense! Origin of life is a separate package which can only appear in a specific fine-tuned universe waiting for it.

dhw: Back to 2). You say “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” But life can only appear where the climate is "hospitable for life". Are conditions throughout the entire universe hospitable for life? Please answer.

Anywhere the climate is hospitable in this universe life can appear. Only on Earth, so far.

Bird brains

QUOTES: “The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types.”
“Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”

hw: You explained this as being due to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions; we both reject Darwin’s random mutations, and I prefer Sheldrake’s theory of cellular intelligence.

Sheldrake's theory?
'

dhw: You then repeated your mantra:

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!
And:
DAVID: One simple immune system makes antibodies for every enemy. Take a piece of the invader, add a killer portion to it and an antibody appears.

dhw: You have managed to change the subject from bird brains (see above) to the immune system, and you have dodged the fact that your theory also embraces every species, strategy, lifestyle, response to new threats/opportunities etc. I have challenged even this example, since intelligent communication between cells is still essential, and clearly your all-knowing God’s automatic system sometimes breaks down when new threats proceed to kill millions of people – e,g, ‘flu, malaria, AIDS, Covid – which means viruses can outsmart your God instead of outsmarting our cells. But your example is a mere dot in the vast collection of instructions your God apparently implanted in those first cells. If you want simplicity, Shapiro’s theory wins by a vast distance!

That the antibodies we produce are sometimes inadequate does not answer the point of the simplicity of the system which is adequate 99.9% of the time.

Post reply

382 views

dhw: The universe is as it is because of certain factors, and if the universe did not exist as it is, life would not be possible. There is no disagreement. But fine tuning for life must include whatever factors change inanimate matter into living matter!

DAVID: The 20+ physical factors presented in this universe are not biochemical in any way. We do not know enough about the biochemistry of the origin of life to know if physical fine-tuning is involved. Stop lumping the biochemistry of life with the physical attributes of this universe that allow life. The physical structure of this life allowing universe is a separate issue from the biochemical steps that start life.

“Allowing life” is not the same as fine-tuning for life, and it is a distortion of language to say that fine-tuning for life has nothing to do with the processes that lead to life! I would say that the 20+ physical factors represent some of the necessary conditions for life, but the fine-tuning is what turns inanimate matter into animate beings. Your next statement directly contradicts oher statements:

DAVID: The physical makeup of this universe allows life wherever there is a hospitable
climate.[…]

Compare this to “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” Does the entire universe offer a “hospitable climate”, or is such a climate limited to individual heavenly bodies? Please answer.

dhw: You have spent years and written books pointing out the uniqueness of our planet, and you insist that your God’s only purpose for creating the universe was to design us and our food. How does this equate with life “popping up” wherever there is a hospitable climate?

DAVID: Of course God would put life in hospitable places.

But according to you, his one purpose was to put life (and specifically us plus our food) on Earth. If he exists, do you not think his putting life on Earth entailed his conscious fine-tuning, as opposed to “Life can pop up anywhere with a hospitable climate” and: “We do not know how life decided to appear.”

DAVID: Anywhere the climate is hospitable in this universe life can appear. Only on Earth, so far.

Thank you for agreeing that life can only appear if conditions are suitable. It follows that since conditions are not suitable everywhere in the universe, the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life. And “only on Earth, so far” confirms that so far, the only place in the universe that we KNOW is fine-tuned for life is Earth.

You have just posed a highly relevant article:

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

Bird brains

QUOTES: “The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types.”

“Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”

dhw: You explained this as being due to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions; we both reject Darwin’s random mutations, and I prefer Sheldrake’s theory of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Sheldrake's theory?

Oops! A slip of the brain! I meant Shapiro, of course.
'
dhw: You then repeated your mantra:

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: You have managed to change the subject from bird brains (see above) to the immune system, and you have dodged the fact that your theory also embraces every species, strategy, lifestyle, response to new threats/opportunities etc.

And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s.

DAVID: That the antibodies we produce are sometimes inadequate does not answer the point of the simplicity of the system which is adequate 99.9% of the time.

Same problem as theodicy, though I don’t know where you get your 99.9% from. I still propose that the deaths of millions of people are not to be dismissed, and that it might be less insulting to your God if the “system” was autonomous but fallible cellular intelligence rather than divine but fallible 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.

Post reply

375 views

DAVID: The 20+ physical factors presented in this universe are not biochemical in any way. We do not know enough about the biochemistry of the origin of life to know if physical fine-tuning is involved. Stop lumping the biochemistry of life with the physical attributes of this universe that allow life. The physical structure of this life-allowing universe is a separate issue from the biochemical steps that start life.

dhw: “Allowing life” is not the same as fine-tuning for life, and it is a distortion of language to say that fine-tuning for life has nothing to do with the processes that lead to life! I would say that the 20+ physical factors represent some of the necessary conditions for life, but the fine-tuning is what turns inanimate matter into animate beings. Your next statement directly contradicts other statements:

DAVID: The physical makeup of this universe allows life wherever there is a hospitable
climate.[…]

dhw: Compare this to “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” Does the entire universe offer a “hospitable climate”, or is such a climate limited to individual heavenly bodies? Please answer.

Your usual nit-picking. The physical structure of the universe allows life anywhere, but since life requires a comfortable climate it will appear in such places as our Earth, such a heavenly body.

dhw: You have spent years and written books pointing out the uniqueness of our planet, and you insist that your God’s only purpose for creating the universe was to design us and our food. How does this equate with life “popping up” wherever there is a hospitable climate?

God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

[/i]
DAVID: Anywhere the climate is hospitable in this universe life can appear. Only on Earth, so far.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that life can only appear if conditions are suitable. It follows that since conditions are not suitable everywhere in the universe, the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life. And “only on Earth, so far” confirms that so far, the only place in the universe that we KNOW is fine-tuned for life is Earth.

Not so. This entire universe is structurally/physically fine-tuned for life.

You have just posed a highly relevant article:

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

dhw: And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

You are now smutching climate and fine-tuning issues into one lump.

Bird brains

QUOTES: “The genetic tools they use to establish their cellular identity vary from species to species, each exhibiting new and unique cell types.”

“Birds have developed sophisticated neural circuits through their own mechanisms, without following the same path as mammals.”
'
DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: So your God provided the first cells with programmes for every species, every strategy, every response to every new threat/opportunity, to be passed on through billions of years even into our present and future. I get it. I just don’t believe it.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything!
And:
DAVID: One simple immune system makes antibodies for every enemy. Take a piece of the invader, add a killer portion to it and an antibody appears.

dhw: You have managed to change the subject from bird brains (see above) to the immune system, and you have dodged the fact that your theory also embraces every species, strategy, lifestyle, response to new threats/opportunities etc.

And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s.

DAVID: That the antibodies we produce are sometimes inadequate does not answer the point of the simplicity of the system which is adequate 99.9% of the time.

dhw: Same problem as theodicy, though I don’t know where you get your 99.9% from. I still propose that the deaths of millions of people are not to be dismissed, and that it might be less insulting to your God if the “system” was autonomous but fallible cellular intelligence rather than divine but fallible 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.

The insults are from your morbid view of a 0.1% failure rate.

Post reply

379 views

DAVID: […] The physical structure of this life-allowing universe is a separate issue from the biochemical steps that start life.

dhw: “Allowing life” is not the same as fine-tuning for life, and it is a distortion of language to say that fine-tuning for life has nothing to do with the processes that lead to life! I would say that the 20+ physical factors represent some of the necessary conditions for life, but the fine-tuning is what turns inanimate matter into animate beings. Your next statement directly contradicts other statements:

DAVID: The physical makeup of this universe allows life wherever there is a hospitable
climate.[…]

dhw: Compare this to “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” Does the entire universe offer a “hospitable climate”, or is such a climate limited to individual heavenly bodies? Please answer.

DAVID: Your usual nit-picking. The physical structure of the universe allows life anywhere, but since life requires a comfortable climate it will appear in such places as our Earth, such a heavenly body.
And:
DAVID: This entire universe is structurally/physically fine-tuned for life.

A “comfortable climate” is part of the fine-tuning! “Allowing” provides the basic materials, but at the moment, our Earth is the only place in the universe where we KNOW that conditions have been fine-tuned for life. There may well be others, but self-evidently the “entire universe” is NOT fine-tuned if the requisite conditions are not present! You are making a mockery of language.

DAVID: God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

That is just another way of saying your God “fine-tuned” the Earth for life. So what is this nonsense about life “popping up”, and “life decided to appear” wherever the climate is hospitable?

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

dhw: And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

DAVID: You are now smutching climate and fine-tuning issues into one lump.

Of course climate is part of fine-tuning! If it was not essential, you’re saying there could be life without suitable conditions for life!

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

DAVID: Immunity proves it. One system makes antibodies for everything![…]

dhw: And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s. Your dodging is becoming ever more blatant.

DAVID: That the antibodies we produce are sometimes inadequate does not answer the point of the simplicity of the system which is adequate 99.9% of the time.

dhw: Same problem as theodicy, though I don’t know where you get your 99.9% from. I still propose that the deaths of millions of people are not to be dismissed, and that it might be less insulting to your God if the “system” was autonomous but fallible cellular intelligence rather than divine but fallible 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.

DAVID: The insults are from your morbid view of a 0.1% failure rate.

We are now into theodicy and your efforts to ignore evil on the grounds of “proportionality”. Would you say that the inefficiency of your God’s use of evolution to fulfil his one and only goal, the deaths of millions of people through the failure of his instructions, and the suffering caused by all forms of evil knowingly created by your God are commensurate with the conventional view of your God as being all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?

Balance of Nature: human and theological implications

dhw: I remain delighted that we are now in agreement on this whole subject, and I suggest we close this thread.

DAVID: Fine noting our differences in attitude.

I note that you are less concerned than I am about the continuation and expansion of the damage we both recognize as real.

Post reply

368 views

DAVID: Your usual nit-picking. The physical structure of the universe allows life anywhere, but since life requires a comfortable climate it will appear in such places as our Earth, such a heavenly body.
And:
DAVID: This entire universe is structurally/physically fine-tuned for life.

dhw: A “comfortable climate” is part of the fine-tuning! “Allowing” provides the basic materials, but at the moment, our Earth is the only place in the universe where we KNOW that conditions have been fine-tuned for life. There may well be others, but self-evidently the “entire universe” is NOT fine-tuned if the requisite conditions are not present! You are making a mockery of language.

The fine-tuning principal DOES NOT include climate, just the physical constants that create the universe. A friendly climate occurs within that basic structure. Stop conflating the two.

DAVID: God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

dhw: That is just another way of saying your God “fine-tuned” the Earth for life. So what is this nonsense about life “popping up”, and “life decided to appear” wherever the climate is hospitable?

On the Earth of course.

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

dhw: And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

DAVID: You are now smutching climate and fine-tuning issues into one lump.

dhw: Of course climate is part of fine-tuning! If it was not essential, you’re saying there could be life without suitable conditions for life!

The original concept of fine-tuning was limited to 20+ physical factors that construct this universe. Climate is a local issue within the universe.>

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s. Your dodging is becoming ever more blatant.

DAVID: That the antibodies we produce are sometimes inadequate does not answer the point of the simplicity of the system which is adequate 99.9% of the time.

dhw: Same problem as theodicy, though I don’t know where you get your 99.9% from. I still propose that the deaths of millions of people are not to be dismissed, and that it might be less insulting to your God if the “system” was autonomous but fallible cellular intelligence rather than divine but fallible 3.8-billion-year-old instructions.

DAVID: The insults are from your morbid view of a 0.1% failure rate.

dhw: We are now into theodicy and your efforts to ignore evil on the grounds of “proportionality”. Would you say that the inefficiency of your God’s use of evolution to fulfil his one and only goal, the deaths of millions of people through the failure of his instructions, and the suffering caused by all forms of evil knowingly created by your God are commensurate with the conventional view of your God as being all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?

Usual answer, God's good works far outweigh the bad side effects

Balance of Nature: human and theological implications

dhw: I remain delighted that we are now in agreement on this whole subject, and I suggest we close this thread.

DAVID: Fine noting our differences in attitude.

dhw: I note that you are less concerned than I am about the continuation and expansion of the damage we both recognize as real.

OK.

Post reply

370 views

DAVID: Your usual nit-picking. The physical structure of the universe allows life anywhere, but since life requires a comfortable climate it will appear in such places as our Earth, such a heavenly body.
And:
DAVID: This entire universe is structurally/physically fine-tuned for life.

dhw: A “comfortable climate” is part of the fine-tuning! “Allowing” provides the basic materials, but at the moment, our Earth is the only place in the universe where we KNOW that conditions have been fine-tuned for life. There may well be others, but self-evidently the “entire universe” is NOT fine-tuned if the requisite conditions are not present! You are making a mockery of language.

DAVID: The fine-tuning principal DOES NOT include climate, just the physical constants that create the universe. A friendly climate occurs within that basic structure. Stop conflating the two.

Please stop making up rules as you go along. There is no “conflation”! You agree that life is impossible without a hospitable climate. Therefore a hospitable climate has to be part of the fine-tuning for life!

DAVID: God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

dhw: That is just another way of saying your God “fine-tuned” the Earth for life. So what is this nonsense about life “popping up”, and “life decided to appear” wherever the climate is hospitable?

DAVID: On the Earth of course.

According to you, your God CREATED life on Earth, so according to you it did not pop up, and it does not have a mind of its own that makes decisions. In fact, your major evidence for the existence of your God is that life is too complex to have popped up on its own – so it must have been designed. And he must have “made the Earth hospitable for life” as part of his fine-tuning for life. And so far, Earth is the only place we know of that has been fine-tuned for life. It remains to be seen whether there are other places.

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

dhw: And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

DAVID: You are now smutching climate and fine-tuning issues into one lump.

dhw: Of course climate is part of fine-tuning! If it was not essential, then you’re saying there could be life without suitable conditions for life! What sort of logic is that?

DAVID: The original concept of fine-tuning was limited to 20+ physical factors that construct this universe. Climate is a local issue within the universe.

I don’t care what “original concept” you are referring to! The moment you talk of “fine-tuning for life”, you are talking of all the conditions that are necessary for life. Yes, climate is a local “issue” within the universe, and so is “life”. They are only to be found locally, and at present the only location is our planet, and you have made it perfectly clear that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life, since life can only occur where there are hospitable conditions.

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s. Your dodging is becoming ever more blatant. […]

dhw: […] We are now into theodicy and your efforts to ignore evil on the grounds of “proportionality”. Would you say that the inefficiency of your God’s use of evolution to fulfil his one and only goal, the deaths of millions of people through the failure of his instructions, and the suffering caused by all forms of evil knowingly created by your God are commensurate with the conventional view of your God as being all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?

DAVID: Usual answer, God's good works far outweigh the bad side effects.

I know “proportionality” is your usual answer. That is what I have objected to, ending with a straightforward question, which as usual you simply dodge. An all-knowing God would have known the “bad side effects” which would result in millions of deaths from diseases and natural disasters, and suffering on a vast scale from the evil he knowingly allowed us humans to perpetrate. NB: This is not a complaint but simply a discussion concerning the possible nature of your God as the supposedly omniscient, supposedly omnipotent, supposedly all-good first cause of all that exists.

Post reply

356 views

DAVID: The fine-tuning principal DOES NOT include climate, just the physical constants that create the universe. A friendly climate occurs within that basic structure. Stop conflating the two.

dhw: Please stop making up rules as you go along. There is no “conflation”! You agree that life is impossible without a hospitable climate. Therefore a hospitable climate has to be part of the fine-tuning for life!

It is conflation. The original principal refers only to the factors creating the universe as a life-allowing universe throughout the universe. Climates that allow life are a secondary consideration, areas that are climate friendly. IF you wish to conjoin the two that is fine.

DAVID: God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

dhw: That is just another way of saying your God “fine-tuned” the Earth for life. So what is this nonsense about life “popping up”, and “life decided to appear” wherever the climate is hospitable?

DAVID: On the Earth of course.

dhw: According to you, your God CREATED life on Earth, so according to you it did not pop up, and it does not have a mind of its own that makes decisions. In fact, your major evidence for the existence of your God is that life is too complex to have popped up on its own – so it must have been designed. And he must have “made the Earth hospitable for life” as part of his fine-tuning for life. And so far, Earth is the only place we know of that has been fine-tuned for life. It remains to be seen whether there are other places.

Good summary, thank you.

Bacteria fix nitrogen in oceans

DAVID: nature is balanced. Without cyanobacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria we would not exist.

dhw: And we would not exist without oceans. Physical and biochemical components combining as part of the fine-tuning of life, which you now agree is NOT to be found in the entire universe.

DAVID: You are now smutching climate and fine-tuning issues into one lump.

dhw: Of course climate is part of fine-tuning! If it was not essential, then you’re saying there could be life without suitable conditions for life! What sort of logic is that?

DAVID: The original concept of fine-tuning was limited to 20+ physical factors that construct this universe. Climate is a local issue within the universe.

dhw: I don’t care what “original concept” you are referring to! The moment you talk of “fine-tuning for life”, you are talking of all the conditions that are necessary for life. Yes, climate is a local “issue” within the universe, and so is “life”. They are only to be found locally, and at present the only location is our planet, and you have made it perfectly clear that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life, since life can only occur where there are hospitable conditions.

I've accepted your new definition conflation of fine tuning understanding the two very different components, physical factors constructing this universe and local friendly climates.

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s. Your dodging is becoming ever more blatant. […]

dhw: […] We are now into theodicy and your efforts to ignore evil on the grounds of “proportionality”. Would you say that the inefficiency of your God’s use of evolution to fulfil his one and only goal, the deaths of millions of people through the failure of his instructions, and the suffering caused by all forms of evil knowingly created by your God are commensurate with the conventional view of your God as being all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?

DAVID: Usual answer, God's good works far outweigh the bad side effects.

dhw: I know “proportionality” is your usual answer. That is what I have objected to, ending with a straightforward question, which as usual you simply dodge. An all-knowing God would have known the “bad side effects” which would result in millions of deaths from diseases and natural disasters, and suffering on a vast scale from the evil he knowingly allowed us humans to perpetrate. NB: This is not a complaint but simply a discussion concerning the possible nature of your God as the supposedly omniscient, supposedly omnipotent, supposedly all-good first cause of all that exists.

What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

Post reply

358 views

DAVID:The fine-tuning principal DOES NOT include climate…Stop conflating the two.

dhw: Please stop making up rules as you go along. There is no “conflation”! You agree that life is impossible without a hospitable climate. Therefore a hospitable climate has to be part of the fine-tuning for life!

DAVID: It is conflation. The original principal refers only to the factors creating the universe as a life-allowing universe throughout the universe. Climates that allow life are a secondary consideration, areas that are climate friendly. IF you wish to conjoin the two that is fine.

I have no idea what you mean by the “original principle”. Our subject is your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” You also say: “The physical makeup of this universe allows life to appear wherever there is a hospitable climate[/b].” This means that life cannot appear where there is no hospitable climate, in which case quite clearly those parts of the universe that do not have a hospitable climate are not fine-tuned for life!

DAVID: God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

DAVID: On the Earth of course.

dhw: According to you, your God CREATED life on Earth, so according to you it did not pop up, and it does not have a mind of its own that makes decisions. In fact, your major evidence for the existence of your God is that life is too complex to have popped up on its own – so it must have been designed. And he must have “made the Earth hospitable for life” as part of his fine-tuning for life. And so far, Earth is the only place we know of that has been fine-tuned for life. It remains to be seen whether there are other places.

DAVID: Good summary, thank you.
And:
DAVID: I've accepted your new definition conflation of fine tuning understanding the two very different components, physical factors constructing this universe and local friendly climates.

Local friendly climates are not the only factor! You have accepted that life will not “pop up” or “decide to appear”, there is still no guarantee that the physical factors and the friendly climate will produce life, and your theory is that your God does whatever extra “fine-tuning” is needed for life to appear. All we actually know is that our own planet must be fine-tuned for life, other “localities” in the universe might possibly be fine-tuned for life, but we can say with absolute certainty that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s. Your dodging is becoming ever more blatant. […]

dhw: […] We are now into theodicy and your efforts to ignore evil on the grounds of “proportionality”. Would you say that the inefficiency of your God’s use of evolution to fulfil his one and only goal, the deaths of millions of people through the failure of his instructions, and the suffering caused by all forms of evil knowingly created by your God are commensurate with the conventional view of your God as being all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful?

DAVID: Usual answer, God's good works far outweigh the bad side effects.

dhw: I know “proportionality” is your usual answer. That is what I have objected to, ending with a straightforward question, which as usual you simply dodge. An all-knowing God would have known the “bad side effects” which would result in millions of deaths from diseases and natural disasters, and suffering on a vast scale from the evil he knowingly allowed us humans to perpetrate. NB: This is not a complaint but simply a discussion concerning the possible nature of your God as the supposedly omniscient, supposedly omnipotent, supposedly all-good first cause of all that exists.

DAVID: What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

I have not ignored your “proportionality” argument, but have pointed out again and again that proportionality does not make evil disappear, and it is the evil that throws into question the conventional belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Please take your head out of the sand and stop pretending that evil isn’t a problem for theologians.

Post reply

357 views

DAVID:The fine-tuning principal DOES NOT include climate…Stop conflating the two.

I have no idea what you mean by the “original principle”. Our subject is your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” You also say: “The physical makeup of this universe allows life to appear wherever there is a hospitable climate.” This means that life cannot appear where there is no hospitable climate, in which case quite clearly those parts of the universe that do not have a hospitable climate are not fine-tuned for life!

DAVID: God made the Earth hospitable for life as part of His goal.

DAVID: On the Earth of course.

DAVID: Good summary, thank you.
And:
DAVID: I've accepted your new definition conflation of fine tuning understanding the two very different components, physical factors constructing this universe and local friendly climates.

Bird brains

DAVID: Cells are not intelligent enough to design a new type of organism.

dhw: And you still dodge the implications and complications of your theory compared to Shapiro’s. Your dodging is becoming ever more blatant. […]

DAVID: Usual answer, God's good works far outweigh the bad side effects.

DAVID: What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

Post reply

358 views

DAVID: It is conflation. The original principal refers only to the factors creating the universe as a life-allowing universe throughout the universe. Climates that allow life are a secondary consideration, areas that are climate friendly. IF you wish to conjoin the two that is fine.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by the “original principle”. Our subject is your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” You also say: “The physical makeup of this universe allows life to appear wherever there is a hospitable climate[/b].” This means that life cannot appear where there is no hospitable climate, in which case quite clearly those parts of the universe that do not have a hospitable climate are not fine-tuned for life!

You did not follow the articles/discussions of thirty years ago when the original principals of fine-tuning were strictly limited to physical factors making tis universe fine-tuned for life. Your climate approach is backward. Specifically the universe allows life throughout it, but life will appear only in an hospitable climate, wherever that exists.

dhw: According to you, your God CREATED life on Earth, so according to you it did not pop up, and it does not have a mind of its own that makes decisions. In fact, your major evidence for the existence of your God is that life is too complex to have popped up on its own – so it must have been designed. And he must have “made the Earth hospitable for life” as part of his fine-tuning for life. And so far, Earth is the only place we know of that has been fine-tuned for life. It remains to be seen whether there are other places.

DAVID: Good summary, thank you.
And:
DAVID: I've accepted your new definition conflation of fine tuning understanding the two very different components, physical factors constructing this universe and local friendly climates.

dhw: Local friendly climates are not the only factor! You have accepted that life will not “pop up” or “decide to appear”, there is still no guarantee that the physical factors and the friendly climate will produce life, and your theory is that your God does whatever extra “fine-tuning” is needed for life to appear. All we actually know is that our own planet must be fine-tuned for life, other “localities” in the universe might possibly be fine-tuned for life, but we can say with absolute certainty that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.

Agreed. So far only on Earth.

Bird brains

dhw: I know “proportionality” is your usual answer. That is what I have objected to, ending with a straightforward question, which as usual you simply dodge. An all-knowing God would have known the “bad side effects” which would result in millions of deaths from diseases and natural disasters, and suffering on a vast scale from the evil he knowingly allowed us humans to perpetrate. NB: This is not a complaint but simply a discussion concerning the possible nature of your God as the supposedly omniscient, supposedly omnipotent, supposedly all-good first cause of all that exists.

DAVID: What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

dhw: I have not ignored your “proportionality” argument, but have pointed out again and again that proportionality does not make evil disappear, and it is the evil that throws into question the conventional belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Please take your head out of the sand and stop pretending that evil isn’t a problem for theologians.

That is why theodicy exists for discussions.

********

Miscellany entry is duplicated.

Post reply

358 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: The original principal refers only to the factors creating the universe as a life-allowing universe throughout the universe. Climates that allow life are a secondary consideration, areas that are climate friendly. IF you wish to conjoin the two that is fine.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by the “original principle”. Our subject is your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.” You also say: “The physical makeup of this universe allows life to appear wherever there is a hospitable climate.” This means that life cannot appear where there is no hospitable climate, in which case quite clearly those parts of the universe that do not have a hospitable climate are not fine-tuned for life!

DAVID: You did not follow the articles/discussions of thirty years ago when the original principals of fine-tuning were strictly limited to physical factors making tis universe fine-tuned for life. Your climate approach is backward. Specifically the universe allows life throughout it, but life will appear only in an hospitable climate, wherever that exists.

When you say “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, why must we restrict ourselves to what people were saying 30 years ago? And what on earth do you mean by a “backward approach”. You are the one looking backward! Look at the statements instead! How can you claim that the entire universe is “fine-tuned” for life to appear if life is only possible where there is a hospitable climate?

dhw: All we actually know is that our own planet must be fine-tuned for life, other “localities” in the universe might possibly be fine-tuned for life, but we can say with absolute certainty that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: Agreed. So far only on Earth.

Thank you for at last agreeing that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.
Thank you also for the various articles which all illustrate the vital role of climate for life and evolution. I’ll select a few quotations from each post:

[…] the Great Oxygenation Event […] was a time of massive environmental upheaval — many organisms died, ocean chemistry shifted dramatically, and life had to adapt to an entirely new atmosphere.

QUOTE: "Distinct rock formations were created during this abrupt climate change, as the chemistry of the oceans responded to the new conditions. The surge of nutrients may have contributed to a cascade of biological changes, possibly setting the stage for the rise of complex life.

DAVID: for life to appear using oxygen and nitrogen, the main components of our atmosphere, the geologic and glacial factors had to evolve and make a life-friendly Earth.

And here’s one that emphasizes the need for action now if we are to prevent future disasters:

QUOTE: "On shorter timescales, however, human activities have become the dominant force driving climate change. While Earth itself will endure, the survival of complex human societies depends on our actions today.”

As always, I am grateful to you for your integrity in presenting material which runs counter to some of your own beliefs.

Theodicy

DAVID: What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

dhw: I have not ignored your “proportionality” argument, but have pointed out again and again that proportionality does not make evil disappear, and it is the evil that throws into question the conventional belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Please take your head out of the sand and stop pretending that evil isn’t a problem for theologians.

DAVID: That is why theodicy exists for discussions.

Precisely. The evil is real, and that is why we discuss the problem. Proportionality explains nothing.

Post reply

353 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: You did not follow the articles/discussions of thirty years ago when the original principals of fine-tuning were strictly limited to physical factors making tis universe fine-tuned for life. Your climate approach is backward. Specifically the universe allows life throughout it, but life will appear only in an hospitable climate, wherever that exists.

dhw: When you say “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, why must we restrict ourselves to what people were saying 30 years ago? And what on earth do you mean by a “backward approach”. You are the one looking backward! Look at the statements instead! How can you claim that the entire universe is “fine-tuned” for life to appear if life is only possible where there is a hospitable climate?

It is a stepwise issue. First the universe must be constructed in a special way to allow life to appear. The universe it totally fine-tuned for life in that sense. Now, secondly, you wish to add climate friendly to life. I 'can't disagree.

dhw: All we actually know is that our own planet must be fine-tuned for life, other “localities” in the universe might possibly be fine-tuned for life, but we can say with absolute certainty that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: Agreed. So far only on Earth.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life.
Thank you also for the various articles which all illustrate the vital role of climate for life and evolution. I’ll select a few quotations from each post:

[…] the Great Oxygenation Event […] was a time of massive environmental upheaval — many organisms died, ocean chemistry shifted dramatically, and life had to adapt to an entirely new atmosphere.

QUOTE: "Distinct rock formations were created during this abrupt climate change, as the chemistry of the oceans responded to the new conditions. The surge of nutrients may have contributed to a cascade of biological changes, possibly setting the stage for the rise of complex life.

QUOTE: "Distinct rock formations were created during this abrupt climate change, as the chemistry of the oceans responded to the new conditions. The surge of nutrients may have contributed to a cascade of biological changes, possibly setting the stage for the rise of complex life.

DAVID: for life to appear using oxygen and nitrogen, the main components of our atmosphere, the geologic and glacial factors had to evolve and make a life-friendly Earth.

dhw: And here’s one that emphasizes the need for action now if we are to prevent future disasters:

QUOTE: "On shorter timescales, however, human activities have become the dominant force driving climate change. While Earth itself will endure, the survival of complex human societies depends on our actions today.”

dhw: As always, I am grateful to you for your integrity in presenting material which runs counter to some of your own beliefs.

Theodicy

DAVID: What you have ignored is the good God does far outweighs the bad side effects.

dhw: I have not ignored your “proportionality” argument, but have pointed out again and again that proportionality does not make evil disappear, and it is the evil that throws into question the conventional belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Please take your head out of the sand and stop pretending that evil isn’t a problem for theologians.

DAVID: That is why theodicy exists for discussions.

dhw: Precisely. The evil is real, and that is why we discuss the problem. Proportionality explains nothing.

It does for believers.

Post reply

351 views

Fine tuning

dhw: When you say “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, why must we restrict ourselves to what people were saying 30 years ago? And what on earth do you mean by a “backward approach”. You are the one looking backward! Look at the statements instead! How can you claim that the entire universe is “fine-tuned” for life to appear if life is only possible where there is a hospitable climate?

DAVID: It is a stepwise issue. First the universe must be constructed in a special way to allow life to appear. The universe it totally fine-tuned for life in that sense. Now, secondly, you wish to add climate friendly to life. I 'can't disagree.

I would guess that when you were a schoolboy, you were top of the class at science and bottom of the class at English Language. In all creative processes, you create the basis first, and last of all comes the fine-tuning or finishing touches. In no sense is the universe totally fine-tuned for life. How do we know? Because so far only one part of the universe is known to harbour life! I do not “wish to add” anything. Our climate is part of the fine-tuning that makes life possible on Earth.

Theoretical origin of life: finding phosphates

QUOTE: "To him, the combination of volcanic activity and soda lakes is “pretty close to a geological solution” to the phosphorus problem. Pasek thinks hydrothermal pools probably played a role, too. “There is room for both,” he says. But with any proposal about how life began billions of years ago, Preiner advises humility. “There’s uncertainty here that we just have to live with.'”

DAVID: this finding drives us to the conclusion that hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor would have provided phosphorous for the origin of life. Only oceans provided a continuous environment for any life forms that might appear.

This is one of many articles you have published recently that emphasize the complexity of the “fine tuning” that leads to life. How very wise of Preiner: the finishing touches are a complete mystery, but you can be quite sure that they are not present throughout the entire universe.

Theodicy

DAVID: That is why theodicy exists for discussions.

dhw: Precisely. The evil is real, and that is why we discuss the problem. Proportionality explains nothing.

DAVID: It does for believers.

Only believers in God have the problem of reconciling his presumed goodness, omnipotence and omniscience with the evil for which, as first cause, he is responsible. Proportionality may be a comfort to you as you stick you head in the sand, but it does not explain anything.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

QUOTES: Earth's obliquity is currently in the process of declining towards a minimum, which it will reach in 11,000 years or so; according to the team's calculations, the next ice age will kick off before then[/b]. (David’s bold):

"'According to the latest IPCC reports, humans have already started to alter the course of climate away from its natural trajectory by the emission of greenhouse gases..."

"'This means that the decisions we make now will have consequences into the far future.”

DAVID: an amazing correlation. Which means if an ice age is coming lets keep the Earth very warm. This is an interesting factor to throw into the climate debate.

If we continue to make the Earth warmer and warmer, fewer and fewer – if any – humans will live to see the next ice age. You may be sceptical of the panickers, but common sense should tell you that the hotter the climate gets, the less hospitable the Earth will become! If you don’t believe me, go and stand naked in the Sahara Desert for a few hours.

DAVID: Another article with this viewpoint:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delaye...

QUOTE: "This is in line with earlier modelling that suggests rising CO2 levels due to anthropogenic emissions will prevent the onset of the next glacial period for tens to hundreds of thousands of years,” says Andrey Ganopolski…

DAVID: we need global warming it seems.

Delaying the next glacial period won’t be much use to humanity if it has already been frizzled up by global warming. No, this is not panic. If temperatures continue to rise, the planet will be uninhabitable long before the next ice age is due, and the period in between will create hell on Earth. We shan’t be there to see it, but “decisions we take now will have consequences into the far future.”

Post reply

364 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: It is a stepwise issue. First the universe must be constructed in a special way to allow life to appear. The universe it totally fine-tuned for life in that sense. Now, secondly, you wish to add climate friendly to life. I 'can't disagree.

dhw: I would guess that when you were a schoolboy, you were top of the class at science and bottom of the class at English Language. In all creative processes, you create the basis first, and last of all comes the fine-tuning or finishing touches. In no sense is the universe totally fine-tuned for life. How do we know? Because so far only one part of the universe is known to harbour life! I do not “wish to add” anything. Our climate is part of the fine-tuning that makes life possible on Earth.

You were last in science it seems. The construction of the universe allows the Earth to harbor life. If the universe were only very slightly different the Earth could not have life.' The difference is emphasis.

Theoretical origin of life: finding phosphates

QUOTE: "To him, the combination of volcanic activity and soda lakes is “pretty close to a geological solution” to the phosphorus problem. Pasek thinks hydrothermal pools probably played a role, too. “There is room for both,” he says. But with any proposal about how life began billions of years ago, Preiner advises humility. “There’s uncertainty here that we just have to live with.'”

DAVID: this finding drives us to the conclusion that hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor would have provided phosphorous for the origin of life. Only oceans provided a continuous environment for any life forms that might appear.

dhw: This is one of many articles you have published recently that emphasize the complexity of the “fine tuning” that leads to life. How very wise of Preiner: the finishing touches are a complete mystery, but you can be quite sure that they are not present throughout the entire universe.

Yes only Earthbound

Theodicy

dhw: Precisely. The evil is real, and that is why we discuss the problem. Proportionality explains nothing.

DAVID: It does for believers.

dhw: Only believers in God have the problem of reconciling his presumed goodness, omnipotence and omniscience with the evil for which, as first cause, he is responsible. Proportionality may be a comfort to you as you stick you head in the sand, but it does not explain anything.

Not to you.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

QUOTES: Earth's obliquity is currently in the process of declining towards a minimum, which it will reach in 11,000 years or so; according to the team's calculations, the next ice age will kick off before then[/b]. (David’s bold):

"'According to the latest IPCC reports, humans have already started to alter the course of climate away from its natural trajectory by the emission of greenhouse gases..."

"'This means that the decisions we make now will have consequences into the far future.”

DAVID: Another article with this viewpoint:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delaye...

QUOTE: "This is in line with earlier modelling that suggests rising CO2 levels due to anthropogenic emissions will prevent the onset of the next glacial period for tens to hundreds of thousands of years,” says Andrey Ganopolski…

DAVID: we need global warming it seems.

dhw: Delaying the next glacial period won’t be much use to humanity if it has already been frizzled up by global warming. No, this is not panic. If temperatures continue to rise, the planet will be uninhabitable long before the next ice age is due, and the period in between will create hell on Earth. We shan’t be there to see it, but “decisions we take now will have consequences into the far future.”

'
You have bought the so-called "accurate" predictive models hook line and sinker.

Post reply

358 views

Fine tuning

dhw: I would guess that when you were a schoolboy, you were top of the class at science and bottom of the class at English Language. In all creative processes, you create the basis first, and last of all comes the fine-tuning or finishing touches. In no sense is the universe totally fine-tuned for life. How do we know? Because so far only one part of the universe is known to harbour life! I do not “wish to add” anything. Our climate is part of the fine-tuning that makes life possible on Earth.

DAVID: You were last in science it seems. The construction of the universe allows the Earth to harbor life. If the universe were only very slightly different the Earth could not have life.' The difference is emphasis.

No it isn’t. The difference is between stages of construction and the meaning of words. The construction of the universe (first stage) allows the Earth to harbour life, but it does not allow the entire universe to harbour life. The Earth has to be fine-tuned (final stage) to harbour life. Environmental conditions including climate are part of the fine-tuning, although even these may not necessarily harbour life, because the only life we actually know of is ours; other places may have suitable conditions but still be without life. Yes, the universe allows life to appear. No, the entire universe is NOT “fine-tuned for life to appear”.

Theoretical origin of life: finding phosphates

dhw: This is one of many articles you have published recently that emphasize the complexity of the “fine tuning” that leads to life. How very wise of Preiner: the finishing touches are a complete mystery, but you can be quite sure that they are not present throughout the entire universe.

DAVID: Yes only Earthbound.

Thank you for confirming that Earth is the only place in the universe which we know to be fine-tuned for life.

Theodicy

dhw: Proportionality may be a comfort to you as you stick you head in the sand, but it does not explain anything.

DAVID: Not to you.

Harold Shipman was a highly respected GP who during a career of about 30 years murdered over 250 of his patients. He must have helped thousands of others. Do you think the “proportion” of good (let’s say 90% help) explains and vindicates the proportion of bad? Your omnipotent, omniscient God, as creator of everything, would have known about all the evils he was creating. For instance, he must have known that his viruses (flu, malaria, AIDS etc.) would kill millions, though many more people survived than died. Does proportionality explain or vindicate the evil? (NB: I am NOT saying your God is evil. I am explaining why “proportionality” does not solve the problem we call theodicy.)

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: Another article with this viewpoint:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2470262-we-now-know-how-much-emissions-have-delaye...

DAVID: we need global warming it seems.

dhw: Delaying the next glacial period won’t be much use to humanity if it has already been frizzled up by global warming. No, this is not panic. If temperatures continue to rise, the planet will be uninhabitable long before the next ice age is due, and the period in between will create hell on Earth. We shan’t be there to see it, but “decisions we take now will have consequences into the far future.”

DAVID: You have bought the so-called "accurate" predictive models hook line and sinker.

Stop dodging and distorting what I have said! I have emphasized that there are no “accurate predictive models”, but the plain fact that our current practices are already causing damage should make it abundantly clear that if they continue, the damage will escalate. If temperatures continue to rise as they are now doing, you don’t need to be a prophet to assume that there will be even more damage during the next 11,000 years. Hence the need for pragmatic action now to prevent future environmental disaster while at the same time avoiding social and economic disaster. Your attempt to brush this argument aside and focus solely on suspect predictions is part of your head-in-the-sand tactic, which is a shame, because earlier you agreed completely with what I have just said.

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

QUOTE:"Fossils of birds are rare because of their fragile bones. When Wang held the Baminornis zhenghensis fossil for the first time, he said, his heart raced. “If there are still any doubts about how birdy Archaeopteryx is,” he said, “Baminornis is undoubtedly a real bird.”

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

It should also open minds to the distinct possibility that there are countless extinct life forms that have left no fossils at all. Why should we expect an unbroken chain to survive for 150 million years, let alone 3,800,000,000 years?

Post reply

339 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: You were last in science it seems. The construction of the universe allows the Earth to harbor life. If the universe were only very slightly different the Earth could not have life.' The difference is emphasis.

dhw: No it isn’t. The difference is between stages of construction and the meaning of words. The construction of the universe (first stage) allows the Earth to harbour life, but it does not allow the entire universe to harbour life. The Earth has to be fine-tuned (final stage) to harbour life. Environmental conditions including climate are part of the fine-tuning, although even these may not necessarily harbour life, because the only life we actually know of is ours; other places may have suitable conditions but still be without life. Yes, the universe allows life to appear. No, the entire universe is NOT “fine-tuned for life to appear”.

Why attack my construction? I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement. Or not? Please explain.

Theodicy

dhw: Proportionality may be a comfort to you as you stick you head in the sand, but it does not explain anything.

DAVID: Not to you.

dhw: Harold Shipman was a highly respected GP who during a career of about 30 years murdered over 250 of his patients. He must have helped thousands of others. Do you think the “proportion” of good (let’s say 90% help) explains and vindicates the proportion of bad? Your omnipotent, omniscient God, as creator of everything, would have known about all the evils he was creating. For instance, he must have known that his viruses (flu, malaria, AIDS etc.) would kill millions, though many more people survived than died. Does proportionality explain or vindicate the evil? (NB: I am NOT saying your God is evil. I am explaining why “proportionality” does not solve the problem we call theodicy.)

It is the way theodicy experts view it.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Delaying the next glacial period won’t be much use to humanity if it has already been frizzled up by global warming. No, this is not panic. If temperatures continue to rise, the planet will be uninhabitable long before the next ice age is due, and the period in between will create hell on Earth. We shan’t be there to see it, but “decisions we take now will have consequences into the far future.”

DAVID: You have bought the so-called "accurate" predictive models hook line and sinker.

dhw: Stop dodging and distorting what I have said! I have emphasized that there are no “accurate predictive models”, but the plain fact that our current practices are already causing damage should make it abundantly clear that if they continue, the damage will escalate. If temperatures continue to rise as they are now doing, you don’t need to be a prophet to assume that there will be even more damage during the next 11,000 years. Hence the need for pragmatic action now to prevent future environmental disaster while at the same time avoiding social and economic disaster. Your attempt to brush this argument aside and focus solely on suspect predictions is part of your head-in-the-sand tactic, which is a shame, because earlier you agreed completely with what I have just said.

