New Miscellany 2: fossils, Shapiro, HARs & chirality (General)

by dhw, Sunday, May 18, 2025, 12:35 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

Bat wings and cellular intelligence reduced here to fossils

DAVID: Defined gaps do not need filling to understand the evolutionary tale.

dhw: That depends on your understanding of the evolutionary tale. You insist that defined gaps can never be filled, which proves that the evolutionary tale includes both common descent and “de novo” creation. Others may suggest that enough gaps have been filled to demonstrate the truth of common descent, and we cannot expect every defined gap to be filled, since fossils are so rare, although each new find confirms common descent.

DAVID: Good summary.

Thank you. I would see this as just one example of alternative views that balance each other out. “First cause” is another. You may disapprove of agnosticism, but perhaps you can sympathize a little with its basis.

Human evolution: HARs

DAVID: It is not clear why HAR's should exist unless we assume God as our designer. Our brain is the most unusual item in the universe.

dhw[…] these conclusions have been reached through studying the HARs of mouse and primate models, and human HARs “fine-tune” development and “increase” activity, suggests to me that our HARs have evolved from those of our fellow mammals. The difference between their capabilities is one of degree. And it’s not clear why ANY live organ or organism should exist – though I agree that our brain is special.

DAVID: Wow. This moment should be enshrined.

dhw: I have never ever questioned the specialness of our brain. Do you agree with me that the article lays emphasis on the fact that our brain is a development of former brains, and that it’s not clear why ANY live organ or organism should exist?

DAVID: Yes.

An important agreement. The evolution of our special brain is no more and no less of a mystery than the existence of life itself.

Chirality

DAVID: chirality seems to be the key to everything. That specificity seems designed. Since both handedness types are naturally available why does biochemistry make such choices?

dhw: […] if your answer is unequivocally that chirality proves the existence of your God, perhaps you can also explain to me why so many scientists remain atheists.

DAVID: Open or closed minded to the evidence is the reason.

dhw: Do you regard your own mind as open or closed?

DAVID: Open to science studies with design implications, most of them.

This is tantamount to saying that your mind is only open to scientific views that agree with your own. I’m afraid that means your mind is closed. I don’t know what “most of them” refers to. I’m sure you don’t mean that most scientific articles support the design theory.

New oxygen research

DAVID: Why should oxygen be generated at all? The study is best understood in the teleology of a designed process planning for future use by newly evolved organisms.

Your questions and answers are mere pinpoints in the grand scheme of things. What is the teleology behind the billions of heavenly bodies without oxygen? Even if there is unevolved bacterial life elsewhere in the universe, what purpose would it serve? All questions ultimately go back to the unsolvable problem of “first cause”: a sourceless form of almighty consciousness, or a sourceless form of matter and energy forever producing different combinations, just one of which happened to produce Earth and life on Earth.