Yes, I have agreed, but without the panic attack you favor. We do not know how much heat will delay glaciation, which will destroy much of our civilization in the cold ice.

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

QUOTE:"Fossils of birds are rare because of their fragile bones. When Wang held the Baminornis zhenghensis fossil for the first time, he said, his heart raced. “If there are still any doubts about how birdy Archaeopteryx is,” he said, “Baminornis is undoubtedly a real bird.”

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

dhw: It should also open minds to the distinct possibility that there are countless extinct life forms that have left no fossils at all. Why should we expect an unbroken chain to survive for 150 million years, let alone 3,800,000,000 years?

That we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution is obvious.

Post reply

334 views

Fine tuning

dhw: No it isn’t. The difference is between stages of construction and the meaning of words. The construction of the universe (first stage) allows the Earth to harbour life, but it does not allow the entire universe to harbour life. The Earth has to be fine-tuned (final stage) to harbour life. Environmental conditions including climate are part of the fine-tuning, although even these may not necessarily harbour life, because the only life we actually know of is ours; other places may have suitable conditions but still be without life. Yes, the universe allows life to appear. No, the entire universe is NOT “fine-tuned for life to appear”.

DAVID: Why attack my construction? I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement. Or not? Please explain.

You would have to explain why I would be the last in science, and how the difference is “emphasis”. Your statement does not even mention fine-tuning. But since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

Theodicy

dhw: Proportionality may be a comfort to you as you stick you head in the sand, but it does not explain anything.

DAVID: Not to you.

dhw: Harold Shipman was a highly respected GP who during a career of about 30 years murdered over 250 of his patients. He must have helped thousands of others. Do you think the “proportion” of good (let’s say 90% help) explains and vindicates the proportion of bad? Your omnipotent, omniscient God, as creator of everything, would have known about all the evils he was creating. For instance, he must have known that his viruses (flu, malaria, AIDS etc.) would kill millions, though many more people survived than died. Does proportionality explain or vindicate the evil? (NB: I am NOT saying your God is evil. I am explaining why “proportionality” does not solve the problem we call theodicy.)

DAVID: It is the way theodicy experts view it.

I don’t know how you can possibly talk of “experts” since nobody knows (a) whether God actually exists, or (b) if he does, what is his nature. Why must you blame other people for an argument which clearly makes no sense?

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Delaying the next glacial period won’t be much use to humanity if it has already been frizzled up by global warming. No, this is not panic. If temperatures continue to rise, the planet will be uninhabitable long before the next ice age is due, and the period in between will create hell on Earth. We shan’t be there to see it, but “decisions we take now will have consequences into the far future.”

DAVID: You have bought the so-called "accurate" predictive models hook line and sinker.

dhw: Stop dodging and distorting what I have said! I have emphasized that there are no “accurate predictive models”, but the plain fact that our current practices are already causing damage should make it abundantly clear that if they continue, the damage will escalate. If temperatures continue to rise as they are now doing, you don’t need to be a prophet to assume that there will be even more damage during the next 11,000 years. Hence the need for pragmatic action now to prevent future environmental disaster while at the same time avoiding social and economic disaster. Your attempt to brush this argument aside and focus solely on suspect predictions is part of your head-in-the-sand tactic, which is a shame, because earlier you agreed completely with what I have just said.

DAVID: Yes, I have agreed, but without the panic attack you favor. We do not know how much heat will delay glaciation, which will destroy much of our civilization in the cold ice.

I do not favour a panic attack. We agree that all measures to prevent escalation of damage must be balanced against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. How does that constitute panic? Glaciation would indeed destroy much of our civilization, and so will unrestricted warming. Are you now panicking over the glaciation which some folk prophesy will happen in 11,000 years’ time?

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

dhw: It should also open minds to the distinct possibility that there are countless extinct life forms that have left no fossils at all. Why should we expect an unbroken chain to survive for 150 million years, let alone 3,800,000,000 years?

DAVID: That we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution is obvious.

Yes indeed. But you like to emphasize the gaps as evidence that your God steps in to create species “de novo”.

Post reply

328 views

Fine tuning

DAVID: Why attack my construction? I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement. Or not? Please explain.

dhw: You would have to explain why I would be the last in science, and how the difference is “emphasis”. Your statement does not even mention fine-tuning. But since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

Yes, close

Theodicy

dhw: ... I am explaining why “proportionality” does not solve the problem we call theodicy.)[/i]

DAVID: It is the way theodicy experts view it.

dhw: I don’t know how you can possibly talk of “experts” since nobody knows (a) whether God actually exists, or (b) if he does, what is his nature. Why must you blame other people for an argument which clearly makes no sense?

I am not a trained theologian. I might remind you, theologians ae experts in the belief in God. I have simply parroted their views on theodicy.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Stop dodging and distorting what I have said! I have emphasized that there are no “accurate predictive models”, but the plain fact that our current practices are already causing damage should make it abundantly clear that if they continue, the damage will escalate. If temperatures continue to rise as they are now doing, you don’t need to be a prophet to assume that there will be even more damage during the next 11,000 years. Hence the need for pragmatic action now to prevent future environmental disaster while at the same time avoiding social and economic disaster. Your attempt to brush this argument aside and focus solely on suspect predictions is part of your head-in-the-sand tactic, which is a shame, because earlier you agreed completely with what I have just said.>

DAVID: Yes, I have agreed, but without the panic attack you favor. We do not know how much heat will delay glaciation, which will destroy much of our civilization in the cold ice.

dhw: I do not favour a panic attack. We agree that all measures to prevent escalation of damage must be balanced against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. How does that constitute panic? Glaciation would indeed destroy much of our civilization, and so will unrestricted warming. Are you now panicking over the glaciation which some folk prophesy will happen in 11,000 years’ time?

There is your panic again: What is "unrestricted warming"? The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

QUOTE:"Fossils of birds are rare because of their fragile bones. When Wang held the Baminornis zhenghensis fossil for the first time, he said, his heart raced. “If there are still any doubts about how birdy Archaeopteryx is,” he said, “Baminornis is undoubtedly a real bird.”

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

dhw: It should also open minds to the distinct possibility that there are countless extinct life forms that have left no fossils at all. Why should we expect an unbroken chain to survive for 150 million years, let alone 3,800,000,000 years?

DAVID: That we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution is obvious.

dhw: Yes indeed. But you like to emphasize the gaps as evidence that your God steps in to create species “de novo”.

It is the only explanation we have, sadly for Darwinists.

Post reply

335 views

Theodicy

dhw: ... I am explaining why “proportionality” does not solve the problem we call theodicy.[/i]

DAVID: It is the way theodicy experts view it.

dhw: I don’t know how you can possibly talk of “experts” since nobody knows (a) whether God actually exists, or (b) if he does, what is his nature. Why must you blame other people for an argument which clearly makes no sense?

DAVID: I am not a trained theologian. I might remind you, theologians ae experts in the belief in God. I have simply parroted their views on theodicy.

Nobody is an expert on the nature of God, and I wish you would respond to the arguments instead of parroting a view which makes no sense. Evil exists. How can it be squared with the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God who created everything that exists? Certainly not by pretending that evil will disappear if you only think of the good. Please explain why you disagree with my objection.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: […] I have emphasized that there are no “accurate predictive models”, but the plain fact that our current practices are already causing damage should make it abundantly clear that if they continue, the damage will escalate. If temperatures continue to rise as they are now doing, you don’t need to be a prophet to assume that there will be even more damage during the next 11,000 years. Hence the need for pragmatic action now to prevent future environmental disaster while at the same time avoiding social and economic disaster. Your attempt to brush this argument aside and focus solely on suspect predictions is part of your head-in-the-sand tactic, which is a shame, because earlier you agreed completely with what I have just said.>

DAVID: Yes, I have agreed, but without the panic attack you favor. We do not know how much heat will delay glaciation, which will destroy much of our civilization in the cold ice.

dhw: I do not favour a panic attack. We agree that all measures to prevent escalation of damage must be balanced against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. How does that constitute panic? Glaciation would indeed destroy much of our civilization, and so will unrestricted warming. Are you now panicking over the glaciation which some folk prophesy will happen in 11,000 years’ time?

DAVID: There is your panic again: What is "unrestricted warming"? The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

Humans are creating extra degrees of warmth through their use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and their methods of transport and agriculture. You keep agreeing, as above, that these need to change! Your only objection is to a panic-stricken rush that would create social and economic disaster. Now you’re pretending that we can carry on using the same methods and miraculously their effects may plateau! May I suggest to you that we find alternatives as quickly but also as pragmatically as possible to avoid the inevitable escalation of environmental damage that is already all too obvious, and over the next few thousand years, future generations may also find alternatives to ward off the heat of glaciation? Stop panicking.

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

DAVID: That we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution is obvious.

dhw: Yes indeed. But you like to emphasize the gaps as evidence that your God steps in to create species “de novo”.

DAVID: It is the only explanation we have, sadly for Darwinists.

Luckily for Darwinists “we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution” (D. Turell, bolded above). New fossils are being discovered all the time, but it’s not surprising that there will be breaks in the chain over 150,000,000 years of life, let alone 3,800,000,000 years.

Post reply

330 views

Theodicy

DAVID: I am not a trained theologian. I might remind you, theologians ae experts in the belief in God. I have simply parroted their views on theodicy.

dhw: Nobody is an expert on the nature of God, and I wish you would respond to the arguments instead of parroting a view which makes no sense. Evil exists. How can it be squared with the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God who created everything that exists? Certainly not by pretending that evil will disappear if you only think of the good. Please explain why you disagree with my objection.

You magnify a small problem, the side effects of God's 'good' works, without which we would not exist. It is still proportionality. Or God knew what He was doing and accepted the consequences as necessary to achieve His goals.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: Yes, I have agreed, but without the panic attack you favor. We do not know how much heat will delay glaciation, which will destroy much of our civilization in the cold ice.

dhw: I do not favour a panic attack. We agree that all measures to prevent escalation of damage must be balanced against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. How does that constitute panic? Glaciation would indeed destroy much of our civilization, and so will unrestricted warming. Are you now panicking over the glaciation which some folk prophesy will happen in 11,000 years’ time?

DAVID: There is your panic again: What is "unrestricted warming"? The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

dhw: Humans are creating extra degrees of warmth through their use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and their methods of transport and agriculture. You keep agreeing, as above, that these need to change! Your only objection is to a panic-stricken rush that would create social and economic disaster. Now you’re pretending that we can carry on using the same methods and miraculously their effects may plateau! May I suggest to you that we find alternatives as quickly but also as pragmatically as possible to avoid the inevitable escalation of environmental damage that is already all too obvious, and over the next few thousand years, future generations may also find alternatives to ward off the heat of glaciation? Stop panicking.

What doss the bold mean? There are existing theories that CO2 will flatten. Only a few degrees of heat can stop the glaciers from appearing.

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

QUOTE:"Fossils of birds are rare because of their fragile bones. When Wang held the Baminornis zhenghensis fossil for the first time, he said, his heart raced. “If there are still any doubts about how birdy Archaeopteryx is,” he said, “Baminornis is undoubtedly a real bird.”

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

dhw: It should also open minds to the distinct possibility that there are countless extinct life forms that have left no fossils at all. Why should we expect an unbroken chain to survive for 150 million years, let alone 3,800,000,000 years?

DAVID: That we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution is obvious.

dhw: Yes indeed. But you like to emphasize the gaps as evidence that your God steps in to create species “de novo”.

DAVID: It is the only explanation we have, sadly for Darwinists.

dhw: Luckily for Darwinists “we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution” (D. Turell, bolded above). New fossils are being discovered all the time, but it’s not surprising that there will be breaks in the chain over 150,000,000 years of life, let alone 3,800,000,000 years.

Archeology is all/only an interpretation of bones. We jump from Erectus and/or heidelbergensis, etc. and make assumptions based on common similarities. Sapiens exact origin is totally unknown. I doubt we will ever know.

Post reply

335 views

Theodicy

DAVID: I am not a trained theologian. I might remind you, theologians ae experts in the belief in God. I have simply parroted their views on theodicy.

dhw: Nobody is an expert on the nature of God, and I wish you would respond to the arguments instead of parroting a view which makes no sense. Evil exists. How can it be squared with the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God who created everything that exists? Certainly not by pretending that evil will disappear if you only think of the good. Please explain why you disagree with my objection.

DAVID: You magnify a small problem, the side effects of God's 'good' works, without which we would not exist. It is still proportionality. Or God knew what He was doing and accepted the consequences as necessary to achieve His goals.

If you believe in a God, I’d have thought it would be a pretty large problem if that God didn’t care about the evil he inflicted on you and the rest of us. That’s why theologians look for answers to the problem of theodicy. After suggesting that the proportion of good removes the problem, you now suggest that despite his omnipotence, he was incapable of achieving his goals without inflicting all the suffering. (You have even had him trying but failing to alleviate the suffering). So much for omnipotence! And what were his “goals”? According to you, his only goal was to create us and our food. And what might have been his goal for creating us? According to you, he might have wanted a relationship with us, recognition, worship. So we have a God who inadvertently creates evil because that’s the only way he can be sure we will recognize and worship him of our own accord. But theodicy is not a problem so long as you stick your head in the sand.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

dhw: Humans are creating extra degrees of warmth through their use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and their methods of transport and agriculture. You keep agreeing […] that these need to change! Your only objection is to a panic-stricken rush that would create social and economic disaster. Now you’re pretending that we can carry on using the same methods and miraculously their effects may plateau! May I suggest to you that we find alternatives as quickly but also as pragmatically as possible to avoid the inevitable escalation of environmental damage that is already all too obvious, and over the next few thousand years, future generations may also find alternatives to ward off the heat of glaciation? Stop panicking.

DAVID: What doss the bold mean? There are existing theories that CO2 will flatten. Only a few degrees of heat can stop the glaciers from appearing.

How can existing degrees of CO2 “flatten” if we continue to use the fossil fuels, deforestation, and methods of transportation and agriculture that are causing degrees of CO2 to increase? You have agreed that we should find alternatives! Over the next few thousand years, we shall need to find practices that will ward off glaciation. How does that change the current need to prevent escalation of current dangers?

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

dhw: [...] you like to emphasize the gaps as evidence that your God steps in to create species “de novo”.

DAVID: It is the only explanation we have, sadly for Darwinists.

dhw: Luckily for Darwinists “we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution” (D. Turell...). New fossils are being discovered all the time, but it’s not surprising that there will be breaks in the chain over 150,000,000 years of life, let alone 3,800,000,000 years.

DAVID: Archeology is all/only an interpretation of bones.

You mean palaeontology.

DAVID: We jump from Erectus and/or heidelbergensis, etc. and make assumptions based on common similarities. Sapiens exact origin is totally unknown. I doubt we will ever know.

I will quote you on the Savannah thread. Meanwhile, every new fossil helps to fill gaps in the chain of evolution, confirming Darwin’s theory of evolution through common descent.

Post reply

331 views

Theodicy

DAVID: You magnify a small problem, the side effects of God's 'good' works, without which we would not exist. It is still proportionality. Or God knew what He was doing and accepted the consequences as necessary to achieve His goals.

dhw: If you believe in a God, I’d have thought it would be a pretty large problem if that God didn’t care about the evil he inflicted on you and the rest of us. That’s why theologians look for answers to the problem of theodicy. After suggesting that the proportion of good removes the problem, you now suggest that despite his omnipotence, he was incapable of achieving his goals without inflicting all the suffering. (You have even had him trying but failing to alleviate the suffering). So much for omnipotence! And what were his “goals”? According to you, his only goal was to create us and our food. And what might have been his goal for creating us? According to you, he might have wanted a relationship with us, recognition, worship. So we have a God who inadvertently creates evil because that’s the only way he can be sure we will recognize and worship him of our own accord. But theodicy is not a problem so long as you stick your head in the sand.

My head is clearly out of sand and you know my position is unchanged by your arguments.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

dhw: Humans are creating extra degrees of warmth through their use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and their methods of transport and agriculture. You keep agreeing […] that these need to change! Your only objection is to a panic-stricken rush that would create social and economic disaster. Now you’re pretending that we can carry on using the same methods and miraculously their effects may plateau! May I suggest to you that we find alternatives as quickly but also as pragmatically as possible to avoid the inevitable escalation of environmental damage that is already all too obvious, and over the next few thousand years, future generations may also find alternatives to ward off the heat of glaciation? Stop panicking.

DAVID: What doss the bold mean? There are existing theories that CO2 will flatten. Only a few degrees of heat can stop the glaciers from appearing.

dhw: How can existing degrees of CO2 “flatten” if we continue to use the fossil fuels, deforestation, and methods of transportation and agriculture that are causing degrees of CO2 to increase?

There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.

dhw: You have agreed that we should find alternatives! Over the next few thousand years, we shall need to find practices that will ward off glaciation. How does that change the current need to prevent escalation of current dangers?

The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point.

Post reply

338 views

"The whole 100% universe is shown in the CMB with no different areas. Fine-tuning is accepted as universal. Your thinking is oddball."

There is a new study of the CMB showing one segment is slightly different:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15786

"A Reassessment of Hemispherical Power Asymmetry in CMB Temperature Data from Planck PR4 using LVE method

"We undertake a reassessment of one of the large angular scale anomalies observed in cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature signal referred to as Hemispherical Power Asymmetry (HPA).

***

"Our emphasis here was to revalidate the LVE method in various ways for its optimal usage and probe the hemispherical power asymmetry in the form of a dipole modulation field underlying CMB sky. By and large, our results are in agreement with earlier reported ones with more detailed presentation of explicit and not-so-explicit assumptions involved in the estimation process. The above reported values fall in the reliability range of LVE method after this extensive re-evaluation. We conclude that the hemispherical power asymmetry still remains as a challenge to the standard model."

Comment: a minor asymmetry exists between the two hemispheres of the CMB. This does challenge the standard model. It does not challenge that the universe originated as fine-tuned for life.

Post reply

325 views

Back to Fine tuning

New CMB findings

DAVID: "The whole 100% universe is shown in the CMB with no different areas. Fine-tuning is accepted as universal. Your thinking is oddball."

DAVID: There is a new study of the CMB showing one segment is slightly different:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15786

DAVID: a minor asymmetry exists between the two hemispheres of the CMB. This does challenge the standard model. It does not challenge that the universe originated as fine-tuned for life.

This is quite unbelievable. Fine-tuning comes at the end of a process, not at the beginning. The universe originated with the basic materials for life, but we know that the universe itself is not and never has been fine-tuned for life because the only part of the universe which we know is fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth. Now read what you wrote on Monday, March 3:
DAVID: […] I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement.

dhw: […] since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, close.

Having accepted my definition, you now want to go back to the same ridiculous distortion of language which you started with. Please stop it.

Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy is not a problem so long as you stick your head in the sand.

DAVID: My head is clearly out of sand and you know my position is unchanged by your arguments.

You simply have no answer to my arguments. You refuse to acknowledge 1) that “proportionality” does not make evil disappear (= head in the sand); 2) that a God who cannot avoid creating evil, and sometimes even tries in vain to prevent it, cannot be labelled omnipotent; 3) that a God who knowingly creates evil in order to ensure that he is genuinely recognized and worshipped can hardly be labelled all-good.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

DAVID: […] There are existing theories that CO2 will flatten. Only a few degrees of heat can stop the glaciers from appearing.

dhw: How can existing degrees of CO2 “flatten” if we continue to use the fossil fuels, deforestation, and methods of transportation and agriculture that are causing degrees of CO2 to increase?

DAVID: There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.

dhw: You have agreed that we should find alternatives! Over the next few thousand years, we shall need to find practices that will ward off glaciation. How does that change the current need to prevent escalation of current dangers?

DAVID: The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point.

So now you have changed your mind and are advocating continuing the practices which are already damaging our environment because although they can only increase the damage, someone prophesies “counterintuitively” that they won’t, and we need to keep burning in order to protect ourselves against the glaciation prophesied to happen in about 11,000 years’ time. And you accuse those who demand a halt to current known damage of panicking!!!

Chemical control of ecosystems

QUOTES: "Krug’s experiment confirmed that when alderenes seep into the mud, they restructure the entire community. They drive species out…”

'You have a single slug species making some pretty straightforward little chemical defenses, and it’s changing who’s there and who’s not there,” said Kubanek, who was not involved in the research. “The slug goo is having a really big effect on the whole ecosystem.'”

DAVID: animals and plants speak to each other in chemical signals, which create automatic responses as my bold insists. That some key molecules shape ecosystems is an amazing but a logical discovery.

Amazing and logical, as this is just one of the ways in which ecosystems have constantly changed throughout the history of life on Earth. For me it only confirms the distinct impression that the history is one of a continuous free-for-all.

Post reply

329 views

Back to Fine tuning

New CMB findings

DAVID: "The whole 100% universe is shown in the CMB with no different areas. Fine-tuning is accepted as universal. Your thinking is oddball."

DAVID: There is a new study of the CMB showing one segment is slightly different:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15786

DAVID: a minor asymmetry exists between the two hemispheres of the CMB. This does challenge the standard model. It does not challenge that the universe originated as fine-tuned for life.

dhw:

This is quite unbelievable. Fine-tuning comes at the end of a process, not at the beginning. The universe originated with the basic materials for life, but we know that the universe itself is not and never has been fine-tuned for life because the only part of the universe which we know is fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth.

The bold is totally backward. The beginning of the universe's formation is fine-tuned. It is foundational. The evolution of the Earth into a life-friendly place is secondary.

Theodicy

DAVID: You magnify a small problem, the side effects of God's 'good' works, without which we would not exist. It is still proportionality. Or God knew what He was doing and accepted the consequences as necessary to achieve His goals.

dhw: […] theodicy is not a problem so long as you stick your head in the sand.

DAVID: My head is clearly out of sand and you know my position is unchanged by your arguments.

dhw: You simply have no answer to my arguments. You refuse to acknowledge 1) that “proportionality” does not make evil disappear (= head in the sand); 2) that a God who cannot avoid creating evil, and sometimes even tries in vain to prevent it, cannot be labelled omnipotent; 3) that a God who knowingly creates evil in order to ensure that he is genuinely recognized and worshipped can hardly be labelled all-good.

Those are your agnostic reasons. You worry about the one percent that is evil and ignore the good.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: […] There are existing theories that CO2 will flatten. Only a few degrees of heat can stop the glaciers from appearing.

dhw: How can existing degrees of CO2 “flatten” if we continue to use the fossil fuels, deforestation, and methods of transportation and agriculture that are causing degrees of CO2 to increase?

DAVID: There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.

dhw: You have agreed that we should find alternatives! Over the next few thousand years, we shall need to find practices that will ward off glaciation. How does that change the current need to prevent escalation of current dangers?

DAVID: The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point.

dhw; So now you have changed your mind and are advocating continuing the practices which are already damaging our environment because although they can only increase the damage, someone prophesies “counterintuitively” that they won’t, and we need to keep burning in order to protect ourselves against the glaciation prophesied to happen in about 11,000 years’ time. And you accuse those who demand a halt to current known damage of panicking!!!

Still panicking. Moderate the heat a little and allow the heat to block the glaciation.

Chemical control of ecosystems

QUOTES: "Krug’s experiment confirmed that when alderenes seep into the mud, they restructure the entire community. They drive species out…”

'You have a single slug species making some pretty straightforward little chemical defenses, and it’s changing who’s there and who’s not there,” said Kubanek, who was not involved in the research. “The slug goo is having a really big effect on the whole ecosystem.'”

DAVID: animals and plants speak to each other in chemical signals, which create automatic responses as my bold insists. That some key molecules shape ecosystems is an amazing but a logical discovery.

dhw: Amazing and logical, as this is just one of the ways in which ecosystems have constantly changed throughout the history of life on Earth. For me it only confirms the distinct impression that the history is one of a continuous free-for-all.

It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

Post reply

328 views

Back to Fine tuning
New CMB findings

DAVID: a minor asymmetry exists between the two hemispheres of the CMB. This does challenge the standard model. It does not challenge that the universe originated as fine-tuned for life.

dhw: This is unbelievable. Fine-tuning comes at the end of a process, not at the beginning. The universe originated with the basic materials for life, but we know the universe as a whole is not and never has been fine-tuned for life because the only part we know that is fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth.

DAVID: The bold is totally backward. The beginning of the universe's formation is fine-tuned. It is foundational. The evolution of the Earth into a life-friendly place is secondary.

Are you juggling with language again? Fine-tuning for life comes second in the order of creation! “Secondary” means less important. The foundations without the fine-tuning will not produce life, and therefore the foundations have not been fine-tuned for life! You agreed four days ago:

DAVID: [Monday March 3)…] I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement.
dhw: […] since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, close.

Having accepted my definition, you now revert to the same ridiculous distortion of language which you started with. Please stop it.

Theodicy

dhw: You simply have no answer to my arguments. You refuse to acknowledge 1) that “proportionality” does not make evil disappear (= head in the sand); 2) that a God who cannot avoid creating evil, and sometimes even tries in vain to prevent it, cannot be labelled omnipotent; 3) that a God who knowingly creates evil in order to ensure that he is genuinely recognized and worshipped can hardly be labelled all-good.

DAVID: Those are your agnostic reasons. You worry about the one percent that is evil and ignore the good.

Your God’s possible nature has nothing to do with agnosticism. Theodicy recognizes the reality of evil, but you think the theodicy problem is solved if you shut your eyes to evil and focus only on the good! Head in sand.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.
And:
DAVID: The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point!

dhw: So now you have changed your mind and are advocating continuing the practices which are already damaging our environment because although they can only increase the damage, someone prophesies “counterintuitively” that they won’t, and we need to keep burning in order to protect ourselves against the glaciation prophesied to happen in about 11,000 years’ time. And you accuse those who demand a halt to current known damage of panicking!!!

DAVID: Still panicking. Moderate the heat a little and allow the heat to block the glaciation.

You have agreed that current practices must be changed to prevent the escalation of damage already being caused, accepted that the changes must be balanced against the need to avert social and economic disaster, praised USA for reducing carbon emissions, and criticized Brazil, India and China for not doing the same. Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

Chemical control of ecosystems

DAVID: […]. That some key molecules shape ecosystems is an amazing but a logical discovery.

dhw: Amazing and logical, as this is just one of the ways in which ecosystems have constantly changed throughout the history of life on Earth. For me it only confirms the distinct impression that the history is one of a continuous free-for-all.

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.

Nature’s Wonders: Mantis shrimp punch protection

A punch so powerful it must have a protective shield:
https://www.livescience.com/animals/crustaceans/animal-kingdoms-most-powerful-puncher-g...

DAVID: […]. Not by chance. I can't imagine naturally occurring mutations designed this.

I agree. As I see it, the alternatives remain divine design or design through intelligent cell communities (possibly God-designed) developing new weapons, just as we humans have done.

Bone tools from 1.5 million years ago

"[…] The newly identified bone artifacts show that their tool technology was more complex, advanced, and sophisticated than we knew.”

DAVID: the evolving human brain was quite talented and must have been the major driver for new talents to develop.

That has to be the natural process: generations inherit skills, and then develop new skills as the brain responds to conditions by complexifying or, in due course, expanding. Only with sapiens does the brain stop expanding, and complexification takes over. We have discussed this natural progression many times. I find these discoveries fascinating, as it is abundantly clear that our distant ancestors were considerably more intelligent than we used to think. Thank you again for keeping us updated on these discoveries.

Post reply

346 views

Back to Fine tuning
New CMB findings

DAVID: [Monday March 3)…] I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement.
dhw: […] since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, close.

dhw: Having accepted my definition, you now revert to the same ridiculous distortion of language which you started with. Please stop it.

You must unlock your brain to this fact: the universe as constructed is fine-tuned for life. That is the cosmological level of the discussion. All 20+ factors must be exactly as they are or no universe like this will exist. The biological level is our Earth's readiness for life. Two separate but related requirements. I have accepted your Earth addition.

Theodicy

dhw: You simply have no answer to my arguments. You refuse to acknowledge 1) that “proportionality” does not make evil disappear (= head in the sand); 2) that a God who cannot avoid creating evil, and sometimes even tries in vain to prevent it, cannot be labelled omnipotent; 3) that a God who knowingly creates evil in order to ensure that he is genuinely recognized and worshipped can hardly be labelled all-good.

DAVID: Those are your agnostic reasons. You worry about the one percent that is evil and ignore the good.

dhw: Your God’s possible nature has nothing to do with agnosticism. Theodicy recognizes the reality of evil, but you think the theodicy problem is solved if you shut your eyes to evil and focus only on the good! Head in sand.

Without the good there is no evil.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.
And:
DAVID: The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point!

dhw: So now you have changed your mind and are advocating continuing the practices which are already damaging our environment because although they can only increase the damage, someone prophesies “counterintuitively” that they won’t, and we need to keep burning in order to protect ourselves against the glaciation prophesied to happen in about 11,000 years’ time. And you accuse those who demand a halt to current known damage of panicking!!!

DAVID: Still panicking. Moderate the heat a little and allow the heat to block the glaciation.

dhw: You have agreed that current practices must be changed to prevent the escalation of damage already being caused, accepted that the changes must be balanced against the need to avert social and economic disaster, praised USA for reducing carbon emissions, and criticized Brazil, India and China for not doing the same. Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

Your unreasonable urgency.

Chemical control of ecosystems

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

dhw: Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.

All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning

Post reply

325 views

DAVID: [Monday March 3)…] I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement.

dhw: […] since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, close.

dhw: Having accepted my definition, you now revert to the same ridiculous distortion of language which you started with. Please stop it.

DAVID: You must unlock your brain to this fact: the universe as constructed is fine-tuned for life. That is the cosmological level of the discussion. All 20+ factors must be exactly as they are or no universe like this will exist. The biological level is our Earth's readiness for life. Two separate but related requirements. I have accepted your Earth addition.

You must unlock your brain to the fact that “fine-tuning” relates to the final stages of any process. Of course there would be no life if there was no universe, but without the biological and environmental levels it is not “fine-tuned” for life. You would not have electric light, running water, heating or furniture in your home if you didn’t have a house. The basics come first, and the fine-tuning comes second. You accepted my definition on March 3rd, agreed that Planet Earth is the ONLY part of the universe that we know to be fine-tuned for life, and agreed to close this discussion.

Theodicy

DAVID: Those are your agnostic reasons. You worry about the one percent that is evil and ignore the good.

dhw: Your God’s possible nature has nothing to do with agnosticism. Theodicy recognizes the reality of evil, but you think the theodicy problem is solved if you shut your eyes to evil and focus only on the good! Head in sand.

DAVID: Without the good there is no evil.

What does that mean? If your God hadn’t created saints, we wouldn’t have had murderers? Of course we have good and we have evil, and the theodicy question is simply how an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God could knowingly create evil? Stop dodging.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.
And:
DAVID: The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point!
And:
DAVID: Still panicking. Moderate the heat a little and allow the heat to block the glaciation.

dhw: You have agreed that current practices must be changed to prevent the escalation of damage already being caused, accepted that the changes must be balanced against the need to avert social and economic disaster, praised USA for reducing carbon emissions, and criticized Brazil, India and China for not doing the same. Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

DAVID: Your unreasonable urgency.

Why is it unreasonably urgent to stop the damage ALREADY being done to our environment while pragmatically avoiding social and economic disaster? The unreasonable urgency is yours: you want to continue wrecking our environment NOW because of a counterintuitive prophecy of “flattening out” and another prophecy that the next Ice Age will occur in 11,000 years’ time. However, thank you continuing to agree with all the points I have raised above, so please stop disagreeing with yourself.

Evolution

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

dhw: Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.

DAVID: All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.

The free-for-all dog eat dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

EARLIEST WATER APPEARED

QUOTE: "These stars were huge, as much as 300 times as massive as our Sun. Their temperatures were high and they burned through their fuel quickly. And they died in supernovae that spewed new elements across the galaxy.”

DAVID: life requires water. That it appeared so early fits the theory of design.

All these massive stars specially designed to blow up in order to form just one piece of the enormous jigsaw puzzle that leads to conditions suitable for life on a single planet in a universe which even now consists of billions/trillions of heavenly bodies with no life at all. It reminds me of the theory that your designer also designed and then had to cull countless life forms in his efforts to create the only life forms he wanted (us plus food). No wonder you ridicule your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Post reply

337 views

DAVID: You must unlock your brain to this fact: the universe as constructed is fine-tuned for life. That is the cosmological level of the discussion. All 20+ factors must be exactly as they are or no universe like this will exist. The biological level is our Earth's readiness for life. Two separate but related requirements. I have accepted your Earth addition.

dhw: You must unlock your brain to the fact that “fine-tuning” relates to the final stages of any process. Of course there would be no life if there was no universe, but without the biological and environmental levels it is not “fine-tuned” for life. You would not have electric light, running water, heating or furniture in your home if you didn’t have a house. The basics come first, and the fine-tuning comes second. You accepted my definition on March 3rd, agreed that Planet Earth is the ONLY part of the universe that we know to be fine-tuned for life, and agreed to close this discussion.

It can't be closed. You have it backward. See today's entry from Ethan Siegel.

Theodicy

DAVID: Without the good there is no evil.

dhw: What does that mean? If your God hadn’t created saints, we wouldn’t have had murderers? Of course we have good and we have evil, and the theodicy question is simply how an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God could knowingly create evil? Stop dodging.

Without life no evil people would exist.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: There are physical climate theories that counterintuitively say CO2 will flatten out.
And:
DAVID: The heat is needed! It is what will ward off glaciation is the point!
And:
DAVID: Still panicking. Moderate the heat a little and allow the heat to block the glaciation.

dhw: You have agreed that current practices must be changed to prevent the escalation of damage already being caused, accepted that the changes must be balanced against the need to avert social and economic disaster, praised USA for reducing carbon emissions, and criticized Brazil, India and China for not doing the same. Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

DAVID: Your unreasonable urgency.

dhw: Why is it unreasonably urgent to stop the damage ALREADY being done to our environment while pragmatically avoiding social and economic disaster? The unreasonable urgency is yours: you want to continue wrecking our environment NOW because of a counterintuitive prophecy of “flattening out” and another prophecy that the next Ice Age will occur in 11,000 years’ time. However, thank you continuing to agree with all the points I have raised above, so please stop disagreeing with yourself.

I only protest your degree of urgency.

Evolution

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

dhw: Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.

DAVID: All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.

dhw: The free-for-all dog eat dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

You are still confused by God using evolution to produce humans. It worked.

EARLIEST WATER APPEARED

QUOTE: "These stars were huge, as much as 300 times as massive as our Sun. Their temperatures were high and they burned through their fuel quickly. And they died in supernovae that spewed new elements across the galaxy.”

DAVID: life requires water. That it appeared so early fits the theory of design.

dhw: All these massive stars specially designed to blow up in order to form just one piece of the enormous jigsaw puzzle that leads to conditions suitable for life on a single planet in a universe which even now consists of billions/trillions of heavenly bodies with no life at all. It reminds me of the theory that your designer also designed and then had to cull countless life forms in his efforts to create the only life forms he wanted (us plus food). No wonder you ridicule your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

Post reply

330 views

DAVID: You must unlock your brain to this fact: the universe as constructed is fine-tuned for life. […]

dhw: You must unlock your brain to the fact that “fine-tuning” relates to the final stages of any process. Of course there would be no life if there was no universe, but without the biological and environmental levels it is not “fine-tuned” for life. […]. You accepted my definition on March 3rd [...] and agreed to close this discussion.

DAVID: It can't be closed. You have it backward. See today's entry from Ethan Siegel.

There are 26 essential constant factors that make this universe as it is:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/multiverse-explain-fundamental-constants/?utm_s...

QUOTES: "Importantly, these fundamental constants are needed to reproduce the Universe we have; if they were different, our Universe would be correspondingly different as well. (David’s bold)

"[…] we, observers who can measure the Universe, could only have arisen in a universe that took on values that allowed the emergence of intelligent observers to be physically possible.” (David’s bold)

Both statements totally accepted by me.

QUOTE: "In general, we call these classes of problems fine-tuning problems: as we can imagine that any such parameter, constant, or value could have been all over the map, and that significantly different possibilities would have led to vastly different outcomes. A Universe with:
"a much weaker electromagnetic force,
a much greater mass for the up and down quarks,
or a much greater cosmological constant,
would have never enabled the formation of stars and galaxies at all, much less rocky planets, complex molecules, and the possibility of life. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: please read my bolds carefully. This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.

The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial biochemical and environmental fine-tuning. Of course the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean that ”the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”. Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear, and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself?

Theodicy

DAVID: Without the good there is no evil.
And:
DAVID: Without life no evil people would exist.

So how does that explain why a supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of everything created evil people, murderous viruses, lethal “natural” disasters etc.? Did he want evil? Was he powerless to prevent it?

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

DAVID: Your unreasonable urgency.

dhw: Why is it unreasonably urgent to stop the damage ALREADY being done to our environment while pragmatically avoiding social and economic disaster? The unreasonable urgency is yours: you want to continue wrecking our environment NOW because of a counterintuitive prophecy of “flattening out” and another prophecy that the next Ice Age will occur in 11,000 years’ time. However, thank you continuing to agree with all the points I have raised above, so please stop disagreeing with yourself.

DAVID: I only protest your degree of urgency.

Please answer the first (now bolded) question above.

Evolution

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

DAVID: All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.

dhw: The free-for-all dog-eat-dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: You are still confused by God using evolution to produce humans. It worked.

The confusion is entirely yours. You now have a free-for-all which is not a free-for-all! “Messy, cumbersome and inefficient.” Same again under “Earliest water”, where you have him designing and exploding countless stars in order to produce one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle of life.

DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

Post reply

330 views

dhw: ...Of course there would be no life if there was no universe, but without the biological and environmental levels it is not “fine-tuned” for life. […]. You accepted my definition on March 3rd [...] and agreed to close this discussion.

DAVID: It can't be closed. You have it backward. See today's entry from Ethan Siegel.

There are 26 essential constant factors that make this universe as it is:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/multiverse-explain-fundamental-constants/?utm_s...

QUOTES: "Importantly, these fundamental constants are needed to reproduce the Universe we have; if they were different, our Universe would be correspondingly different as well. (David’s bold)

"[…] we, observers who can measure the Universe, could only have arisen in a universe that took on values that allowed the emergence of intelligent observers to be physically possible.” (David’s bold)

dhw: Both statements totally accepted by me.

DAVID: please read my bolds carefully. This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.

dhw: The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial biochemical and environmental fine-tuning. Of course the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean that ”the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”. Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear, and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself?

The first bolded/colored statement above is the essence of the fine-tuning concept. I have agreed to your point to add secondarily a local friendly-to-life climate.

Theodicy

DAVID: Without the good there is no evil.
And:
DAVID: Without life no evil people would exist.

dhw: So how does that explain why a supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of everything created evil people, murderous viruses, lethal “natural” disasters etc.? Did he want evil? Was he powerless to prevent it?

The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

DAVID: I only protest your degree of urgency.

dhw: Please answer the first (now bolded) question above.

We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.

Evolution

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

dhw: Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.

DAVID: All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.

dhw: The free-for-all dog-eat-dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: You are still confused by God using evolution to produce humans. It worked.

The confusion is entirely yours. You now have a free-for-all which is not a free-for-all! “Messy, cumbersome and inefficient.” Same again under “Earliest water”, where you have him designing and exploding countless stars in order to produce one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle of life.

DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

Post reply

333 views

Fine tuning again

DAVID: This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.

dhw: The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial biochemical and environmental fine-tuning. Of course the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean that ”the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”. Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear, and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself.
(David’s red. Dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The first bolded/colored statement above is the essence of the fine-tuning concept. I have agreed to your point to add secondarily a local friendly-to-life climate.

You are deliberately ignoring the whole point of this discussion. Allowing life, or making it possible, is not enough to produce life! Life requires biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, without which it cannot exist. Indeed, the sheer complexity – the fine tuning - of living things (and their interaction with the all-important, fine-tuned hospitable environment) is a crucial factor for your faith in the existence of a designer. It is therefore absurd to claim that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, when as far as we know, the fine-tuning for life has taken place only on Planet Earth. That is my view of fine-tuning.

DAVID (March 3): I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.

dhw: […] then of course we can close the discussion.

DAVID: Yes, close.

Please stop disagreeing with yourself.

Theodicy

DAVID: Without the good there is no evil.
And:
DAVID: Without life no evil people would exist.

dhw: So how does that explain why a supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of everything created evil people, murderous viruses, lethal “natural” disasters etc.? Did he want evil? Was he powerless to prevent it?

DAVID: The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.

Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God had to accept that he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created, and did not have the knowledge to create the world he wanted (assuming that in his all-goodness he disapproved of evil). Your view of God is as illogical as your attempts to prove that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, although only Planet Earth is known to be fine-tuned for life.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.

DAVID: I only protest your degree of urgency.
And:
DAVID: We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.

I have not specified a speed. You agree that we need to start now, and we must proceed at a speed which will balance the need to avoid increasing damage to the environment against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. I don’t know why you are so desperate to withdraw your agreements with me.

Evolution

DAVID: It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.

DAVID: All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.

DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?

Post reply

330 views

Fine tuning again

dhw: The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial biochemical and environmental fine-tuning. Of course the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean that ”the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”. Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear, and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself.
(David’s red. Dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The first bolded/colored statement above is the essence of the fine-tuning concept. I have agreed to your point to add secondarily a local friendly-to-life climate.

dhw: You are deliberately ignoring the whole point of this discussion. Allowing life, or making it possible, is not enough to produce life! Life requires biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, without which it cannot exist. Indeed, the sheer complexity – the fine tuning - of living things (and their interaction with the all-important, fine-tuned hospitable environment) is a crucial factor for your faith in the existence of a designer. It is therefore absurd to claim that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, when as far as we know, the fine-tuning for life has taken place only on Planet Earth. That is my view of fine-tuning.

DAVID (March 3): I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.

dhw: […] then of course we can close the discussion.

DAVID: Yes, close.

dhw: Please stop disagreeing with yourself.

I'm disagreeing with you. Having a life allowing universe is always a FIRST requirement. Your friendly climate is a secondary requirement in that order.

Theodicy

DAVID: The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.

dhw: Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God had to accept that he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created, and did not have the knowledge to create the world he wanted (assuming that in his all-goodness he disapproved of evil).

We cannot have the good without the evil. An all-knowing God had no solution for that side-effect. I'm alive and enjoying the good. Yes, I'm fully aware of evil, but not twisted into knots over it as you are.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.

dhw: I have not specified a speed. You agree that we need to start now, and we must proceed at a speed which will balance the need to avoid increasing damage to the environment against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. I don’t know why you are so desperate to withdraw your agreements with me.

I'm not withdrawing it. Your urgency specifies a speed you may not realize. I'm just slower.

Evolution

DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

dhw: You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?

Adler warns we must think allegorically about God's attributes. Your problem is you laugh at Adler and do not realize I am thinking allegorically about God. God used evolution as His standard pattern of development, with the Big Bang to the current universe as an example. Then He evolved life to finally reach humans. Evolution is God's preferred method of creation, and we do not know why. All I can say is the giant tree of evolution gave us an enormous supporting supply necessary to let us survive.

Post reply

326 views

Fine tuning again

dhw: […] Allowing life, or making it possible, is not enough to produce life! Life requires biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, without which it cannot exist. Indeed, the sheer complexity – the fine tuning - of living things (and their interaction with the all-important, fine-tuned hospitable environment) is a crucial factor for your faith in the existence of a designer. It is therefore absurd to claim that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”, when as far as we know, the fine-tuning for life has taken place only on Planet Earth. That is my view of fine-tuning.

DAVID (March 3): I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.

dhw: […] then of course we can close the discussion.

DAVID: Yes, close.

But instead you start all over again with the same discredited arguments as before!

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. Having a life allowing universe is always a FIRST requirement. Your friendly climate is a secondary requirement in that order.

Of course the essential universe came first, and the essential fine-tuning for life came second. Fine-tuning is what provides the final details which make something work. Are you playing games with “secondary” and “second”? “Secondary” means not as important as something else. How daft is that? You agree that life cannot possibly exist unless there is a hospitable climate, plus a certain combination of biochemicals. These are indispensable “fine tunings”, not minor matters of secondary importance! So how can the entire universe be fine-tuned for life although the only place we know that is fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth?

Theodicy

DAVID: The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.

dhw: Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God had to accept that he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created, and did not have the knowledge to create the world he wanted (assuming that in his all-goodness he disapproved of evil).

DAVID: We cannot have the good without the evil. An all-knowing God had no solution for that side-effect. I'm alive and enjoying the good. Yes, I'm fully aware of evil, but not twisted into knots over it as you are.

You and countless theologians have twisted yourselves into knots trying to solve the problem of theodicy, which in fact you raised in the first place and which has caused trouble ever since humans started theorizing about the concept of a single, all-good God. (No problem for those who believe or believed in multiple gods.) Your solutions are to ignore the problem, to ridicule your God as being incapable of creating the world he would have wanted (unless you think he wanted evil), and to tell us how happy you are.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.
And:
DAVID: Your urgency specifies a speed you may not realize. I'm just slower.

You are pleased that some countries like USA have already taken measures. I say “as quickly as pragmatically possible”, and you agree that this means measures must be taken at a speed which will not create social or economic havoc. Neither of us has set a date, so how can we gauge the speed at which these measures must be taken? I suggest we shake hands and congratulate one another on our complete agreement.

Evolution
DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

dhw: You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?

DAVID: Adler warns we must think allegorically about God's attributes. Your problem is you laugh at Adler and do not realize I am thinking allegorically about God.

I’m discussing this with you, not Adler, and there’s nothing “allegorical” in concepts such as enjoyment, relationships, recognition, worship etc.

DAVID: God used evolution as His standard pattern of development, with the Big Bang to the current universe as an example. Then He evolved life to finally reach humans. Evolution is God's preferred method of creation, and we do not know why. All I can say is the giant tree of evolution gave us an enormous supporting supply necessary to let us survive.

None of this explains why according to you he inefficiently designed and had to cull countless species irrelevant to what according to you was his one and only purpose (us plus food), and none of it means that your own humanizing speculations about his nature and motives are invalid. If, according to you, he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you proceed to list some of them, it is patently absurd for you to “refuse to accept humanized God forms”. Please stop all this dodging and self-contradiction.

Post reply

330 views

Fine tuning again

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. Having a life allowing universe is always a FIRST requirement. Your friendly climate is a secondary requirement in that order.

dhw: Of course the essential universe came first, and the essential fine-tuning for life came second. Fine-tuning is what provides the final details which make something work. Are you playing games with “secondary” and “second”? “Secondary” means not as important as something else. How daft is that? You agree that life cannot possibly exist unless there is a hospitable climate, plus a certain combination of biochemicals. These are indispensable “fine tunings”, not minor matters of secondary importance! So how can the entire universe be fine-tuned for life although the only place we know that is fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth?

I'll stick with my statement. Fine-tuned are 26 major factors that make this universe what it
is allowing life to develop in any comfortable, life-inviting area. It is an accepted concept which leads to thoughts of alien civilizations, life elsewhere than Earth. We don't really disagree. Our emphasis is different.

Theodicy

DAVID: The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.

dhw: Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God had to accept that he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created, and did not have the knowledge to create the world he wanted (assuming that in his all-goodness he disapproved of evil).

DAVID: We cannot have the good without the evil. An all-knowing God had no solution for that side-effect. I'm alive and enjoying the good. Yes, I'm fully aware of evil, but not twisted into knots over it as you are.

dhw: You and countless theologians have twisted yourselves into knots trying to solve the problem of theodicy, which in fact you raised in the first place and which has caused trouble ever since humans started theorizing about the concept of a single, all-good God. (No problem for those who believe or believed in multiple gods.) Your solutions are to ignore the problem, to ridicule your God as being incapable of creating the world he would have wanted (unless you think he wanted evil), and to tell us how happy you are.

We are alive, enjoying life, thanks to God. And you want to complain that a perfect God did not give you a perfect evil-less existence. It is obvious He couldn't.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.
And:
DAVID: Your urgency specifies a speed you may not realize. I'm just slower.

dhw: You are pleased that some countries like USA have already taken measures. I say “as quickly as pragmatically possible”, and you agree that this means measures must be taken at a speed which will not create social or economic havoc. Neither of us has set a date, so how can we gauge the speed at which these measures must be taken? I suggest we shake hands and congratulate one another on our complete agreement.

Let's shake.

Evolution
DAVID: God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

dhw: You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?

DAVID: Adler warns we must think allegorically about God's attributes. Your problem is you laugh at Adler and do not realize I am thinking allegorically about God.

dhw: I’m discussing this with you, not Adler, and there’s nothing “allegorical” in concepts such as enjoyment, relationships, recognition, worship etc.

Yes, when applied to God.

DAVID: God used evolution as His standard pattern of development, with the Big Bang to the current universe as an example. Then He evolved life to finally reach humans. Evolution is God's preferred method of creation, and we do not know why. All I can say is the giant tree of evolution gave us an enormous supporting supply necessary to let us survive.

dhw: None of this explains why according to you he inefficiently designed and had to cull countless species irrelevant to what according to you was his one and only purpose (us plus food), and none of it means that your own humanizing speculations about his nature and motives are invalid. If, according to you, he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you proceed to list some of them, it is patently absurd for you to “refuse to accept humanized God forms”. Please stop all this dodging and self-contradiction.

The God-form proposals you conjure up are all very human. I apply the terms allegorically recognizing God is not human in any way.

Post reply

332 views

Fine tuning again

DAVID: I'll stick with my statement. Fine-tuned are 26 major factors that make this universe what it is allowing life to develop in any comfortable, life-inviting area. It is an accepted concept which leads to thoughts of alien civilizations, life elsewhere than Earth. We don't really disagree. Our emphasis is different.

The disagreement is over the blatant contradiction between your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” and your statement that the universe allows life to develop “in any comfortable, life-inviting area.” The entire universe offers 26 major factors that ALLOW life to exist, but it cannot exist without environmental and biochemical fine tuning. No matter how many comfortable, life-inviting areas there might possibly be, they would be mere dots in the entire universe, and at the moment we only know of one. Ergo, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. You agreed on March 3. Why do you disagree now?

Theodicy

dhw: You and countless theologians have twisted yourselves into knots trying to solve the problem of theodicy, which in fact you raised in the first place and which has caused trouble ever since humans started theorizing about the concept of a single, all-good God. (No problem for those who believe or believed in multiple gods.) Your solutions are to ignore the problem, to ridicule your God as being incapable of creating the world he would have wanted (unless you think he wanted evil), and to tell us how happy you are.

DAVID: We are alive, enjoying life, thanks to God. And you want to complain that a perfect God did not give you a perfect evil-less existence. It is obvious He couldn't.

The theodicy problem is not a complaint by me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with enjoyment of life. The explanation that your all-powerful God obviously did not have the power to avert evil is a contradiction in terms. Your “proportionality” argument is totally irrelevant, because evil exists. Just be honest, and admit that you have no idea how to reconcile the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God with the “obvious” fact that the creator of all things created a system which he knew would produce evil. There is no harm in admitting ignorance – we agnostics do it all the time.

Climate change
Timing a probable glacial period

DAVID: We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.
And:
DAVID: Your urgency specifies a speed you may not realize. I'm just slower.

dhw: You are pleased that some countries like USA have already taken measures. I say “as quickly as pragmatically possible”, and you agree that this means measures must be taken at a speed which will not create social or economic havoc. Neither of us has set a date, so how can we gauge the speed at which these measures must be taken? I suggest we shake hands and congratulate one another on our complete agreement.

DAVID: Let's shake.

Done. Subject closed.

Evolution

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

DAVID: The God-form proposals you conjure up are all very human. I apply the terms allegorically recognizing God is not human in any way.

You know perfectly well what you mean by enjoy, interest, love, etc., and we are dealing with your concept of God’s possible nature and purposes. If you think your own words don’t mean what you mean, then why use them? They are the human-like thought patterns and emotions which you think we may have in common with your God. Stop dodging.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

QUOTE: "The poison, tetrodotoxin, the same poison used by pufferfish, paralyzed the female while the male copulated with her. His efforts continued until the female began to recover. The poison used by the male was made by bacteria that lived in its body.

DAVID: I guess it is better than being eaten, although a participating partner makes it all more enjoyable.

Great comment! Fascinating procedure. We have had countless proofs of bacterial intelligence and of symbiosis. I find it hard to imagine that your God would have instructed the female to eat the male and would also have instructed the male to paralyze the female in its own defence. The alternative: intelligent cell communities and intelligent bacteria working together to ensure their survival in the dog-eat-dog, octopus-eat-octopus free-for-all of evolution’s history.

Post reply

330 views

Fine tuning again

DAVID: I'll stick with my statement. Fine-tuned are 26 major factors that make this universe what it is allowing life to develop in any comfortable, life-inviting area. It is an accepted concept which leads to thoughts of alien civilizations, life elsewhere than Earth. We don't really disagree. Our emphasis is different.

dhw: The disagreement is over the blatant contradiction between your statement that “the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” and your statement that the universe allows life to develop “in any comfortable, life-inviting area.” The entire universe offers 26 major factors that ALLOW life to exist, but it cannot exist without environmental and biochemical fine tuning. No matter how many comfortable, life-inviting areas there might possibly be, they would be mere dots in the entire universe, and at the moment we only know of one. Ergo, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. You agreed on March 3. Why do you disagree now?

The universe had no life until the Earth evolved. All I am pointing out is another Earth-like place can pop up and have life, because of the universe's construction.

Theodicy

dhw: You and countless theologians have twisted yourselves into knots trying to solve the problem of theodicy, which in fact you raised in the first place and which has caused trouble ever since humans started theorizing about the concept of a single, all-good God. (No problem for those who believe or believed in multiple gods.) Your solutions are to ignore the problem, to ridicule your God as being incapable of creating the world he would have wanted (unless you think he wanted evil), and to tell us how happy you are.

DAVID: We are alive, enjoying life, thanks to God. And you want to complain that a perfect God did not give you a perfect evil-less existence. It is obvious He couldn't.

dhw: The theodicy problem is not a complaint by me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with enjoyment of life. The explanation that your all-powerful God obviously did not have the power to avert evil is a contradiction in terms. Your “proportionality” argument is totally irrelevant, because evil exists. Just be honest, and admit that you have no idea how to reconcile the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God with the “obvious” fact that the creator of all things created a system which he knew would produce evil. There is no harm in admitting ignorance – we agnostics do it all the time.

I'm not ignorant in accepting God's works with evil attached.

Evolution

DAVID: I refuse to accept humanized God forms.

dhw: You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?

DAVID: The God-form proposals you conjure up are all very human. I apply the terms allegorically recognizing God is not human in any way.

dhw: You know perfectly well what you mean by enjoy, interest, love, etc., and we are dealing with your concept of God’s possible nature and purposes. If you think your own words don’t mean what you mean, then why use them? They are the human-like thought patterns and emotions which you think we may have in common with your God. Stop dodging.

You are still confused about the concept. Of course we understand each other. But we have no idea how God accepts it or applies it.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

QUOTE: "The poison, tetrodotoxin, the same poison used by pufferfish, paralyzed the female while the male copulated with her. His efforts continued until the female began to recover. The poison used by the male was made by bacteria that lived in its body.

DAVID: I guess it is better than being eaten, although a participating partner makes it all more enjoyable.

dhw: Great comment! Fascinating procedure. We have had countless proofs of bacterial intelligence and of symbiosis. I find it hard to imagine that your God would have instructed the female to eat the male and would also have instructed the male to paralyze the female in its own defence. The alternative: intelligent cell communities and intelligent bacteria working together to ensure their survival in the dog-eat-dog, octopus-eat-octopus free-for-all of evolution’s history.

The symbiosis is not surprising.

Post reply

335 views

A study in atmospheres formation and aging presumes alien life possible:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-road-map-to-alien-life-passes-through-the-cosmic-sho...

:At first, Zahnle’s cosmic shoreline was largely ignored. Escape, he said, was not very popular — scientists mostly focused on how planets got atmospheres, not on how they lost them. But decades later, the discovery of thousands of worlds beyond our solar system has breathed new life — and billion-dollar stakes — into the overlooked idea. The search is on for habitable alien worlds, and eventually for signs of life in their atmospheres. To succeed, alien hunters will need to find planets with air. And the cosmic shoreline, if it truly is cosmic and extends to other star systems, could show them where to start.

"Scientists are now using NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to put the concept to the test. The spacecraft has already sniffed for air around rocky planets orbiting a handful of small, cool stars. This spring, it will embark on a massive survey(opens a new tab) of dozens more rocky worlds.

***

"Astronomers have now identified nearly 6,000 planets orbiting a menagerie of alien suns. Some even hope to use JWST to characterize a handful of potentially habitable alien worlds. But JWST wasn’t initially designed to peer at exoplanets, which hadn’t even been discovered when it was conceived. And it has particular trouble resolving dim, rocky planets that orbit bigger, brighter stars. Worlds like Earth."

Comment: active research into atmospheres looking for alien life potentials presumes the universe is fine-tuned everywhere. This is a primary point and dhw's additional requirement of an Earth-like spot is secondary.

Post reply

316 views

Fine tuning again

DAVID: The universe had no life until the Earth evolved. All I am pointing out is another Earth-like place can pop up and have life, because of the universe's construction.

There is no disagreement on this. But that is not all you have pointed out. You keep ignoring your statement that “THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE TO APPEAR.” In order for life to appear, a planet must be environmentally and biochemically fine-tuned. The entire universe is NOT environmentally and biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Therefore the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life to appear.

A basis for research

QUOTE: “Astronomers have now identified nearly 6,000 planets orbiting a menagerie of alien suns. Some even hope to use JWST [James Webb Space Telescope] to characterize a handful of potentially habitable alien worlds."

DAVID: active research into atmospheres looking for alien life potentials presumes the universe is fine-tuned everywhere. This is a primary point and dhw's additional requirement of an Earth-like spot is secondary.

It presumes no such thing. They hope (they don’t even presume) to find a handful of potentially habitable alien worlds, though in terms of the environment alone, even that remains a potential and not a fact. Only biochemical fine-tuning can fulfil the potential. So how can the requirement of a habitable spot, let alone biochemical fine-tuning be secondary if life is impossible without it? How can the entire universe be fine-tuned for life if life is only possible in a tiny proportion of the universe?

Theodicy

DAVID: We are alive, enjoying life, thanks to God. And you want to complain that a perfect God did not give you a perfect evil-less existence. It is obvious He couldn't.

dhw: The theodicy problem is not a complaint by me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with enjoyment of life. The explanation that your all-powerful God obviously did not have the power to avert evil is a contradiction in terms. Your “proportionality” argument is totally irrelevant, because evil exists. Just be honest, and admit that you have no idea how to reconcile the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God with the “obvious” fact that the creator of all things created a system which he knew would produce evil. There is no harm in admitting ignorance – we agnostics do it all the time.

DAVID: I'm not ignorant in accepting God's works with evil attached.

Acceptance has nothing to do with theodicy, which is the quest for an explanation. If you can’t explain why an all-good, all-powerful God creates evil, or is powerless to prevent it, then just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

Evolution

dhw: You know perfectly well what you mean by enjoy, interest, love, etc., and we are dealing with your concept of God’s possible nature and purposes. If you think your own words don’t mean what you mean, then why use them? They are the human-like thought patterns and emotions which you think we may have in common with your God. Stop dodging.

DAVID: You are still confused about the concept. Of course we understand each other. But we have no idea how God accepts it or applies it.

We’re not talking about "how" but about "if". YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

DAVID: I guess it is better than being eaten, although a participating partner makes it all more enjoyable.

dhw: Great comment! Fascinating procedure. We have had countless proofs of bacterial intelligence and of symbiosis. I find it hard to imagine that your God would have instructed the female to eat the male and would also have instructed the male to paralyze the female in its own defence. The alternative: intelligent cell communities and intelligent bacteria working together to ensure their survival in the dog-eat-dog, octopus-eat-octopus free-for-all of evolution’s history.

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

Post reply

312 views

Fine tuning again

DAVID: The universe had no life until the Earth evolved. All I am pointing out is another Earth-like place can pop up and have life, because of the universe's construction.

dhw: There is no disagreement on this... The entire universe is NOT environmentally and biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Therefore the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life to appear.

Yes. The entire universe is biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Environmental issues are secondary.

Theodicy

DAVID: I'm not ignorant in accepting God's works with evil attached.

dhw: Acceptance has nothing to do with theodicy, which is the quest for an explanation. If you can’t explain why an all-good, all-powerful God creates evil, or is powerless to prevent it, then just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

The 'digressions' are the answers.

Evolution

dhw: We’re not talking about "how" but about "if". YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

What words/concepts mean to God MAY NOT be the same as the meanings to us in discussions.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

QUOTE: "The poison, tetrodotoxin, the same poison used by pufferfish, paralyzed the female while the male copulated with her. His efforts continued until the female began to recover. The poison used by the male was made by bacteria that lived in its body.

DAVID: I guess it is better than being eaten, although a participating partner makes it all more enjoyable.

dhw: Great comment! Fascinating procedure. We have had countless proofs of bacterial intelligence and of symbiosis. I find it hard to imagine that your God would have instructed the female to eat the male and would also have instructed the male to paralyze the female in its own defence. The alternative: intelligent cell communities and intelligent bacteria working together to ensure their survival in the dog-eat-dog, octopus-eat-octopus free-for-all of evolution’s history.

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

dhw: Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

Same instructions.

Post reply

310 views

FACT: There are no known answers to any of the questions raised on this thread or the Savannah thread, including the existence, nature and possible purposes of a God. We can only offer theories and test their logic against whatever knowledge we do have.

Fine tuning again

dhw: The entire universe is NOT environmentally and biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Therefore the entire universe is not fine-tuned for life to appear.

DAVID: Yes. The entire universe is biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Environmental issues are secondary.

You have said yourself that life is only possible in a hospitable environment. If a hospitable environment is indispensable, it cannot be “secondary” (= of minor importance). The only place in the universe which we know is biochemically and environmentally fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth. It is possible that there may be others, but they will be few and far between, and so it illogical to argue that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

Theodicy

DAVID: I'm not ignorant in accepting God's works with evil attached.

dhw: Acceptance has nothing to do with theodicy, which is the quest for an explanation. If you can’t explain why an all-good, all-powerful God creates evil, or is powerless to prevent it, then just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

DAVID: The 'digressions' are the answers.

The digressions and contradictions do not offer a logical answer to the question how an all-good, all-powerful God can create evil or be powerless to prevent it.

Evolution

dhw: We’re not talking about "how" but about "if". YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

DAVID: What words/concepts mean to God MAY NOT be the same as the meanings to us in discussions.

The question is not whether God uses a different dictionary from ours, but whether he enjoys, loves, wants to be worshipped etc. as we understand it. Do you really think that when you ask whether he loves us or not, you are asking whether he understands the word “love” as meaning he wants to murder us? Yet another of your illogical arguments.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

dhw: Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

DAVID: Same instructions.

So he instructed the female’s cell communities and bacteria to eat the male, and he instructed the male’s cells and bacteria to paralyse the female. Oh what fun! Maybe this is your idea of your God enjoying creating. And presumably you regard this as essential to your God’s purpose of designing us and our food. Not much logic here, is there?

Post reply

306 views

FACT: There are no known answers to any of the questions raised on this thread or the Savannah thread, including the existence, nature and possible purposes of a God. We can only offer theories and test their logic against whatever knowledge we do have.

Fine tuning again

DAVID: Yes. The entire universe is biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Environmental issues are secondary.

dhw: You have said yourself that life is only possible in a hospitable environment. If a hospitable environment is indispensable, it cannot be “secondary” (= of minor importance). The only place in the universe which we know is biochemically and environmentally fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth. It is possible that there may be others, but they will be few and far between, and so it illogical to argue that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

You don't understand my emphasis. This universe is fine-tuned for life to appear. That is a primary requirement. Then habitability must exist somewhere for life to appear. A two-step process. Both equally important.

Theodicy

DAVID: I'm not ignorant in accepting God's works with evil attached.

dhw: Acceptance has nothing to do with theodicy, which is the quest for an explanation. If you can’t explain why an all-good, all-powerful God creates evil, or is powerless to prevent it, then just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

DAVID: The 'digressions' are the answers.

dhw: The digressions and contradictions do not offer a logical answer to the question how an all-good, all-powerful God can create evil or be powerless to prevent it.

I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.

Evolution

dhw: We’re not talking about "how" but about "if". YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

DAVID: What words/concepts mean to God MAY NOT be the same as the meanings to us in discussions.

dhw: The question is not whether God uses a different dictionary from ours,

Yes it is!!!

dhw:....but whether he enjoys, loves, wants to be worshipped etc. as we understand it. Do you really think that when you ask whether he loves us or not, you are asking whether he understands the word “love” as meaning he wants to murder us? Yet another of your illogical arguments.

He understands our words in our meanings, but He may use them for Himself in some other way unknown to us.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

dhw: Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

DAVID: Same instructions.

dhw: So he instructed the female’s cell communities and bacteria to eat the male, and he instructed the male’s cells and bacteria to paralyse the female. Oh what fun! Maybe this is your idea of your God enjoying creating. And presumably you regard this as essential to your God’s purpose of designing us and our food. Not much logic here, is there?

Is God using evolution to create logical?

Post reply

310 views

dhw: FACT: There are no known answers to any of the questions raised on this thread or the Savannah thread, including the existence, nature and possible purposes of a God. We can only offer theories and test their logic against whatever knowledge we do have.

Fine tuning again

DAVID: Yes. The entire universe is biochemically fine-tuned for life to appear. Environmental issues are secondary.

dhw: You have said yourself that life is only possible in a hospitable environment. If a hospitable environment is indispensable, it cannot be “secondary” (= of minor importance). The only place in the universe which we know is biochemically and environmentally fine-tuned for life is Planet Earth. It is possible that there may be others, but they will be few and far between, and so it illogical to argue that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: You don't understand my emphasis. This universe is fine-tuned for life to appear. That is a primary requirement. Then habitability must exist somewhere for life to appear. A two-step process. Both equally important.

It’s a lot more than two steps, but in any creative process, fine-tuning is the final step. It is blindingly obvious that unless a planet offers hospitable conditions, it cannot be called “fine-tuned for life”. Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

Theodicy
#
dhw: […] just admit that it makes no sense to you, instead of lurching from one digression (e.g. “proportionality”) or contradiction (he’s all-powerful but powerless) to another?

DAVID: The 'digressions' are the answers.

dhw: The digressions and contradictions do not offer a logical answer to the question how an all-good, all-powerful God can create evil or be powerless to prevent it.

DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.

Our discussion includes all the murderous viruses and natural disasters for which he is responsible. But in any case, an all-powerful God should not be powerless. On the other hand, an all-good God should not willingly create evil. You see how complex the problem of theodicy is?

Evolution

dhw: YOU know what you mean by enjoy, interest, love etc., and the only question is IF he does or doesn’t enjoy, have interest, love etc. There is no “allegory”, and it’s you who have proposed all of these as possible motives for his creation of life and us, so please stop pretending that your own proposals don’t “humanize” him. In any case, why should you assume that your God would NOT endow his creations with some of his own thought patterns and emotions?

DAVID: What words/concepts mean to God MAY NOT be the same as the meanings to us in discussions.

dhw: The question is not whether God uses a different dictionary from ours,

DAVID: Yes it is!!! […] He understands our words in our meanings, but He may use them for Himself in some other way unknown to us.

I do not believe for one second that YOU did not use the words with the meaning we all give to them. The question is whether he loves us as WE understand love, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition of “love” from ours.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

DAVID: Same instructions.

dhw: So he instructed the female’s cell communities and bacteria to eat the male, and he instructed the male’s cells and bacteria to paralyse the female. Oh what fun! Maybe this is your idea of your God enjoying creating. And presumably you regard this as essential to your God’s purpose of designing us and our food. Not much logic here, is there?

DAVID: Is God using evolution to create logical?

If God exists and we believe evolution happened, then of course it’s logical that he used it. What is not logical is your absurd theory that he used it for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food and therefore designed 99 out of 100 species unconnected with us and our food, and designed the female octopus to eat the male octopus and designed the male octopus to paralyse the female so that she couldn’t follow his instructions.

Post reply

305 views

DAVID: You don't understand my emphasis. This universe is fine-tuned for life to appear. That is a primary requirement. Then habitability must exist somewhere for life to appear. A two-step process. Both equally important.

dhw: It’s a lot more than two steps, but in any creative process, fine-tuning is the final step. It is blindingly obvious that unless a planet offers hospitable conditions, it cannot be called “fine-tuned for life”. Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

We agree and disagree. On a different universe with different basic fine-tuning in its structure life cannot appear. It happens that this universe is totally fine-tuned for life wherever it would like to appear. All I am emphasizing is a non-biological fine-tuning must come first. That was the major point of discussion thirty years ago, the unique fine-tuning of our universe and its theological implications.

Theodicy

DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.

dhw: Our discussion includes all the murderous viruses and natural disasters for which he is responsible. But in any case, an all-powerful God should not be powerless. On the other hand, an all-good God should not willingly create evil. You see how complex the problem of theodicy is?

You refuse to accept how the problem is answered by the proportionality concept that religious people are comfortable with.

Evolution

dhw: The question is not whether God uses a different dictionary from ours,

DAVID: Yes it is!!! […] He understands our words in our meanings, but He may use them for Himself in some other way unknown to us.

dhw: I do not believe for one second that YOU did not use the words with the meaning we all give to them. The question is whether he loves us as WE understand love, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition of “love” from ours.

Exactly!!!

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

DAVID: The symbiosis is not surprising.

dhw: Of course not. Don’t you agree, though, that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

DAVID: Same instructions.

dhw: So he instructed the female’s cell communities and bacteria to eat the male, and he instructed the male’s cells and bacteria to paralyse the female. Oh what fun! Maybe this is your idea of your God enjoying creating. And presumably you regard this as essential to your God’s purpose of designing us and our food. Not much logic here, is there?

DAVID: Is God using evolution to create logical?

dhw: If God exists and we believe evolution happened, then of course it’s logical that he used it. What is not logical is your absurd theory that he used it for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food and therefore designed 99 out of 100 species unconnected with us and our food, and designed the female octopus to eat the male octopus and designed the male octopus to paralyze the female so that she couldn’t follow his instructions.

So God's evolution is logical. And it can certainly be logical God's desire was to produce the human brain, the only biological form that could think in a way similar to His thinking.
Adler uses it to prove God!!

Post reply

318 views

dhw: It’s a lot more than two steps, but in any creative process, fine-tuning is the final step. It is blindingly obvious that unless a planet offers hospitable conditions, it cannot be called “fine-tuned for life”. Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: We agree and disagree. On a different universe with different basic fine-tuning in its structure life cannot appear.

We are talking about THIS universe. Of course if a different universe was different, it would be different!!!

DAVID: It happens that this universe is totally fine-tuned for life wherever it would like to appear. All I am emphasizing is a non-biological fine-tuning must come first. That was the major point of discussion thirty years ago, the unique fine-tuning of our universe and its theological implications.

All of a sudden we have a personified life, which says to itself: “I wanner appear just
there!” and the only “just there” we know where life would like to appear is Planet Earth. Maybe on its wanderings, life found that the rest of the universe was NOT fine-tuned for life, and so it decided not to appear there! I couldn’t care less what people were discussing 30 years ago. Welcome to March 2025. You refuse to accept that fine-tuning is the final stage of any creative process, although on March 3 you accepted “the Wilsonian view”, and as usual you have ignored a direct question, which I will now repeat: Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

Theodicy

DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.

dhw: Our discussion includes all the murderous viruses and natural disasters for which he is responsible. But in any case, an all-powerful God should not be powerless. On the other hand, an all-good God should not willingly create evil. You see how complex the problem of theodicy is?

DAVID: You refuse to accept how the problem is answered by the proportionality concept that religious people are comfortable with.

Most religious people have probably never heard of theodicy. Your belief that you’ve solved the problem by pretending that evil disappears if you only think of the good is simply head in the sand.

Evolution

dhw: The question is not whether God uses a different dictionary from ours,

DAVID: Yes it is!!! […] He understands our words in our meanings, but He may use them for Himself in some other way unknown to us.

dhw: I do not believe for one second that YOU did not use the words with the meaning we all give to them. The question is whether he loves us as WE understand love, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition of “love” from ours.

DAVID: Exactly!!!

So stop telling us that the question is whether God has a different dictionary from ours!!!

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

dhw: Don’t you agree […] that it demonstrates intelligent cooperation between bacteria and the cell communities of the octopus? Or do you think your God gave different instructions to the female's and the male's bacteria and cell communities?

DAVID: Same instructions.
And:
DAVID: Is God using evolution to create logical?

dhw: If God exists and we believe evolution happened, then of course it’s logical that he used it. What is not logical is your absurd theory that he used it for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food and therefore designed 99 out of 100 species unconnected with us and our food, and designed the female octopus to eat the male octopus and designed the male octopus to paralyze the female so that she couldn’t follow his instructions.

DAVID: So God's evolution is logical. And it can certainly be logical God's desire was to produce the human brain, the only biological form that could think in a way similar to His thinking. Adler uses it to prove God!!

I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read my posts. The two bolded theories above are absurdly illogical. So you ignore them.

dhw: (under “savannah”): I have offered you alternative “God-given” interpretations of evolution’s history, and you even acknowledge their logic, but your beliefs are now fixed and your mind is closed.

DAVID: So is yours. You refuse to accept Adler's view of God.

I have no fixed beliefs: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, and I offer alternative theistic interpretations of evolution, not beliefs. Adler uses humans as evidence for belief in God, who may or may not love us. I have no objection to these possibilties. But you have told us that Adler does not cover the wacky, now bolded theories you propose above. Please stop trying to hide behind him.

Post reply

304 views

DAVID: It happens that this universe is totally fine-tuned for life wherever it would like to appear. All I am emphasizing is a non-biological fine-tuning must come first. That was the major point of discussion thirty years ago, the unique fine-tuning of our universe and its theological implications.

dhw: All of a sudden we have a personified life, which says to itself: “I wanner appear just there!” and the only “just there” we know where life would like to appear is Planet Earth. Maybe on its wanderings, life found that the rest of the universe was NOT fine-tuned for life, and so it decided not to appear there! I couldn’t care less what people were discussing 30 years ago. Welcome to March 2025. You refuse to accept that fine-tuning is the final stage of any creative process, although on March 3 you accepted “the Wilsonian view”, and as usual you have ignored a direct question, which I will now repeat: Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

You are blind to the nuance. There are two stages to fine-tuning. Fine-tuning of the factors that make a universe what it is are what allow life to appear. The next required step is habitability somewhere. You say: "You refuse to accept that fine-tuning is the final stage of any creative process," and you are wrong. Unless a universe itself is fine-tuned, life cannot happen. The search for aliens supports my view looking for life anywhere else."

Theodicy

DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.

dhw: Our discussion includes all the murderous viruses and natural disasters for which he is responsible. But in any case, an all-powerful God should not be powerless. On the other hand, an all-good God should not willingly create evil. You see how complex the problem of theodicy is?

DAVID: You refuse to accept how the problem is answered by the proportionality concept that religious people are comfortable with.

dhw: Most religious people have probably never heard of theodicy. Your belief that you’ve solved the problem by pretending that evil disappears if you only think of the good is simply head in the sand.

I raised the theodicy issue with full awareness of evil. I'm satisfied with my answers.

Evolution

dhw: I do not believe for one second that YOU did not use the words with the meaning we all give to them. The question is whether he loves us as WE understand love, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition of “love” from ours.

DAVID: Exactly!!!

dhw: So stop telling us that the question is whether God has a different dictionary from ours!!!

He may well have a different dictionary. My 'exactly' came from misunderstanding your sentence. "whether he loves us as WE understand love" is what I accepted. Sorry.

Nature’s Wonders: octopus rape

dhw: If God exists and we believe evolution happened, then of course it’s logical that he used it. What is not logical is your absurd theory that he used it for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food and therefore designed 99 out of 100 species unconnected with us and our food, and designed the female octopus to eat the male octopus and designed the male octopus to paralyze the female so that she couldn’t follow his instructions.

DAVID: So God's evolution is logical. And it can certainly be logical God's desire was to produce the human brain, the only biological form that could think in a way similar to His thinking. Adler uses it to prove God!!

dhw: I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read my posts. The two bolded theories above are absurdly illogical. So you ignore them.

Ignoring is an easy way to not answer your distorted trope about God's evolution constantly repeated. My many past answers satisfy me. Humans were God's goal in evolution. All animals and plants played a role.

dhw: (under “savannah”): I have offered you alternative “God-given” interpretations of evolution’s history, and you even acknowledge their logic, but your beliefs are now fixed and your mind is closed.

DAVID: So is yours. You refuse to accept Adler's view of God.

dhw: I have no fixed beliefs: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, and I offer alternative theistic interpretations of evolution, not beliefs. Adler uses humans as evidence for belief in God, who may or may not love us. I have no objection to these possibilties. But you have told us that Adler does not cover the wacky, now bolded theories you propose above. Please stop trying to hide behind him.

As my teacher I must use him.

Post reply

300 views

dhw: Would you say that Venus is fine-tuned for life? If not, why not? Your answer should tell you why it is absurd to say that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: You are blind to the nuance. There are two stages to fine-tuning. Fine-tuning of the factors that make a universe what it is are what allow life to appear. The next required step is habitability somewhere. You say: "You refuse to accept that fine-tuning is the final stage of any creative process," and you are wrong. Unless a universe itself is fine-tuned, life cannot happen. The search for aliens supports my view looking for life anywhere else."

You are blind to the fact that unless the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, the entire universe cannot be called fine-tuned for life! Searching for aliens does not prove there is life everywhere! Yes, there’s a sequence of events, but you won’t accept that habitability is an absolutely indispensable fine-tuning for life, and biochemical fine-tuning is what actually produces it (instead of merely “allowing” it). Twice you have ignored my Venus question, so I’ll answer it: there is no evidence of water, the surface temperature is too hot, and the atmosphere is too thick. It is not fine-tuned for life. The same may apply to the “entire universe” – ours is the ONLY planet known to be fine-tuned for life. Don’t you understand that for a place to be fine-tuned for life, it must have ALL the features that are necessary for life?

Theodicy
DAVID: I think He is powerless to prevent human evil.
And:
DAVID: I raised the theodicy issue with full awareness of evil. I'm satisfied with my answers.

A recap on your answers: 1) don’t even think about evil – just focus on the good; 2) your all-powerful God is powerless to prevent evil; 3) your all-good God has created evil, but who cares so long as you are happy and are satisfied with your answers?

God’s nature and/or purpose(s)

DAVID: Exactly!!!

dhw: So stop telling us that the question is whether God has a different dictionary from ours!!!

DAVID: He may well have a different dictionary. My 'exactly' came from misunderstanding your sentence. "whether he loves us as WE understand love" is what I accepted. Sorry.

Recap: you have made the humanizing proposals that your God might enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, may or may not love us, might want a relationship with us, might want us to recognize his work and worship him. We do not know if any of these human thought patterns and emotions are true of him, but you think they are all possible. What do you object to in this summary of your thoughts?

Evolution

DAVID: Is God using evolution to create logical?

DAVID: […] My many past answers satisfy me. Humans were God's goal in evolution. All animals and plants played a role.

You have agreed that 99 out 100 played no role in what you insist was your God’s sole purpose, to produce us and our food. Hence your ridicule of him for his inefficiency.

DAVID: So is yours. You refuse to accept Adler's view of God.

dhw: I have no fixed beliefs: […] you have told us that Adler does not cover the wacky, now bolded theories you propose above. Please stop trying to hide behind him.

DAVID: As my teacher I must use him.

Then stop misusing him. You have told us he does NOT support your wacky theory of evolution.

Green spoonworms
DAVID: Another strange organism that plays a role in its ecosystem, but it may help us in the fight with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Weird and wonderful. All life forms play a role in their ecosystems, but that doesn’t mean that all ecosystems have been designed for the benefit of us humans.

Polar bears’ deicing methods
DAVID: I wonder about diving birds in the Arctic and other animals who are partially aquatic in their lifestyles. The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

I agree. One might conclude that the cell communities of which all life forms are made have minds of their own (possibly created originally by your God) which enable them to find their own individual solutions to the problems posed by their respective environments.

Post reply

293 views

DAVID: You are blind to the nuance. There are two stages to fine-tuning. Fine-tuning of the factors that make a universe what it is are what allow life to appear. The next required step is habitability somewhere. You say: "You refuse to accept that fine-tuning is the final stage of any creative process," and you are wrong. Unless a universe itself is fine-tuned, life cannot happen. The search for aliens supports my view looking for life anywhere else."

dhw; You are blind to the fact that unless the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, the entire universe cannot be called fine-tuned for life! Searching for aliens does not prove there is life everywhere! Yes, there’s a sequence of events, but you won’t accept that habitability is an absolutely indispensable fine-tuning for life, and biochemical fine-tuning is what actually produces it (instead of merely “allowing” it). Twice you have ignored my Venus question, so I’ll answer it: there is no evidence of water, the surface temperature is too hot, and the atmosphere is too thick. It is not fine-tuned for life. The same may apply to the “entire universe” – ours is the ONLY planet known to be fine-tuned for life. Don’t you understand that for a place to be fine-tuned for life, it must have ALL the features that are necessary for life?

As I pointed out, the discovery that the entire universe's structure was fine-tuned for life introduced much discussion about God, about the Anthropic Principal, etc. I base my thinking on that time. This universe will allow life wherever it is habitable. We agree but you don't like it served up the way I view it

Theodicy

dhw: A recap on your answers: 1) don’t even think about evil – just focus on the good; 2) your all-powerful God is powerless to prevent evil; 3) your all-good God has created evil, but who cares so long as you are happy and are satisfied with your answers?

This is why you have a mental block to faith.

God’s nature and/or purpose(s)

dhw: I do not believe for one second that YOU did not use the words with the meaning we all give to them. The question is whether he loves us as WE understand love, not whether his dictionary gives a different definition of “love” from ours.

DAVID: Exactly!!!

dhw: So stop telling us that the question is whether God has a different dictionary from ours!!!

DAVID: He may well have a different dictionary. My 'exactly' came from misunderstanding your sentence. "whether he loves us as WE understand love" is what I accepted. Sorry.

dhw: Recap: you have made the humanizing proposals that your God might enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, may or may not love us, might want a relationship with us, might want us to recognize his work and worship him. We do not know if any of these human thought patterns and emotions are true of him, but you think they are all possible. What do you object to in this summary of your thoughts?

Nothing.

Evolution

dhw: You have agreed that 99 out 100 played no role in what you insist was your God’s sole purpose, to produce us and our food. Hence your ridicule of him for his inefficiency.

This is your usual distortion of an evolutionary process analysis.

dhw: I have no fixed beliefs: […] you have told us that Adler does not cover the wacky, now bolded theories you propose above. Please stop trying to hide behind him.

DAVID: As my teacher I must use him.

dhw: Then stop misusing him. You have told us he does NOT support your wacky theory of evolution.

Adler taught me how to think about God. You are getting the result.

Polar bears’ deicing methods
DAVID: I wonder about diving birds in the Arctic and other animals who are partially aquatic in their lifestyles. The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

dhw: I agree. One might conclude that the cell communities of which all life forms are made have minds of their own (possibly created originally by your God) which enable them to find their own individual solutions to the problems posed by their respective environments.

Only if they are guided by a designing brain.

Post reply

289 views

Fine-tuning

DAVID: As I pointed out, the discovery that the entire universe's structure was fine-tuned for life introduced much discussion about God, about the Anthropic Principal, etc. I base my thinking on that time.

The fact that Planet Earth is the only place in the universe which we know to be fine-tuned for life can also “introduce much discussion about God”, and indeed our very uniqueness has been used by none other than David Turell as evidence that there is a designer at work.

DAVID: This universe will allow life wherever it is habitable. We agree but you don't like it served up the way I view it.

I don’t like demonstrably false statements, and the fact that they are 30 years old does not make them any more acceptable. Yes, the universe will allow life wherever it is habitable, but a) the entire universe is not habitable, and (b) even if a place is habitable, that still doesn’t mean it’s fine-tuned for life, because the biochemical components of which all living things are made must also be fine-tuned. If you now accept that your statement (“the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”) is demonstrably false, then we can agree and close the subject.

Theodicy

dhw: A recap on your answers: 1) don’t even think about evil – just focus on the good; 2) your all-powerful God is powerless to prevent evil; 3) your all-good God has created evil, but who cares so long as you are happy and are satisfied with your answers?

DAVID: This is why you have a mental block to faith.

The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

God’s nature and/or purpose(s)

DAVID: Exactly!!!

dhw: So stop telling us that the question is whether God has a different dictionary from ours!!!

DAVID: He may well have a different dictionary. My 'exactly' came from misunderstanding your sentence. "whether he loves us as WE understand love" is what I accepted. Sorry.

dhw: Recap: you have made the humanizing proposals that your God might enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, may or may not love us, might want a relationship with us, might want us to recognize his work and worship him. We do not know if any of these human thought patterns and emotions are true of him, but you think they are all possible. What do you object to in this summary of your thoughts?

DAVID: Nothing.

Thank you. Then please let’s have no more denial of possible human thought patterns and emotions, no more talk of concrete terms being “allegories”, and of your God possibly using a different dictionary from ours.

Evolution
dhw: You have agreed that 99 out 100 played no role in what you insist was your God’s sole
purpose, to produce us and our food. Hence your ridicule of him for his inefficiency.

DAVID: This is your usual distortion of an evolutionary process analysis.

Your analysis is that your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our food, and in order to do so he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us.
Listen to yourself:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our foods are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

What other reason do you have for ridiculing your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer?

Adler
dhw: : […] you have told us that Adler does not cover the wacky, now bolded theories you propose above. Please stop trying to hide behind him.

DAVID: As my teacher I must use him.
And:
DAVID: Adler taught me how to think about God. You are getting the result.
And:
DAVID: Adler is distilled into my thinking.

Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical theories, your self-contradictions, your prejudices and your ridicule of your God.

Polar bears’ deicing methods
DAVID: I wonder about diving birds in the Arctic and other animals who are partially aquatic in their lifestyles. The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

dhw: I agree. One might conclude that the cell communities of which all life forms are made have minds of their own (possibly created originally by your God) which enable them to find their own individual solutions to the problems posed by their respective environments.

DAVID: Only if they are guided by a designing brain.

By which I presume you mean God gives them instructions for every new response to every new situation. You just can’t conceive of the possibility that other life forms, starting with bacteria, have an intelligence of their own. Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

Post reply

272 views

Fine-tuning

DAVID: This universe will allow life wherever it is habitable. We agree but you don't like it served up the way I view it.

dhw: I don’t like demonstrably false statements, and the fact that they are 30 years old does not make them any more acceptable. Yes, the universe will allow life wherever it is habitable, but a) the entire universe is not habitable, and (b) even if a place is habitable, that still doesn’t mean it’s fine-tuned for life, because the biochemical components of which all living things are made must also be fine-tuned. If you now accept that your statement (“the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”) is demonstrably false, then we can agree and close the subject.

The definition of habitability means all of life's requirements are available! What is your problem? My position still stands.

Theodicy

dhw: The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

Round and round. Stopping point.

Evolution

DAVID: This is your usual distortion of an evolutionary process analysis.

Your analysis is that your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our food, and in order to do so he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us.
Listen to yourself:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our foods are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: What other reason do you have for ridiculing your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer?

Some strange branches were dead ends

Polar bears’ deicing methods
DAVID: I wonder about diving birds in the Arctic and other animals who are partially aquatic in their lifestyles. The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

dhw: I agree. One might conclude that the cell communities of which all life forms are made have minds of their own (possibly created originally by your God) which enable them to find their own individual solutions to the problems posed by their respective environments.

DAVID: Only if they are guided by a designing brain.

dhw: By which I presume you mean God gives them instructions for every new response to every new situation. You just can’t conceive of the possibility that other life forms, starting with bacteria, have an intelligence of their own. Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

I have no idea. I think the bacteria are mistakenly in the wrong place. They can become resistant because we use antibiotics from nature which they recognize. God may have initially designed them, but has no further interaction.

Post reply

268 views

DAVID: This universe will allow life wherever it is habitable. We agree but you don't like it served up the way I view it.

dhw: I don’t like demonstrably false statements, and the fact that they are 30 years old does not make them any more acceptable. Yes, the universe will allow life wherever it is habitable, but a) the entire universe is not habitable, and (b) even if a place is habitable, that still doesn’t mean it’s fine-tuned for life, because the biochemical components of which all living things are made must also be fine-tuned. If you now accept that your statement (“the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear”) is demonstrably false, then we can agree and close the subject.

DAVID: The definition of habitability means all of life's requirements are available! What is your problem? My position still stands.

You don’t seem to take any notice of my responses (including the question about Venus)! Once more:
1)In the context of life’s requirements, the definition of habitability would be that environmental conditions are suitable for life. However, it is perfectly possible that other places in the universe are habitable, but do not contain the fine-tuned biochemical components which produce living organisms! In that case, even they are NOT fine-tuned for life.
2) Your problem, not mine, is your refusal to accept the fact that the entire universe cannot possibly be fine-tuned for life to appear if life can only appear in individual spots which (a) are habitable, and (b) contain the finely-tuned biochemical components of live organisms.

The entire universe is therefore demonstrably NOT fine-tuned for life to appear.

Theodicy
dhw: The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Round and round. Stopping point.

I can understand your desire to stop discussing the problem when the only answers you can come up with are the blatant dodges I have listed.

God’s nature and/or purposes.
As you have now accepted that all your humanizing theories are possible, I’ll make a note of this agreement for future reference if needed.

Evolution

DAVID: This is your usual distortion of an evolutionary process analysis.

dhw: Your analysis is that your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our food, and in order to do so he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us.
Listen to yourself:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our foods are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: What other reason do you have for ridiculing your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer?

DAVID: Some strange branches were dead ends.

You have agreed that 99.9% were dead ends, so please stop telling us that “Humans were God’s goal in evolution. All animals and plants played a role.” And please stop accusing me of “distorting” your analysis when I reproduce your illogical theory that your God’s sole purpose was to create us and our food, and so he had to produce and get rid of 99 (or 99.9) out of 100 life forms that were irrelevant to his purpose, thus proving himself to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Adler
I trust you will now stop blaming him for your own illogical theories. Thank you.

Polar bears’ deicing methods

DAVID: […] The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

DAVID: Only if they are guided by a designing brain.

dhw: By which I presume you mean God gives them instructions for every new response to every new situation. You just can’t conceive of the possibility that other life forms, starting with bacteria, have an intelligence of their own. Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

DAVID: I have no idea. I think the bacteria are mistakenly in the wrong place. They can become resistant because we use antibiotics from nature which they recognize. God may have initially designed them, but has no further interaction.

There are bacteria which are good for us and bacteria which are bad for us. All of them do what is good for THEM. If your God has no further “interaction”, then clearly the baddies must have some form of autonomous intelligence to “recognize” our means of killing them and to find ways of overcoming them. You now have your God designing autonomously intelligent cells (the baddies) capable of devising their own means of survival. But you refuse to accept the possibility that the goodies might have been given the same autonomous intelligence, and that other cells and cell communities might also have been given the same autonomous intelligence. You admit that they behave as if they are intelligent, but you just happen to know that they are not.

Post reply

258 views

DAVID: This universe will allow life wherever it is habitable. We agree but you don't like it served up the way I view it.

dhw: I don’t like demonstrably false statements, and the fact that they are 30 years old does not make them any more acceptable. Yes, the universe will allow life wherever it is habitable, but a) the entire universe is not habitable, and (b) even if a place is habitable, that still doesn’t mean it’s fine-tuned for life, because the biochemical components of which all living things are made must also be fine-tuned.

A new study of how plate tectonics started:

https://www.science.org/content/article/deep-earth-layer-may-have-primed-planet-plate-t...

"New research published last week in Geology suggests a deep Earth layer called the mantle transition zone may be the culprit, based on an analysis of water trapped in the newly formed sea floor.

***

"Earth didn’t always have tectonic movement. The planet’s tumultuous early years saw a magma ocean give way to the watery world we know. But today, the liquid water in lakes, rivers, and oceans combines for only about one-quarter of the planet’s total water. The rest is tied up as hydrogen and hydroxide ions, water’s ingredients, bound inside the minerals that make up Earth’s interior.

***

"Water weakens these rocks and lets them bend and slide under one another—a crucial feature of plate tectonics called subduction. In addition, water makes rocks less viscous, helping them break through the crust’s hardest layers, rise through as magma, and harden into new land.

Esteban Gazel, a geochemist at Cornell University, and his colleagues study water’s role in "plate tectonics by examining the water content of magmas, which records the temperatures and pressures a given magma felt as it journeyed through Earth. Tiny bits of cooled magma trapped within rocks, called melt inclusions, tell this story best.

***

"In that zone, the extraordinary pressure and temperature create minerals with high water-storage capacities, soaking up water like a sponge, Gazel says. The researchers suggest that in ancient Earth, plumes of water-rich rock could have risen from the mantle transition zone. The water in this plume could then have weakened the rigid rocks that capped Earth’s surface at the time, allowing oozing magma to break out, essentially providing the grease to start Earth’s geological machinery. The mantle transition zone was then replenished as tectonic plates subducted, dragging water-filled minerals back down into Earth."

Comment: a fascinating study. Our life must have plate tectonics to arrive and survive. A part of fine tuning.

Post reply

260 views

DAVID: The definition of habitability means all of life's requirements are available! What is your problem? My position still stands.

dhw: You don’t seem to take any notice of my responses (including the question about Venus)! Once more:
1)In the context of life’s requirements, the definition of habitability would be that environmental conditions are suitable for life. However, it is perfectly possible that other places in the universe are habitable, but do not contain the fine-tuned biochemical components which produce living organisms! In that case, even they are NOT fine-tuned for life.

Yes, using your definition

dhw: 2) Your problem, not mine, is your refusal to accept the fact that the entire universe cannot possibly be fine-tuned for life to appear if life can only appear in individual spots which (a) are habitable, and (b) contain the finely-tuned biochemical components of live organisms.

The entire universe is therefore demonstrably NOT fine-tuned for life to appear.

Yes, under your definition.

Theodicy
dhw: The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Round and round. Stopping point.

dhw: I can understand your desire to stop discussing the problem when the only answers you can come up with are the blatant dodges I have listed.

I've listed the expert answers. I have nothing to add.

Evolution

dhw: What other reason do you have for ridiculing your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer?

DAVID: Some strange branches were dead ends.

dhw: You have agreed that 99.9% were dead ends, so please stop telling us that “Humans were God’s goal in evolution. All animals and plants played a role.” And please stop accusing me of “distorting” your analysis when I reproduce your illogical theory that your God’s sole purpose was to create us and our food, and so he had to produce and get rid of 99 (or 99.9) out of 100 life forms that were irrelevant to his purpose, thus proving himself to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Evolution required 99.9% loss in reaching humans per Raup. Yes, evolution is a cumbersome method of creation to reach a specific goal.

Polar bears’ deicing methods

DAVID: […] The evolutionary process has a solution for every challenge.

dhw: I agree. One might conclude that the cell communities of which all life forms are made have minds of their own (possibly created originally by your God) which enable them to find their own individual solutions to the problems posed by their respective environments.

DAVID: Only if they are guided by a designing brain.

dhw: By which I presume you mean God gives them instructions for every new response to every new situation. You just can’t conceive of the possibility that other life forms, starting with bacteria, have an intelligence of their own. Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

DAVID: I have no idea. I think the bacteria are mistakenly in the wrong place. They can become resistant because we use antibiotics from nature which they recognize. God may have initially designed them, but has no further interaction.

dhw: There are bacteria which are good for us and bacteria which are bad for us. All of them do what is good for THEM. If your God has no further “interaction”, then clearly the baddies must have some form of autonomous intelligence to “recognize” our means of killing them and to find ways of overcoming them. You now have your God designing autonomously intelligent cells (the baddies) capable of devising their own means of survival. But you refuse to accept the possibility that the goodies might have been given the same autonomous intelligence, and that other cells and cell communities might also have been given the same autonomous intelligence. You admit that they behave as if they are intelligent, but you just happen to know that they are not.

I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

Post reply

256 views

DAVID: The definition of habitability means all of life's requirements are available! What is your problem? My position still stands.

dhw: You don’t seem to take any notice of my responses (including the question about Venus)! Once more:
1)In the context of life’s requirements, the definition of habitability would be that environmental conditions are suitable for life. However, it is perfectly possible that other places in the universe are habitable, but do not contain the fine-tuned biochemical components which produce living organisms! In that case, even they are NOT fine-tuned for life.

DAVID: Yes, using your definition.

dhw: 2) Your problem, not mine, is your refusal to accept the fact that the entire universe cannot possibly be fine-tuned for life to appear if life can only appear in individual spots which (a) are habitable, and (b) contain the finely-tuned biochemical components of live organisms.
The entire universe is therefore demonstrably NOT fine-tuned for life to appear.

DAVID: Yes, under your definition.

March 3: DAVID: I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.

Please tell me how it is possible to define “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” as meaning the universe is only fine-tuned for life to appear where there is a habitable environment and the biochemical components of life have been fitted together in a way that endows them with life.

Fine tuning from plate tectonics
DAVID: a fascinating study. Our life must have plate tectonics to arrive and survive. A part of fine tuning.

Precisely. This is part of the fine-tuned environment without which life cannot appear, and as it is not to be found throughout the entire universe, it is ridiculous to claim that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear.

Theodicy
dhw: The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Round and round. Stopping point.

dhw: I can understand your desire to stop discussing the problem when the only answers you can come up with are the blatant dodges I have listed.

DAVID: I've listed the expert answers. I have nothing to add.

There are no ”experts” on the subject of a possible God’s unknown nature, and please stop pretending that your ignoring the subject, making an all-powerful God powerless, or being happy provides an answer to the problem.

Evolution

dhw: What other reason do you have for ridiculing your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer?

DAVID: Some strange branches were dead ends.

dhw: You have agreed that 99.9% were dead ends, so please stop telling us that “Humans were God’s goal in evolution. All animals and plants played a role.” And please stop accusing me of “distorting” your analysis when I reproduce your illogical theory that your God’s sole purpose was to create us and our food, and so he had to produce and get rid of 99 (or 99.9) out of 100 life forms that were irrelevant to his purpose, thus proving himself to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: Evolution required 99.9% loss in reaching humans per Raup. Yes, evolution is a cumbersome method of creation to reach a specific goal.

You told us that Raup provided this figure in his account of how successive extinctions led to new species. You did not say he believed that an all-powerful God had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species to fulfil his one and only purpose of creating us and our food. If he did, then his theory is as illogical as yours.

Polar bears’ deicing methods, leading back to the intelligent cell

dhw: Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

dhw: There are bacteria which are good for us and bacteria which are bad for us. All of them do what is good for THEM. If your God has no further “interaction”, then clearly the baddies must have some form of autonomous intelligence to “recognize” our means of killing them and to find ways of overcoming them. […] But you refuse to accept the possibility that […] other cells and cell communities might also have been given the same autonomous intelligence. You admit that they behave as if they are intelligent, but you just happen to know that they are not.

DAVID: I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

I don’t “try to invent” anything. If you can accept bacterial intelligence, there is no reason why you should reject Shapiro’s theory that other cells may also be intelligent. You needn’t accept the theory. It is your know-all closed mind that I object to.

Post reply

246 views

March 3: DAVID: I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.

dhw: Please tell me how it is possible to define “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” as meaning the universe is only fine-tuned for life to appear where there is a habitable environment and the biochemical components of life have been fitted together in a way that endows them with life.

I have included your addition.

Theodicy
dhw: The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Round and round. Stopping point.

dhw: I can understand your desire to stop discussing the problem when the only answers you can come up with are the blatant dodges I have listed.

DAVID: I've listed the expert answers. I have nothing to add.

dhw: There are no ”experts” on the subject of a possible God’s unknown nature, and please stop pretending that your ignoring the subject, making an all-powerful God powerless, or being happy provides an answer to the problem.

I opened the subject!!!

Evolution

DAVID: Evolution required 99.9% loss in reaching humans per Raup. Yes, evolution is a cumbersome method of creation to reach a specific goal.

dhw: You told us that Raup provided this figure in his account of how successive extinctions led to new species. You did not say he believed that an all-powerful God had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species to fulfil his one and only purpose of creating us and our food. If he did, then his theory is as illogical as yours.

Raup did not discuss purpose in evolution.

Polar bears’ deicing methods, leading back to the intelligent cell

dhw: Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

DAVID: I have no idea. I think the bacteria are mistakenly in the wrong place. They can become resistant because we use antibiotics from nature which they recognize. God may have initially designed them, but has no further interaction.

dhw: There are bacteria which are good for us and bacteria which are bad for us. All of them do what is good for THEM. If your God has no further “interaction”, then clearly the baddies must have some form of autonomous intelligence to “recognize” our means of killing them and to find ways of overcoming them. […] But you refuse to accept the possibility that […] other cells and cell communities might also have been given the same autonomous intelligence. You admit that they behave as if they are intelligent, but you just happen to know that they are not.

DAVID: I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

dhw: I don’t “try to invent” anything. If you can accept bacterial intelligence, there is no reason why you should reject Shapiro’s theory that other cells may also be intelligent. You needn’t accept the theory. It is your know-all closed mind that I object to.

You should not ridicule my faith in God.

Post reply

244 views

DAVID: The definition of habitability means all of life’s requirements are available. What is your problem? My position still stands.

dhw: Please tell me how it is possible to define “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” as meaning the universe is only fine-tuned for life to appear where there is a habitable environment and the biochemical components of life have been fitted together in a way that endows them with life.

DAVID: I have included your addition.

It is not an “addition” but the ultimate, indispensable stage of fine-tuning which produces life instead of merely allowing life, and which is not present throughout the entire universe. But you can solve my “problem” very easily. Do you now agree that the statement: “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” is wrong? Yes, or no?

Theodicy

dhw: The subject is not my agnosticism but the question how an all-good God can produce evil. Your answer is to put your head in the sand and ignore evil, or to inform us that your all-powerful God is powerless, but you are happy. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Round and round. Stopping point.

dhw: I can understand your desire to stop discussing the problem when the only answers you can come up with are the blatant dodges I have listed.

DAVID: I've listed the expert answers. I have nothing to add.

dhw: There are no ”experts” on the subject of a possible God’s unknown nature, and please stop pretending that your ignoring the subject, making an all-powerful God powerless, or being happy provides an answer to the problem.

DAVID: I opened the subject!!!

And since then you have offered us nothing but two blatant dodges and one blatant contradiction! Why did you raise the subject if you don’t think it’s a problem worth duscussing?

Evolution

DAVID: Evolution required 99.9% loss in reaching humans per Raup. Yes, evolution is a cumbersome method of creation to reach a specific goal.

dhw: You told us that Raup provided this figure in his account of how successive extinctions led to new species. You did not say he believed that an all-powerful God had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species to fulfil his one and only purpose of creating us and our food. If he did, then his theory is as illogical as yours.

DAVID: Raup did not discuss purpose in evolution.

So please stop pretending that his arguments in any way support your illogical theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was us plus food, and for some unknown reason he had to design and cull 99.9 species that had no connection with us.

The intelligent cell

dhw: Do you think murderous bacteria are guided by your God to devise defences against our human efforts to stop the killing? Please answer.

DAVID: I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

dhw: I don’t “try to invent” anything. If you can accept bacterial intelligence, there is no reason why you should reject Shapiro’s theory that other cells may also be intelligent. You needn’t accept the theory. It is your know-all closed mind that I object to.

DAVID: You should not ridicule my faith in God.

I have never ever ridiculed your faith in God, for which I have the utmost respect. It is your faith in your illogical theories about your God’s purpose, nature and methods that I object to, and the only ridicule in these discussions is yours, when your wacky theories lead you to describe him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. The theory that cells are intelligent, and God may be a possible source of their intelligence, is an alternative to your faith in your illogical and partly insulting theories about him.

Post reply

241 views

dhw: It is not an “addition” but the ultimate, indispensable stage of fine-tuning which produces life instead of merely allowing life, and which is not present throughout the entire universe. But you can solve my “problem” very easily. Do you now agree that the statement: “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” is wrong? Yes, or no?

No. The support for life is built into the construction of the entire universe but can appear only where it is hospitable. A slight difference in emphasis.

Theodicy

dhw: There are no ”experts” on the subject of a possible God’s unknown nature, and please stop pretending that your ignoring the subject, making an all-powerful God powerless, or being happy provides an answer to the problem.

DAVID: I opened the subject!!!

dhw: And since then you have offered us nothing but two blatant dodges and one blatant contradiction! Why did you raise the subject if you don’t think it’s a problem worth discussing?

I have offered the faithful answers. You keep pounding the same old points. We have exhausted the subject for now.

Evolution

DAVID: Raup did not discuss purpose in evolution.

dhw: So please stop pretending that his arguments in any way support your illogical theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was us plus food, and for some unknown reason he had to design and cull 99.9 species that had no connection with us.

Raup in no way supports me. I don't know why God chose to evolve us.

The intelligent cell

DAVID: I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

dhw: I don’t “try to invent” anything. If you can accept bacterial intelligence, there is no reason why you should reject Shapiro’s theory that other cells may also be intelligent. You needn’t accept the theory. It is your know-all closed mind that I object to.

DAVID: You should not ridicule my faith in God.

dhw: I have never ever ridiculed your faith in God, for which I have the utmost respect. It is your faith in your illogical theories about your God’s purpose, nature and methods that I object to, and the only ridicule in these discussions is yours, when your wacky theories lead you to describe him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. The theory that cells are intelligent, and God may be a possible source of their intelligence, is an alternative to your faith in your illogical and partly insulting theories about him.

Cells do what God designed them to do, no more. I think all automatically.

Post reply

247 views

dhw: It is not an “addition” but the ultimate, indispensable stage of fine-tuning which produces life instead of merely allowing life, and which is not present throughout the entire universe. But you can solve my “problem” very easily. Do you now agree that the statement: “The entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear” is wrong? Yes, or no?

DAVID: No. The support for life is built into the construction of the entire universe but can appear only where it is hospitable. A slight difference in emphasis.

More obfuscation. Why have you substituted "support for life" for "fine-tuning"? You have agreed that life is impossible without a fine-tuned environment and fine-tuned biochemical components. You have agreed that the ONLY place in the universe that we know combines these two indispensable fine-tuned factors is Planet Earth. But you believe the entire universe, most of which we know does NOT contain the fine-tuned environments or fine-tuned biological components without which life is impossible,is neverthelesss fine-tuned for life to appear. The difference between us is hardly “slight”, as you agreed on March 3, as follows:
DAVID: Why attack my construction? I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement.

I have now repeated my attack on your absurdly illogical “construction”, and I do wish you would abide by your agreement so that we could close this subject.

Theodicy

DAVID: I have offered the faithful answers. You keep pounding the same old points. We have exhausted the subject for now.

You have offered answers that are either irrelevant or self-contradictory, and you have rejected my own possible answer: that your God, who you believe might enjoy creation and be interested in his creations, created precisely what he wanted to create: a free-for-all, based on the autonomous actions and reactions of the cells with which he set life’s history in motion. Having done so, he sat back and watched (a form of deism), though he might possibly have intervened when he felt like it (a learning God akin to that of process theology). At a stroke, this solves the problem of theodicy while at the same time explaining the endless comings and goings of different life forms.It's just a theory, but of course it doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God who is powerless, or who does more good than bad, or who makes you happy.

Evolution
DAVID: Raup did not discuss purpose in evolution.
And:
DAVID: Raup in no way supports me. I don't know why God chose to evolve us.

So please stop quoting Raup, and please stop pretending that you know God’s sole purpose in creating and culling 99.9 irrelevant species was to produce us, and please don’t disown your own humanizing theories as to why your God might have wanted to create us in the first place.

The intelligent cell

DAVID: I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

DAVID: You should not ridicule my faith in God.

dhw: I have never ever ridiculed your faith in God, for which I have the utmost respect. It is your faith in your illogical theories about your God’s purpose, nature and methods that I object to, and the only ridicule in these discussions is yours, when your wacky theories lead you to describe him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. The theory that cells are intelligent, and God may be a possible source of their intelligence, is an alternative to your faith in your illogical and partly insulting theories about him.

DAVID: Cells do what God designed them to do, no more. I think all automatically.

Perhaps your God designed them to do their own designing. Shapiro thinks autonomously. I find his thinking more convincing than your view that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed - or alternatively dabbled ad hoc with - all cells, providing every response to every new situation for every life form throughout the history of life.

Cell metabolisms control developments

QUOTE: Instead of thinking about the gene expression networks just happening to interact with metabolism, it’s really metabolism driving [developmental decision-making],”

DAVID: so, it is not just genes ordering everything around. There is an active interplay and feedback from metabolic enzymes directing the cells toward goals. This cannot happen by chance.

And since "developmental decision-making" occurs through interaction with such factors as the environment, it could hardly happen without some form of intelligent processing within the cell, the goal being its efficiency in enabling its survival and that of its community.

Post reply

238 views

dhw: More obfuscation. Why have you substituted "support for life" for "fine-tuning"? You have agreed that life is impossible without a fine-tuned environment and fine-tuned biochemical components. You have agreed that the ONLY place in the universe that we know combines these two indispensable fine-tuned factors is Planet Earth. But you believe the entire universe, most of which we know does NOT contain the fine-tuned environments or fine-tuned biological components without which life is impossible,is neverthelesss fine-tuned for life to appear. The difference between us is hardly “slight”, as you agreed on March 3, as follows:
DAVID: Why attack my construction? I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement.

I have now repeated my attack on your absurdly illogical “construction”, and I do wish you would abide by your agreement so that we could close this subject.

Let's close with our slightly different views.

Theodicy

DAVID: I have offered the faithful answers. You keep pounding the same old points. We have exhausted the subject for now.

dhw: You have offered answers that are either irrelevant or self-contradictory, and you have rejected my own possible answer: that your God, who you believe might enjoy creation and be interested in his creations, created precisely what he wanted to create: a free-for-all, based on the autonomous actions and reactions of the cells with which he set life’s history in motion. Having done so, he sat back and watched (a form of deism), though he might possibly have intervened when he felt like it (a learning God akin to that of process theology). At a stroke, this solves the problem of theodicy while at the same time explaining the endless comings and goings of different life forms. It's just a theory, but of course it doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God who is powerless, or who does more good than bad, or who makes you happy.

I don't see how your described God solves the problem of evil, which must be part of a free-for-all.

Evolution
DAVID: Raup did not discuss purpose in evolution.
And:
DAVID: Raup in no way supports me. I don't know why God chose to evolve us.

dhw: So please stop quoting Raup, and please stop pretending that you know God’s sole purpose in creating and culling 99.9 irrelevant species was to produce us, and please don’t disown your own humanizing theories as to why your God might have wanted to create us in the first place.

No pretense: a history of evolution delivers us, God's endpoint goal.>

The intelligent cell

DAVID: I KNOW how bacteria react. I don't mean our cells are their equals as you try to invent.

dhw: I don’t “try to invent” anything. If you can accept bacterial intelligence, there is no reason why you should reject Shapiro’s theory that other cells may also be intelligent. You needn’t accept the theory. It is your know-all closed mind that I object to.

DAVID: You should not ridicule my faith in God.

dhw: I have never ever ridiculed your faith in God, for which I have the utmost respect. It is your faith in your illogical theories about your God’s purpose, nature and methods that I object to, and the only ridicule in these discussions is yours, when your wacky theories lead you to describe him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. The theory that cells are intelligent, and God may be a possible source of their intelligence, is an alternative to your faith in your illogical and partly insulting theories about him.

DAVID: Cells do what God designed them to do, no more. I think all automatically.

dhw: Perhaps your God designed them to do their own designing. Shapiro thinks autonomously. I find his thinking more convincing than your view that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed - or alternatively dabbled ad hoc with - all cells, providing every response to every new situation for every life form throughout the history of life.

Still touting secondhand design. All organisms can adapt to minor new challenges.

Cell metabolisms control developments

QUOTE: Instead of thinking about the gene expression networks just happening to interact with metabolism, it’s really metabolism driving [developmental decision-making],”

DAVID: so, it is not just genes ordering everything around. There is an active interplay and feedback from metabolic enzymes directing the cells toward goals. This cannot happen by chance.

And since "developmental decision-making" occurs through interaction with such factors as the environment, it could hardly happen without some form of intelligent processing within the cell, the goal being its efficiency in enabling its survival and that of its community.

All done with automatic responses.

Post reply

235 views

Fine-tuning

DAVID: Let's close with our slightly different views.

Your view is that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, even though we both know the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life, because without ecological and biochemical fine-tuning, there can be no life, as you agreed three weeks ago. “Slightly different”? But I agree that there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Theodicy

DAVID: I have offered the faithful answers. You keep pounding the same old points. We have exhausted the subject for now.

dhw: You have offered answers that are either irrelevant or self-contradictory, and you have rejected my own possible answer.

DAVID: I don't see how your described God solves the problem of evil, which must be part of a free-for-all.

I’ll try again. The problem raised by theodicy is how and why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God created evil. A possible answer is that he is NOT all-knowing but deliberately created a system which produced an unpredictable free-for-all for ALL life forms, not just for humans, as they ALL use their perhaps God-given intelligence to design their own means of survival. (If God doesn’t exist, then of course a free-for-all is the only possible explanation of evolution’s history.) The concept of good and evil is a human invention, based on what we think is good for us. A murderous bacterium does what is good for itself. God (deistic form) merely watches the history unfold – has enjoyed creating it, and is interested in all its variations (thus confirming your own view that he enjoys and is interested). We have no idea what he thinks or feels about it all. But he is not all-knowing, and he has not deliberately created evil. If you set aside your own preconceived notions of God (“I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows”), you will see that although of course this can never be more than an unproven theory, it solves the problems raised not only be theodicy but also by your own wacky, anthropocentric theory of evolution.

Evolution

DAVID: Raup in no way supports me. I don't know why God chose to evolve us.

dhw: So please stop quoting Raup, and please stop pretending that you know God’s sole purpose in creating and culling 99.9 irrelevant species was to produce us, and please don’t disown your own humanizing theories as to why your God might have wanted to create us in the first place.

DAVID: No pretense: a history of evolution delivers us, God's endpoint goal.

You do not “know” we were his one and only goal from the very beginning, or that he invented an inefficient way to produce us, and I asked you not to disown your own “humanizing” interpretations of his possible reasons for creating us.

The intelligent cell

DAVID: Cells do what God designed them to do, no more. I think all automatically.

dhw: Perhaps your God designed them to do their own designing. Shapiro thinks autonomously. I find his thinking more convincing than your view that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed - or alternatively dabbled ad hoc with - all cells, providing every response to every new situation for every life form throughout the history of life.

DAVID: Still touting secondhand design.

The expression is meaningless, if God designed the mechanisms for a free-for-all, but I’ll give you a detailed response on the “savannah" thread.

DAVID: All organisms can adapt to minor new challenges.

Which simply means that they have limited intelligence. How do you know they are incapable of adapting to or exploiting major changes in whatever conditions may occur? You don’t. You simply repeat your belief in 3.8-billion-year old instructions or divine dabbling, though you subsume this theory under the bald statement that every response is “automatic”. See next exchange:

dhw: {...}since "developmental decision-making" occurs through interaction with such factors as the environment, it could hardly happen without some form of intelligent processing within the cell, the goal being its efficiency in enabling its survival and that of its community.

DAVID: All done with automatic responses.

According to what you wish to believe..

Evolution: the role of Asgard Archaea

DAVID: it appears these are our direct ancestors as we must have came from bacteria which represent first life.

Right from the start we have single cells combining with other single cells in the biochemical fine-tuning without which life is impossible. For those of us who believe in evolution, all of them are our direct ancestors. But in the course of evolution they branched off into countless different lines, 99.9% of which proved to be dead ends. Only the 0.1% survived to become us and our food. It is worth noting that bacteria are still thriving, as they apply their intelligence to cope with every problem nature and humans can throw at them. You have never disagreed with this, and yet you think that for some reason, single cells lose their intelligence when they join forces to create a community.

Post reply

231 views

Theodicy

DAVID: I have offered the faithful answers. You keep pounding the same old points. We have exhausted the subject for now.

dhw: You have offered answers that are either irrelevant or self-contradictory, and you have rejected my own possible answer.

DAVID: I don't see how your described God solves the problem of evil, which must be part of a free-for-all.

I’ll try again. The problem raised by theodicy is how and why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God created evil. A possible answer is that he is NOT all-knowing but deliberately created a system which produced an unpredictable free-for-all for ALL life forms, not just for humans, as they ALL use their perhaps God-given intelligence to design their own means of survival. (If God doesn’t exist, then of course a free-for-all is the only possible explanation of evolution’s history.) The concept of good and evil is a human invention, based on what we think is good for us. A murderous bacterium does what is good for itself. God (deistic form) merely watches the history unfold – has enjoyed creating it, and is interested in all its variations (thus confirming your own view that he enjoys and is interested). We have no idea what he thinks or feels about it all. But he is not all-knowing, and he has not deliberately created evil. If you set aside your own preconceived notions of God (“I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows”), you will see that although of course this can never be more than an unproven theory, it solves the problems raised not only be theodicy but also by your own wacky, anthropocentric theory of evolution.

The bold is a correct view. It fits my point that evil is a side-effect of God's good works.

Evolution

DAVID: Raup in no way supports me. I don't know why God chose to evolve us.

dhw: So please stop quoting Raup, and please stop pretending that you know God’s sole purpose in creating and culling 99.9 irrelevant species was to produce us, and please don’t disown your own humanizing theories as to why your God might have wanted to create us in the first place.

DAVID: No pretense: a history of evolution delivers us, God's endpoint goal.

dhw: You do not “know” we were his one and only goal from the very beginning, or that he invented an inefficient way to produce us, and I asked you not to disown your own “humanizing” interpretations of his possible reasons for creating us.

Same answer: if God created evolution, and its endpoint is humans, of course humans were a goal.

The intelligent cell

DAVID: All organisms can adapt to minor new challenges.

dhw: Which simply means that they have limited intelligence. How do you know they are incapable of adapting to or exploiting major changes in whatever conditions may occur? You don’t. You simply repeat your belief in 3.8-billion-year old instructions or divine dabbling, though you subsume this theory under the bald statement that every response is “automatic”. See next exchange:

dhw: {...}since "developmental decision-making" occurs through interaction with such factors as the environment, it could hardly happen without some form of intelligent processing within the cell, the goal being its efficiency in enabling its survival and that of its community.

DAVID: All done with automatic responses.

dhw: According to what you wish to believe.>

Evolution: the role of Asgard Archaea

DAVID: it appears these are our direct ancestors as we must have came from bacteria which represent first life.

dhw: Right from the start we have single cells combining with other single cells in the biochemical fine-tuning without which life is impossible. For those of us who believe in evolution, all of them are our direct ancestors. But in the course of evolution they branched off into countless different lines, 99.9% of which proved to be dead ends. Only the 0.1% survived to become us and our food. It is worth noting that bacteria are still thriving, as they apply their intelligence to cope with every problem nature and humans can throw at them. You have never disagreed with this, and yet you think that for some reason, single cells lose their intelligence when they join forces to create a community.

Being part of an organism creates a totally different environment than as a single cell. Survival is a community problem.

Post reply

230 views

The range of subjects is expanding, though many are interlinked. I’ll try to list them.

Theodicy

dhw: The problem raised by theodicy is how and why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God created evil. A possible answer is that he is NOT all-knowing but deliberately created a system which produced an unpredictable free-for-all for ALL life forms, not just for humans, as they ALL use their perhaps God-given intelligence to design their own means of survival. (If God doesn’t exist, then of course a free-for-all is the only possible explanation of evolution’s history.) The concept of good and evil is a human invention, based on what we think is good for us. A murderous bacterium does what is good for itself. God (deistic form) merely watches the history unfold – has enjoyed creating it, and is interested in all its variations (thus confirming your own view that he enjoys and is interested). We have no idea what he thinks or feels about it all. But he is not all-knowing, and he has not deliberately created evil. If you set aside your own preconceived notions of God (“I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows”), you will see that although of course this can never be more than an unproven theory, it solves the problems raised not only be theodicy but also by your own wacky, anthropocentric theory of evolution. (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold is a correct view. It fits my point that evil is a side-effect of God's good works.

You have totally ignored the whole context of this theory! So-called good and so-called evil are not side effects but evaluations created by us humans solely according to our own interests! They are the direct results of a free-for-all – and a free-for-all is the very opposite of your view of your all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, who started out with the sole purpose of creating us and our food, deliberately created all the “good” but was powerless to prevent the bad, or alternatively, we should ignore the bad because he deliberately created so much good, and that makes you happy.

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Raup in no way supports me. I don't know why God chose to evolve us.

DAVID: No pretense: a history of evolution delivers us, God's endpoint goal.

dhw: You do not “know” we were his one and only goal from the very beginning, or that he invented an inefficient way to produce us, and I asked you not to disown your own “humanizing” interpretations of his possible reasons for creating us.

DAVID: Same answer: if God created evolution, and its endpoint is humans, of course humans were a goal.

Same old "iffy" obfuscations. 1) We do not know that the “endpoint” is humans; 2) if God created a free-for-all, there is no reason to assume that he deliberately created humans; 3) even if he did, you have subtly changed one and only goal to “a” goal; 4) if he created every species, extant and extinct, and 99.9% of them were irrelevant to humans, then he must have had a different goal in creating them – although you dismiss this possibility, because you prefer to view him as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

Bacteria and the intelligent cell

DAVID: […] we must have come from bacteria which represent first life.

dhw: Right from the start we have single cells combining with other single cells in the biochemical fine-tuning without which life is impossible. For those of us who believe in evolution, all of them are our direct ancestors. But in the course of evolution they branched off into countless different lines, 99.9% of which proved to be dead ends. Only the 0.1% survived to become us and our food. It is worth noting that bacteria are still thriving, as they apply their intelligence to cope with every problem nature and humans can throw at them. You have never disagreed with this, and yet you think that for some reason, single cells lose their intelligence when they join forces to create a community.

DAVID: Being part of an organism creates a totally different environment than as a single cell. Survival is a community problem.

Do you really believe that single-celled bacteria don’t have to find ways to survive, and when they form a biofilm in order to enhance their chances of survival, they suddenly lose their intelligence? You’ve turned it all upside down: It is the environment that creates the need for cells to form communities.

Post reply

215 views

Direct design versus the intelligent cell

DAVID: I do not see God designing, designing cells. It is secondhand design which is more work than direct design.

dhw: Direct design means that every single mutation leading to every single new species, and every single solution to every single problem, and every lifestyle and every natural wonder must have been designed 3.8 billion years ago or, alternatively, that your God has to pop in on every occasion in order to perform the necessary operations or to give the necessary instructions. Designing intelligent cells to carry out all these tasks independently sounds to me like almost infinitely less work than you impose on your do-it-all-yourself God[/b]!

DAVID: Which is simpler? Telling someone how to do job or directly doing it yourself?

So you would tell the factory owner to sack his 1000 employees, because it’s simpler for him to do it all himself. Your comment completely ignores all the points I have made above.

The human brain

DAVID: I am convinced our very special brain was designed.

dhw: I agree that our brains are special, as is clear from our massively enhanced intelligence, but it also seems reasonable to me that all brains were specially designed, namely by the different cell communities which were responding to new requirements, using their own perhaps God-given forms of intelligence. Or alternatively, do you think your God personally operated on all non-human and pre-sapiens brains as well as on the legs and pelvises of our ancestors? If so, why do you think he chose such a roundabout method of designing the only brains he wanted? No need to answer. You’ve already told us that he’s a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: I have no idea why He chose His method.

It would be far more accurate to say you have no idea why your God would have chosen the utterly illogical method you have imposed on him.

Origin of stone tools

DAVID: we have a tendency to assume our ancestors were dumb. They may well have invented knapping stone tools after seeing examples in nature or directly invented the process. Now we have both proposals. Animal use of stone tools support the idea that naturaliths were the first step.

This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.

dhw: It is “unsupported” by the new findings because the new findings have nothing to do with the question of sapiens’ origin! You have said yourself that no-one knows the origin, so all we can have is unsupported theories, including your own, which attributes the origin to your God performing operations on individual pelvises, legs and possibly brains, though your post above suggests he left brains to design their own evolution until he decided to pop in and do a sapiens special.

DAVID: Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.

Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.

Post reply

213 views

Direct design versus the intelligent cell

DAVID: Which is simpler? Telling someone how to do job or directly doing it yourself?

dhw: So you would tell the factory owner to sack his 1000 employees, because it’s simpler for him to do it all himself. Your comment completely ignores all the points I have made

above.

With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution. No factory involved. In your points you want organisms as freed from God as possible.

Origin of stone tools

DAVID: we have a tendency to assume our ancestors were dumb. They may well have invented knapping stone tools after seeing examples in nature or directly invented the process. Now we have both proposals. Animal use of stone tools support the idea that naturaliths were the first step.

dhw: This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.

correct.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.

dhw: It is “unsupported” by the new findings because the new findings have nothing to do with the question of sapiens’ origin! You have said yourself that no-one knows the origin, so all we can have is unsupported theories, including your own, which attributes the origin to your God performing operations on individual pelvises, legs and possibly brains, though your post above suggests he left brains to design their own evolution until he decided to pop in and do a sapiens special.

DAVID: Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.

dhw: Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.

With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

Post reply

214 views

Intelligence

dhw: This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.

DAVID: correct.

I’m delighted with yet another agreement, which should cover the entire range of life from bacteria through all species to ourselves.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.

DAVID: Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.

dhw: Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.

DAVID: With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

How many more times? The new findings tell us nothing about where, when or why our ancestors first descended from the trees. Who decides what is of “primary” or “secondary” importance? Do you think the savannah theory is of secondary importance compared to your belief that one fine day your God popped in to operate on the legs and pelvises of a group or groups of tree-dwellers?

Human origin from different groups

QUOTE: Fossil evidence suggests that species such as Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis lived both in Africa and other regions during this period, making them potential candidates for these ancestral populations

DAVID: this extensive study tells us how various hominins may have mixed to make us as the sole surviving form. It does not satisfy dhw's quest for a full theory as to the development of bipedalism.”

We covered this theory last Thursday and Friday. You have stated categorically that we are descended from Erectus, so I’m really not sure where this theory leads us. It certainly doesn’t lead to the start of the process, and our discussion began with your belief that the savannah theory was fading, though you now acknowledge that it is a logical explanation.

Theoretical origin of life: diurnal stress

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night.

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pus hing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

Your headline is way off track. This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

Post reply

212 views

Intelligence

The savannah theory

DAVID: With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

dhw: How many more times? The new findings tell us nothing about where, when or why our ancestors first descended from the trees. Who decides what is of “primary” or “secondary” importance? Do you think the savannah theory is of secondary importance compared to your belief that one fine day your God popped in to operate on the legs and pelvises of a group or groups of tree-dwellers?

God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

Human origin from different groups

QUOTE: Fossil evidence suggests that species such as Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis lived both in Africa and other regions during this period, making them potential candidates for these ancestral populations

DAVID: this extensive study tells us how various hominins may have mixed to make us as the sole surviving form. It does not satisfy dhw's quest for a full theory as to the development of bipedalism.”

dhw: We covered this theory last Thursday and Friday. You have stated categorically that we are descended from Erectus, so I’m really not sure where this theory leads us. It certainly doesn’t lead to the start of the process, and our discussion began with your belief that the savannah theory was fading, though you now acknowledge that it is a logical explanation.

It is one of several theories.

Theoretical origin of life: diurnal stress

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night.

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pus hing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: Your headline is way off track. This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

Diurnal stress is exactly the story's point! It is no explanation for all the Cambrian forms with eyes, brains, limbs, etc. from no precursors.

Post reply

208 views

Bacteria and the intelligent cell

DAVID: When in an organism, cells function differently than free-living cells. Yes, environmental change forces responses.

dhw: All agreed. This simply means that if individual cells are intelligent, they will use their intelligence in different ways when they form a community. They are still intelligent, and if they are, what makes you so certain that other cell communities, whose behaviour also appears to be intelligent, cannot possibly BE intelligent?

DAVID: All the biochemical reactions I see are automatic and designed that way.

So back we go: single-cell bacteria are autonomously intelligent, they use their intelligence in different ways when they form communities, but other single cells are automatons that have been preprogrammed or dabbled with, although your God coded them "with the equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?" Your usual volte-face, but I hadn’t expected it to be quite so immediate!

New antibiotics from frogs

DAVID: new potent antibiotics are desperately needed. That antibiotics are processed by all animals is obvious. It is part of the dog-eat-dog world.

Your comment ties in neatly with the whole concept of evolution as a free-for-all. You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. Yesterday’s article concerning the rise and fall of oxygen levels illustrated the need not just for minor adaptations but also for changes directly leading to new species. This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

The savannah theory

DAVID: With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

dhw: How many more times? The new findings tell us nothing about where, when or why our ancestors first descended from the trees. Who decides what is of “primary” or “secondary” importance? Do you think the savannah theory is of secondary importance compared to your belief that one fine day your God popped in to operate on the legs and pelvises of a group or groups of tree-dwellers?

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night."

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pushing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: Diurnal stress is exactly the story's point! It is no explanation for all the
Cambrian forms with eyes, brains, limbs, etc. from no precursors.

The authors say that diurnal stress IS an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion! Read the quotes! You simply disagree with them, although you thought you were agreeing with them.

Post reply

205 views

New antibiotics from frogs

DAVID: new potent antibiotics are desperately needed. That antibiotics are processed by all animals is obvious. It is part of the dog-eat-dog world.

dhw: Your comment ties in neatly with the whole concept of evolution as a free-for-all. You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. Yesterday’s article concerning the rise and fall of oxygen levels illustrated the need not just for minor adaptations but also for changes directly leading to new species. This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night."

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pushing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: Diurnal stress is exactly the story's point! It is no explanation for all the
Cambrian forms with eyes, brains, limbs, etc. from no precursors.

dhw: The authors say that diurnal stress IS an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion! Read the quotes! You simply disagree with them, although you thought you were agreeing with them.

I never agreed with them!!! As you know, in my fashion, I present all sorts of views.

Post reply

203 views

More about intelligence

dhw: […] You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. […] This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong, and therefore the “enormous” range of adaptations, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. can only be the result of your God’s personal dabbles or his 3.8 billion-year-old instructions. I must confess that given the choice between these two theories (we both reject Darwin’s theory that new species and organs stem from chance mutations), I would find Shapiro’s vastly more convincing, bearing in mind the possibility that your God is the inventor of the intelligent cell.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

DAVID: No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

The two theories are meant to explain what caused our ancestors to descend from the trees. You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises (and possibly brains) and then told them to descend from the trees?

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...

QUOT0E: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] […] it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion. […]

DAVID: I never agreed with them!!! As you know, in my fashion, I present all sorts of views.

“For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about
the Cambrian.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

QUOTE: "The origin of life could therefore be closely linked to the special environment of large soda lakes, which, due to their geological setting and phosphorus balance, provided ideal conditions for prebiotic chemistry. This new theory helps to solve another piece of the puzzle of the origin of life on Earth," says Walton.

“The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: the brain floats in a liquid which is a very good way to protect it from blows to the skull. The CSF must pick up waste and remove it. We still don't know how. Such a intricate system must be designed.

It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.

Post reply

196 views

More about intelligence

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

dhw: You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong, and therefore the “enormous” range of adaptations, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. can only be the result of your God’s personal dabbles or his 3.8 billion-year-old instructions. I must confess that given the choice between these two theories (we both reject Darwin’s theory that new species and organs stem from chance mutations), I would find Shapiro’s vastly more convincing, bearing in mind the possibility that your God is the inventor of the intelligent cell.

I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

DAVID: No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

dhw: The two theories are meant to explain what caused our ancestors to descend from the trees. You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises (and possibly brains) and then told them to descend from the trees?

All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it .

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...

QUOT0E: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: “For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about
the Cambrian.

It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

QUOTE: "The origin of life could therefore be closely linked to the special environment of large soda lakes, which, due to their geological setting and phosphorus balance, provided ideal conditions for prebiotic chemistry. This new theory helps to solve another piece of the puzzle of the origin of life on Earth," says Walton.

dhw: “The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

dhw: I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

It can't.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: the brain floats in a liquid which is a very good way to protect it from blows to the skull. The CSF must pick up waste and remove it. We still don't know how. Such a intricate system must be designed.

dhw: It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.

Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

Post reply

200 views

More about cellular intelligence

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

dhw: You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong. […]

DAVID: I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

Please stop pretending that Shapiro knows nothing about other life forms, and that you have greater knowledge of cell behaviour than Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other scientists you have quoted on this website as believers in cellular intelligence.

The savannah theory

dhw: You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers [...]?

DAVID: All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it.

So why do the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours?

The Cambrian

QUOTE: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

DAVID: (referring to the authors) I never agreed with them!!!

dhw: “For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about the Cambrian.

And you even mentioned extremophiles as another example of the same process.

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

dhw: “The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

dhw: I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

DAVID: It can't.

Just clarifying. Thank you.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.

DAVID: Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

The human brain

QUOTES: Our brain is wired up to be social.

"These findings challenge the idea of a single evolutionary event driving the
emergence of human intelligence. Instead, our study suggests brain evolution happened in steps. Our findings suggest changes in frontal cortex organisation occurred in apes, followed by changes in temporal cortex in the lineage leading to humans.”

I’m amazed that anyone should think human intelligence and/or the brain did anything but evolve in steps! And I would suggest that our brain was not wired up to be social, but being social was a crucial driving force in the wiring of the brain.

QUOTE: "Richard Owen was right about one thing. Our brains are different from those of other species – to an extent. We have a primate brain, but it's wired up to make us even more social than other primates, allowing us to communicate through spoken language."

And language is also the product of our sociability, as an enhanced means of communication would have enhanced our ability to survive and to improve the conditions under which we survived. In brief, new wiring does not precede development but takes place in response to new conditions and ideas.

DAVID: finding this difference is not surprising. Connectivity is one form of complexification, another is an increased number of interconnected neurons. The human brain has more of both.

A neat summing up of the history of the human brain’s evolution: past brains complexified and expanded when they needed more capacity for complexification.

Post reply

190 views

More about cellular intelligence

DAVID: I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro knows nothing about other life forms, and that you have greater knowledge of cell behaviour than Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other scientists you have quoted on this website as believers in cellular intelligence.

Shapiro studied bacteria and applied their DNA editing ability to where it does not happen. The bolded heroes are your champions. I recognize only Margolis and McClintock as mainstream.

The savannah theory

DAVID: All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it.

dhw: So why do the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours?

The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

Yes, a natural explanation.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

It did, through God's design modifications.

The human brain

QUOTES: Our brain is wired up to be social.

"These findings challenge the idea of a single evolutionary event driving the
emergence of human intelligence. Instead, our study suggests brain evolution happened in steps. Our findings suggest changes in frontal cortex organisation occurred in apes, followed by changes in temporal cortex in the lineage leading to humans.”

dhw: I’m amazed that anyone should think human intelligence and/or the brain did anything but evolve in steps! And I would suggest that our brain was not wired up to be social, but being social was a crucial driving force in the wiring of the brain.

Agreed

QUOTE: "Richard Owen was right about one thing. Our brains are different from those of other species – to an extent. We have a primate brain, but it's wired up to make us even more social than other primates, allowing us to communicate through spoken language."

dhw: And language is also the product of our sociability, as an enhanced means of communication would have enhanced our ability to survive and to improve the conditions under which we survived. In brief, new wiring does not precede development but takes place in response to new conditions and ideas.

Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advanced= of need.

DAVID: finding this difference is not surprising. Connectivity is one form of complexification, another is an increased number of interconnected neurons. The human brain has more of both.

dhw: A neat summing up of the history of the human brain’s evolution: past brains complexified and expanded when they needed more capacity for complexification.

Yes.

Post reply

192 views

More about cellular intelligence

DAVID: I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro knows nothing about other life forms, and that you have greater knowledge of cell behaviour than Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other scientists you have quoted on this website as believers in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Shapiro studied bacteria and applied their DNA editing ability to where it does not happen. The bolded heroes are your champions. I recognize only Margolis and McClintock as mainstream.

You've offered us several articles in support of the theory, but you regard as “mainstream” your belief in a God who 3.8 billion years ago pre-preprogrammed the whole of evolution's history, or who keeps popping in to perform operations or give lessons.

The savannah theory

DAVID: All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it.

dhw: So why do the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours?

DAVID: The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

The savannah theory is that for whatever reason, a group of pre-sapiens descended from the trees in order to explore the savannah. Why do you think the new findings “dilute” this theory but do not “dilute” your theory that your God performed operations on legs and pelvises and told the group(s) of pre-sapiens that they should now descend from the trees?

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

But I thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

The human brain

QUOTES: Our brain is wired up to be social.

dhw: I’m amazed that anyone should think human intelligence and/or the brain did anything but evolve in steps! And I would suggest that our brain was not wired up to be social, but being social was a crucial driving force in the wiring of the brain.

DAVID: Agreed.

An important agreement in the light of your next comment.

dhw: And language is also the product of our sociability, as an enhanced means of communication would have enhanced our ability to survive and to improve the conditions under which we survived. In brief, new wiring does not precede development but takes place in response to new conditions and ideas.

DAVID: Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advance of need.

The wiring of the brain takes place in response to needs. When needs arose in our history, the brain responded and still responds by making new connections (complexification). The new connections would not have been present 315,000 years ago.

DAVID: finding this difference is not surprising. Connectivity is one form of complexification, another is an increased number of interconnected neurons. The human brain has more of both.

dhw: A neat summing up of the history of the human brain’s evolution: past brains complexified and expanded when they needed more capacity for complexification.

DAVID: Yes.

Thank you for confirming the obvious fact that brains, including our own, change in response to new needs and not in anticipation of them.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

Yes,they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

Post reply

181 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

dhw: The savannah theory is that for whatever reason, a group of pre-sapiens descended from the trees in order to explore the savannah. Why do you think the new findings “dilute” this theory but do not “dilute” your theory that your God performed operations on legs and pelvises and told the group(s) of pre-sapiens that they should now descend from the trees?

With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

These are the reasons for God's designs!

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

dhw: But I thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

The human brain

DAVID: Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advance of need.

dhw: The wiring of the brain takes place in response to needs. When needs arose in our history, the brain responded and still responds by making new connections (complexification). The new connections would not have been present 315,000 years ago.

The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Thank you for confirming the obvious fact that brains, including our own, change in response to new needs and not in anticipation of them.

Not confirmed. God made our big brain anticipating future needs.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

dhw: Yes, they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

That is to your view.

Post reply

180 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

dhw: The savannah theory is that for whatever reason, a group of pre-sapiens descended from the trees in order to explore the savannah. Why do you think the new findings “dilute” this theory but do not “dilute” your theory that your God performed operations on legs and pelvises and told the group(s) of pre-sapiens that they should now descend from the trees?

Not answered.

DAVID: With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

Hominins lived everywhere after they had evolved from hominids. The question is why our direct ancestors descended from the trees, and that is not answered by telling us that after they had descended from the trees, they spread far and wide.

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

dhw: But I thought you thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

DAVID: Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

So either he was ridiculously messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your proposal), or just like humans, he conducted numerous experiments before he was able to produce what he wanted. You prefer the former explanation.

The human brain

DAVID: Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advance of need.

dhw: The wiring of the brain takes place in response to needs. When needs arose in our history, the brain responded and still responds by making new connections (complexification). The new connections would not have been present 315,000 years ago.

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

dhw: Yes, they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

Post reply

177 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

dhw: Hominins lived everywhere after they had evolved from hominids. The question is why our direct ancestors descended from the trees, and that is not answered by telling us that after they had descended from the trees, they spread far and wide.

The savannah theory said without trees hominids had to be bipedal, i.e., the new climate forced it. How does that explain bipedalism in forests, as shown?

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

dhw: So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

God, as designer, handled all new environments.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

dhw: But I thought you thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

DAVID: Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

dhw: So either he was ridiculously messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your proposal), or just like humans, he conducted numerous experiments before he was able to produce what he wanted. You prefer the former explanation.

Yes.

The human brain

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

Agree.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

dhw: Yes, they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

dhw: I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

I have never known why God chose to evolve us.

Post reply

174 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

dhw: Hominins lived everywhere after they had evolved from hominids. The question is why our direct ancestors descended from the trees, and that is not answered by telling us that after they had descended from the trees, they spread far and wide.

DAVID: The savannah theory said without trees hominids had to be bipedal, i.e., the new climate forced it. How does that explain bipedalism in forests, as shown?

You should ask yourself the same question: if your God operated on tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises and told them to descend from the trees, how does that explain bipedalism in forests? We can only theorize. Perhaps the answer is that when the first hominids began to explore further and further afield, some would have reached forests and would have interbred with the tree-dwellers. Your explanation?

The Cambrian

dhw: You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

dhw: So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

DAVID: God, as designer, handled all new environments.

You have always vacillated over this – especially when it comes to the local (as opposed to global) changes which would have led to so many new species. But this reinforces the illogicality of your theory. He started out with the sole intention of creating us, but deliberately kept designing new organisms in preparation for the environmental changes he deliberately created, although this meant that he was deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species which he knew he would have to cull because they had no connection with the only species he actually wanted to create. Divine lunacy. Especially since you believe that our line of evolution actually began “de novo” in the Cambrian, when at last he invented an environment that was suitable for us and our ancestors!

DAVID: ( under “the brain’s cleaning fluid”): Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

dhw: So either he was ridiculously messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your proposal), or just like humans, he conducted numerous experiments before he was able to produce what he wanted. You prefer the former explanation.

DAVID: Yes.

Even I, an agnostic, have more respect for your hypothetical God than you do!

The human brain

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

DAVID: Agree.

Although you think he made our big brains in anticipation of future needs, you agree that our big brain was not made in anticipation of future needs, and I suppose that tomorrow you will tell me you agreed because NOT in anticipation actually means in anticipation.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

dhw: Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

dhw: I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

DAVID: I have never known why God chose to evolve us.

You have never known why he chose to design 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose, but you simply choose to ridicule him instead of questioning your illogical theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose. Why does it never occur to you that your all-powerful God might simply have created what he wanted to create, instead of being the blunderer you make him out to be?

Post reply

169 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory said without trees hominids had to be bipedal, i.e., the new climate forced it. How does that explain bipedalism in forests, as shown?

dhw: You should ask yourself the same question: if your God operated on tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises and told them to descend from the trees, how does that explain bipedalism in forests? We can only theorize. Perhaps the answer is that when the first hominids began to explore further and further afield, some would have reached forests and would have interbred with the tree-dwellers. Your explanation?

Bipedalism is a result of God's designs, no natural cause needed.

The Cambrian

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

dhw: So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

DAVID: God, as designer, handled all new environments.

dhw: You have always vacillated over this – especially when it comes to the local (as opposed to global) changes which would have led to so many new species. But this reinforces the illogicality of your theory. He started out with the sole intention of creating us, but deliberately kept designing new organisms in preparation for the environmental changes he deliberately created, although this meant that he was deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species which he knew he would have to cull because they had no connection with the only species he actually wanted to create. Divine lunacy. Especially since you believe that our line of evolution actually began “de novo” in the Cambrian, when at last he invented an environment that was suitable for us and our ancestors!

Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

The human brain

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

DAVID: Agree.

dhw: Although you think he made our big brains in anticipation of future needs, you agree that our big brain was not made in anticipation of future needs, and I suppose that tomorrow you will tell me you agreed because NOT in anticipation actually means in anticipation.

Our new brain was so large, only complexification was needed from 315,000 years ago. That is design in anticipation of need.>

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

dhw: Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

dhw: I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

DAVID: I have never known why God chose to evolve us.

dhw: You have never known why he chose to design 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose, but you simply choose to ridicule him instead of questioning your illogical theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose. Why does it never occur to you that your all-powerful God might simply have created what he wanted to create, instead of being the blunderer you make him out to be?

He did create exactly what is needed for a huge human population.

Post reply

165 views

The range of subjects is expanding, though many are interlinked. I’ll try to list them.

Theodicy

dhw: The problem raised by theodicy is how and why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God created evil. A possible answer is that he is NOT all-knowing but deliberately created a system which produced an unpredictable free-for-all for ALL life forms, not just for humans, as they ALL use their perhaps God-given intelligence to design their own means of survival. (If God doesn’t exist, then of course a free-for-all is the only possible explanation of evolution’s history.) The concept of good and evil is a human invention, based on what we think is good for us. A murderous bacterium does what is good for itself. God (deistic form) merely watches the history unfold – has enjoyed creating it, and is interested in all its variations (thus confirming your own view that he enjoys and is interested). We have no idea what he thinks or feels about it all. But he is not all-knowing, and he has not deliberately created evil. If you set aside your own preconceived notions of God (“I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows”), you will see that although of course this can never be more than an unproven theory, it solves the problems raised not only be theodicy but also by your own wacky, anthropocentric theory of evolution. (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold is a correct view. It fits my point that evil is a side-effect of God's good works.

dhw: You have totally ignored the whole context of this theory! So-called good and so-called evil are not side effects but evaluations created by us humans solely according to our own interests! They are the direct results of a free-for-all – and a free-for-all is the very opposite of your view of your all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, who started out with the sole purpose of creating us and our food, deliberately created all the “good” but was powerless to prevent the bad, or alternatively, we should ignore the bad because he deliberately created so much good, and that makes you happy.

You gloss over the fact of our free will from God allows humans to create evil!! Free-will bugs can cause illness, but most bacteria are beneficial and cause trouble when they slip into the wrong places. Bacteria are a required part of the balance of nature.

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Same answer: if God created evolution, and its endpoint is humans, of course humans were a goal.

dhw: Same old "iffy" obfuscations. 1) We do not know that the “endpoint” is humans;

We are the current endpoint.

dhw: 2) if God created a free-for-all, there is no reason to assume that he deliberately created humans

Evolution was a managed process, with n o evidence of free-or-all.

dhw: 3) even if he did, you have subtly changed one and only goal to “a” goal; 4) if he created every species, extant and extinct, and 99.9% of them were irrelevant to humans, then he must have had a different goal in creating them – although you dismiss this possibility, because you prefer to view him as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

Your usual distortion of the orderly evolutionary process which when analyzed lost 99.9% of organisms to reach the current 0.1% survivorship.

Bacteria and the intelligent cell

DAVID: Being part of an organism creates a totally different [biological] environment than as a single cell. Survival is a community problem.

dhw: Do you really believe that single-celled bacteria don’t have to find ways to survive, and when they form a biofilm in order to enhance their chances of survival, they suddenly lose their intelligence? You’ve turned it all upside down: It is the environment that creates the need for cells to form communities.

My fault. I've correct my sentence in bold. When in an organism, cells function differently than free-living cells. Yes, environmental change forces responses.

Post reply

215 views

Theodicy

dhw: You have totally ignored the whole context of this theory! So-called good and so-called evil are not side effects but evaluations created by us humans solely according to our own interests! They are the direct results of a free-for-all – bbband a free-for-all is the very opposite of your view of your all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Godbbb, who started out with the sole purpose of creating us and our food, deliberately created all the “good” but was powerless to prevent the bad, or alternatively, we should ignore the bad because he deliberately created so much good, and that makes you happy.

DAVID: You gloss over the fact of our free will from God allows humans to create evil!! Free-will bugs can cause illness, but most bacteria are beneficial and cause trouble when they slip into the wrong places. Bacteria are a required part of the balance of nature.

You approved of my statement that good and evil are human inventions based entirely on what is good for US, while bacteria do what is good for them – whether we think it bad or not! You don’t seem to realize that free will is precisely what makes a free-for-all! You agree that your God gave humans and bacteria autonomy, and so we and they are responsible for our own ways of survival and for what we humans categorize as good or evil. And that is an answer to the problem of theodicy: God did not create good or evil. He simply created a free-for-all, in which every creature does what is best for itself. This applies both to behaviour (dog-eat-dog) and to design (responses to the environment). And so the free-for-all theory also removes the absurd illogicality of your theory of evolution (see below), as organisms come and go in accordance with their autonomous ability or lack of ability to cope with changing conditions.

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: We are the current endpoint.
And:
DAVID: Evolution was a managed process, with no evidence of free-for-all.
And:
DAVID: Your usual distortion of the orderly evolutionary process which when analyzed lost 99.9% of organisms to reach the current 0.1% survivorship.

The current endpoint does not tell us what will be here in, say, a thousand million years’ time, and it does not explain the 99.9% species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on your God.
Bacteria and humans have free will which in itself offers massive evidence of a free-for-all, as does the otherwise inexplicable creation and “loss” of the irrelevant 99.9%, which you regard as evidence of your God’s messy, cumbersome inefficiency – a strange form of “managed” or “orderly” process.

Direct design versus the intelligent cell

DAVID: Which is simpler? Telling someone how to do job or directly doing it yourself?

dhw: So you would tell the factory owner to sack his 1000 employees, because it’s simpler for him to do it all himself.

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution. No factory involved. In your points you want organisms as freed from God as possible.

Hold on, what is this “coded DNA” that conducts design? Previously all the designs, mutations, solutions, strategies, lifestyles etc. had either been divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or your God had dabbled each one individually. Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community? Meanwhile, would you please stop trying to divert attention away from your illogical theories by pretending that my objections are somehow anti-God. They are anti your theories.

Bacteria and the intelligent cell

DAVID: Being part of an organism creates a totally different [biological] environment than as a single cell. Survival is a community problem.

dhw: Do you really believe that single-celled bacteria don’t have to find ways to survive, and when they form a biofilm in order to enhance their chances of survival, they suddenly lose their intelligence? You’ve turned it all upside down: It is the environment that creates the need for cells to form communities.

DAVID: My fault. I've correct my sentence in bold. When in an organism, cells function differently than free-living cells. Yes, environmental change forces responses.

All agreed. This simply means that if individual cells are intelligent, they will use their intelligence in different ways when they form a community. They are still intelligent, and if they are, what makes you so certain that other cell communities, whose behaviour also appears to be intelligent, cannot possibly BE intelligent?

Post reply

209 views

Theodicy

DAVID: You gloss over the fact of our free will from God allows humans to create evil!! Free-will bugs can cause illness, but most bacteria are beneficial and cause trouble when they slip into the wrong places. Bacteria are a required part of the balance of nature.

dhw: You approved of my statement that good and evil are human inventions based entirely on what is good for US, while bacteria do what is good for them – whether we think it bad or not! You don’t seem to realize that free will is precisely what makes a free-for-all! You agree that your God gave humans and bacteria autonomy, and so we and they are responsible for our own ways of survival and for what we humans categorize as good or evil. And that is an answer to the problem of theodicy: God did not create good or evil. He simply created a free-for-all, in which every creature does what is best for itself. This applies both to behaviour (dog-eat-dog) and to design (responses to the environment). And so the free-for-all theory also removes the absurd illogicality of your theory of evolution (see below), as organisms come and go in accordance with their autonomous ability or lack of ability to cope with changing conditions.

A non-guided evolution did not have to pick bipedalism as a form. And it did not have to create the human brain. What 'changing conditions' forced either event? Dog-eat-dog is an obvious event since all organisms must have a supply of food, but it tells us the arrival of humans required a large supply of food as a given from the broad scope of evolutionary results.

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: We are the current endpoint.
And:
DAVID: Evolution was a managed process, with no evidence of free-for-all.
And:
DAVID: Your usual distortion of the orderly evolutionary process which when analyzed lost 99.9% of organisms to reach the current 0.1% survivorship.

dhw: The current endpoint does not tell us what will be here in, say, a thousand million years’ time, and it does not explain the 99.9% species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on your God.
Bacteria and humans have free will which in itself offers massive evidence of a free-for-all, as does the otherwise inexplicable creation and “loss” of the irrelevant 99.9%, which you regard as evidence of your God’s messy, cumbersome inefficiency – a strange form of “managed” or “orderly” process.

Calling 99.9% 'irrelevant' to the 0.1% survivors is nutty. How did the 0.1% appear without them?

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution. No factory involved. In your points you want organisms as freed from God as possible.

dhw: Hold on, what is this “coded DNA” that conducts design? Previously all the designs, mutations, solutions, strategies, lifestyles etc. had either been divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or your God had dabbled each one individually. Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Meanwhile, would you please stop trying to divert attention away from your illogical theories by pretending that my objections are somehow anti-God. They are anti your theories.

All of your theories have evolution producing organisms not needing God

Bacteria and the intelligent cell

DAVID: Being part of an organism creates a totally different [biological] environment than as a single cell. Survival is a community problem.

dhw: Do you really believe that single-celled bacteria don’t have to find ways to survive, and when they form a biofilm in order to enhance their chances of survival, they suddenly lose their intelligence? You’ve turned it all upside down: It is the environment that creates the need for cells to form communities.

DAVID: My fault. I've correct my sentence in bold. When in an organism, cells function differently than free-living cells. Yes, environmental change forces responses.

dhw: All agreed. This simply means that if individual cells are intelligent, they will use their intelligence in different ways when they form a community. They are still intelligent, and if they are, what makes you so certain that other cell communities, whose behaviour also appears to be intelligent, cannot possibly BE intelligent?

All the biochemical reactions I see are automatic and designed that way.

Post reply

208 views

Theodicy

dhw: You approved of my statement that good and evil are human inventions based entirely on what is good for US, while bacteria do what is good for them – whether we think it bad or not! You don’t seem to realize that free will is precisely what makes a free-for-all! You agree that your God gave humans and bacteria autonomy, and so we and they are responsible for our own ways of survival and for what we humans categorize as good or evil. And that is an answer to the problem of theodicy: God did not create good or evil. He simply created a free-for-all, in which every creature does what is best for itself.

This is a theory to explain theodicy. Please tell us why you reject it. Next I point out its relevance to theories of evolution:

Evolution

dhw: This applies both to behaviour (dog-eat-dog) and to design (responses to the environment). And so the free-for-all theory also removes the absurd illogicality of your own theory of evolution (see below), as organisms come and go in accordance with their autonomous ability or lack of ability to cope with changing conditions.

DAVID: A non-guided evolution did not have to pick bipedalism as a form. And it did not have to create the human brain. What 'changing conditions' forced either event?

Neither evolution nor your God “had to” do anything. But in your version, your God “had to” design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. You seem unable to join ideas together, so I’d better remind you that nobody knows what caused the origin of bi-pedal sapiens, but one possible explanation is known as the “savannah theory”, which we have been discussing for a few weeks now. I asked if you accepted its logic. You answered: “Yes the savannah theory is logical. But the real story is unknown.”

DAVID: Dog-eat-dog is an obvious event since all organisms must have a supply of food, but it tells us the arrival of humans required a large supply of food as a given from the broad scope of evolutionary results.

Dog-eat-dog is a free-for-all. Many animals require considerably larger quantities of food than we do. (An elephant needs about 150 times more!). 99.9% of the species you believe your God designed went extinct before we arrived, so I don’t know how they managed to satisfy our appetites.

DAVID: Calling 99.9% 'irrelevant' to the 0.1% survivors is nutty. How did the 0.1% appear without them?

Because as you have said yourself, the 0.1% were only descended from those branches of evolution which survived. For example, the only living organisms to have descended from the dinosaurs are birds. How many more times must we repeat what you have already agreed to, as follows:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

When will you stop disagreeing with yourself?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

dhw: […] Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. Yet another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb. As always, I shall record your agreement for future reference. (Ugh, see Part 2 for an immediate about-turn!)

DAVID: All of your theories have evolution producing organisms not needing God.

All my theories allow for a possible God as a possible designer. I am an agnostic. Please stop trying to divert attention away from your illogical theories by pretending that I am an atheist.

Post reply

204 views

Theodicy

dhw: You approved of my statement that good and evil are human inventions based entirely on what is good for US, while bacteria do what is good for them – whether we think it bad or not! You don’t seem to realize that free will is precisely what makes a free-for-all! You agree that your God gave humans and bacteria autonomy, and so we and they are responsible for our own ways of survival and for what we humans categorize as good or evil. And that is an answer to the problem of theodicy: God did not create good or evil. He simply created a free-for-all, in which every creature does what is best for itself.

This is a theory to explain theodicy. Please tell us why you reject it.

In a dog-eat-dog sense your analysis is correct. It is purely a deist view. It throws out ethics and morals for humans. As as theist I can not accept is implications.

dhw: Next I point out its relevance to theories of evolution:

Evolution

dhw: This applies both to behaviour (dog-eat-dog) and to design (responses to the environment). And so the free-for-all theory also removes the absurd illogicality of your own theory of evolution (see below), as organisms come and go in accordance with their autonomous ability or lack of ability to cope with changing conditions.

DAVID: A non-guided evolution did not have to pick bipedalism as a form. And it did not have to create the human brain. What 'changing conditions' forced either event?

dhw: Neither evolution nor your God “had to” do anything. But in your version, your God “had to” design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. You seem unable to join ideas together, so I’d better remind you that nobody knows what caused the origin of bi-pedal sapiens, but one possible explanation is known as the “savannah theory”, which we have been discussing for a few weeks now. I asked if you accepted its logic. You answered: “Yes the savannah theory is logical. But the real story is unknown.”

DAVID: Dog-eat-dog is an obvious event since all organisms must have a supply of food, but it tells us the arrival of humans required a large supply of food as a given from the broad scope of evolutionary results.

dhw: Dog-eat-dog is a free-for-all. Many animals require considerably larger quantities of food than we do. (An elephant needs about 150 times more!). 99.9% of the species you believe your God designed went extinct before we arrived, so I don’t know how they managed to satisfy our appetites.

Yes, free-for-all does not imply a directed evolution, just a struggle for survival. The 99.9% extinct produced/created the 0.1% surviving, a point you ignore.

DAVID: Calling 99.9% 'irrelevant' to the 0.1% survivors is nutty. How did the 0.1% appear without them?

dhw: Because as you have said yourself, the 0.1% were only descended from those branches of evolution which survived. For example, the only living organisms to have descended from the dinosaurs are birds. How many more times must we repeat what you have already agreed to, as follows:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: When will you stop disagreeing with yourself?

I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to
show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.>

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

dhw: […] Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. Yet another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb. As always, I shall record your agreement for future reference. (Ugh, see Part 2 for an immediate about-turn!)

I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

Post reply

203 views

Theodicy

DAVID: In a dog-eat-dog sense your analysis is correct. It is purely a deist view. It throws out ethics and morals for humans. As as theist I can not accept is implications.

Of course it doesn’t throw out ethics and morals for humans! Have you not realized that ethics and morals are GOOD for humans – they are a vital part of our species’ ability to survive! But I’m suggesting they are OUR invention, not your God’s. I remain surprised that as a theist you continue to regard your God as the inventor of good and evil, refuse even to consider a logical reason to exonerate him from the creation of the latter, and also continue to ridicule him as an inefficient designer.

dhw: Next I point out its relevance [the free-for all theory] to theories of evolution:

Evolution

dhw: This applies both to behaviour (dog-eat-dog) and to design (responses to the environment). And so the free-for-all theory also removes the absurd illogicality of your own theory of evolution […], as organisms come and go in accordance with their autonomous ability or lack of ability to cope with changing conditions. […]

DAVID: Yes, free-for-all does not imply a directed evolution, just a struggle for survival.The 99.9% extinct produced/created the 0.1% surviving, a point you ignore.

Well done for realizing that a free-for-all is a free-for-all as opposed to being directed. I have not ignored your return to your absurd concept of reproduction! This was our very next exchange!

DAVID: Calling 99.9% 'irrelevant' to the 0.1% survivors is nutty. How did the 0.1% appear without them?

dhw: Because as you have said yourself, the 0.1% were only descended from those branches of evolution which survived. […] How many more times must we repeat what you have already agreed to, as follows:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: When will you stop disagreeing with yourself?

Next comes yet another ridiculous response:

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.

No one will deny that the ecosystems that are here are here, and no one will deny that vast numbers of species and ecosystems have been and gone and are therefore not here. As a result, give or take a few decimal points, 99.9% of what was here is not here now. You agree that the remaining 0.1% is descended from the 0.1% of survivors, i.e. is NOT descended from the 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived, but now you propose that every creature that is here now had 100 sets of mummies and daddies. For example, one set of figures tells us that there were 900 species of dinosaur, only four of which (therapods) have survived as birds. That leaves you with 896 species of dinosaur with no descendants although according to you they were all the mummies and daddies of birds! Please stop this nonsense and stick to your explicit agreement that the mummies and daddies of current species were the 0.1% of survivors and not the 99.9% which produced no survivors.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

dhw: […] Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. Yet another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb. As always, I shall record your agreement for future reference. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

You have quoted my argument in bold above: that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

Post reply

203 views

Theodicy

DAVID: In a dog-eat-dog sense your analysis is correct. It is purely a deist view. It throws out ethics and morals for humans. As as theist I can not accept is implications.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t throw out ethics and morals for humans! Have you not realized that ethics and morals are GOOD for humans – they are a vital part of our species’ ability to survive! But I’m suggesting they are OUR invention, not your God’s. I remain surprised that as a theist you continue to regard your God as the inventor of good and evil, refuse even to consider a logical reason to exonerate him from the creation of the latter, and also continue to ridicule him as an inefficient designer.

Most evil is not God's doing: free will allows humans to create evil. Freedom of action allows bugs to create evil, all by-products of God's good works.

dhw: Next I point out its relevance [the free-for all theory] to theories of evolution:

Evolution

Next comes yet another ridiculous response:

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.

dhw: No one will deny that the ecosystems that are here are here, and no one will deny that vast numbers of species and ecosystems have been and gone and are therefore not here. As a result, give or take a few decimal points, 99.9% of what was here is not here now. You agree that the remaining 0.1% is descended from the 0.1% of survivors, i.e. is NOT descended from the 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived, but now you propose that every creature that is here now had 100 sets of mummies and daddies. For example, one set of figures tells us that there were 900 species of dinosaur, only four of which (therapods) have survived as birds. That leaves you with 896 species of dinosaur with no descendants although according to you they were all the mummies and daddies of birds! Please stop this nonsense and stick to your explicit agreement that the mummies and daddies of current species were the 0.1% of survivors and not the 99.9% which produced no survivors.

When will you realize the statistics cover all of evolution in a generalized way, that the 0.1% CAME from the 99.9%. It does not consider specific lines.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

dhw: […] Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. Yet another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb. As always, I shall record your agreement for future reference. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

dhw: You have quoted my argument in bold above: that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

The responses to our thoughtful mental actions are automatic. It is our intelligence in action, not the brain's.

Post reply

202 views

Theodicy

DAVID: In a dog-eat-dog sense your analysis is correct. It is purely a deist view. It throws out ethics and morals for humans. As a theist I can not accept is implications.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t throw out ethics and morals for humans! Have you not realized that ethics and morals are GOOD for humans – they are a vital part of our species’ ability to survive! But I’m suggesting they are OUR invention, not your God’s. I remain surprised that as a theist you continue to regard your God as the inventor of good and evil, refuse even to consider a logical reason to exonerate him from the creation of the latter, and also continue to ridicule him as an inefficient designer.

DAVID: Most evil is not God's doing: free will allows humans to create evil. Freedom of action allows bugs to create evil, all by-products of God's good works.

First you reject my proposal because it excludes morals and ethics. I point out that it doesn’t, so you try to change the subject! You agree that good and evil are concepts invented by humans solely in accordance with what is good or bad for US, and you agree that we (and bacteria) are involved in a free-for-all. If your God has given organisms free will, then their actions, whether good for bad for us, are THEIR products, not by-products of God’s good works. Or are you still arguing that we are incapable of designing what is good for us (e.g. ethics and morals)?

Next comes yet another ridiculous response:

Evolution

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.

dhw: No one will deny that the ecosystems that are here are here, and no one will deny that vast numbers of species and ecosystems have been and gone and are therefore not here. As a result, give or take a few decimal points, 99.9% of what was here is not here now. You agree that the remaining 0.1% is descended from the 0.1% of survivors, i.e. is NOT descended from the 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived, but now you propose that every creature that is here now had 100 sets of mummies and daddies. For example, one set of figures tells us that there were 900 species of dinosaur, only four of which (therapods) have survived as birds. That leaves you with 896 species of dinosaur with no descendants although according to you they were all the mummies and daddies of birds! Please stop this nonsense and stick to your explicit agreement that the mummies and daddies of current species were the 0.1% of survivors and not the 99.9% which produced no survivors[/b].

DAVID: When will you realize the statistics cover all of evolution in a generalized way, that the 0.1% CAME from the 99.9%. It does not consider specific lines.

When will you stop obfuscating? What do you mean by “came from” if you don’t mean “descended from”? Are you now denying that the history of evolution is one of different species or “lines” or “branches” that have come and gone? You try to forget that you have logically and unequivocally agreed that the 0.1% alive today have “come from” the 0.1% that survived extinction, and you have ignored the dinosaur example, as you strive to distract attention from your belief that your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please explain what other reason you can give for ridiculing him in this way?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

dhw: […] Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

dhw: You have quoted my argument in bold above: that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

DAVID: The responses to our thoughtful mental actions are automatic. It is our intelligence in action, not the brain's.

Yet again you simply ignore what you have just agreed: namely, that your God might have “coded” cellular intelligence. We are not arguing about dualism versus materialism (which separates the brain from intelligence), but at least your digression invalidates your objection that cells don’t have brains. Once more: the cell’s autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) – just like ours – will do the processing, communicating and decision-making, and I agree that other components will automatically obey its instructions.

Post reply

192 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Most evil is not God's doing: free will allows humans to create evil. Freedom of action allows bugs to create evil, all by-products of God's good works.

dhw: First you reject my proposal because it excludes morals and ethics. I point out that it doesn’t, so you try to change the subject! You agree that good and evil are concepts invented by humans solely in accordance with what is good or bad for US, and you agree that we (and bacteria) are involved in a free-for-all. If your God has given organisms free will, then their actions, whether good for bad for us, are THEIR products, not by-products of God’s good works. Or are you still arguing that we are incapable of designing what is good for us (e.g. ethics and morals)?

Come on, free-will or free actions from God ALLOW evil, obviously byproduct.

Next comes yet another ridiculous response:

Evolution

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.

DAVID: When will you realize the statistics cover all of evolution in a generalized way, that the 0.1% CAME from the 99.9%. It does not consider specific lines.

dhw: When will you stop obfuscating? What do you mean by “came from” if you don’t mean “descended from”? Are you now denying that the history of evolution is one of different species or “lines” or “branches” that have come and gone? You try to forget that you have logically and unequivocally agreed that the 0.1% alive today have “come from” the 0.1% that survived extinction, and you have ignored the dinosaur example, as you strive to distract attention from your belief that your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please explain what other reason you can give for ridiculing him in this way?

You don't look at Raup's statistical approach as I do. I view God's evolution as messy. But as His choice it worked. We are here running the show.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

dhw: […] Why is it unthinkable for you that the “code” is what creates the cell’s equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

dhw: You have quoted my argument in bold above: that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

DAVID: The responses to our thoughtful mental actions are automatic. It is our intelligence in action, not the brain's.

dhw: Yet again you simply ignore what you have just agreed: namely, that your God might have “coded” cellular intelligence. We are not arguing about dualism versus materialism (which separates the brain from intelligence), but at least your digression invalidates your objection that cells don’t have brains. Once more: the cell’s autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) – just like ours – will do the processing, communicating and decision-making, and I agree that other components will automatically obey its instructions.

He coded DNA to give responses automatically.

Post reply

194 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Most evil is not God's doing: free will allows humans to create evil. Freedom of action allows bugs to create evil, all by-products of God's good works.

dhw: First you reject my proposal because it excludes morals and ethics. I point out that it doesn’t, so you try to change the subject! You agree that good and evil are concepts invented by humans solely in accordance with what is good or bad for US, and you agree that we (and bacteria) are involved in a free-for-all. If your God has given organisms free will, then their actions, whether good for bad for us, are THEIR products, not by-products of God’s good works. Or are you still arguing that we are incapable of designing what is good for us (e.g. ethics and morals)?

DAVID: Come on, free-will or free actions from God ALLOW evil, obviously byproduct.

Free will ALLOWS what we call good and what we call evil. Decent David decides to earn a living by becoming a doctor, and Dirty Dave decides to become a robber. Billy bacterium survives by doing things we consider nice, and Basil bacterium survives by doing things we consider nasty. These are not “by-products of God’s good works” but products of autonomous decision-making! And since God does not dictate the decisions, clearly we have a free-for-all.

dhw: Next comes yet another ridiculous response:

Evolution

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.
And:
DAVID: When will you realize the statistics cover all of evolution in a generalized way, that the 0.1% CAME from the 99.9%. It does not consider specific lines.

dhw: When will you stop obfuscating? What do you mean by “came from” if you don’t mean “descended from”? Are you now denying that the history of evolution ["a dispensary process"] is one of different species or “lines” or “branches” that have come and gone?

Not answered.

dhw: You try to forget that you have logically and unequivocally agreed that the 0.1% alive today have “come from” the 0.1% that survived extinction….

Not answered.

Dhw: ….and you have ignored the dinosaur example, as you strive to distract attention from your belief that your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please explain what other reason you can give for ridiculing him in this way?

No explanation given.

DAVID: You don't look at Raup's statistical approach as I do.

Obviously! You pretend that somehow it supports your view that your God had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, although on March 24 you admit that “Raup in no way supports me.”

DAVID: I view God's evolution as messy. But as His choice it worked. We are here running the show.

I asked you to explain your reasons for thinking it was messy and inefficient, not whether you did. The fact that we are here running (and trying hard to ruin) the show does not invalidate the theory that your God deliberately created a free-for-all! Raup attributes survival to “luck”. Or your God could have been experimenting with different life forms, or hit upon humans as one of many new ideas as he went along. Why do you insist that he deliberately, knowingly, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently went on designing and culling irrelevant species although you also insist that he was perfectly capable of directly designing what he wanted?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution.

DAVID: That is exactly what DNA does from God's design.

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

DAVID: He coded DNA to give responses automatically.

More obfuscation. If something harms us, of course we automatically try to escape from it or find a way of removing it. And so our intelligence leads us to processing the new information, communicating with others, taking decisions, giving instructions…You agreed with my description of this process, as applied to cells/cell communities, and now you pretend that autonomous intelligence means automatic obedience.

Post reply

186 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Come on, free-will or free actions from God ALLOW evil, obviously byproduct.

dhw: Free will ALLOWS what we call good and what we call evil. Decent David decides to earn a living by becoming a doctor, and Dirty Dave decides to become a robber. Billy bacterium survives by doing things we consider nice, and Basil bacterium survives by doing things we consider nasty. These are not “by-products of God’s good works” but products of autonomous decision-making! And since God does not dictate the decisions, clearly we have a free-for-all.

A side effect is the unintended result of any action. A byproduct is the same. Yours is a non-answer to the issue that God does not cause evil.

dhw: Next comes yet another ridiculous response:

Evolution

DAVID: I'm disagreeing with you. What is here in all the ecosystems that support us, is analyzed to show how evolution is a dispensary process, while achieving its results.
And:
DAVID: When will you realize the statistics cover all of evolution in a generalized way, that the 0.1% CAME from the 99.9%. It does not consider specific lines.

dhw: When will you stop obfuscating? What do you mean by “came from” if you don’t mean “descended from”? Are you now denying that the history of evolution ["a dispensary process"] is one of different species or “lines” or “branches” that have come and gone?

Not answered.

Of course we came from past ancestors. And so does every living thing on Earth. The survivors are 0.1% of all that ever lived. The 99.9% produced everything here now, humans and their food included.

Dhw: ….and you have ignored the dinosaur example, as you strive to distract attention from your belief that your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please explain what other reason you can give for ridiculing him in this way?

Explained: evolution is a cumbersome way to create.

DAVID: I view God's evolution as messy. But as His choice it worked. We are here running the show.

dhw: I asked you to explain your reasons for thinking it was messy and inefficient, not whether you did. The fact that we are here running (and trying hard to ruin) the show does not invalidate the theory that your God deliberately created a free-for-all! Raup attributes survival to “luck”. Or your God could have been experimenting with different life forms, or hit upon humans as one of many new ideas as he went along. Why do you insist that he deliberately, knowingly, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently went on designing and culling irrelevant species although you also insist that he was perfectly capable of directly designing what he wanted?

I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

dhw: You have quoted my argument in bold above: that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

DAVID: He coded DNA to give responses automatically.

dhw: More obfuscation. If something harms us, of course we automatically try to escape from it or find a way of removing it. And so our intelligence leads us to processing the new information, communicating with others, taking decisions, giving instructions…You agreed with my description of this process, as applied to cells/cell communities, and now you pretend that autonomous intelligence means automatic obedience.

Not a pretense.

Post reply

177 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Come on, free-will or free actions from God ALLOW evil, obviously byproduct.

dhw: Free will ALLOWS what we call good and what we call evil. Decent David decides to earn a living by becoming a doctor, and Dirty Dave decides to become a robber. Billy bacterium survives by doing things we consider nice, and Basil bacterium survives by doing things we consider nasty. These are not “by-products of God’s good works” but products of autonomous decision-making! And since God does not dictate the decisions, clearly we have a free-for-
all.

DAVID: A side effect is the unintended result of any action. A byproduct is the same. Yours is a non-answer to the issue that God does not cause evil.

You now present us yet again with a God who produced something he never intended to produce. As with your theory of evolution, your omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. However, bacterial and human free will suggest that he wanted to create a free-for-all, in which his invention of the intelligent cell would autonomously provide the ever-changing history which is the reality of the past, present and, no doubt, the future. You agree that the concepts of good and evil are a human invention, based on what we think is good for us or bad for us, and what we regard as a bad bacterium is only doing what is good for itself. So if God gives you and them free will, is it you/bacteria or God who “cause evil”?

Evolution

dhw: When will you stop obfuscating? What do you mean by “came from” if you don’t mean “descended from”? Are you now denying that the history of evolution ["a dispensary process"] is one of different species or “lines” or “branches” that have come and gone?

DAVID: Of course we came from past ancestors. And so does every living thing on Earth. The survivors are 0.1% of all that ever lived. The 99.9% produced everything here now, humans and their food included.

An astonishing leap from logic to absurdity. Yes, every living thing has ancestors. But our/their ancestors were the 0.1% which survived. (I don’t actually like the precision of Raup’s figures, which nobody can possibly know, but we’ll stick to them for argument’s sake.) The 99.9% left no survivors – they were dead ends, e.g. 896 species of dinosaur died out without any survivors. Only 4 species survived in the form of birds, which = 0.44%. The rest did not “produce” anything that is here now. You have agreed:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

My question should actually have been “from 100%”, but your unequivocal answer made the correction!

dhw: ….and you have ignored the dinosaur example, as you strive to distract attention from your belief that your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please explain what other reason you can give for ridiculing him in this way?

DAVID: Explained: evolution is a cumbersome way to create.
And:
DAVID: I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

It is only cumbersome and inefficient if you impose a purpose on it and then insist that your God personally designed but had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose! But you would rather ridicule your God than open your mind to any alternative theory, because as you once confessed: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

Cellular intelligence

dhw: Thank you for at last agreeing that your God might have designed autonomous cellular intelligence, instead of 3.8 billion years’ worth of preprogramming and ad hoc dabbling. […]

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

dhw: You have quoted my argument […] that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

DAVID: He coded DNA to give responses automatically.

dhw: More obfuscation. If something harms us, of course we automatically try to escape from it or find a way of removing it. And so our intelligence leads us to processing the new information, communicating with others, taking decisions, giving instructions…You agreed with my description of this process, as applied to cells/cell communities, and now you pretend that autonomous intelligence means automatic obedience.

DAVID: Not a pretense.

So you really believe that autonomous intelligence means automatic obedience! And “intelligent” presumably means “without intelligence”.

Post reply

178 views

Theodicy

DAVID: A side effect is the unintended result of any action. A byproduct is the same. Yours is a non-answer to the issue that God does not cause evil.

You now present us yet again with a God who produced something he never intended to produce. As with your theory of evolution, your omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. However, bacterial and human free will suggest that he wanted to create a free-for-all, in which his invention of the intelligent cell would autonomously provide the ever-changing history which is the reality of the past, present and, no doubt, the future. You agree that the concepts of good and evil are a human invention, based on what we think is good for us or bad for us, and what we regard as a bad bacterium is only doing what is good for itself. So if God gives you and them free will, is it you/bacteria or God who “cause evil”?

Humans and bacteria create evil.

Evolution

dhw: ….and you have ignored the dinosaur example, as you strive to distract attention from your belief that your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please explain what other reason you can give for ridiculing him in this way?

DAVID: Explained: evolution is a cumbersome way to create.
And:
DAVID: I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

dhw: It is only cumbersome and inefficient if you impose a purpose on it and then insist that your God personally designed but had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose! But you would rather ridicule your God than open your mind to any alternative theory, because as you once confessed: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

Teleology is something you must exclude from evolution because it evokes a designer.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: You have quoted my argument […] that the code (perhaps God-given) might be the equivalent of a brain which acts autonomously, and you dare to pretend that a brain which independently processes, decides and instructs means a brain that does not independently process, decide and instruct. Next you will be telling me that the word “intelligent” means “without intelligence”. Please stop it.

DAVID: He coded DNA to give responses automatically.

dhw: More obfuscation. If something harms us, of course we automatically try to escape from it or find a way of removing it. And so our intelligence leads us to processing the new information, communicating with others, taking decisions, giving instructions…You agreed with my description of this process, as applied to cells/cell communities, and now you pretend that autonomous intelligence means automatic obedience.

DAVID: Not a pretense.

dhw: So you really believe that autonomous intelligence means automatic obedience! And “intelligent” presumably means “without intelligence”.

Intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions

Post reply

172 views

Theodicy

DAVID: A side effect is the unintended result of any action. A byproduct is the same. Yours is a non-answer to the issue that God does not cause evil.

dhw: You now present us yet again with a God who produced something he never intended to produce. As with your theory of evolution, your omnipotent, omniscient, all-good God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. However, bacterial and human free will suggest that he wanted to create a free-for-all, in which his invention of the intelligent cell would autonomously provide the ever-changing history which is the reality of the past, present and, no doubt, the future. You agree that the concepts of good and evil are a human invention, based on what we think is good for us or bad for us, and what we regard as a bad bacterium is only doing what is good for itself. So if God gives you and them free will, is it you/bacteria or God who “cause evil”?

DAVID: Humans and bacteria create evil.

So a possible answer to the problem set by theodicy is that evil is not an unintended by-product or side-effect of your cumbersome, messy, inefficient God’s good works, but instead he deliberately gave freedom of action to his creatures. We humans invented the concepts of “good” and “evil” to mean whatever was good or bad for us, but all creatures simply do what they think is good for them in the great free-for-all of life’s history. However, you prefer to believe that evil is due to your God’s incompetence.

Evolution

DAVID: I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

dhw: It is only cumbersome and inefficient if you impose a purpose on it and then insist that your God personally designed but had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose! But you would rather ridicule your God than open your mind to any alternative theory, because as you once confessed: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: Teleology is something you must exclude from evolution because it evokes a designer.

You never cease to try and divert attention from your ridicule of your God by pretending that my alternatives are atheistic. This whole discussion concerns your God’s possible nature, purpose and method. If he exists, he must have had a purpose for creating life. The one you impose on him makes him look like a messy, inefficient designer. Elsewhere, however, you have expressed your belief that he would not have created life if he had not enjoyed doing so and had not been interested in his own creations. That will provide you with your “teleology”. You also proposed that he might have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him. More teleology. If he exists, I have no objections to your proposals. It’s you who oppose them and prefer to ridicule him.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I agree with your description recognizing it is all automatic, no thought involved.

DAVID: Intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions.

You agreed that the “code” might create autonomous intelligence, but you defined that as meaning “automatic, no thought involved”. The fact that intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions does not mean that when you accepted my description of the autonomous, information-processing, communicating, decision-making, instruction-giving cell, I actually meant an automatic, non-processing, non-communicating, non-decision-making, non-instruction-giving cell!

Fish use tools

QUOTE: "Scientists have debunked the belief that using tools is unique to mammals and birds,….

One of these days, perhaps some people will also realize that long ago, some scientists debunked the belief that micro-organisms right down to single cells cannot be intelligent. All that is needed is to rid oneself of what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

Post reply

172 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Humans and bacteria create evil.

So a possible answer to the problem set by theodicy is that evil is not an unintended by-product or side-effect of your cumbersome, messy, inefficient God’s good works, but instead he deliberately gave freedom of action to his creatures. We humans invented the concepts of “good” and “evil” to mean whatever was good or bad for us, but all creatures simply do what they think is good for them in the great free-for-all of life’s history. However, you prefer to believe that evil is due to your God’s incompetence.

Evil has nothing to do with God's incompetence. How did you conclude that? God is not incompetent. Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will.

Evolution

DAVID: I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

dhw: It is only cumbersome and inefficient if you impose a purpose on it and then insist that your God personally designed but had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose! But you would rather ridicule your God than open your mind to any alternative theory, because as you once confessed: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: Teleology is something you must exclude from evolution because it evokes a designer.

dhw: You never cease to try and divert attention from your ridicule of your God by pretending that my alternatives are atheistic. This whole discussion concerns your God’s possible nature, purpose and method. If he exists, he must have had a purpose for creating life. The one you impose on him makes him look like a messy, inefficient designer. Elsewhere, however, you have expressed your belief that he would not have created life if he had not enjoyed doing so and had not been interested in his own creations. That will provide you with your “teleology”. You also proposed that he might have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him. More teleology. If he exists, I have no objections to your proposals. It’s you who oppose them and prefer to ridicule him.

Ridicule of God is your invention. That He uses cumbersome evolution is His choice to achieve Human intelligence actually shows that it works.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions.

dhw: You agreed that the “code” might create autonomous intelligence, but you defined that as meaning “automatic, no thought involved”. The fact that intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions does not mean that when you accepted my description of the autonomous, information-processing, communicating, decision-making, instruction-giving cell, I actually meant an automatic, non-processing, non-communicating, non-decision-making, non-instruction-giving cell!

At all times you think cells can think. Nonsense.

Fish use tools

QUOTE: "Scientists have debunked the belief that using tools is unique to mammals and birds,….

dhw: One of these days, perhaps some people will also realize that long ago, some scientists debunked the belief that micro-organisms right down to single cells cannot be intelligent. All that is needed is to rid oneself of what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

Fish have brains, therefore they think.

Post reply

165 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Humans and bacteria create evil.

dhw: So a possible answer to the problem set by theodicy is that evil is not an unintended by-product or side-effect of your cumbersome, messy, inefficient God’s good works, but instead he deliberately gave freedom of action to his creatures. We humans invented the concepts of “good” and “evil” to mean whatever was good or bad for us, but all creatures simply do what they think is good for them in the great free-for-all of life’s history. However, you prefer to believe that evil is due to your God’s incompetence.

DAVID: Evil has nothing to do with God's incompetence. How did you conclude that? God is not incompetent. Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will.

After your initial solution (ignore the evil and only think about the good), you declared that evil was a by-product or side-effect of God’s good works, and you defined these terms as “the unintended result of any action.” If your God produced something he had not intended to produce, I would suggest that is a sign of incompetence, which goes hand in hand with your belief in an inefficient designer (see your illogical theory of evolution). However, you have now explicitly supported the theory that your God created a free-for-all. Thank you. Another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb.

Evolution

DAVID: I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

dhw: It is only cumbersome and inefficient if you impose a purpose on it and then insist that your God personally designed but had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose! But you would rather ridicule your God than open your mind to any alternative theory, because as you once confessed: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: Teleology is something you must exclude from evolution because it evokes a designer.

dhw: You never cease to try and divert attention from your ridicule of your God by pretending that my alternatives are atheistic. This whole discussion concerns your God’s possible nature, purpose and method. If he exists, he must have had a purpose for creating life. […] Elsewhere, however, you have expressed your belief that he would not have created life if he had not enjoyed doing so and had not been interested in his own creations. That will provide you with your “teleology”. You also proposed that he might have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him. More teleology. If he exists, I have no objections to your proposals. It’s you who oppose them and prefer to ridicule him.

DAVID: Ridicule of God is your invention. That He uses cumbersome evolution is His choice to achieve Human intelligence actually shows that it works.

I have never heard anyone use the terms “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” as a compliment, just as I have never heard of a bad, unintended result being regarded as a sign of competence. These are terms of your invention, not mine. However, you have now accepted the free-for-all theory in the context of theodicy, so perhaps you will also accept it as a possible and logical explanation for the 99.9% of species that had no connection with the purpose you have imposed on your God.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions.

dhw: You agreed that the “code” might create autonomous intelligence, but you defined that as meaning “automatic, no thought involved”. The fact that intelligent actions can come from intelligent instructions does not mean that when you accepted my description of the autonomous, information-processing, communicating, decision-making, instruction-giving cell, I actually meant an automatic, non-processing, non-communicating, non-decision-making, non-instruction-giving cell!

DAVID: At all times you think cells can think. Nonsense.

What do you mean by “at all times”? Most of the time, cellular behaviour is automatic – it has to be if organs and organisms are to remain stable. I keep telling you when intelligence is needed: e.g. if there are new problems, requirements, conditions. Then cells must process the new information, communicate, make decisions, and issue instructions. But even then, there are cells whose function is simply to obey those instructions. When your intelligent self instructs your arm and hands and fingers to pick up a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, the arm and hands and fingers will automatically obey.

Fish use tools

QUOTE: "Scientists have debunked the belief that using tools is unique to mammals and birds,….

dhw: One of these days, perhaps some people will also realize that long ago, some scientists debunked the belief that micro-organisms right down to single cells cannot be intelligent. All that is needed is to rid oneself of what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: Fish have brains, therefore they think.

Bacteria have no brains, but you agree that they can also think. So why not other single cells and cell communities?

Post reply

154 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: Bipedalism is a result of God's designs, no natural cause needed.

I know that’s your theory: God operated on the pelvises and legs of a group or groups of tree-dwellers and told them to go walkies. What I don’t know is why you think the later migrations of sapiens “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours.

The Cambrian

DAVID: God, as designer, handled all new environments.

dhw: You have always vacillated over this – especially when it comes to the local (as opposed to global) changes which would have led to so many new species. But this reinforces the illogicality of your theory. He started out with the sole intention of creating us, but deliberately kept designing new organisms in preparation for the environmental changes he deliberately created, although this meant that he was deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species which he knew he would have to cull . Divine lunacy. Especially since you believe that our line of evolution actually began “de novo” in the Cambrian, when at last he invented an environment that was suitable for us and our ancestors!

DAVID: Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

But in spite of your new-found acceptance of the “free-for-all” theory as an answer to the theodicy problem, you cannot even consider it as a possible alternative to your theory that your God is an inefficient and incompetent designer.

The human brain

dhw:. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

DAVID: Agree.

dhw: Although you think he made our big brains in anticipation of future needs, you agree that our big brain was not made in anticipation of future needs, and I suppose that tomorrow you will tell me you agreed because NOT in anticipation actually means in anticipation.

DAVID: Our new brain was so large, only complexification was needed from 315,000 years ago. That is design in anticipation of need.

You agree that the brain became bigger through new cells being needed for new requirements, and since then the new cells have complexified in order to cope with subsequent requirements. Stage 1) Expansion as a response; Stage 2) Complexification as a response. A response to new requirements is not a prophecy of new requirements.

Paranthropus fossil

QUOTE: One thing that was instantly clear was that the fossil – a thighbone, shinbone and part of the hip – belonged to an unusually small hominin. “It’s impressive how small it is compared with the shortest of the short we’ve known about so far,” says Richard Potts at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, who wasn’t involved in the analysis.
"Pickering’s team estimates that the hominin […] was probably a young adult female…”

Maybe a daft question, but how can they be sure that the thighbone, shinbone and piece of hip were not those of a little girl?

QUOTE: Thanks to the leg fossil, Pickering says we can now confirm P. robustus did walk on two legs most of the time. This, he says, is “the real revelation of our research”'.

DAVID: it seems there my have been more than one line of descent to finally evolve sapiens. This is a very early hominid.

The more lines of descent there are, the more puzzling it becomes that a God who can create what he wants “de novo” should choose such a roundabout method of NOT designing what he wants. I rather like the proposal you agreed to under “theodicy” – that just as evil was the product of a free-for-all, the same principle might be applied to the manner in which all species of hominin and hominid evolved.

Post reply

154 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: Bipedalism is a result of God's designs, no natural cause needed.

dhw: I know that’s your theory: God operated on the pelvises and legs of a group or groups of tree-dwellers and told them to go walkies. What I don’t know is why you think the later migrations of sapiens “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours.

The issue is solely savannah theory. When the current findings were unknown the savannah theory had a logical appeal. Hominids forced to walk because they had no trees. Now we find bipedal hominids in forests. What forced them to walk upright? I say God did it.

The Cambrian

DAVID: God, as designer, handled all new environments.

dhw: You have always vacillated over this – especially when it comes to the local (as opposed to global) changes which would have led to so many new species. But this reinforces the illogicality of your theory. He started out with the sole intention of creating us, but deliberately kept designing new organisms in preparation for the environmental changes he deliberately created, although this meant that he was deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species which he knew he would have to cull . Divine lunacy. Especially since you believe that our line of evolution actually began “de novo” in the Cambrian, when at last he invented an environment that was suitable for us and our ancestors!

DAVID: Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

dhw: But in spite of your new-found acceptance of the “free-for-all” theory as an answer to the theodicy problem, you cannot even consider it as a possible alternative to your theory that your God is an inefficient and incompetent designer.

Agreed as above.

The human brain

DAVID: Our new brain was so large, only complexification was needed from 315,000 years ago. That is design in anticipation of need.

dhw: You agree that the brain became bigger through new cells being needed for new requirements, and since then the new cells have complexified in order to cope with subsequent requirements. Stage 1) Expansion as a response; Stage 2) Complexification as a response. A response to new requirements is not a prophecy of new requirements.

Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

Paranthropus fossil

QUOTE: One thing that was instantly clear was that the fossil – a thighbone, shinbone and part of the hip – belonged to an unusually small hominin. “It’s impressive how small it is compared with the shortest of the short we’ve known about so far,” says Richard Potts at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, who wasn’t involved in the analysis.
"Pickering’s team estimates that the hominin […] was probably a young adult female…”

dhw: Maybe a daft question, but how can they be sure that the thighbone, shinbone and piece of hip were not those of a little girl?

The bit of pelvis may have suggested female. Male pelvis is different.

QUOTE: Thanks to the leg fossil, Pickering says we can now confirm P. robustus did walk on two legs most of the time. This, he says, is “the real revelation of our research”'.

DAVID: it seems there my have been more than one line of descent to finally evolve sapiens. This is a very early hominid.

dhw: The more lines of descent there are, the more puzzling it becomes that a God who can create what he wants “de novo” should choose such a roundabout method of NOT designing what he wants. I rather like the proposal you agreed to under “theodicy” – that just as evil was the product of a free-for-all, the same principle might be applied to the manner in which all species of hominin and hominid evolved.

I agree God's evolution is not straight forward.

Post reply

151 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: […] When the current findings were unknown the savannah theory had a logical appeal. Hominids forced to walk because they had no trees. Now we find bipedal hominids in forests. What forced them to walk upright? I say God did it.

The current findings only tell us what happened after the first bi-pedallers had spread far and wide. The savannah theory says the first bipedallers may have descended from the trees in order to explore life on the ground. You say your God operated on their legs and pelvises and told them to go walkies. Now please tell us why the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but do not “dilute” your own.

The Cambrian

DAVID: Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

dhw: But in spite of your new-found acceptance of the “free-for-all” theory as an answer to the theodicy problem, you cannot even consider it as a possible alternative to your theory that your God is an inefficient and incompetent designer.

DAVID: Agreed as above.

I never know quite what you agree to, since virtually every day you reject something already “agreed”. Do you now agree that the deliberate “free-for-all” theory provides a more logical explanation for the irrelevant 99.9% than your own theory of divine incompetence and inefficiency?

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years. Our own new cells did not hang around doing nothing for thousands of years until needed for rocket science.They have complexified in response to each new requirement.

Paranthropus fossil

QUOTES: One thing that was instantly clear was that the fossil – a thighbone, shinbone and part of the hip – belonged to an unusually small hominin. “
"Pickering’s team estimates that the hominin […] was probably a young adult female…”

dhw: Maybe a daft question, but how can they be sure that the thighbone, shinbone and piece of hip were not those of a little girl?

DAVID: The bit of pelvis may have suggested female. Male pelvis is different.

A little girl would be just as female as a young adult girl.

DAVID: it seems there my have been more than one line of descent to finally evolve sapiens. This is a very early hominid.

dhw: The more lines of descent there are, the more puzzling it becomes that a God who can create what he wants “de novo” should choose such a roundabout method of NOT designing what he wants. I rather like the proposal you agreed to under “theodicy” – that just as evil was the product of a free-for-all, the same principle might be applied to the manner in which all species of hominin and hominid evolved.

DAVID: I agree God's evolution is not straight forward.

Bur you remain convinced that it proves your God’s inefficiency and incompetence.

Large hydrocarbons on Mars

QUOTE: "The alkane molecules are significant in the search for biosignatures on Mars, but how they actually formed remains unclear. They could also be derived through geological or other chemical mechanisms that do not involve fatty acids or life. These are known as abiotic sources.”

DAVID: it seems carbon compounds are spread all around as if God made the option to start life anywhere.

Please don’t start your “fine-tuned for life” campaign again. These molecules have been found on Mars and could just as easily relate to non-life as to life. Found on Mars does not = everywhere (i.e. in the entire universe). But of course we are all eager to know whether there is or was life elsewhere in the universe. And if there is/was, no doubt theists will regard it as proof of God’s design, and atheists will regard it as proof that Nature does not need help in creating the right combinations, so long as there is a suitable environment.

Belief vs non-belief
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-atheists-secular-countries-intuitive-religious.html?utm_s...

There is no need for me to repeat my analysis of an absurdly muddled argument, which begins by claiming that atheists have an instinctive belief in God, and ends with the obvious, totally irrelevant conclusion that there are and will probably continue to be religious people even where religion is in decline.

DAVID: Your good analysis of a weird paper is appreciated. It still comes down to believers are feltto avoid evil and are safer to trust.

I could ask you “felt by whom?” but you’re probably right. I’m sure, though, that even you will agree that such prejudices have been massively eroded by the revelations of child and sexual abuse and corruption, all scandalously covered up by various church leaders right up to the present day. This sort of evil is common in almost all spheres of human activity that were once thought trustworthy (the police, politics, show business celebrities). In any case, the misguided trust is irrelevant to the main thesis of this paper, which is that people who disbelieve in God actually believe in God.

Post reply

156 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: […] When the current findings were unknown the savannah theory had a logical appeal. Hominids forced to walk because they had no trees. Now we find bipedal hominids in forests. What forced them to walk upright? I say God did it.

dhw: The current findings only tell us what happened after the first bi-pedallers had spread far and wide. The savannah theory says the first bipedallers may have descended from the trees in order to explore life on the ground. You say your God operated on their legs and pelvises and told them to go walkies. Now please tell us why the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but do not “dilute” your own.

God can supply bipedalism anywhere, but the savannah theory is trees disappeared so poor hominids had to walk. Hominids everywhere living in trees denigrates that theory.

The Cambrian

DAVID: Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

dhw: But in spite of your new-found acceptance of the “free-for-all” theory as an answer to the theodicy problem, you cannot even consider it as a possible alternative to your theory that your God is an inefficient and incompetent designer.

DAVID: Agreed as above.

dhw: I never know quite what you agree to, since virtually every day you reject something already “agreed”. Do you now agree that the deliberate “free-for-all” theory provides a more logical explanation for the irrelevant 99.9% than your own theory of divine incompetence and inefficiency?

I simply agreed God is inefficient.

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years. Our own new cells did not hang around doing nothing for thousands of years until needed for rocket science. They have complexified in response to each new requirement.

The cells needed for complexification were supplied 315,000 years ago.

Paranthropus fossil

DAVID: I agree God's evolution is not straight forward.

dhw: But you remain convinced that it proves your God’s inefficiency and incompetence.

By human analysis.

Belief vs non-belief
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-atheists-secular-countries-intuitive-religious.html?utm_s...

dhw: There is no need for me to repeat my analysis of an absurdly muddled argument, which begins by claiming that atheists have an instinctive belief in God, and ends with the obvious, totally irrelevant conclusion that there are and will probably continue to be religious people even where religion is in decline.

DAVID: Your good analysis of a weird paper is appreciated. It still comes down to believers are felt to avoid evil and are safer to trust.

dhw: I could ask you “felt by whom?” but you’re probably right. I’m sure, though, that even you will agree that such prejudices have been massively eroded by the revelations of child and sexual abuse and corruption, all scandalously covered up by various church leaders right up to the present day. This sort of evil is common in almost all spheres of human activity that were once thought trustworthy (the police, politics, show business celebrities). In any case, the misguided trust is irrelevant to the main thesis of this paper, which is that people who disbelieve in God actually believe in God.

I think 'might believe' is better put.

Post reply

151 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: God can supply bipedalism anywhere, but the savannah theory is trees disappeared so poor hominids had to walk. Hominids everywhere living in trees denigrates that theory.

We are learning that all kinds of hominids lived in all kinds of environments and even interbred with one another. But nobody knows the origin of bipedalism, which must have taken place long before hominids spread far and wide. It is perfectly logical to theorize that a particular group or groups at a particular time found itself forced to explore the savannah, just as certain land mammals might have been forced to survive by leaving the land and exploring the sea. Your theory is that in all cases, your God operated on legs and pelvises, or other parts of the anatomy, and then told his patients to go walkies/swimmies. Please tell us why the fact that hominids later inhabited all kinds of environments makes your theory of the ORIGIN more logical than mine.

The Cambrian and evolution

DAVID: Agreed as above.

dhw: I never know quite what you agree to, since virtually every day you reject something already “agreed”. Do you now agree that the deliberate “free-for-all” theory provides a more logical explanation for the irrelevant 99.9% than your own theory of divine incompetence and inefficiency?

DAVID: I simply agreed God is inefficient.

You didn’t “simply agree”. You have manufactured theories which show your God to be inefficient and incompetent. But you refuse to consider even the possibility that he might actually have created precisely what he wanted to create.

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

dhw: Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years. Our own new cells did not hang around doing nothing for thousands of years until needed for rocket science. They have complexified in response to each new requirement.

DAVID: The cells needed for complexification were supplied 315,000 years ago.

Yes, every expansion would have supplied new cells in order to fulfil new requirements, and would then have complexified until once again more new cells were needed. And so 315,000 years ago, the new cells would have been added in response to what were then new requirements. They did not then nod off until needed a couple of thousand years later, but would have complexified in response to any new requirements. The fact that these new requirements have multiplied enormously in modern times does not change the process of requirement eliciting response, as opposed to your theory that response anticipates requirement!

Paranthropus fossil

DAVID: I agree God's evolution is not straight forward.

dhw: But you remain convinced that it proves your God’s inefficiency and incompetence.

DAVID: By human analysis.
By YOUR human analysis! Do you honestly think all your fellow believers praise God for his inefficiency and incompetence?

Belief vs non-belief

DAVID: Your good analysis of a weird paper is appreciated. It still comes down to believers are felt to avoid evil and are safer to trust.

dhw: I could ask you “felt by whom?” but you’re probably right. I’m sure, though, that even you will agree that such prejudices have been massively eroded by the revelations of child and sexual abuse and corruption, all scandalously covered up by various church leaders right up to the present day. This sort of evil is common in almost all spheres of human activity that were once thought trustworthy (the police, politics, show business celebrities). In any case, the misguided trust is irrelevant to the main thesis of this paper, which is that people who disbelieve in God actually believe in God.

DAVID: I think 'might believe' is better put.

Atheists “might believe” in God? I’d put this on a par with your belief that autonomy means automaticity, a free-for-all and intelligence mean following instructions, descent from 0.1% means descent from 99.9%, all-powerful means powerless, not to mention inefficient and incompetent etc.

Post reply

145 views

The savannah theory

DAVID: God can supply bipedalism anywhere, but the savannah theory is trees disappeared so poor hominids had to walk. Hominids everywhere living in trees denigrates that theory.

dhw: We are learning that all kinds of hominids lived in all kinds of environments and even interbred with one another. But nobody knows the origin of bipedalism, which must have taken place long before hominids spread far and wide. It is perfectly logical to theorize that a particular group or groups at a particular time found itself forced to explore the savannah, just as certain land mammals might have been forced to survive by leaving the land and exploring the sea. Your theory is that in all cases, your God operated on legs and pelvises, or other parts of the anatomy, and then told his patients to go walkies/swimmies. Please tell us why the fact that hominids later inhabited all kinds of environments makes your theory of the ORIGIN more logical than mine.

My God theory in faith is no better then yours when absolute proof is asked for.

The Cambrian and evolution

DAVID: I simply agreed God is inefficient.

dhw: You didn’t “simply agree”. You have manufactured theories which show your God to be inefficient and incompetent. But you refuse to consider even the possibility that he might actually have created precisely what he wanted to create.

God did create exactly what He wished to create.

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

dhw: Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years. Our own new cells did not hang around doing nothing for thousands of years until needed for rocket science. They have complexified in response to each new requirement.

DAVID: The cells needed for complexification were supplied 315,000 years ago.

dhw: Yes, every expansion would have supplied new cells in order to fulfil new requirements, and would then have complexified until once again more new cells were needed. And so 315,000 years ago, the new cells would have been added in response to what were then new requirements. They did not then nod off until needed a couple of thousand years later, but would have complexified in response to any new requirements. The fact that these new requirements have multiplied enormously in modern times does not change the process of requirement eliciting response, as opposed to your theory that response anticipates requirement!

Without the changes 315,000 years ago, mental activity now required could not exist,

Paranthropus fossil

DAVID: I agree God's evolution is not straight forward.

dhw: But you remain convinced that it proves your God’s inefficiency and incompetence.

DAVID: By human analysis.

dhw: By YOUR human analysis! Do you honestly think all your fellow believers praise God for his inefficiency and incompetence?

My analysis is mine alone.

Belief vs non-belief

DAVID: Your good analysis of a weird paper is appreciated. It still comes down to believers are felt to avoid evil and are safer to trust.

dhw: I could ask you “felt by whom?” but you’re probably right. I’m sure, though, that even you will agree that such prejudices have been massively eroded by the revelations of child and sexual abuse and corruption, all scandalously covered up by various church leaders right up to the present day. This sort of evil is common in almost all spheres of human activity that were once thought trustworthy (the police, politics, show business celebrities). In any case, the misguided trust is irrelevant to the main thesis of this paper, which is that people who disbelieve in God actually believe in God.

DAVID: I think 'might believe' is better put.

dhw: Atheists “might believe” in God? I’d put this on a par with your belief that autonomy means automaticity, a free-for-all and intelligence mean following instructions, descent from 0.1% means descent from 99.9%, all-powerful means powerless, not to mention inefficient and incompetent etc.

The 0.1% could not exist without the 99.9% extinct. Evolution is not sliced up into disconnected partitions. It is not unreasonable to think that atheists think believers are more trustworthy. I thought the article showed that.

Post reply

142 views

The savannah theory

dhw: Please tell us why the fact that hominids later inhabited all kinds of environments makes your theory of the ORIGIN more logical than mine.

DAVID: My God theory in faith is no better then yours when absolute proof is asked for.

Thank you for agreeing that divine surgery is just as unproven as the savannah theory, and neither is even remotely “diluted” by the fact that hominids migrated later to all kinds of environments. End of discussion, I trust.

The Cambrian and evolution

DAVID: I simply agreed God is inefficient.

dhw: You didn’t “simply agree”. You have manufactured theories which show your God to be inefficient and incompetent. But you refuse to consider even the possibility that he might actually have created precisely what he wanted to create.

DAVID: God did create exactly what He wished to create.

So he created and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species,because he wished to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and today he has changed from being the efficient creator of a free-for-all to being the incompetent creator of evil which he never intended to create but which he wished to create!

Dhw: Do you honestly think all your fellow believers praise God for his inefficiency and incompetence?

DAVID: My analysis is mine alone.

I’m not surprised. And yet you complain that some of my theories are not "mainstream"!

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

DAVID: Without the changes 315,000 years ago, mental activity now required could not exist.

That’s like saying if evolution hadn’t followed the course it followed, it would have followed a different course! All we know is that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. The final expansion provided us with enough cells to meet the new requirements that arose 315,000 years ago, but also to facilitate subsequent new responses to new requirements through enhanced complexification. That does not mean your God supplied the new cells 315,000 years ago because he had looked into his crystal ball and knew they'd be needed thousands of years later to meet with requirements that did not yet exist. Once more: the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of non-existent requirements.

Belief vs non-belief

DAVID: It is not unreasonable to think that atheists think believers are more trustworthy. I thought the article showed that.

Neither you nor the article specified who might feel that believers were more trustworthy. With all the revelations of sexual abuse, corruption and cover-ups, I suspect most atheists would laugh at the idea that believers were to be trusted more than non-believers.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: I have explained why your statement that “at all times you think cells can think” is a complete distortion of what I think. Now you simply revert to your belief that although you agreed a couple of days ago that cells autonomously process information, communicate, make decisions and issue instructions, this means they do not autonomously process information etc. etc.

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

QUOTE: However, little is known about the molecular interplay between bacteria and predators, particularly how bacteria can sense and kill their microbial predators. We show how the ubiquitous bacterium Pseudomonas syringae detects and kills the social amoeba Polysphondylium pallidum.

DAVID: […] Bacteria, sensing the ameba, release a molecule the ameba degrades into a form that the bacteria can then use to create an amebicide. How such a system developed in which the ameba helps in its own demise is very surprising. I thought the whole idea was survival is key to all actions. This is the reverse. This study also demonstrates my point of view. All molecular activity, no thought involved.

You seem to think the amoeba is deliberately helping the bacterium to kill it! You have acknowledged again and again that bacteria work out their own means of survival (they have the “freedom of action or free will” to create evil), and this article simply explains how they do it. Our own efforts to kill bacteria also entail molecular activity, but you think ours is directed by our intelligence and theirs is not, although you agree that it is.

Fish use tools

DAVID: Yes, bacteria edit DNA in limited ways. They don't modify into new species.

dhw: Innovation demands a different level of intelligence, but an organism which can outwit humans as it finds ways of countering our attempts to kill it must have a form of autonomous intelligence, as you have acknowledged under “theodicy”. After all, your form of God would hardly have given it instructions to murder us, would he?

DAVID: I doubt it.

And the more you doubt it, the more obvious it should be to you that bacteria have the autonomous intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.

Post reply

133 views

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

dhw: Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years.

DAVID: Without the changes 315,000 years ago, mental activity now required could not exist.

dhw: That’s like saying if evolution hadn’t followed the course it followed, it would have followed a different course! All we know is that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. The final expansion provided us with enough cells to meet the new requirements that arose 315,000 years ago, but also to facilitate subsequent new responses to new requirements through enhanced complexification. That does not mean your God supplied the new cells 315,000 years ago because he had looked into his crystal ball and knew they'd be needed thousands of years later to meet with requirements that did not yet exist. Once more: the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of non-existent requirements.

Good designers anticipate future use. God has a crystal ball.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: I have explained why your statement that “at all times you think cells can think” is a complete distortion of what I think. Now you simply revert to your belief that although you agreed a couple of days ago that cells autonomously process information, communicate, make decisions and issue instructions, this means they do not autonomously process information etc. etc.

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

QUOTE: However, little is known about the molecular interplay between bacteria and predators, particularly how bacteria can sense and kill their microbial predators. We show how the ubiquitous bacterium Pseudomonas syringae detects and kills the social amoeba Polysphondylium pallidum.

DAVID: […] Bacteria, sensing the ameba, release a molecule the ameba degrades into a form that the bacteria can then use to create an amebicide. How such a system developed in which the ameba helps in its own demise is very surprising. I thought the whole idea was survival is key to all actions. This is the reverse. This study also demonstrates my point of view. All molecular activity, no thought involved.

dhw: You seem to think the amoeba is deliberately helping the bacterium to kill it! You have acknowledged again and again that bacteria work out their own means of survival (they have the “freedom of action or free will” to create evil), and this article simply explains how they do it. Our own efforts to kill bacteria also entail molecular activity, but you think ours is directed by our intelligence and theirs is not, although you agree that it is.

NO, it is all automatic step by step a the article shows.

Fish use tools

DAVID: Yes, bacteria edit DNA in limited ways. They don't modify into new species.

dhw: Innovation demands a different level of intelligence, but an organism which can outwit humans as it finds ways of countering our attempts to kill it must have a form of autonomous intelligence, as you have acknowledged under “theodicy”. After all, your form of God would hardly have given it instructions to murder us, would he?

DAVID: I doubt it.

dhw: And the more you doubt it, the more obvious it should be to you that bacteria have the autonomous intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.

I think bacteria edit DNA by instructions.

Post reply

127 views

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

DAVID: Good designers anticipate future use. God has a crystal ball.

You are the one who keeps calling your God “inefficient” (evolution) and “incompetent” (theodicy), and although you have no choice but to agree that all changes to the brain take place as RESPONSES to new requirements, you insist that our later complexities were all “prepared” thousands of years before they were required.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

dhw: You seem to think the amoeba is deliberately helping the bacterium to kill it! You have acknowledged again and again that bacteria work out their own means of survival (they have the “freedom of action or free will” to create evil), and this article simply explains how they do it. Our own efforts to kill bacteria also entail molecular activity, but you think ours is directed by our intelligence and theirs is not, although you agree that it is.

DAVID: NO, it is all automatic step by step a the article shows.

It shows the steps taken after the new information has been processed, cells have communicated, decisions have been made, and then and only then do other cells obey those that have done the thinking and issued the instructions.

Fish use tools

See Part 1

Very early oxygen use

DAVID: as I noted before, oxygen is a dangerous substance and requires antioxidants to control it. This advance required increasing complexity and infers the need for design. Evolution seems to know what is coming next, as if someone is planning its advance. Noted in yesterday's entry: Thursday, April 03, 2025, 20:58

Evolution doesn’t think or know anything. It is a process. This whole article concerns the way in which bacteria use the conditions in which they find themselves. You keep agreeing that this astonishing adaptability is indicative of autonomous intelligence, but then you deny it. You are fixated on the idea that your God has planned everything in advance – but this does not explain why 99 out of every 100 species had to be specially designed and then culled so that he could produce us, although he could have done so“de novo”. You agree that we are descended from 0.1% of survivors, but insist that we are also descended from the extinct 99.9% who produced no descendants. And you agree that evil may be the product of your God creating a free-for-all, but murderous bacteria are either the result of his incompetency or under his instructions. You don’t seem able to see how all these events and theories are tied together – in your case, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and incompetently, whereas if you would only stick to your agreement that life’s history is that of a massive free-for-all (perhaps set in motion by your God), we would have at least one theory that makes sense.

Post reply

121 views

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

dhw: Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years .[…]

DAVID: Good designers anticipate future use. God has a crystal ball.

dhw: You are the one who keeps calling your God “inefficient” (evolution) and “incompetent” (theodicy), and although you have no choice but to agree that all changes to the brain take place as RESPONSES to new requirements, you insist that our later complexities were all “prepared” thousands of years before they were required.'

A designer designs for future uses.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

DAVID: […] Bacteria, sensing the ameba, release a molecule the ameba degrades into a form that the bacteria can then use to create an amebicide. How such a system developed in which the ameba helps in its own demise is very surprising. I thought the whole idea was survival is key to all actions. This is the reverse. This study also demonstrates my point of view. All molecular activity, no thought involved.

dhw: You seem to think the amoeba is deliberately helping the bacterium to kill it! You have acknowledged again and again that bacteria work out their own means of survival (they have the “freedom of action or free will” to create evil), and this article simply explains how they do it. Our own efforts to kill bacteria also entail molecular activity, but you think ours is directed by our intelligence and theirs is not, although you agree that it is.

DAVID: NO, it is all automatic step by step a the article shows.

dhw: It shows the steps taken after the new information has been processed, cells have communicated, decisions have been made, and then and only then do other cells obey those that have done the thinking and issued the instructions.

Where does the article show thought processing?

Very early oxygen use

DAVID: as I noted before, oxygen is a dangerous substance and requires antioxidants to control it. This advance required increasing complexity and infers the need for design. Evolution seems to know what is coming next, as if someone is planning its advance. Noted in yesterday's entry: Thursday, April 03, 2025, 20:58

dhw: Evolution doesn’t think or know anything. It is a process. This whole article concerns the way in which bacteria use the conditions in which they find themselves. You keep agreeing that this astonishing adaptability is indicative of autonomous intelligence, but then you deny it. You are fixated on the idea that your God has planned everything in advance – but this does not explain why 99 out of every 100 species had to be specially designed and then culled so that he could produce us, although he could have done so “de novo”.

God does what he wishes at each level of evolution. Let's start with God knows best. What bacteria do looks autonomous but follows automatic rules.

dhw: You agree that we are descended from 0.1% of survivors, but insist that we are also descended from the extinct 99.9% who produced no descendants.

I do not follow your very restricted view of the evolutionary process. Of course our special line ends up with us. That is only one aspect of evolution.

dhw: And you agree that evil may be the product of your God creating a free-for-all, but murderous bacteria are either the result of his incompetency or under his instructions. You don’t seem able to see how all these events and theories are tied together – in your case, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and incompetently, whereas if you would only stick to your agreement that life’s history is that of a massive free-for-all (perhaps set in motion by your God), we would have at least one theory that makes sense.

A very limited view. It is a guided process, and looks messy. BUT it miraculously produced us!

Post reply

118 views

The human brain

DAVID: Good designers anticipate future use. God has a crystal ball.

dhw: You are the one who keeps calling your God “inefficient” (evolution) and “incompetent” (theodicy), and although you have no choice but to agree that all changes to the brain take place as RESPONSES to new requirements, you insist that our later complexities were all “prepared” thousands of years before they were required.'

DAVID: A designer designs for future uses.

Add this to your statement “Much simpler with God as designer”, and you could hardly come up with a better argument for your God’s possible design of the autonomous mechanisms which have enabled cells to evolve into a vast variety of life forms, and have enabled brain cells in particular to complexify. (You have agreed that your God does NOT assert control or intervene when we humans think our complex thoughts and invent our complex machines). One invention produces all the rest. Much simpler than the designer constantly having to perform new operations and issue new instructions every time there’s a change in the weather, not to mention his apparently having to design and cull 99 out of 100 species irrelevaht to his one and only purpose.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

DAVID: Where does the article show thought processing?

Where does it show your God’s instructions? Do you or do you not agree that the molecular activity described here must follow on from processing of information, communication and decision-making? Why do you assume that bacteria, which elsewhere in your posts have “freedom of action or free will”, can think for themselves when they kill us, but can’t do so when they kill an amoeba?

I presented a list of your other absurd self-contradictions, but since they have nearly all been repeated in these two posts, there’s not much point in going over them again here. You summed it all up when you described your beliefs as “schizophrenic” and admitted that you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” What follows is sheer confusion.

Post reply

112 views

The human brain

DAVID: Good designers anticipate future use. God has a crystal ball.

dhw: You are the one who keeps calling your God “inefficient” (evolution) and “incompetent” (theodicy), and although you have no choice but to agree that all changes to the brain take place as RESPONSES to new requirements, you insist that our later complexities were all “prepared” thousands of years before they were required.'

DAVID: A designer designs for future uses.

dhw: Add this to your statement “Much simpler with God as designer”, and you could hardly come up with a better argument for your God’s possible design of the autonomous mechanisms which have enabled cells to evolve into a vast variety of life forms, and have enabled brain cells in particular to complexify. (You have agreed that your God does NOT assert control or intervene when we humans think our complex thoughts and invent our complex machines). One invention produces all the rest. Much simpler than the designer constantly having to perform new operations and issue new instructions every time there’s a change in the weather, not to mention his apparently having to design and cull 99 out of 100 species irrelevaht to his one and only purpose.

Back to second hand design, a wasteful way to proceed.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

dhw: You seem to think the amoeba is deliberately helping the bacterium to kill it! You have acknowledged again and again that bacteria work out their own means of survival (they have the “freedom of action or free will” to create evil), and this article simply explains how they do it. Our own efforts to kill bacteria also entail molecular activity, but you think ours is directed by our intelligence and theirs is not, although you agree that it is.

DAVID: Where does the article show thought processing?

dhw: Where does it show your God’s instructions? Do you or do you not agree that the molecular activity described here must follow on from processing of information, communication and decision-making? Why do you assume that bacteria, which elsewhere in your posts have “freedom of action or free will”, can think for themselves when they kill us, but can’t do so when they kill an amoeba?

The act of poisoning us or killing bacteria is all automatic.

dhw: I presented a list of your other absurd self-contradictions, but since they have nearly all been repeated in these two posts, there’s not much point in going over them again here. You summed it all up when you described your beliefs as “schizophrenic” and admitted that you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” What follows is sheer confusion.

I am not confused about my God.

Post reply

111 views

The human brain

DAVID: A designer designs for future uses.

dhw: Add this to your statement “Much simpler with God as designer”, and you could hardly come up with a better argument for your God’s possible design of the autonomous mechanisms which have enabled cells to evolve into a vast variety of life forms, and have enabled brain cells in particular to complexify. (You have agreed that your God does NOT assert control or intervene when we humans think our complex thoughts and invent our complex machines.) One invention produces all the rest. Much simpler than the designer constantly having to perform new operations and issue new instructions every time there’s a change in the weather, not to mention his apparently having to design and cull 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Back to second hand design, a wasteful way to proceed.

I’m pleased to see that you have now abandoned your theory that God gave the human brain its extra cells 3000 years ago because he had looked into his crystal ball and knew they would be needed thousands of years later. The wasteful way to proceed is yours, since you insist that he designed every species and had to cull 99% of them because they had no connection with the only species he wanted to design. Likewise,the evolution of the human brain would only be wasteful if you insist that your all-knowing, all-powerful God had to keep designing bigger and bigger brains in order to design the only brain he wanted to design. What you call “second-hand design” makes perfect sense if your God’s purpose was to create the free-for-all which you have accepted elsewhere as the dog-eat-dog reality of life’s history, along with the fact that by creating a free-for-all he was NOT responsible for the evil which causes so many problems for theologians who struggle to explain theodicy.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

DAVID: Where does the article show thought processing?

dhw: Where does it show your God’s instructions? Do you or do you not agree that the molecular activity described here must follow on from processing of information, communication and decision-making? Why do you assume that bacteria, which elsewhere in your posts have “freedom of action or free will”, can think for themselves when they kill us, but can’t do so when they kill an amoeba?

DAVID: The act of poisoning us or killing bacteria is all automatic.

And so although you agree that bacteria have freedom of will and action, they kill us or one another because they have no freedom of will or action. And since you also tell us that bacteria act in accordance with your God’s instructions, it is he who instructs them to murder us, although you doubt if he would instruct them to murder us. Perhaps one day you should read your own posts.

dhw: I presented a list of your other absurd self-contradictions, but since they have nearly all been repeated in these two posts, there’s not much point in going over them again here. You summed it all up when you described your beliefs as “schizophrenic” and admitted that you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” What follows is sheer confusion.

DAVID: I am not confused about my God.

No, you are only confused about his purpose, methods and nature, which is why you keep contradicting yourself as well as ridiculing him with your various theories that reduce YOUR all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-controlling God to YOUR messy, cumbersome, inefficient and incompetent blunderer. (The adjectives are all yours, not mine.)

Post reply

100 views

The human brain

DAVID: Back to second hand design, a wasteful way to proceed.

dhw: I’m pleased to see that you have now abandoned your theory that God gave the human brain its extra cells 3000 years ago because he had looked into his crystal ball and knew they would be needed thousands of years later.

God produced the complex big brain 315,000 years before its full need and use.

dhw: What you call “second-hand design” makes perfect sense if your God’s purpose was to create the free-for-all which you have accepted elsewhere as the dog-eat-dog reality of life’s history, along with the fact that by creating a free-for-all he was NOT responsible for the evil which causes so many problems for theologians who struggle to explain theodicy.

The secondhand concept of design has nothing to do with your defense of theodicy which I accept

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Bacterial immunity

DAVID: Where does the article show thought processing?

dhw: Where does it show your God’s instructions? Do you or do you not agree that the molecular activity described here must follow on from processing of information, communication and decision-making? Why do you assume that bacteria, which elsewhere in your posts have “freedom of action or free will”, can think for themselves when they kill us, but can’t do so when they kill an amoeba?

DAVID: The act of poisoning us or killing bacteria is all automatic.

dhw: And so although you agree that bacteria have freedom of will and action, they kill us or one another because they have no freedom of will or action. And since you also tell us that bacteria act in accordance with your God’s instructions, it is he who instructs them to murder us, although you doubt if he would instruct them to murder us. Perhaps one day you should read your own posts.

You should read your own posts. Above is your clear defense of the point bolded..

dhw: I presented a list of your other absurd self-contradictions, but since they have nearly all been repeated in these two posts, there’s not much point in going over them again here. You summed it all up when you described your beliefs as “schizophrenic” and admitted that you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” What follows is sheer confusion.

DAVID: I am not confused about my God.

dhw: No, you are only confused about his purpose, methods and nature, which is why you keep contradicting yourself as well as ridiculing him with your various theories that reduce YOUR all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-controlling God to YOUR messy, cumbersome, inefficient and incompetent blunderer. (The adjectives are all yours, not mine.)

I am not confused about God. His nature, purpose and methods are quite clear to me. And yes He uses a confusing evolutionary method to produce us.

Post reply

92 views

The human brain

DAVID: Back to second hand design, a wasteful way to proceed.

dhw: I’m pleased to see that you have now abandoned your theory that God gave the human brain its extra cells 3000 years ago because he had looked into his crystal ball and knew they would be needed thousands of years later.

DAVID: God produced the complex big brain 315,000 years before its full need and use.

If your God exists, you can say the same about every single innovation! Did God invent legs because he looked into his crystal ball and saw that one day humans would want to play football? You have agreed that ALL the new cells were used, because they were added in order to meet an existing requirement, and you have agreed that your God does not intervene in complexifications, and we know for a fact that brains complexify IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them (think of the illiterate women and the taxi drivers).

dhw: What you call “second-hand design” makes perfect sense if your God’s purpose was to create the free-for-all which you have accepted elsewhere as the dog-eat-dog reality of life’s history, along with the fact that by creating a free-for-all he was NOT responsible for the evil which causes so many problems for theologians who struggle to explain theodicy.
[/b]

DAVID: The secondhand concept of design has nothing to do with your defense of theodicy which I accept.

See Part 1.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.
Bacterial immunity

DAVID: Where does the article show thought processing?

DAVID: You should read your own posts. Above is your clear defense of the point bolded.

I have defended the theory that your God gave humans and bacteria freedom of action, which not only explains theodicy but also explains the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. What’s the problem – other than your refusal to consider any theory that explains what you can’t explain?

dhw: You summed it all up when you described your beliefs as “schizophrenic” and admitted that you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” What follows is sheer confusion.

DAVID: I am not confused about my God.

dhw: No, you are only confused about his purpose, methods and nature, which is why you keep contradicting yourself as well as ridiculing him with your various theories that reduce YOUR all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-controlling God to YOUR messy, cumbersome, inefficient and incompetent blunderer. (The adjectives are all yours, not mine.)

DAVID: I am not confused about God. His nature, purpose and methods are quite clear to me. And yes He uses a confusing evolutionary method to produce us.

His purpose and method are quite clear to you, although you can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. As for his nature, he apparently has thought patterns and emotions like ours but is not human in any way, may want to be worshipped but is selfless, and is all-powerful and all-knowing but inefficient and incompetent.

Comparing bird and human brains

QUOTE: Humans tend to put our own intelligence on a pedestal.

It’s what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, and leads many people to underestimate the intelligence of our fellow creatures, from our four-legged friends right down to single cells, which can also process information, communicate, take decisions and send instructions to other cells.

QUOTE: Drift outside the realm of vertebrates, however, and you can generate an intelligent brain in much weirder ways — from our perspective, anyway. “It’s a wild west,” she said. Octopuses, for example, “evolved intelligence in a way that’s completely independent.” Their cognitive structures look nothing like ours, except that they’re built from the same broad type of cell: the neuron.

And there perhaps is the key. Neurons are cells. And cells find different ways of surviving by using their intelligence and by pooling their intelligences.

DAVID: same sort of intelligent action based on totally different brain organizations. Amazing.

I agree. And Shapiro simply extends this intelligence to whatever might be the equivalent of a brain in the single cell.

Post reply

91 views

The human brain

DAVID: God produced the complex big brain 315,000 years before its full need and use.

dhw: If your God exists, you can say the same about every single innovation! Did God invent legs because he looked into his crystal ball and saw that one day humans would want to play football? You have agreed that ALL the new cells were used, because they were added in order to meet an existing requirement, and you have agreed that your God does not intervene in complexifications, and we know for a fact that brains complexify IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them (think of the illiterate women and the taxi drivers).

I disagree. The large new brain added much more than was currently needed.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: I have defended the theory that your God gave humans and bacteria freedom of action, which not only explains theodicy but also explains the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. What’s the problem – other than your refusal to consider any theory that explains what you can’t explain?

dhw: You summed it all up when you described your beliefs as “schizophrenic” and admitted that you “first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” What follows is sheer confusion.

DAVID: I am not confused about my God.

dhw: No, you are only confused about his purpose, methods and nature, which is why you keep contradicting yourself as well as ridiculing him with your various theories that reduce YOUR all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-controlling God to YOUR messy, cumbersome, inefficient and incompetent blunderer. (The adjectives are all yours, not mine.)

DAVID: I am not confused about God. His nature, purpose and methods are quite clear to me. And yes He uses a confusing evolutionary method to produce us.

dhw: His purpose and method are quite clear to you, although you can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. As for his nature, he apparently has thought patterns and emotions like ours but is not human in any way, may want to be worshipped but is selfless, and is all-powerful and all-knowing but inefficient and incompetent.

You have no training in how to think about God as I do. It limits me.

Comparing bird and human brains

QUOTE: Humans tend to put our own intelligence on a pedestal.

dhw: It’s what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, and leads many people to underestimate the intelligence of our fellow creatures, from our four-legged friends right down to single cells, which can also process information, communicate, take decisions and send instructions to other cells.

QUOTE: Drift outside the realm of vertebrates, however, and you can generate an intelligent brain in much weirder ways — from our perspective, anyway. “It’s a wild west,” she said. Octopuses, for example, “evolved intelligence in a way that’s completely independent.” Their cognitive structures look nothing like ours, except that they’re built from the same broad type of cell: the neuron.

dhw: And there perhaps is the key. Neurons are cells. And cells find different ways of surviving by using their intelligence and by pooling their intelligences.

DAVID: same sort of intelligent action based on totally different brain organizations. Amazing.

dhw: I agree. And Shapiro simply extends this intelligence to whatever might be the equivalent of a brain in the single cell.

No one neuron is a brain.

Post reply

87 views

The human brain

DAVID: God produced the complex big brain 315,000 years before its full need and use.

dhw: If your God exists, you can say the same about every single innovation! Did God invent legs because he looked into his crystal ball and saw that one day humans would want to play football? You have agreed that ALL the new cells were used, because they were added in order to meet an existing requirement, and you have agreed that your God does not intervene in complexifications, and we know for a fact that brains complexify IN RESPONSE to new requirements, not in anticipation of them (think of the illiterate women and the taxi drivers).

DAVID: I disagree. The large new brain added much more than was currently needed.

Much more WHAT? The size (= number of cells) remained the same! The brain did not/could not expand any more. And so the capacity for COMPLEXIFICATION increased. And complexification only occurs when there are new tasks to perform. It does not complexify IN ANTICIPATION of conditions that do not yet exist!

Comparing bird and human brains

QUOTE: Humans tend to put our own intelligence on a pedestal.

dhw: It’s what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, and leads many people to underestimate the intelligence of our fellow creatures, from our four-legged friends right down to single cells, which can also process information, communicate, take decisions and send instructions to other cells.

dhw: And there perhaps is the key. Neurons are cells. And cells find different ways of surviving by using their intelligence and by pooling their intelligences.

DAVID: […] No one neuron is a brain.

Of course it isn’t. Nobody said it was! The theory is that single cells are intelligent, and so they must have the equivalent of a brain, which enables them to process information, pass it on to other cells through communication, take decisions, and give instructions. You have accepted the autonomous intelligence of single cells in the form of bacteria, but for some reason you think that when single cells form communities (i.e. pool their intelligence), they are helpless unless your God gives them instructions to be nice to us or to murder us.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I am not confused about God. His nature, purpose and methods are quite clear to me. And yes He uses a confusing evolutionary method to produce us.

dhw: His purpose and method are quite clear to you, although you can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. As for his nature, he apparently has thought patterns and emotions like ours but is not human in any way, may want to be worshipped but is selfless, and is all-powerful and all-knowing but inefficient and incompetent.

DAVID: You have no training in how to think about God as I do. It limits me.

The fact that apparently your “training” limits you to prejudgements, (you start with the form of God you wish to believe in), which you admit are your own and are far from “mainstream” theology, is hardly a recommendation. The endless contradictions, and your confessions that you yourself can’t find any logic in your theories, ought to suggest to you that these may be wrong, and perhaps it’s time you opened your mind to other possible views that are not so limited as yours.

Hunter gatherers in Malta

QUOTE: The implication, Scerri says, is that hunter-gatherers were “seafaring all over the place'”.

DAVID: we were amazingly clever back then.

And this ties in with the theory that early brains would have expanded and complexified in a continuous process, and sapiens brain cells would all have been in use early on in that process, rather than your God conducting operation after operation as he looked into his crystal ball to see what his hominins and hominids might want to do next.

Evolving a bipedal birth canal

DAVID: how female pelvic size adjusted to increasing fetal head size is amazing and suggests a dsigner at work.

You don’t need me to tell you that the poor design of the female pelvis is one of the arguments used by atheists! The demands made by bipedalism and by the increased size of the fetal head are regarded as reasons why human childbirth is such a difficult and dangerous process, whereas most other animals manage far more easily. Another example of your God’s inefficiency and incompetence, which you are always so keen to stress? Or perhaps the problem has proved too difficult for the limited intelligence of the respective cell communities to solve?

Post reply

19 views

The human brain

DAVID: I disagree. The large new brain added much more than was currently needed.

dhw: Much more WHAT? The size (= number of cells) remained the same! The brain did not/could not expand any more. And so the capacity for COMPLEXIFICATION increased. And complexification only occurs when there are new tasks to perform. It does not complexify IN ANTICIPATION of conditions that do not yet exist!

315,000 years ago the sapiens brain arrived. It was designed by God for future use.

Comparing bird and human brains

QUOTE: Humans tend to put our own intelligence on a pedestal.

dhw: It’s what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”, and leads many people to underestimate the intelligence of our fellow creatures, from our four-legged friends right down to single cells, which can also process information, communicate, take decisions and send instructions to other cells.

QUOTE: Drift outside the realm of vertebrates, however, and you can generate an intelligent brain in much weirder ways — from our perspective, anyway. “It’s a wild west,” she said. Octopuses, for example, “evolved intelligence in a way that’s completely independent.” Their cognitive structures look nothing like ours, except that they’re built from the same broad type of cell: the neuron.

dhw: And there perhaps is the key. Neurons are cells. And cells find different ways of surviving by using their intelligence and by pooling their intelligences.

DAVID: […] No one neuron is a brain.

dhw: Of course it isn’t. Nobody said it was! The theory is that single cells are intelligent, and so they must have the equivalent of a brain, which enables them to process information, pass it on to other cells through communication, take decisions, and give instructions. You have accepted the autonomous intelligence of single cells in the form of bacteria, but for some reason you think that when single cells form communities (i.e. pool their intelligence), they are helpless unless your God gives them instructions to be nice to us or to murder us.

Cells in multicellular organisms cooperate in ways that add up to the organism's total functionality. The cells are complete only when working with each other.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I am not confused about God. His nature, purpose and methods are quite clear to me. And yes He uses a confusing evolutionary method to produce us.

dhw: His purpose and method are quite clear to you, although you can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. As for his nature, he apparently has thought patterns and emotions like ours but is not human in any way, may want to be worshipped but is selfless, and is all-powerful and all-knowing but inefficient and incompetent.

DAVID: You have no training in how to think about God as I do. It limits me.

dhw: The fact that apparently your “training” limits you to prejudgements, (you start with the form of God you wish to believe in), which you admit are your own and are far from “mainstream” theology, is hardly a recommendation. The endless contradictions, and your confessions that you yourself can’t find any logic in your theories, ought to suggest to you that these may be wrong, and perhaps it’s time you opened your mind to other possible views that are not so limited as yours.

I have to follow Adler's instructions.

Hunter gatherers in Malta

QUOTE: The implication, Scerri says, is that hunter-gatherers were “seafaring all over the place'”.

DAVID: we were amazingly clever back then.

dhw: And this ties in with the theory that early brains would have expanded and complexified in a continuous process, and sapiens brain cells would all have been in use early on in that process, rather than your God conducting operation after operation as he looked into his crystal ball to see what his hominins and hominids might want to do next.

Evolving a bipedal birth canal

DAVID: how female pelvic size adjusted to increasing fetal head size is amazing and suggests a designer at work.

dhw: You don’t need me to tell you that the poor design of the female pelvis is one of the arguments used by atheists! The demands made by bipedalism and by the increased size of the fetal head are regarded as reasons why human childbirth is such a difficult and dangerous process, whereas most other animals manage far more easily. Another example of your God’s inefficiency and incompetence, which you are always so keen to stress? Or perhaps the problem has proved too difficult for the limited intelligence of the respective cell communities to solve?

Obstitritians help.

Post reply

11 views

A new discovery about the evolution of bacteria:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/04/250403143647.htm

"Scientists have helped to construct a detailed timeline for bacterial evolution, suggesting some bacteria used oxygen long before evolving the ability to produce it through photosynthesis.

***

"'The key innovation was using the GOE as a time boundary, assuming that most aerobic branches of bacteria are unlikely to be older than this event unless fossil or genetic signals suggested otherwise."

"The team first estimated which genes were present in ancestral genomes. They then used machine learning to predict whether or not each ancestor used oxygen to live.

"To best utilise fossil records, the researchers included genes from mitochondria (related to alphaproteobacteria) and chloroplasts (related to cyanobacteria), which allowed them to use data from early complex cells to better estimate when events happened.

"'Results show that at least 3 aerobic lineages appeared before the GOE -- by nearly 900 million years -- suggesting that a capacity for using oxygen evolved well before its widespread accumulation in the atmosphere," Professor Hugenholtz said.

"'Evidence suggests that the earliest aerobic transition occurred around 3.2 billion years ago in the cyanobacterial ancestor, which points to the possibility that aerobic metabolism occurred before the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis.'"

Comment: Another example of preparatory developments in preparation for a future use, in this case oxygen. Like feathers on dinosaurs, dhw will invent a just-so Darwinian tale to explain it.

Post reply

122 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Evil has nothing to do with God's incompetence. How did you conclude that? God is not incompetent. Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will.

dhw: After your initial solution (ignore the evil and only think about the good), you declared that evil was a by-product or side-effect of God’s good works, and you defined these terms as “the unintended result of any action.” If your God produced something he had not intended to produce, I would suggest that is a sign of incompetence, which goes hand in hand with your belief in an inefficient designer (see your illogical theory of evolution). However, you have now explicitly supported the theory that your God created a free-for-all. Thank you. Another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb.

Under this present discussion I accept your desired free-for-all as a major part of dog-eat-dog fight for food for all forms. But contrarily I don't see a struggle for survival producing such items as our magnificent brain.

Evolution

DAVID: I obviously have no answer as to why God used evolution to evolve us. I am convinced we ere His purpose.

DAVID: Ridicule of God is your invention. That He uses cumbersome evolution is His choice to achieve Human intelligence actually shows that it works.

dhw: I have never heard anyone use the terms “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” as a compliment, just as I have never heard of a bad, unintended result being regarded as a sign of competence. These are terms of your invention, not mine. However, you have now accepted the free-for-all theory in the context of theodicy, so perhaps you will also accept it as a possible and logical explanation for the 99.9% of species that had no connection with the purpose you have imposed on your God.

Let's not go back to fighting over the 99.9% extinction rate which produced us.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: At all times you think cells can think. Nonsense.

dhw: What do you mean by “at all times”? Most of the time, cellular behaviour is automatic – it has to be if organs and organisms are to remain stable. I keep telling you when intelligence is needed: e.g. if there are new problems, requirements, conditions. Then cells must process the new information, communicate, make decisions, and issue instructions. But even then, there are cells whose function is simply to obey those instructions. When your intelligent self instructs your arm and hands and fingers to pick up a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, the arm and hands and fingers will automatically obey.

Yes, the body obeys the brain. And cells obey adaptive instructions in DNA

Fish use tools

QUOTE: "Scientists have debunked the belief that using tools is unique to mammals and birds,….

dhw: One of these days, perhaps some people will also realize that long ago, some scientists debunked the belief that micro-organisms right down to single cells cannot be intelligent. All that is needed is to rid oneself of what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: Fish have brains, therefore they think.

dhw: Bacteria have no brains, but you agree that they can also think. So why not other single cells and cell communities?

The key is 'free-living'. Bacteria must use many automatic reactions to challenges. 'Multicellular-living' means all the cells cooperate with each other automatically.

Post reply

155 views

Theodicy

DAVID: Evil has nothing to do with God's incompetence. How did you conclude that? God is not incompetent. Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will.

dhw: After your initial solution (ignore the evil and only think about the good), you declared that evil was a by-product or side-effect of God’s good works, and you defined these terms as “the unintended result of any action.” If your God produced something he had not intended to produce, I would suggest that is a sign of incompetence, which goes hand in hand with your belief in an inefficient designer (see your illogical theory of evolution). However, you have now explicitly supported the theory that your God created a free-for-all. Thank you. Another red-letter day for the AgnosticWeb.

DAVID: Under this present discussion I accept your desired free-for-all as a major part of dog-eat-dog fight for food for all forms.

This present discussion is about theodicy, and you have agreed that evil as an “unintended by-product” would show your God to be incompetent, whereas a deliberately created free-for-all exonerates him from blame.

DAVID: But contrarily I don't see a struggle for survival producing such items as our magnificent brain.

You don’t see that the invention of tools, the adaptation to different climates and other environmental conditions, the exploitation of new discoveries (e.g. fire) all represented improvements to our chances of survival and all required new work from the brain either through complexification or, in earlier stages of our history, expansion. It’s only in more modern times that our magnificent brain has been used for purposes other than survival.

Evolution

DAVID: Ridicule of God is your invention. That He uses cumbersome evolution is His choice to achieve Human intelligence actually shows that it works.

dhw: I have never heard anyone use the terms “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” as a compliment, just as I have never heard of a bad, unintended result being regarded as a sign of competence. These are terms of your invention, not mine. However, you have now accepted the free-for-all theory in the context of theodicy, so perhaps you will also accept it as a possible and logical explanation for the 99.9% of species that had no connection with the purpose you have imposed on your God.

DAVID: Let's not go back to fighting over the 99.9% extinction rate which produced us.

Please stop this obfuscation. We were not produced by the extinction rate but, as you have explicitly agreed, by the 0.1% of survivors. You also admit that you have no idea why your God would have designed and had to cull the other 99.9%. But you refuse to believe that he might not be messy and inefficient and instead, as you have accepted under "theodicy", might have created precisely what he wanted: namely, a free-for-all. (NB the free-for-all is only one of my alternative theistic theories, but it would be the only possibility for an atheist.)

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: At all times you think cells can think. Nonsense.

dhw: What do you mean by “at all times”? Most of the time, cellular behaviour is automatic – it has to be if organs and organisms are to remain stable. I keep telling you when intelligence is needed: e.g. if there are new problems, requirements, conditions. Then cells must process the new information, communicate, make decisions, and issue instructions. But even then, there are cells whose function is simply to obey those instructions. When your intelligent self instructs your arm and hands and fingers to pick up a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, the arm and hands and fingers will automatically obey.

DAVID: Yes, the body obeys the brain. And cells obey adaptive instructions in DNA.

I have explained why your statement that “at all times you think cells can think” is a complete distortion of what I think. Now you simply revert to your belief that although you agreed a couple of days ago that cells autonomously process information, communicate, make decisions and issue instructions, this means they do not autonomously process information etc. etc.

Fish use tools

DAVID: Fish have brains, therefore they think.

dhw: Bacteria have no brains, but you agree that they can also think. So why not other single cells and cell communities?

DAVID: The key is 'free-living'. Bacteria must use many automatic reactions to challenges.

Under “theodicy” you agree that bacteria have autonomous free will to choose what is best for their survival, and here you claim that they react automatically. You can’t stop contradicting yourself, even within the same post.

DAVID: 'Multicellular-living' means all the cells cooperate with each other automatically.

1)You have agreed that bacteria act autonomously, not automatically. (They have free will.) 2) The fact that they cooperate and other cells cooperate does not mean there is no autonomous processing of information, communication, decision-making and issue of instructions from the thinkers to the doers. You seem to believe that by inserting the word "automatically", you can eliminate all the autonomous thinking processes that precede every new action.

Post reply

156 views

Theodicy

dhw: This present discussion is about theodicy, and you have agreed that evil as an “unintended by-product” would show your God to be incompetent, whereas a deliberately created free-for-all exonerates him from blame.

DAVID: But contrarily I don't see a struggle for survival producing such items as our magnificent brain.

dhw: You don’t see that the invention of tools, the adaptation to different climates and other environmental conditions, the exploitation of new discoveries (e.g. fire) all represented improvements to our chances of survival and all required new work from the brain either through complexification or, in earlier stages of our history, expansion. It’s only in more modern times that our magnificent brain has been used for purposes other than survival.

And that brain was given to us in anticipation of its current uses.

Evolution

DAVID: Let's not go back to fighting over the 99.9% extinction rate which produced us.

dhw: Please stop this obfuscation. We were not produced by the extinction rate but, as you have explicitly agreed, by the 0.1% of survivors. You also admit that you have no idea why your God would have designed and had to cull the other 99.9%. But you refuse to believe that he might not be messy and inefficient and instead, as you have accepted under "theodicy", might have created precisely what he wanted: namely, a free-for-all. (NB the free-for-all is only one of my alternative theistic theories, but it would be the only possibility for an atheist.)

You cannot deny the 99% extinct produced us, the 0.1% survivors.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: I have explained why your statement that “at all times you think cells can think” is a complete distortion of what I think. Now you simply revert to your belief that although you agreed a couple of days ago that cells autonomously process information, communicate, make decisions and issue instructions, this means they do not autonomously process information etc. etc.

Cells respond automatically, thought not involved.

Fish use tools

DAVID: Fish have brains, therefore they think.

dhw: Bacteria have no brains, but you agree that they can also think. So why not other single cells and cell communities?

DAVID: The key is 'free-living'. Bacteria must use many automatic reactions to challenges.

dhw: Under “theodicy” you agree that bacteria have autonomous free will to choose what is best for their survival, and here you claim that they react automatically. You can’t stop contradicting yourself, even within the same post.

DAVID: 'Multicellular-living' means all the cells cooperate with each other automatically.

dhw: 1)You have agreed that bacteria act autonomously, not automatically. (They have free will.) 2) The fact that they cooperate and other cells cooperate does not mean there is no autonomous processing of information, communication, decision-making and issue of instructions from the thinkers to the doers. You seem to believe that by inserting the word "automatically", you can eliminate all the autonomous thinking processes that precede every new action.

Yes, bacteria edit DNA in limited ways. They don't modify into new species.

Post reply

154 views

Theodicy

dhw: This present discussion is about theodicy, and you have agreed that evil as an “unintended by-product” would show your God to be incompetent, whereas a deliberately created free-for-all exonerates him from blame.

DAVID: But contrarily I don't see a struggle for survival producing such items as our magnificent brain.

dhw: You don’t see that the invention of tools, the adaptation to different climates and other environmental conditions, the exploitation of new discoveries (e.g. fire) all represented improvements to our chances of survival and all required new work from the brain either through complexification or, in earlier stages of our history, expansion. It’s only in more modern times that our magnificent brain has been used for purposes other than survival.

DAVID: And that brain was given to us in anticipation of its current uses.

This is a new tactic. Our subject is theodicy. Your latest theory was that evil was the unintended by-product of God’s works, which means God didn’t mean to create what he did create and therefore, in your own words, is incompetent. However, you then explicitly accepted the theory that “evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will” as bacteria and humans find their own means of survival. However, you couldn’t see how our brains could be developed by the struggle for survival, and so I told you. This has nothing to do with your belief that our brains were preparation for events that would take place thousands of years after they reached their present size. When will you stop dodging? You have explicitly accepted the theory that evil is the result of your God creating a free-for-all. (See “the human brain” on the other thread for your theory of “anticipation”.)

Evolution

DAVID: You cannot deny the 99% extinct produced us, the 0.1% survivors.

Of course I deny it, and so did you. How many more times must I repeat the quote?

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Example: 396 species of dinosaur left no descendants. The only survivors were the four species that evolved into modern birds. How does that come to mean that we and our food are descended from the 396 species that left no descendants?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Cells respond automatically, thought not involved.

Your idea of discussion appears to be simple repetition of your subjective belief, ignoring your own agreement with arguments that run counter to that belief. This “schizophrenic” (your word) approach to discussion – glaringly obviously already from these first three sections - does you no credit. But you seem to take pride in acknowledging your prejudiced approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” This applies to many of your theories, no matter how illogical and insulting to your God they may be.

Fish use tools

DAVID: 'Multicellular-living' means all the cells cooperate with each other automatically.

dhw: 1)You have agreed that bacteria act autonomously, not automatically. (They have free will.) 2) The fact that they cooperate and other cells cooperate does not mean there is no autonomous processing of information, communication, decision-making and issue of instructions from the thinkers to the doers. You seem to believe that by inserting the word "automatically", you can eliminate all the autonomous thinking processes that precede every new action.

DAVID: Yes, bacteria edit DNA in limited ways. They don't modify into new species.

Innovation demands a different level of intelligence, but an organism which can outwit humans as it finds ways of countering our attempts to kill it must have a form of autonomous intelligence, as you have acknowledged under “theodicy”. After all, your form of God would hardly have given it instructions to murder us, would he?

Post reply

144 views

Theodicy

DAVID: And that brain was given to us in anticipation of its current uses.

dhw: This is a new tactic. Our subject is theodicy. Your latest theory was that evil was the unintended by-product of God’s works, which means God didn’t mean to create what he did create and therefore, in your own words, is incompetent. However, you then explicitly accepted the theory that “evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will” as bacteria and humans find their own means of survival. However, you couldn’t see how our brains could be developed by the struggle for survival, and so I told you. This has nothing to do with your belief that our brains were preparation for events that would take place thousands of years after they reached their present size. When will you stop dodging? You have explicitly accepted the theory that evil is the result of your God creating a free-for-all. (See “the human brain” on the other thread for your theory of “anticipation”.)

I fully accept that evil is a by-product of God's works. I equate free-for-all as another term for dog-eat-dog. Our big brain from 315,000 years ago is evidence of God's designing powers anticipating in advance all future needs.

Evolution

DAVID: You cannot deny the 99% extinct produced us, the 0.1% survivors.

Of course I deny it, and so did you. How many more times must I repeat the quote?

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Example: 396 species of dinosaur left no descendants. The only survivors were the four species that evolved into modern birds. How does that come to mean that we and our food are descended from the 396 species that left no descendants?

Your usual slice and dice. Evolution is a continuum. The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: I have explained why your statement that “at all times you think cells can think” is a complete distortion of what I think. Now you simply revert to your belief that although you agreed a couple of days ago that cells autonomously process information, communicate, make decisions and issue instructions, this means they do not autonomously process information etc. etc.

DAVID: Cells respond automatically, thought not involved.

dhw: Your idea of discussion appears to be simple repetition of your subjective belief, ignoring your own agreement with arguments that run counter to that belief. This “schizophrenic” (your word) approach to discussion – glaringly obviously already from these first three sections - does you no credit. But you seem to take pride in acknowledging your prejudiced approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” This applies to many of your theories, no matter how illogical and insulting to your God they may be.

See today's entry on bacterial action with ameba's at a molecular level, no thought involved.

Fish use tools

DAVID: 'Multicellular-living' means all the cells cooperate with each other automatically.

dhw: 1)You have agreed that bacteria act autonomously, not automatically. (They have free will.) 2) The fact that they cooperate and other cells cooperate does not mean there is no autonomous processing of information, communication, decision-making and issue of instructions from the thinkers to the doers. You seem to believe that by inserting the word "automatically", you can eliminate all the autonomous thinking processes that precede every new action.

DAVID: Yes, bacteria edit DNA in limited ways. They don't modify into new species.

dhw: Innovation demands a different level of intelligence, but an organism which can outwit humans as it finds ways of countering our attempts to kill it must have a form of autonomous intelligence, as you have acknowledged under “theodicy”. After all, your form of God would hardly have given it instructions to murder us, would he?

I doubt it.

Post reply

141 views

dhw: Example: 396 species of dinosaur left no descendants. The only survivors were the four species that evolved into modern birds. How does that come to mean that we and our food are descended from the 396 species that left no descendants?

dhw: Your usual slice and dice. Evolution is a continuum. The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving.

Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating.

Post reply

139 views

Theodicy

DAVID: I fully accept that evil is a by-product of God's works. I equate free-for-all as another term for dog-eat-dog.

You defined by-product as “the unintended result of any action”, which makes your God into the creator of evil through sheer incompetence. You then did a complete about-turn and wrote: “Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will”, which you agreed applied to bacteria as well as to humans. You are now “accepting” the incompetent version you rejected, and rejecting the free-for-all you accepted. Please stop it. I have no objection to “dog-eat-dog”, which sums up every organism’s struggle for survival, regardless of whether what they do is good or bad in our eyes. The free-for-all theory means that your God did not create what we humans regard as evil, and is not the incompetent blunderer you have once again turned him into. Please stop changing your mind and contradicting yourself.

Evolution

DAVID: You cannot deny the 99% extinct produced us, the 0.1% survivors.

dhw: Of course I deny it, and so did you. How many more times must I repeat the quote?

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Example: 396 species of dinosaur left no descendants. The only survivors were the four species that evolved into modern birds. How does that come to mean that we and our food are descended from the 396 species that left no descendants?

[Correction: I got the figures wrong – I think it should read 696 species – maybe even more. I don’t have time to do the research again, but it makes no difference. The vast majority of dinosaurs died without leaving descendants.]

DAVID: Your usual slice and dice. Evolution is a continuum. The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving.

Yet again: The continuum is provided by the 0.1% that survive. Species which go extinct without any descendants do not produce descendants, and dead ends do not create a continuum!

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

QUOTES from “Origin of life: increasing complexity”:

"Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available."

So why do you assume that feathers evolved for no purpose before they were used for flight? The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage.

DAVID: many such events occur in evolution, A designer explains all of this. An extraordinary article I had to eviscerate. The whole piece is amazing.

Thank you for eviscerating it. No thanks for distorting its message.

QUOTES: biology is just one example of evolution. “There is a more universal description that drives the evolution of complex systems.”

“the increase in functional information was not always gradual. Sometimes it would happen in sudden jumps.” (David’s bold)

Ricard Solé of the Santa Fe Institute thinks such jumps might be equivalent to phase transitions in physics, such as the freezing of water or the magnetization of iron: They are collective processes with universal features, and they mean that everything changes, everywhere, all at once. In other words, in this view there’s a kind of physics of evolution — and it’s a kind of physics we know about already.

FINAL QUOTE: "[…] does this mean that life itself, and perhaps consciousness and higher intelligence, is inevitable in the universe? That would run counter to what some biologists have thought. The eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr believed that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence was doomed because the appearance of humanlike intelligence is “utterly improbable.” After all, he said, if intelligence at a level that leads to cultures and civilizations were so adaptively useful in Darwinian evolution, how come it only arose once across the entire tree of life? (David’s bold)

The main thrust is that the researchers see biological evolution as just one example of natural complexification in other spheres. It is the reviewer who adds the final, sceptical quote, and I must confess I find the analogy between freezing water/magnetized iron and the evolution of life extremely far-fetched. As I see it, the new theory does not in any way support the concept of divine design, but at the same time it seems to me to completely ignore the unique complexity of life and the astonishing, unsolved mysteries of its origin and evolution. I like the reviewer’s attempt to restore the balance.

Post reply

133 views

Theodicy

DAVID: I fully accept that evil is a by-product of God's works. I equate free-for-all as another term for dog-eat-dog.

dhw: You defined by-product as “the unintended result of any action”, which makes your God into the creator of evil through sheer incompetence. You then did a complete about-turn and wrote: “Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will”, which you agreed applied to bacteria as well as to humans. You are now “accepting” the incompetent version you rejected, and rejecting the free-for-all you accepted. Please stop it.

God's gift of free will and freedom of action both allowed evil to appear. God cannot control evil people and bacteria should not be restricted in freedom of action. Pure byproducts of good works. This does not make God incompetent.

dhw: I have no objection to “dog-eat-dog”, which sums up every organism’s struggle for survival, regardless of whether what they do is good or bad in our eyes. The free-for-all theory means that your God did not create what we humans regard as evil, and is not the incompetent blunderer you have once again turned him into. Please stop changing your mind and contradicting yourself.

Please redefine free-for-all in your terms. I'm lost in your current comment.

Evolution

DAVID: Your usual slice and dice. Evolution is a continuum. The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Yet again: The continuum is provided by the 0.1% that survive. Species which go extinct without any descendants do not produce descendants, and dead ends do not create a continuum!

I'm looking at overall statistics, not any single examples.

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

QUOTES from “Origin of life: increasing complexity”:

"Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available."

dhw: So why do you assume that feathers evolved for no purpose before they were used for flight? The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage.

All pure Darwinian guesswork. Feathers came and birds appeared is the evidence we have.

DAVID: many such events occur in evolution, A designer explains all of this. An extraordinary article I had to eviscerate. The whole piece is amazing.

dhw: Thank you for eviscerating it. No thanks for distorting its message.

QUOTES: biology is just one example of evolution. “There is a more universal description that drives the evolution of complex systems.”

“the increase in functional information was not always gradual. Sometimes it would happen in sudden jumps.” (David’s bold)

Ricard Solé of the Santa Fe Institute thinks such jumps might be equivalent to phase transitions in physics, such as the freezing of water or the magnetization of iron: They are collective processes with universal features, and they mean that everything changes, everywhere, all at once. In other words, in this view there’s a kind of physics of evolution — and it’s a kind of physics we know about already.

FINAL QUOTE: "[…] does this mean that life itself, and perhaps consciousness and higher intelligence, is inevitable in the universe? That would run counter to what some biologists have thought. The eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr believed that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence was doomed because the appearance of humanlike intelligence is “utterly improbable.” After all, he said, if intelligence at a level that leads to cultures and civilizations were so adaptively useful in Darwinian evolution, how come it only arose once across the entire tree of life? (David’s bold)

dhw: The main thrust is that the researchers see biological evolution as just one example of natural complexification in other spheres. It is the reviewer who adds the final, sceptical quote, and I must confess I find the analogy between freezing water/magnetized iron and the evolution of life extremely far-fetched. As I see it, the new theory does not in any way support the concept of divine design, but at the same time it seems to me to completely ignore the unique complexity of life and the astonishing, unsolved mysteries of its origin and evolution. I like the reviewer’s attempt to restore the balance.

Much simpler with God as designer.

Post reply

130 views

Theodicy

DAVID: God's gift of free will and freedom of action both allowed evil to appear. God cannot control evil people and bacteria should not be restricted in freedom of action.

You’ve got it! If God exists, he deliberately gave them freedom of will and action to do whatever they wanted to do. He did not give them instructions.

DAVID: Pure byproducts of good works. This does not make God incompetent.

You've lost it again. You have defined “by-product” as the unintended result of any action. If he unintentionally created evil, he did not deliberately give us and bacteria the freedom of will and action to do what we and they want to do. And you think that if your God unintentionally causes the deaths of millions of people, that is a sign of his competence. But your sef-contradiction gets even worse. From Part 2:

dhw: “an organism which can outwit humans as it finds ways of countering our attempts to kill it must have a form of autonomous intelligence, as you have acknowledged under “theodicy”. After all, your form of God would hardly have given it instructions to murder us, would he?

DAVID: I doubt it.

dhw: And the more you doubt it, the more obvious it should be to you that bacteria have the autonomous intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.

DAVID: I think bacteria edit DNA by instructions.

You think your God deliberately gave them free will and freedom of action, but unintentionally gave them free will and free action, but then in fact gave them instructions on how to murder us. (They edit their DNA so that they can counter our efforts to stop them killing us.)

DAVID: Please redefine free-for-all in your terms.

A free-for-all means that everyone is free to do exactly what they want to do - what you have called freedom of will and action: i.e. autonomy. Humans and bacteria are able autonomously to act as they wish to act. Autonomously means without any input from outside themselves, which is the exact opposite of acting under instructions.

Evolution

DAVID: Evolution is a continuum. The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Yet again: The continuum is provided by the 0.1% that survive. Species which go extinct without any descendants do not produce descendants, and dead ends do not create a continuum!

DAVID: I'm looking at overall statistics, not any single examples.

Why do you ignore examples which show the absurdity of your statements? Please tell me what overall statistics prove that if a species has no descendants, it produces descendants. Only a species that survives can produce descendants. You didn’t even need examples to agree. I asked you “Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?” And you replied: “No. From the 0.1% surviving.”

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

Under “Origin of life: increasing complexity”:

QUOTE: "Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available."

dhw: [..]The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage.

DAVID: All pure Darwinian guesswork. Feathers came and birds appeared is the evidence we have.

Feathers came before birds appeared. What evidence have you that they were NOT used? You pretended later that the article showed some kind of foresight on the part of evolution. It doesn’t. Feathers were your very poor example.

dhw: The main thrust is that the researchers see biological evolution as just one example of natural complexification in other spheres. It is the reviewer who adds the final, sceptical quote, and I must confess I find the analogy between freezing water/magnetized iron and the evolution of life extremely far-fetched. As I see it, the new theory does not in any way support the concept of divine design, but at the same time it seems to me to completely ignore the unique complexity of life and the astonishing, unsolved mysteries of its origin and evolution. I like the reviewer’s attempt to restore the balance.

DAVID: Much simpler with God as designer.

Another of your own oversimplifications. Why is it simpler to believe in a sourceless, eternal super-mind (and especially your inefficient, incompetent version) than in an eternal mixture of matter and energy producing an infinite number of possible combinations which eventually hit upon the right one to start the free-for-all? If you want simplicity, you might as well join me in saying "we don't know"!

Post reply

122 views

Theodicy

DAVID: God's gift of free will and freedom of action both allowed evil to appear. God cannot control evil people and bacteria should not be restricted in freedom of action.

dhw: You’ve got it! If God exists, he deliberately gave them freedom of will and action to do whatever they wanted to do. He did not give them instructions.

Your comment applies to humans. Bacteria modify their DNA to a slight degree, but generally follow instructions

DAVID: Pure byproducts of good works. This does not make God incompetent.

dhw: You've lost it again. You have defined “by-product” as the unintended result of any action. If he unintentionally created evil, he did not deliberately give us and bacteria the freedom of will and action to do what we and they want to do. And you think that if your God unintentionally causes the deaths of millions of people, that is a sign of his competence. But your self-contradiction gets even worse. From Part 2:

All backward again. We have free will and bacteria have some freedom of action, all of which produces evil.

dhw: “an organism which can outwit humans as it finds ways of countering our attempts to kill it must have a form of autonomous intelligence, as you have acknowledged under “theodicy”. After all, your form of God would hardly have given it instructions to murder us, would he?

DAVID: I doubt it.

dhw: And the more you doubt it, the more obvious it should be to you that bacteria have the autonomous intelligence to work out their own ways of survival.

DAVID: I think bacteria edit DNA by instructions.

dhw: You think your God deliberately gave them free will and freedom of action, but unintentionally gave them free will and free action, but then in fact gave them instructions on how to murder us. (They edit their DNA so that they can counter our efforts to stop them killing us.)

DAVID: Please redefine free-for-all in your terms.

dhw: A free-for-all means that everyone is free to do exactly what they want to do - what you have called freedom of will and action: i.e. autonomy. Humans and bacteria are able autonomously to act as they wish to act. Autonomously means without any input from outside themselves, which is the exact opposite of acting under instructions.

I still think bacteria follow instructions in surviving.

Evolution

I'm not discussing evolution at the nitty-gritty level you use. Of course species die out. I use an outside view of the whole process as Raup did.

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

Under “Origin of life: increasing complexity”:

QUOTE: "Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available."

dhw: [..]The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage.

DAVID: All pure Darwinian guesswork. Feathers came and birds appeared is the evidence we have.

dhw: Feathers came before birds appeared. What evidence have you that they were NOT used? You pretended later that the article showed some kind of foresight on the part of evolution. It doesn’t. Feathers were your very poor example.

Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

dhw: The main thrust is that the researchers see biological evolution as just one example of natural complexification in other spheres. It is the reviewer who adds the final, sceptical quote, and I must confess I find the analogy between freezing water/magnetized iron and the evolution of life extremely far-fetched. As I see it, the new theory does not in any way support the concept of divine design, but at the same time it seems to me to completely ignore the unique complexity of life and the astonishing, unsolved mysteries of its origin and evolution. I like the reviewer’s attempt to restore the balance.

DAVID: Much simpler with God as designer.

dhw: Another of your own oversimplifications. Why is it simpler to believe in a sourceless, eternal super-mind (and especially your inefficient, incompetent version) than in an eternal mixture of matter and energy producing an infinite number of possible combinations which eventually hit upon the right one to start the free-for-all? If you want simplicity, you might as well join me in saying "we don't know"!

Yes, we don't have any proofs.

Post reply

123 views

Theodicy

DAVID: God's gift of free will and freedom of action both allowed evil to appear. God cannot control evil people and bacteria should not be restricted in freedom of action.

dhw: You’ve got it! If God exists, he deliberately gave them freedom of will and action to do whatever they wanted to do. He did not give them instructions.

DAVID: Your comment applies to humans. Bacteria modify their DNA to a slight degree, but generally follow instructions.

Here are some of your other comments: 1) “Humans and bacteria create evil.” 2) “Evil is the result, as you state, of freedom of action or free will.” 3) dhw: Your God would hardly have given it [the bacterium] instructions to murder us, would he? DAVID: I doubt it.

So make up your mind: did God give bacteria the freedom of action or free will to murder us, or do they act under his instructions?

DAVID: Pure byproducts of good works. This does not make God incompetent.

dhw: You have defined “by-product” as the unintended result of any action. If he unintentionally created evil, he did not deliberately give us and bacteria the freedom of will and action to do what we and they want to do.

DAVID:[…]. We have free will and bacteria have some freedom of action, all of which produces evil.

You have ignored the fact that your “by-product” argument blames your God for his incompetence in producing something he never intended to produce.

DAVID: I still think bacteria follow instructions in surviving.

Bacteria can survive by being nice to us or by murdering us. You believe your God didn’t want bacteria to be “restricted in freedom of action”, and so he deliberately gave them freedom of will and action to survive by being nice to us or by murdering us. But he didn’t, because their freedom was the result of his incompetence (unintended by-product). Except that they aren’t free because they follow his instructions when they survive by being nice to us or by murdering us. I defy anyone to make sense of this.

Evolution

DAVID: I'm not discussing evolution at the nitty-gritty level you use. Of course species die out. I use an outside view of the whole process as Raup did.

Raup gave us the figures of 99.9% extinction and 0.1% survival. You interpret that as meaning we are descended from every single creature that ever lived, including the 99.9% that produced no descendants. How can creatures that produced no descendants have produced us? You agree that they couldn’t, but you still insist that “the 99% extinct produced us”. Please stop it.

Designing for the future

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

QUOTE: "Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available." (dhw’s bold)

dhw: [..] The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. [Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage].

DAVID: Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

Of course they did, but that doesn’t mean they served no purpose before flight! The whole evolutionary process depends on “new uses of existing components”. Do you believe that the legs of prewhales were only designed so that they could change into flippers?

QUOTE: "Scientists have helped to construct a detailed timeline for bacterial evolution, suggesting some bacteria used oxygen long before evolving the ability to produce it through photosynthesis."

DAVID: Another example of preparatory developments in preparation for a future use, in this case oxygen. Like feathers on dinosaurs, dhw will invent a just-so Darwinian tale to explain it.

The just-so story is entirely yours. Future uses depend on future conditions. If your God exists, the only preparation for the future would appear to be an autonomous mechanism that enables cells (including bacteria) to cope with or exploit whatever conditions may exist in the future. Do you really believe that dinosaur feathers evolved or were specially designed just to hang around doing nothing until there was flight, and that early bacteria used oxygen for no purpose?

New theory of natural complexification

dhw: […] As I see it, the new theory does not in any way support the concept of divine design, but at the same time it seems to me to completely ignore the unique complexity of life and the astonishing, unsolved mysteries of its origin and evolution. […]

DAVID: Much simpler with God as designer.

dhw: Another of your own oversimplifications. Why is it simpler to believe in a sourceless, eternal super-mind (and especially your inefficient, incompetent version) than in an eternal mixture of matter and energy producing an infinite number of possible combinations which eventually hit upon the right one to start the free-for-all? If you want simplicity, you might as well join me in saying "we don't know"!

DAVID: Yes, we don't have any proofs.

Not a bad reason for remaining agnostic.

Post reply

115 views

Theodicy

dhw: So make up your mind: did God give bacteria the freedom of action or free will to murder us, or do they act under his instructions?

No simple answer. They generally follow God's rules of cellular activity but have freedom of action. There is no problem unless they end up in the wrong place, such as a human body.

dhw: You have ignored the fact that your “by-product” argument blames your God for his incompetence in producing something he never intended to produce.

I'm sure God knew exactly what He was producing. Tremendous good, a little evil.

DAVID: I still think bacteria follow instructions in surviving.

dhw: Bacteria can survive by being nice to us or by murdering us. You believe your God didn’t want bacteria to be “restricted in freedom of action”, and so he deliberately gave them freedom of will and action to survive by being nice to us or by murdering us. But he didn’t, because their freedom was the result of his incompetence (unintended by-product). Except that they aren’t free because they follow his instructions when they survive by being nice to us or by murdering us. I defy anyone to make sense of this.

The problem is when bacteria get into the wrong place. You ignore all the good they do.

Evolution

DAVID: I'm not discussing evolution at the nitty-gritty level you use. Of course species die out. I use an outside view of the whole process as Raup did.

dhw: Raup gave us the figures of 99.9% extinction and 0.1% survival. You interpret that as meaning we are descended from every single creature that ever lived, including the 99.9% that produced no descendants. How can creatures that produced no descendants have produced us? You agree that they couldn’t, but you still insist that “the 99% extinct produced us”. Please stop it.

I do not contend that at all. I say as Raup does, 99.9% went extinct to produce 0.1% surviving.

Designing for the future

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

QUOTE: "Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available." (dhw’s bold)

dhw: [..] The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. [Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage].

DAVID: Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

dhw: Of course they did, but that doesn’t mean they served no purpose before flight! The whole evolutionary process depends on “new uses of existing components”. Do you believe that the legs of prewhales were only designed so that they could change into flippers?

QUOTE: "Scientists have helped to construct a detailed timeline for bacterial evolution, suggesting some bacteria used oxygen long before evolving the ability to produce it through photosynthesis."

DAVID: Another example of preparatory developments in preparation for a future use, in this case oxygen. Like feathers on dinosaurs, dhw will invent a just-so Darwinian tale to explain it.

dhw: The just-so story is entirely yours. Future uses depend on future conditions. If your God exists, the only preparation for the future would appear to be an autonomous mechanism that enables cells (including bacteria) to cope with or exploit whatever conditions may exist in the future. Do you really believe that dinosaur feathers evolved or were specially designed just to hang around doing nothing until there was flight, and that early bacteria used oxygen for no purpose?

Early bacteria used oxygen in their metabolism, fully purposeful. You don't see God as an all-controlling designer of environment and living forms as I do. He developed feathers in anticipation of flight.

Post reply

102 views

Theodicy

dhw: So make up your mind: did God give bacteria the freedom of action or free will to murder us, or do they act under his instructions?

DAVID: No simple answer. They generally follow God's rules of cellular activity but have freedom of action. There is no problem unless they end up in the wrong place, such as a human body.
And:
DAVID: The problem is when bacteria get into the wrong place. You ignore all the good they do.

I don’t know what rules you are referring to. I have suggested and you have agreed that your God gave humans and bacteria freedom of will and action. This would also explain the dog-eat-dog history of living forms in general. There is no wrong or right place. Billions of bacteria are in our bodies to help us (= good for us) , but others enter our bodies to kill us (= bad for us). All of their actions are directed towards their own survival, and good and evil are simply a human concept based on what is good for us. And so God’s only role was to design the mechanisms that enable us all to do our own fighting. But having accepted all of this, you reject it by reverting to your former escape route (more good than evil), your by-product theory, whereby your God was so incompetent that he unintentionally created the evil he didn’t want to create, or your insistence that although bacteria have freedom of will and action, they do not have freedom of will and action because they only obey your God’s instructions, although he would never have instructed them to kill us humans! Total confusion.

Evolution

DAVID: I'm not discussing evolution at the nitty-gritty level you use. Of course species die out. I use an outside view of the whole process as Raup did.

dhw: Raup gave us the figures of 99.9% extinction and 0.1% survival. You interpret that as meaning we are descended from every single creature that ever lived, including the 99.9% that produced no descendants. How can creatures that produced no descendants have produced us? You agree that they couldn’t, but you still insist that “the 99% extinct produced us”. Please stop it.

DAVID: I do not contend that at all. I say as Raup does, 99.9% went extinct to produce 0.1% surviving.

“The 99% extinct produced us” is a quotation from one of your posts, and you keep repeating it. Please stop blaming Raup. YOU have agreed that we and our food are descended from 0.1% of survivors, and not the other 99% which produced no descendants. However, this obvious truth is the reason why you ridicule your God for his inefficiency, because you insist that he had to design and cull 99 out of 100 species in order to create the only species he wanted to create. You absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that he created what he wanted to create, as illustrated by the three alternative theistic explanations I have offered you.

Designing for the future

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

QUOTE: "Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available." (dhw’s bold)

dhw: [..] The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. [Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage].

DAVID: Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

dhw: Of course they did, but that doesn’t mean they served no purpose before flight! The whole evolutionary process depends on “new uses of existing components”. Do you believe that the legs of prewhales were only designed so that they could change into flippers?

No answer.

dhw: Do you really believe that dinosaur feathers evolved or were specially designed just to hang around doing nothing until there was flight, and that early bacteria used oxygen for no purpose?

DAVID: Early bacteria used oxygen in their metabolism, fully purposeful.

Thank you.

DAVID: He developed feathers in anticipation of flight.

I'll go along with the article which you thought supported you but doesn't. Repurposing - not crystal-ball gazing,

DAVID: You don't see God as an all-controlling designer of environment and living forms as I do.

Firstly, if your God gave living forms freedom of will and action, he does not control them - hence the dog-eat-dog history resulting from this gift. Secondly, yet again,if your God’s sole purpose was us plus food (which he could have created “de novo”), why would he have deliberately designed and culled 99 out of 100 of his living forms irrelevant to his purpose? You make your God ridiculously inefficient because you start out with a form of God you wish to believe in, and so the rest must follow. You cannot bear to believe that some of your wishes and self-contradictory conclusions might be wrong.

Post reply

95 views

Theodicy

DAVID: The problem is when bacteria get into the wrong place. You ignore all the good they do.

dhw: I don’t know what rules you are referring to. I have suggested and you have agreed that your God gave humans and bacteria freedom of will and action. This would also explain the dog-eat-dog history of living forms in general. There is no wrong or right place.

Bacteria making penicillin or insulin pharmaceutically are placed right.

dhw: Billions of bacteria are in our bodies to help us (= good for us) , but others enter our bodies to kill us (= bad for us). All of their actions are directed towards their own survival, and good and evil are simply a human concept based on what is good for us. And so God’s only role was to design the mechanisms that enable us all to do our own fighting. But having accepted all of this, you reject it by reverting to your former escape route (more good than evil), your by-product theory, whereby your God was so incompetent that he unintentionally created the evil he didn’t want to create

A distortion: Free will is good for humans, but evil humans produce evil. The by-product is not God's fault.

Evolution

DAVID: I'm not discussing evolution at the nitty-gritty level you use. Of course species die out. I use an outside view of the whole process as Raup did.

dhw: Raup gave us the figures of 99.9% extinction and 0.1% survival. You interpret that as meaning we are descended from every single creature that ever lived, including the 99.9% that produced no descendants. How can creatures that produced no descendants have produced us? You agree that they couldn’t, but you still insist that “the 99% extinct produced us”. Please stop it.

DAVID: I do not contend that at all. I say as Raup does, 99.9% went extinct to produce 0.1% surviving.

dhw: “The 99% extinct produced us” is a quotation from one of your posts, and you keep repeating it. Please stop blaming Raup. YOU have agreed that we and our food are descended from 0.1% of survivors, and not the other 99% which produced no descendants.

The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving!

Designing for the future

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

QUOTE: "Yet finding new uses for existing components is precisely what evolution does. Feathers did not evolve for flight, for example. This repurposing reflects how biological evolution is jerry-rigged, making use of what’s available." (dhw’s bold)

dhw: [..] The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. [Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage].

DAVID: Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

dhw: Of course they did, but that doesn’t mean they served no purpose before flight! The whole evolutionary process depends on “new uses of existing components”. Do you believe that the legs of prewhales were only designed so that they could change into flippers?

No answer.

the legs became flippers. What is your point?

DAVID: He developed feathers in anticipation of flight.

dhw: I'll go along with the article which you thought supported you but doesn't. Repurposing - not crystal-ball gazing,

It depends own your underlying mindset, no designer possible. Accept a designer and the logic is obvious.

DAVID: You don't see God as an all-controlling designer of environment and living forms as I do.

dhw: Firstly, if your God gave living forms freedom of will and action, he does not control them - hence the dog-eat-dog history resulting from this gift.

Note I said control of design of forms and environment. Their freedom of action has no role.

dhw: Secondly, yet again, if your God’s sole purpose was us plus food (which he could have created “de novo”), why would he have deliberately designed and culled 99 out of 100 of his living forms irrelevant to his purpose?

I don't know His reasoning.

Post reply

98 views

DAVID: The problem is when bacteria get into the wrong place. You ignore all the good they do.

dhw: […] I have suggested and you have agreed that your God gave humans and bacteria freedom of will and action. This would also explain the dog-eat-dog history of living forms in general. There is no wrong or right place.

DAVID: Bacteria making penicillin or insulin pharmaceutically are placed right.

You have simply ignored the point that right and wrong/good and bad are our inventions, based on what is right or wrong for us. Bacteria that kill us are in the right place for THEM, and their freedom of will and choice exonerates your God from the accusation that he created evil.

DAVID: Free will is good for humans, but evil humans produce evil. The by-product is not God's fault.

If humans have free will, they are responsible for the good and the bad that they produce. Evil is not a by-product of good! You are now accepting my theory which exonerates your God, but you are distorting it in a totally illogical manner!

DAVID: (in Part 2 under “The brain”): The secondhand concept of design has nothing to do with your defense of theodicy which I accept.

Thank you for accepting it. I will make a note of this for future reference. See below on how it impacts on your other theories.

Evolution

dhw: How can creatures that produced no descendants have produced us? You agree that they couldn’t, but you still insist that “the 99% extinct produced us”. Please stop it.

DAVID: I do not contend that at all. I say as Raup does, 99.9% went extinct to produce 0.1% surviving.

dhw: “The 99% extinct produced us” is a quotation from one of your posts, and you keep repeating it. Please stop blaming Raup. YOU have agreed that we and our food are descended from 0.1% of survivors, and not the other 99% which produced no descendants.

DAVID: The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving!

There you go again! It is the 0.1% of survivors that produced the species that are alive today, e.g. only 4 out of 700 dinosaur species survived to produce all the species of birds alive today. 696 died without leaving any descendants. Now please explain how species that leave no descendants can produce descendants.

Designing for the future

DAVID: Has it occurred to you to question the appearance of feathers on dinosaurs before any flight happened? The history of life is filled with such events. See the new entry I'm creating:

dhw: [..] The article talks of “repurposing” not of purposelessness. [Explanations range from keeping dinosaurs warm to camouflage].

DAVID: Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

DAVID: the legs became flippers. What is your point?

The feathers – like the legs – would have served a different purpose before being “repurposed” for a different use. You completely misread the article you thought supported your theory that your God produced innovations which were useless at the time but anticipated future use.

DAVID: It depends on your underlying mindset, no designer possible. Accept a designer and the logic is obvious.

There is no logic behind the invention of something useless at the time. Your feather example is trifling compared to your theory that he designed and culled 99 useless species out of 100 in order to design the only ones he wanted. The “obvious logic” is…?

DAVID: You don't see God as an all-controlling designer of environment and living forms as I do.

dhw: Firstly, if your God gave living forms freedom of will and action, he does not control them - hence the dog-eat-dog history resulting from this gift.

DAVID: Note I said control of design of forms and environment. Their freedom of action has no role.

But the free-for-all theory that you have accepted under “theodicy” ALSO explains why your God might NOT be in control of forms and environment, as follows:
dhw: Secondly, yet again, if your God’s sole purpose was us plus food (which he could have created “de novo”), why would he have deliberately designed and culled 99 out of 100 of his living forms irrelevant to his purpose?

DAVID: I don't know His reasoning.

If he wanted a free-for-all (as under “theodicy”), then he would have designed the mechanisms whereby organisms produce their own means of survival (adaptations and innovations). Their survival or extinction would then depend solely on their own abilities, and you would not be left floundering with your inexplicable belief that your all-powerful God inefficiently and incompetently produced 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Post reply

89 views

DAVID: Bacteria making penicillin or insulin pharmaceutically are placed right.

dhw: You have simply ignored the point that right and wrong/good and bad are our inventions, based on what is right or wrong for us. Bacteria that kill us are in the right place for THEM, and their freedom of will and choice exonerates your God from the accusation that he created evil.

DAVID: Free will is good for humans, but evil humans produce evil. The by-product is not God's fault.

dhw: If humans have free will, they are responsible for the good and the bad that they produce. Evil is not a by-product of good! You are now accepting my theory which exonerates your God, but you are distorting it in a totally illogical manner!

I accept your theory.

DAVID: (in Part 2 under “The brain”): The secondhand concept of design has nothing to do with your defense of theodicy which I accept.

dhw: Thank you for accepting it. I will make a note of this for future reference. See below on how it impacts on your other theories.

Evolution

DAVID: The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving!

dhw: There you go again! It is the 0.1% of survivors that produced the species that are alive today, e.g. only 4 out of 700 dinosaur species survived to produce all the species of birds alive today. 696 died without leaving any descendants. Now please explain how species that leave no descendants can produce descendants.

I use Raup's overall statistics. Not your myopic view of definite lines of descent.

Designing for the future

DAVID: Feathers allowed flight to appear, but not in your short-sighted view.

dhw: Of course they did, but that doesn’t mean they served no purpose before flight! The whole evolutionary process depends on “new uses of existing components”. Do you believe that the legs of prewhales were only designed so that they could change into flippers?

dhw: There is no logic behind the invention of something useless at the time. Your feather example is trifling compared to your theory that he designed and culled 99 useless species out of 100 in order to design the only ones he wanted. The “obvious logic” is…?

DAVID: You don't see God as an all-controlling designer of environment and living forms as I do.

dhw: Firstly, if your God gave living forms freedom of will and action, he does not control them - hence the dog-eat-dog history resulting from this gift.

DAVID: Note I said control of design of forms and environment. Their freedom of action has no role.

dhw: But the free-for-all theory that you have accepted under “theodicy” ALSO explains why your God might NOT be in control of forms and environment, as follows:
dhw: Secondly, yet again, if your God’s sole purpose was us plus food (which he could have created “de novo”), why would he have deliberately designed and culled 99 out of 100 of his living forms irrelevant to his purpose?

DAVID: I don't know His reasoning.

dhw: If he wanted a free-for-all (as under “theodicy”), then he would have designed the mechanisms whereby organisms produce their own means of survival (adaptations and innovations). Their survival or extinction would then depend solely on their own abilities, and you would not be left floundering with your inexplicable belief that your all-powerful God inefficiently and incompetently produced 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Free-for-all applies to the daily struggle for survival, not design of future species.

Post reply

83 views

DAVID: Free will is good for humans, but evil humans produce evil. The by-product is not God's fault.

dhw: If humans have free will, they are responsible for the good and the bad that they produce. Evil is not a by-product of good! You are now accepting my theory which exonerates your God, but you are distorting it in a totally illogical manner!

DAVID: I accept your theory.

Thank you.

Evolution

DAVID: The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving!

dhw: There you go again! It is the 0.1% of survivors that produced the species that are alive today, e.g. only 4 out of 700 dinosaur species survived to produce all the species of birds alive today. 696 died without leaving any descendants. Now please explain how species that leave no descendants can produce descendants.

DAVID: I use Raup's overall statistics. Not your myopic view of definite lines of descent.

We are both using his statistics. There are no statistics on earth to demonstrate that existing species are descended from animals that had no descendants. As you agreed and simply refuse to acknowledge, we and our food are descended from the 0.1% of survivors – in which case your inefficient version of God designed and culled 99% of species that were irrelevant to the one and only purpose you allow him to have. Please stop trying to persuade us that “lines of descent” mean that we and our food are descended from 99 out of 100 species that had no descendants!

Designing for the future

dhw: […] yet again, if your God’s sole purpose was us plus food (which he could have created “de novo”), why would he have deliberately designed and culled 99 out of 100 of his living forms irrelevant to his purpose?

DAVID: I don't know His reasoning.

dhw: If he wanted a free-for-all (as under “theodicy”), then he would have designed the mechanisms whereby organisms produce their own means of survival (adaptations and innovations). Their survival or extinction would then depend solely on their own abilities, and you would not be left floundering with your inexplicable belief that your all-powerful God inefficiently and incompetently produced 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Free-for-all applies to the daily struggle for survival, not design of future species.

You keep dodging the problem you have set yourself, just as you kept on dodging the theodicy problem! 1) You have no idea why your God would have designed 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, and so you can only ridicule him for his inefficiency (just as you ridiculed him for incompetence with your “by-product” theory concerning theodicy). But if he WANTED a free-for-all, then it would make perfect sense that all the different species would be the result of his giving them the mechanisms with which to design their own means of survival: i.e. the daily struggle for survival led to the evolution and the extinction of 99 out of 100 species. No longer an incompetent God’s inexplicable design of unwanted species, but the direct consequence of the SAME desire for the free-for-all that you have accepted above.

Post reply

17 views

Evolution

DAVID: The 99.9% extinct produced the 0.1% surviving!

dhw: There you go again! It is the 0.1% of survivors that produced the species that are alive today, e.g. only 4 out of 700 dinosaur species survived to produce all the species of birds alive today. 696 died without leaving any descendants. Now please explain how species that leave no descendants can produce descendants.

DAVID: I use Raup's overall statistics. Not your myopic view of definite lines of descent.

dhw: We are both using his statistics. There are no statistics on earth to demonstrate that existing species are descended from animals that had no descendants. As you agreed and simply refuse to acknowledge, we and our food are descended from the 0.1% of survivors – in which case your inefficient version of God designed and culled 99% of species that were irrelevant to the one and only purpose you allow him to have. Please stop trying to persuade us that “lines of descent” mean that we and our food are descended from 99 out of 100 species that had no descendants!

Evolution produced 100% of everyone: it has to be 99.9% extinct and 0.1% surviving.

Designing for the future

dhw: […] yet again, if your God’s sole purpose was us plus food (which he could have created “de novo”), why would he have deliberately designed and culled 99 out of 100 of his living forms irrelevant to his purpose?

DAVID: I don't know His reasoning.

dhw: If he wanted a free-for-all (as under “theodicy”), then he would have designed the mechanisms whereby organisms produce their own means of survival (adaptations and innovations). Their survival or extinction would then depend solely on their own abilities, and you would not be left floundering with your inexplicable belief that your all-powerful God inefficiently and incompetently produced 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Free-for-all applies to the daily struggle for survival, not design of future species.

dhw: You keep dodging the problem you have set yourself, just as you kept on dodging the theodicy problem! 1) You have no idea why your God would have designed 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, and so you can only ridicule him for his inefficiency (just as you ridiculed him for incompetence with your “by-product” theory concerning theodicy). But if he WANTED a free-for-all, then it would make perfect sense that all the different species would be the result of his giving them the mechanisms with which to design their own means of survival: i.e. the daily struggle for survival led to the evolution and the extinction of 99 out of 100 species. No longer an incompetent God’s inexplicable design of unwanted species, but the direct consequence of the SAME desire for the free-for-all that you have accepted above.

The biochemical design of life is so complex only a designing mind can conduct proper evolution.

Post reply

12 views

There are 26 essential constant factors that make this universe as it is:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/multiverse-explain-fundamental-constants/?utm_s...

"So why does our Universe have fundamental constants with the values that they do? That’s what Pierre Louw wants to know, following up on an earlier Starts With A Bang article to ask:

“'Near the end of your Big Think article of 26 February ’25, you wrote: ‘But there’s a key thing to keep in mind: even though we know all of this and can weave a consistent story out of it, we still don’t know why nature has the values that it does.’

***

"The rest masses of every one of the fundamental, massive particles, from neutrinos to quarks to leptons and more, which can also be parametrized by a coupling to the Higgs. Some of them, like the electron’s rest mass, would lead to a very different Universe from what we recognize as our own if they were even a little bit different.

"The mixing parameters between the quarks (given by the CKM matrix) and the neutrinos (given by the PMNS matrix), which determine how particles with identical quantum numbers mix together, required to explain phenomena such as weak decays and neutrino oscillations.

"And there’s also one more parameter, at least, for the cosmological constant, which is our simplest approximation for what dark energy could be.

"All told, that equates to 26 fundamental constants, and that still leaves puzzles like dark matter, baryogenesis, and any parameters related to inflation unaccounted for. Importantly, these fundamental constants are needed to reproduce the Universe we have; if they were different, our Universe would be correspondingly different as well. (my bold)

"To the best of our knowledge, these constants really are constant and unchanging across space and throughout time; they do not seem to vary or change. But how do we know the values of these constants? (my bold)

***

"When I talked about the Universe in an earlier piece, and I said, “…even though we know all of this and can weave a consistent story out of it, we still don’t know why nature has the values that it does,” that’s precisely what I was referring to: the fact that we cannot predict these values, and can only measure them to determine what they are.

***

"That’s where theorists thrive: in concocting plausible mechanisms that can explain and account for the phenomena that we see. In general, we call these classes of problems fine-tuning problems: as we can imagine that any such parameter, constant, or value could have been all over the map, and that significantly different possibilities would have led to vastly different outcomes. A Universe with:

"a much weaker electromagnetic force,
a much greater mass for the up and down quarks,
or a much greater cosmological constant,
would have never enabled the formation of stars and galaxies at all, much less rocky planets, complex molecules, and the possibility of life.

***

"And therefore, when it comes to the question of, “Why do the constants in our Universe have the values that they do?” the answer is simply, “Because we, observers who can measure the Universe, could only have arisen in a universe that took on values that allowed the emergence of intelligent observers to be physically possible.” (my bold)

***

"So in summary, yes, the values of the fundamental constants can be explained by bubble universes created by inflation, but that explanation is hardly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. It may turn out to be a correct component of the story, but until we understand how it happened, our physical understanding will remain dissatisfying and incomplete, even in the best-case scenario."

Comment: please read my bolds carefully. This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.

Post reply

331 views

Fighting bacteria is part of nature:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/03/250325114917.htm

"Frogs have thrived for hundreds of millions of years, spreading across virtually every corner of the earth, from tropical jungles to subarctic forests. Throughout their evolution, they have developed remarkable defenses -- including previously unreported antibiotics -- against the hordes of bacteria that thrive in their moist environments. Variants of these compounds may one day protect humans from drug-resistant pathogens.

"... describes the creation of synthetic peptides, a class of antibiotics, derived from the secretions of a frog commonly found in South Asia.

***

"In the new paper, de la Fuente and his co-authors demonstrate how "structure-guided design," a process involving minute changes to the peptide's chemical structure, yields multiple antibiotic candidates without the drawbacks of the unmodified peptide.

"'With structure-guided design, we change the sequence of the molecule," says Marcelo Torres, a research associate in the de la Fuente lab and co-author of the paper, "and then we see how those mutations affect the function that we are trying to improve."

***

"...the researchers then tested the resulting synthetic peptides against a range of bacteria. In preclinical models, the team found that the new compounds were as effective as last-resort antibiotics like polymyxin B in targeting harmful bacteria, without affecting human cells or beneficial gut bacteria.

"The researchers developed and tested their peptides not only in single cultures but also in more complex bacterial communities, which allowed them to measure the effects in a more realistic microbial setting. "Those experiments are very difficult to set up because you need to grow different bacteria at once," says de la Fuente. "We had to come up with the specific ratio of each bacterium to have a sustained community."

"If additional preclinical testing goes well, the researchers will submit the peptides for what are known as Investigational New Drug (IND) enabling studies, the last step prior to applying for approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, at which point the drugs could be clinically tested."

Comment: new potent antibiotics are desperately needed. That antibiotics are processed by all animals is obvious. It is part of the dog-eat-dog world.

Post reply

207 views

Deep under the surface surprisingly diverse::

https://www.sciencealert.com/earths-underworld-is-full-of-life-and-it-goes-deeper-than-...

"In an ambitious 8-year census, an international team of scientists has found an astonishing diversity of microbes living beneath our planet's surface, deeper than anything we've discovered prior.

***

"'...the study has turned up lifeforms as deep as 491 meters (1610 feet) below the ocean floor, and even further below land: up to 4,375 meters (2.7 miles) deep.

"The team analyzed samples from more than 50 locations across the globe, collected from above and below Earth's surface, as well as sites like caves and deep-sea hydrothermal vents that form the surface threshold.

"Surface samples were collected from soils, sediments, or water columns, while subsurface samples were retrieved from boreholes, mines, aquifers, or the fluid from fracking.

"The diversity of life forms discovered follow an unexpected pattern.

"It's commonly assumed that the deeper you go below the Earth's surface, the less energy is available, and the lower is the number of cells that can survive," Ruff says.

"'But we show that in some subsurface environments, the diversity can easily rival, if not exceed, diversity at the surface."

"This was particularly true for microbes in marine environments, and for microbes from the taxonomic category known as the archaea domain, which became more genetically rich, with diversity more evenly spread, the deeper researchers looked. Bacterial diversity in the marine subsurface was unexpectedly high compared to surface ecosystems.

"Life in these underworlds runs on a very different timeline to Earth's bustling surface. With no sunlight, energy is sparse and must be harvested from the surrounding materials and their chemical reactions: hydrogen, methane, sulfur, serpentinization, the dead (or living) bodies of neighboring microbes, and even radioactivity.

"These ecosystems move at a tectonic pace. Scientists estimate that some cells in the deep biosphere divide only once every thousand years."

Comment: another study that demonstrates the tenacity of life. It is ecosystems all the way down. In a universe fine-tuned for life, the outcome is not surprising.

Post reply

438 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

New Miscellany (General)

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: more on fine-tuning

New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy

New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy

New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy

New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy

New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy