https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/mermaids-womb-placenta-uterus-breath...

"An intricate choreography of physiological and molecular events quickly unfolds to help the newborn babies to draw their very first breath, generally within about 10 seconds after delivery. "It's one of the most fundamental events that a person has to take," says David Tingay, a neonatologist at The Royal Children’s Hospital at Melbourne, Australia.

"This first breath marks the crucial step towards the transition from fetal circulation to independent respiration.

***

"At around the fourth to fifth week of gestation, the respiratory system of the fetus starts to form as a buds of tissue separate from the primitive foregut and develop into the lungs. By the end of the eighth week, the basic architecture of lung is established, and throughout subsequent weeks and months, the lung tissue grows and matures. By the time the pregnancy reaches full term at nine months, the fetus’ lungs are complete and almost ready to inhale and exhale outside the womb.

"But in the womb the fetal lungs are filled with fluid. This liquid—secreted by the lungs—provides cushioning and protection for the developing organs, helping to prevent compression or damage.

***

"Since the fetus depends entirely on the placenta for vital nutrition and oxygen, the fluid-filled fetal lungs remain inactive, waiting to spring into action within seconds before and after birth.

***

"The fetus begins to make some breathing movements as early as about 10 or 12 weeks. These increase during development so by the full 40 weeks of gestation the baby is prepared to breathe outside of the womb.

"'But the fetus does not yet actually breathe anything at that time," says neonatologist Caraciolo Fernandes. Instead, fetal breathing movements train the fetus to use the respiratory muscles, develop the lungs and neural circuits of respiratory control, to be ready at the birth.

"As the baby travels through the birth canal, the compression squeezes some of the fluid from the lung. The pressure changes during birth and hormonal shifts in the baby also initiate absorption of the lung fluid. Once the baby is delivered, the abrupt drop in temperature—from inside the womb to the outside world— the physical stimulus of cold air on the skin, and the glare of bright light within seconds after birth triggers a gasp of air as the baby takes its first breath.

"'The fetal lungs act like a big sponge that suddenly fill-up with little air spaces," says Tingay. "That's what babies do in their very first breath."

"The pressure caused by the influx of air at the first breath pushes the remaining fluid out of lungs.

***

"When the lungs open, the air fills the spaces and help the organs to displace and absorb the last bit of fluid, says Fernandes. Any residual fluid that remains is either expelled through coughing or gradually absorbed into the bloodstream and lymphatic system.

"Along with the neural stimuli that activate the breathing in a newborn, some specific genes also get turned on at birth. As mice are born, neurons release a neurotransmitter called PACAP that regulates breathing. Another study in mice reveals that a gene called Foxa2 is required for transition to breathing air at birth."

Comment: mammalian birth is a beautifully choreographed adaptive event of which first breath is a very important part. Physico-chemical and hormonal all at once. So many parts acting at once must be a designed mechanism.

Old Comment: I don't believe it is luck/chance that we have this gene. Why not coded by God?

A new comment:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/06/do-larger-brains-make-us-human-is-that-all/

"In a study of “mini-brains” (brain organoids), the size of a pea, grown in a dish and incapable of further development, researchers have discovered a “key genetic switch” that makes human brains grow three times larger than primate brains:

"This new research, published in the journal Cell, used brain organoids to show that this transition occurs more slowly in humans compared to gorillas and chimpanzees – over seven days, compared to five.

"The progenitor cells in human brain organoids not only retained their cylindrical shape for longer, but also split more frequently so more cells were produced. This was linked to a gene called ZEB2, which switches on sooner in gorilla brain organoids than in human. By delaying the effects of the gene, the researchers found that gorilla brain organoids develop slower and become larger…

“'We have found that a delayed change in the shape of cells in the early brain is enough to change the course of development, helping determine the numbers of neurons that are made,” explains [Madeline] Lancaster. “It’s remarkable that a relatively simple evolutionary change in cell shape could have major consequences in brain evolution.”

***

"But what have we learned? Is larger brains really what makes us human? Then what about the people who function normally with a very reduced brain? Remember, they are functioning normally in a world where humans typically have very large brains. And, before medical imaging, no one knew that these people had hardly any brain.

***

"...in the 1990s, anthropologist Robin Dunbar suggested that humans might also need large brains to keep track of their complicated social lives. Human social circles normally comprise around 150 people, compared with 50 for chimpanzees. “Why are human brains so big?” at Science Focus

"The problem with this explanation is that music, art, stories, and complex social relationships are only important in a group that can appreciate them. The audience must already be human. Science Focus infers that large brains are needed but their origin is unaccounted for. The organoids might provide a clue but they are hardly a natural development.

***

"Human intelligence is unique among the life forms we know. It is reasonable to believe that some of the causes are immaterial rather than material. Especially when materialist explanations keep bringing us back to where we started. The good news is that discovering new vistas promises to be a great adventure."

Comment: one gene appears to make our brain. Again, God at work? And the other issue is folks with almost no brain are normal humans with consciousness. Why? Again God at work His favorite created/evolved organisms?

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/primate-brain-size

"A recent study examined the relationship between brain size and the development of motor skills across 36 primate species.

***

"The results suggest that primates follow rigid patterns in terms of which manipulative skills they learn first, and that the ultimate complexity of these skills depends on brain size.

***

"This prolonged period of helplessness serves evolutionary functions, however. For one, it allows our comparatively large brains time to develop, enabling us to eventually learn complex skills, like the ability to manipulate objects with our hands. And it turns out that other primates share a similar development schedule in terms of handy abilities, called manipulative skills.

"A new study explores the progression of manipulative skills across 36 primate species. The results, published in Science Advances: Evolutionary Biology, suggest that primates tend to develop increasingly complex manipulative skills in a specific order, and that primates with more sophisticated brains develop more sophisticated skills.

"'Our results show that the neural development follows extremely rigid patterns -- even in primate species that differ greatly in other respects," Sandra Heldstab, an evolutionary biologist in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Zurich,

"For the study, the researchers observed 128 primates in 13 European zoos over seven years, recording more than 10,000 observations from the time the animals were born until they reached adult-level dexterity. The team found that smaller-brained primates, like lemurs, start learning simple motor skills at an earlier age than larger-brained primates, like chimpanzees.

"But the wait pays off for larger-brained primates: They're eventually able to perform more complex tasks with their hands, like using tools, or moving both hands simultaneously to move multiple objects.

"'It is no coincidence that we humans are so good at using our hands and using tools, our large brains made it possible," Heldstab said. "A big brain equals great dexterity."

"It seems inefficient that primates, like chimps and humans, undergo such a long period of learning and dependency. But the researchers suggest this represents a fitness tradeoff: primate parents and children spend more time on development, but it leads to complex skills that help them get more food, and survive longer. In other words, animals don't evolve to perform complex manipulative tasks unless it significantly prolongs lifespan.

***

"'Our study shows once again that in the course of evolution, only mammals that live a long time and have enough time to learn were able to develop a large brain and complex fine motor skills including the ability to use tools," Heldstab said. "This makes it clear why so few species could follow our path and why humans could become the most technologically accomplished organism on this planet.'"

Comment: The final comment above is infused with Darwinist thinking. We are the only species to follow this path, and it was planned by God.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2219657-humans-evolved-to-think-faster-by-slowing-...

"Human brains are certainly bigger than those of our nearest primate relatives, but there are surprisingly few differences in structure. So it is unclear what gives rise to the huge differences in our mental abilities.

"Gray Camp at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his colleagues used stem cells from humans, chimpanzees and macaque monkeys to make mini brains for each species. After four months, a key difference was that nerve cells in the chimp and monkey organoids were more mature.

"Identifying such differences may be a step towards explaining why humans are more intelligent – although the team doesn’t speculate on exactly how their findings might relate to this puzzle.

"Until now “it wasn’t possible to compare human and chimp organ development”, says Camp. The organoids, some made from stem cells that can be generated directly from adult cells, offer a way of making that comparison.

"Camp and his team also delved into another long-standing puzzle: why there are so few differences between the protein-coding genes of humans and the other apes, considering the huge disparity in our intellects.

"A recent technique for analysing which genes are turned on or off in individual cells, known as single cell RNA sequencing, has suggested the answer might lie in differences in which genes are turned on at different times. (my bold)

"In the latest study, Camp’s team charted which genes are turned on in different brain cells over four months of mini brain development, comparing the results across humans, chimps and macaques, to make a database other researchers can also use.

“'Organoids are most useful for society in letting us understand disease,” says Camp. “But it’s also very interesting to think about where our species came from and how we became uniquely human.'”

Comment: Why are similar genes handled differently and how did that happen? Perhaps God designing. The other difference is the slower speed of growth of human brains compare to chimps. Why did that happen? God in action.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-brain-independently-braincase-evolution.html

"The human brain is about three times the size of the brains of great apes. This has to do, among other things, with the evolution of novel brain structures that enabled complex behaviors such as language and tool production. A study by anthropologists at the University of Zurich now shows that changes in the brain occurred independent of evolutionary rearrangements of the braincase.

"The human brain is like a fish in an aquarium, floating inside the liquid-filled braincase—but filling it out almost completely. The relationship between the brain and the braincase, and how they interacted during human evolution, has been occupying the minds of researchers for almost a century. They addressed this question by studying brain-braincase relationships in our own species, and in our closest living relatives, the great apes.

***

"The results show that the characteristic spatial relationships between brain and bone structures in humans are clearly distinct to those in chimpanzees. While the brain and its case continued to evolve side by side, they did so along largely independent evolutionary paths. (Note this does explain the problem of coordinating size.)

"For example, brain structures related to complex cognitive tasks such as language, social cognition and manual dexterity expanded significantly in the course of human evolution. This becomes visible as a shift of the neuroanatomical boundaries of the frontal lobe of the brain. This shift, however, did not affect the bony structures of the braincase. Instead, changes in the braincase largely reflect adaptations to walking upright on two legs, or bipedalism. For example, the opening at the skull base for the spinal cord moved forward during human evolution in order to optimize balance of the head atop the vertebral column. However, these evolutionary changes to the braincase did not have an effect on our cerebral structures." (This bold shows the necessary positional changes for bipedalism)

Comment: Still no solution as to how the size changes were coordinated. Soft brain enlarging cannot push hard bone to enlarge.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-pay-attention-the-brain-uses-filters-not-a-spotlight-...

"We can pick out a conversation in a loud room, amid the rise and fall of other voices or the hum of an air conditioner. We can spot a set of keys in a sea of clutter, or register a raccoon darting into the path of our onrushing car. Somehow, even with massive amounts of information flooding our senses, we’re able to focus on what’s important and act on it.

***

" It’s become clear that activity in the cortex boosts sensory processing to enhance features of interest.

"But now, some researchers are trying a different approach, studying how the brain suppresses information rather than how it augments it. Perhaps more importantly, they’ve found that this process involves more ancient regions much deeper in the brain — regions not often considered when it comes to attention.

"By doing so, scientists have also inadvertently started to take baby steps toward a better understanding of how body and mind — through automatic sensory experiences, physical movements and higher-level consciousness — are deeply and inextricably intertwined.

***

"He was drawn to a thin layer of inhibitory neurons called the thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN), which wraps around the rest of the thalamus like a shell. By the time Halassa was a postdoctoral researcher, he had already found a coarse level of gating in that brain area: The TRN seemed to let sensory inputs through when an animal was awake and attentive to something in its environment, but it suppressed them when the animal was asleep.

***

"In effect, the network was turning the knobs on inhibitory processes, not excitatory ones, with the TRN inhibiting information that the prefrontal cortex deemed distracting. If the mouse needed to prioritize auditory information, the prefrontal cortex told the visual TRN to increase its activity to suppress the visual thalamus — stripping away irrelevant visual data.

"The attentional searchlight metaphor was backward: The brain wasn’t brightening the light on stimuli of interest; it was lowering the lights on everything else.

***

"...the team probed the functional effects of various brain regions on one another, as well as the neuronal connections between them. The full circuit, they found, goes from the prefrontal cortex to a much deeper structure called the basal ganglia (often associated with motor control and a host of other functions), then to the TRN and the thalamus, before finally going back up to higher cortical regions. So, for instance, as visual information passes from the eye to the visual thalamus, it can get intercepted almost immediately if it’s not relevant to the given task. The basal ganglia can step in and activate the visual TRN to screen out the extraneous stimuli, in keeping with the prefrontal cortex’s directive.
“It’s an interesting feedback pathway, which I don’t think has been described before,” said Richard Krauzlis, a neuroscientist.

***

"When the mice were cued to pay attention to certain sounds, the TRN helped to suppress irrelevant background noise within the auditory signal. The effects on sensory processing “can be much more precise than just suppressing the whole thalamic region for one sensory modality, which is a rather blunt form of suppression,” said Duje Tadin,

***

"In fact, Halassa’s discovery of the basal ganglia’s role in attention is particularly fascinating. That’s partly because it is such an ancient area of the brain, one that hasn’t typically been viewed as a part of selective attention. “Fish have this,” Krauzlis said. “Going back to the earliest vertebrates, like the lamprey, which doesn’t have a jaw” — or a neocortex, for that matter — “they have basically a simple form of basal ganglia and some of these same circuits.” The fishes’ neural circuitry may offer hints about how attention evolved.

***

“'How we learn to perceive the world around us is very much through action.” The high level of interconnection with the cortex suggests that, even beyond attention, “these subcortical structures play a much more important role in higher-order cognition than I think is often considered.”

***

"Slagter is now studying the role that the basal ganglia might play in consciousness. “We experience the world not just using our bodies, but because of our bodies. And brains represent the world in order to meaningfully act in it,” she said. “Therefore, I would think that conscious experience must be tightly linked to actions,” just like attention. “Consciousness should be action oriented.'”

Comment: all of the brain is necessary for perception and consciousness as this study shows. Our brain was meticulously prepared through an intelligently guided evolution.

https://inference-review.com/letter/tough-luck

As long as there is language, there will be argument—especially about language. This state of affairs was recognized by the nineteenth-century Parisian sages that Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky cite in their essay. After all, an entire century and a half later, there is still remarkably little agreement even about what language is, let alone about how we modern human beings acquired this unique and remarkable apomorphy. Whatever language may be, some observers discern its roots deep in primate vocal and even gestural communication, whereas others see it not only as strictly a property of modern humans, but even, at least in origin, as unrelated to communication.

A major difficulty here is that, as an abstract quality, language does not preserve directly in any material historical record. As a result, the use of language and of any of its putative precursors has to be inferred from indirect proxy evidence furnished principally by archaeology.

***

Berwick and Chomsky sensibly settle on evidence for modern symbolic behavior patterns as the most reliable indicator of linguistic skill among extinct hominids. This conclusion allows them to situate the acquisition of this behavioral property about 100,000 years ago—within the tenure of our own species, Homo sapiens.

***

Wherever in Africa language may have been invented, all that was required for its spread was that recipient populations had the potential to acquire and exhibit the new behavior. That potential had probably arisen in the neural rewiring that occurred as part of the radical developmental reorganization that produced anatomically modern Homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago. Language acquisition would almost certainly have been biologically possible for members of any structurally recognizable Homo sapiens population. (my bold)

***

In our view, as well as in Berwick and Chomsky’s, the potential for modern human cognition was almost certainly born some 200,000 years ago with anatomical Homo sapiens. The archaeological indications are that this new potential lay fallow for upwards of 100,000 years, until it was activated by a cultural stimulus of some kind. The evolutionary phenomenon involved here is a routine one. The most plausible cultural stimulus was the spontaneous invention of language, which would then have been readily passed on among individuals and populations of this species that was already biologically enabled for it.
This scenario is in complete agreement with Berwick and Chomsky’s requirement that “the final events leading to the BP [basic property] must have been simple … a conclusion in agreement with the minimalist program.” But the scenario departs from their well-known contention that externalization came after internalized language. They bolster this position with Riny Huybregts’s recent conjecture that “the language faculty emerged with Homo sapiens, or shortly thereafter, but externalization in one form or another must have been a later development.”

Comment: Note my bolds: brain capacity first, then language develops, not as dhw proposes, which is a drive to spoken communication changes the existing brain so language can appear.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-neurons-brain-tenth-decade-life.html

"In a new study from the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers examining post-mortem brain tissue from people ages 79 to 99 found that new neurons continue to form well into old age. The study provides evidence that this occurs even in people with cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease, although neurogenesis is significantly reduced in these people compared to older adults with normal cognitive functioning.

***

"The UIC study is the first to find evidence of significant numbers of neural stem cells and newly developing neurons present in the hippocampal tissue of older adults, including those with disorders that affect the hippocampus, which is involved in the formation of memories and in learning.

"'We found that there was active neurogenesis in the hippocampus of older adults well into their 90s," said Orly Lazarov, professor of anatomy and cell biology in the UIC College of Medicine and lead author of the paper. "The interesting thing is that we also saw some new neurons in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and cognitive impairment." She also found that people who scored better on measures of cognitive function had more newly developing neurons in the hippocampus compared to those who scored lower on these tests, regardless of levels of brain pathology.

"Lazarov thinks that lower levels of neurogenesis in the hippocampus are associated with symptoms of cognitive decline and reduced synaptic plasticity rather than with the degree of pathology in the brain. For patients with Alzheimer's disease, pathological hallmarks include deposits of neurotoxic proteins in the brain.

"'In brains from people with no cognitive decline who scored well on tests of cognitive function, these people tended to have higher levels of new neural development at the time of their death, regardless of their level of pathology," Lazarov said. "The mix of the effects of pathology and neurogenesis is complex and we don't understand exactly how the two interconnect, but there is clearly a lot of variation from individual to individual."

***

"Lazarov and colleagues looked at post-mortem hippocampal tissue from 18 people with an average age of 90.6 years. They stained the tissue for neural stem cells and also for newly developing neurons. They found, on average, approximately 2,000 neural progenitor cells per brain. They also found an average of 150,000 developing neurons. Analysis of a subset of these developing neurons revealed that the number of proliferating developing neurons is significantly lower in people with cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease."

Comment: Older folks actively using their brains apparently keep neurogenesis active, just as in brain plasticity from new uses.

Friday 28 February at 16.05:
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

dhw: I’m sorry, but if you have no idea why your God might have chosen your interpretation of his method in order to achieve your interpretation of his goal, I don’t know how you can claim to “fully understand” what happened, and I would still suggest that your incomprehension may indicate that one or both of your interpretations may be flawed.

DAVID: Another irrational complaint. I accept the actual history of what occurred as representing God's choice. I don't read his mind even if you think I should and you think you might be able to. My 'understanding' is that God chose the way to get there.

dhw: If God exists, I also accept the actual history of what occurred as representing his choice, and that evolution was the way he chose to get “there”. The question is what he chose and where he wanted to get! You have no idea why he would have chosen to specially design billions of non-human life forms and styles and natural wonders before specially designing the only form you think he wanted to design, but you claim to “fully understand it”, and you regard my objection as “irrational”.

DAVID: You irrationally ask me to give you a reason for God's choice of method in that He created an evolutionary process to create humans. I've accepted God as in charge, and have accepted His choice of method. I cannot know His thought patterns leading to that choice, and under your urging we have explored all of the limiting possibilities, but of course, can each no conclusions.

dhw: You constantly take it for granted that your INTERPRETATION is a fact! Yes, if he exists he created an evolutionary process. No, you have no justification for assuming that he created the whole process only in order to create human beings. Yes, if God exists we must all accept that he is in charge – but that does not exclude a decision not to exercise complete control – and yes we must accept his choice of method, but not your insistence that the sole purpose of the evolutionary method was to create humans. Not only can you not know his thought patterns, but you cannot know his purpose. The fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen evolution as his method for achieving the purpose you attribute him suggests that either your interpretation of evolution (all life forms etc. specially designed) or your interpretation of his purpose or both interpretations are flawed.

Your same old points. I accept God and use history to tell me how He chose to do things. Your problem with faith is obvious.

dhw: I’m sorry, but if you have no idea why your God might have chosen your interpretation of his method in order to achieve your interpretation of his goal, I don’t know how you can claim to “fully understand” what happened, and I would still suggest that your incomprehension may indicate that one or both of your interpretations may be flawed.

DAVID: Another irrational complaint. I accept the actual history of what occurred as representing God's choice. I don't read his mind even if you think I should and you think you might be able to. My 'understanding' is that God chose the way to get there.

dhw: If God exists, I also accept the actual history of what occurred as representing his choice, and that evolution was the way he chose to get “there”. The question is what he chose and where he wanted to get! You have no idea why he would have chosen to specially design billions of non-human life forms and styles and natural wonders before specially designing the only form you think he wanted to design, but you claim to “fully understand it”, and you regard my objection as “irrational”.

DAVID: You irrationally ask me to give you a reason for God's choice of method in that He created an evolutionary process to create humans. I've accepted God as in charge, and have accepted His choice of method. I cannot know His thought patterns leading to that choice, and under your urging we have explored all of the limiting possibilities, but of course, can each no conclusions.

You constantly take it for granted that your INTERPRETATION is a fact! Yes, if he exists he created an evolutionary process. No, you have no justification for assuming that he created the whole process only in order to create human beings. Yes, if God exists we must all accept that he is in charge – but that does not exclude a decision not to exercise complete control – and yes we must accept his choice of method, but not your insistence that the sole purpose of the evolutionary method was to create humans. Not only can you not know his thought patterns, but you cannot know his purpose. The fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen evolution as his method for achieving the purpose you attribute him suggests that either your interpretation of evolution (all life forms etc. specially designed) or your interpretation of his purpose or both interpretations are flawed.

DAVID: If organisms have the free ability to evolve whatever they wants, who knows what might have developed and how could have any purposeful result? Evolution with purpose means evolving towards a living goal of a specific organism.
[…]

dhw: You raised the subject of purpose, and I have offered you various alternative proposals, but my question remains why, if his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, he specially designed billions of other econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders, and life forms to eat or not eat one another before specially designing the only life form he wanted to design. You responded:

DAVID: […] I fully understand what happened and God and I are fully logical in my construct. You simply do not understand or are confused. I never have been.

Friday 28 February at 16.05:
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

dhw: I’m sorry, but if you have no idea why your God might have chosen your interpretation of his method in order to achieve your interpretation of his goal, I don’t know how you can claim to “fully understand” what happened, and I would still suggest that your incomprehension may indicate that one or both of your interpretations may be flawed.

DAVID: Another irrational complaint. I accept the actual history of what occurred as representing God's choice. I don't read his mind even if you think I should and you think you might be able to. My 'understanding' is that God chose the way to get there.

dhw: If God exists, I also accept the actual history of what occurred as representing his choice, and that evolution was the way he chose to get “there”. The question is what he chose and where he wanted to get! You have no idea why he would have chosen to specially design billions of non-human life forms and styles and natural wonders before specially designing the only form you think he wanted to design, but you claim to “fully understand it”, and you regard my objection as “irrational”.

You irrationally ask me to give you a reason for God's choice of method in that He created an evolutionary process to create humans. I've accepted God as in charge, and have accepted His choice of method. I cannot know His thought patterns leading to that choice, and under your urging we have explored all of the limiting possibilities, but of course, can each no conclusions,

You raised the subject of purpose, and I have offered you various alternative proposals, but my question remains why, if his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, he specially designed billions of other econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders, and life forms to eat or not eat one another before specially designing the only life form he wanted to design. You responded:

DAVID: […] I fully understand what happened and God and I are fully logical in my construct. You simply do not understand or are confused. I never have been.

Friday 28 February at 16.05:
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

dhw: I’m sorry, but if you have no idea why your God might have chosen your interpretation of his method in order to achieve your interpretation of his goal, I don’t know how you can claim to “fully understand” what happened, and I would still suggest that your incomprehension may indicate that one or both of your interpretations may be flawed.

DAVID: Another irrational complaint. I accept the actual history of what occurred as representing God's choice. I don't read his mind even if you think I should and you think you might be able to. My 'understanding' is that God chose the way to get there.

If God exists, I also accept the actual history of what occurred as representing his choice, and that evolution was the way he chose to get “there”. The question is what he chose and where he wanted to get! You have no idea why he would have chosen to specially design billions of non-human life forms and styles and natural wonders before specially designing the only form you think he wanted to design, but you claim to “fully understand it”, and you regard my objection as “irrational”.

DAVID: If organisms have the free ability to evolve whatever they wants, who knows what mighjt have developed and how could have any purposeful result? Evolution with purpose means evolving towatds a living goal of a speficic organism.

dhw: Over and over again you hammer home the idea of purpose. Why does your concept of purpose stop at producing humans? When challenged, you yourself suggested that your God might enjoy watching his creations as a painter enjoys looking at his paintings, and his purpose in producing humans was to have us admire his work and to form a relationship with him. “Who knows what might develop?” is precisely the attraction of “free expression”. Which would you “enjoy” more (your term), a totally predictable spectacle, or one filled with unexpected delights? But we still have the option of dabbling. What we do not have is the total illogicality of your God spending 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design.

DAVID: You are totally hung up over the issue of time and the timing of the appearance of humans.

dhw: You raised the subject of purpose, and in my reply I have focused exclusively on PURPOSE, not time. (The reference to 3.5+ billion years has nothing to do with the illogicality of your hypotheses.) You have ignored the whole of my post. I shan’t repeat the rest of your comment, except to say time is NOT the issue and doesn’t bug me at all. What bugs me, as you know perfectly well, is your insistence that your God’s sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, and you cannot explain why he specially designed millions of other life forms before specially designing H. sapiens. What we do not have is the total illogicality of your God spending 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design.[/i]

You are totally off base. Time is an obvious issue in your reply. Note your comment above:
" What we do not have is the total illogicality of your God spending 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design." If God is in charge, He can choose to evolve humans over 3.5 billion years. You have agreed to that, so why can't He opt to take 3.5 billion years to get there? I have nothing to explain, while you invent objections. He has the perfect right to reach a purpose by that method.

DAVID: All of what you describe in the bush obviously is something God knew He had to produce in advance of humans. I fully understand what happened and God and I are fully logical in my construct. You simply do not understand or are confused. I never have been.

Friday 28 February at 16.05:
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

d hw: I’m sorry, but if you have no idea why your God might have chosen your interpretation of his method in order to achieve your interpretation of his goal, I don’t know how you can claim to “fully understand” what happened, and I would still suggest that your incomprehension may indicate that one or both of your interpretations may be flawed.

Another irrational complaint. I accept the actual history of what occurred as representing God's choice. I don't read his mind even if you think I should and you think you might be able to. My 'understanding' is that God chose the way to get there.

dhw: Over and over again you hammer home the idea of purpose. Why does your concept of purpose stop at producing humans? When challenged, you yourself suggested that your God might enjoy watching his creations as a painter enjoys looking at his paintings, and his purpose in producing humans was to have us admire his work and to form a relationship with him. “Who knows what might develop?” is precisely the attraction of “free expression”. Which would you “enjoy” more (your term), a totally predictable spectacle, or one filled with unexpected delights? But we still have the option of dabbling. What we do not have is the total illogicality of your God spending 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design.

DAVID: You are totally hung up over the issue of time and the timing of the appearance of humans.

You raised the subject of purpose, and in my reply I have focused exclusively on PURPOSE, not time. (The reference to 3.5+ billion years has nothing to do with the illogicality of your hypotheses.) You have ignored the whole of my post. I shan’t repeat the rest of your comment, except to say time is NOT the issue and doesn’t bug me at all. What bugs me, as you know perfectly well, is your insistence that your God’s sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, and you cannot explain why he specially designed millions of other life forms before specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: All of what you describe in the bush obviously is something God knew He had to produce in advance of humans. I fully understand what happened and God and I are fully logical in my construct. You simply do not understand or are confused. I never have been.

Friday 28 February at 16.05:
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

I’m sorry, but if you have no idea why your God might have chosen your interpretation of his method in order to achieve your interpretation of his goal, I don’t know how you can claim to “fully understand” what happened, and I would still suggest that your incomprehension may indicate that one or both of your interpretations may be flawed.

DAVID: Weird comment. What don't you understand about the meaning of 'free'? If organisms have the free ability to evolve whatever they want, why knows what might have developed and how could have any purposeful result? Evolution with purpose means evolving toward a living goal of a specific organism.

dhw: Over and over again you hammer home the idea of purpose. Why does your concept of purpose stop at producing humans? When challenged, you yourself suggested that your God might enjoy watching his creations as a painter enjoys looking at his paintings, and his purpose in producing humans was to have us admire his work and to form a relationship with him. “Who knows what might develop?” is precisely the attraction of “free expression”. Which would you “enjoy” more (your term), a totally predictable spectacle, or one filled with unexpected delights? But we still have the option of dabbling. What we do not have is the total illogicality of your God spending 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design.

You are totally hung up over the issue of time and the timing of the appearance of humans. We have covered all the possible reasons why God might have chosen the method of evolution to perform creation of what He desired to create. If God made that choice it is not illogical to Him. Further, consider this: God has been around forever, so it it logical time means nothing to Him, although it bugs you. Which means the 3.5 billion year 'delay' to produce humans is your 'delay' as time means much more to you than it obviously means to God. The illogicality is in your Head where you prefer to puzzle over every aspect of our history.

DAVID: I can only interpret the history. I've simply described it and attributed it to God's right to choose a method of development/creation.

dhw: Of course he has the right to choose. That does not mean he chose the incomprehensible combination of purpose and method that you impose on him.

It is only incomprehensible to you. It was not incomprehensible to Nahmanides whose description of the seven day creation in Genesis describes the Big Bang. Other scholars accept The time God took: Rashi and Maimonides in their commentaries, both know that "Yom" in the original Hebrew meant any length of time from an instant to an eon.

DAVID: You keep implying God should have instantly created humans, but that isn't what actually happened. Assuming God was in charge, and you do for discussion purposes, it is patently obvious He chose to evolve humans over lots of time.

dhw: No, it isn’t what happened, and that is why it is illogical to claim that his only purpose was to produce humans, but he spent 3.5+ billion years not producing humans! What is patently obvious is that there have been millions of different life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders, and the latest of these is humans. If God exists, he must have wanted millions of different life forms etc. – not just one! I have offered a variety of ways to interpret this history, with different combinations of purpose and method, and the only one that neither you nor I can understand is yours.

If God chose to evolve the very complex human form from single-celled organisms step by step, of course it would take time. Of course God would have produced the bush of life on the way. His ultimate purpose is not a concept that negates what He produced in advance of humans. There is a huge hole in your analysis of my thinking. All of what you describe in the bush obviously is something God knew He had to produce in advance of humans. I fully understand what happened and God and I are fully logical in my construct. You simply do not understand or are confused. I never have been.

dhw: As usual, you try to separate purpose and method. Apart from vague references to plural goals, you have always insisted that the whole of evolution was preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing the brain of H. sapiens. Now you say you don’t actually believe that every bacterial action, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed or dabbled (your nebulous “guidelines” come under the same umbrella). Thank you. What alternatives are there besides “free expression”? And what makes you think that there cannot be a purpose behind “free expression”?

DAVID: Weird comment. What don't you understand about the meaning of 'free'? If organisms have the free ability to evolve whatever they want, why knows what might have developed and how could have any purposeful result? Evolution with purpose means evolving toward a living goal of a specific organism.

Over and over again you hammer home the idea of purpose. Why does your concept of purpose stop at producing humans? When challenged, you yourself suggested that your God might enjoy watching his creations as a painter enjoys looking at his paintings, and his purpose in producing humans was to have us admire his work and to form a relationship with him. “Who knows what might develop?” is precisely the attraction of “free expression”. Which would you “enjoy” more (your term), a totally predictable spectacle, or one filled with unexpected delights? But we still have the option of dabbling. What we do not have is the total illogicality of your God spending 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wants to design.

DAVID: I can only interpret the history. I've simply described it and attributed it to God's right to choose a method of development/creation.

Of course he has the right to choose. That does not mean he chose the incomprehensible combination of purpose and method that you impose on him.

DAVID: You keep implying God should have instantly created humans, but that isn't what actually happened. Assuming God was in charge, and you do for discussion purposes, it is patently obvious He chose to evolve humans over lots of time.

No, it isn’t what happened, and that is why it is illogical to claim that his only purpose was to produce humans, but he spent 3.5+ billion years not producing humans! What is patently obvious is that there have been millions of different life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders, and the latest of these is humans. If God exists, he must have wanted millions of different life forms etc. – not just one! I have offered a variety of ways to interpret this history, with different combinations of purpose and method, and the only one that neither you nor I can understand is yours.

DAVID: My point above is quite clear. We both state God is in charge of evolution, as you assume a theistic position. My suggested ways God might have exerted control are obvious possibilities. Since God has purposes in His methods, I strongly doubt He allows free expression by organisms as they evolve.

dhw: As usual, you try to separate purpose and method. Apart from vague references to plural goals, you have always insisted that the whole of evolution was preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing the brain of H. sapiens. Now you say you don’t actually believe that every bacterial action, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed or dabbled (your nebulous “guidelines” come under the same umbrella). Thank you. What alternatives are there besides “free expression”? And what makes you think that there cannot be a purpose behind “free expression”?

Weird comment. What don't you understand about the meaning of 'free'? If organisms have the free ability to evolve whatever they want, why knows what might have developed and how could have any purposeful result? Evolution with purpose means evolving toward a living goal of a specific organism.

DAVID: If you admit God was in charge of evolution, why can't He have freedom of choice? You make no sense.

dhw: Of course he has freedom of choice! My complaint is that you keep insisting that he chose what you want him to choose (specially designing 3.5+ billion years of non-human life forms to eat or not eat each other before he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens). There are several alternatives to this incomprehensible one (you have “no idea” why he would have chosen it), but now you try to dismiss them on the grounds that your God was free to choose your version!

I can only interpret the history. I've simply described it and attributed it to God's right to choose a method of development/creation.

DAVID: All of your suppositions about God imply limits, indecision or incompetence, or your own self-imposed impatience wondering why He waited so long. I fully understand He has the right to choose His method and you've agreed. I'm sure you can follow this logic.

dhw: At one moment you say I insist on God’s omnipotence, and the next that I insist on his limitations! My different hypotheses embrace ALL the different possibilities, and you accept that they all provide logical explanations of life’s history, in contrast to your own.

DAVID: The difference is I've made decisions and you can't or won't.

dhw: You have decided to stick to your own hypothesis and reject the others, despite your agreement that at least one vital portion of it (the preprogramming and dabbling method of achieving your interpretation of your God’s purpose) is not strong enough to constitute a belief! Your decision, once we accept the God hypothesis, is that his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens, except that it might not have been his sole purpose, he may have preprogrammed or dabbled the whole of evolution, but you don’t actually believe that, and he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but the one thing he wanted to specially design and you have no idea why.

Again you repeat your whole illogical complaint. You keep implying God should have instantly created humans, but that isn't what actually happened. Assuming God was in charge, and you do for discussion purposes, it is patently obvious He chose to evolve humans over lots of time.

dhw: If your God exists, then of course he is in charge of evolution. Now you are once again talking of goals rather than goal, and you do not even believe in your hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled bacterial action, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, the alternative to which can only be that your God allows autonomy (which is NOT autonomy if organisms must follow "guidelines", i.e. programmes or personal instructions).

DAVID: My point above is quite clear. We both state God is in charge of evolution, as you assume a theistic position. My suggested ways God might have exerted control are obvious possibilities. Since God has purposes in His methods, I strongly doubt He allows free expression by organisms as they evolve.

As usual, you try to separate purpose and method. Apart from vague references to plural goals, you have always insisted that the whole of evolution was preprogrammed or dabbled for the sole purpose of producing the brain of H. sapiens. Now you say you don’t actually believe that every bacterial action, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed or dabbled (your nebulous “guidelines” come under the same umbrella). Thank you. What alternatives are there besides “free expression”? And what makes you think that there cannot be a purpose behind “free expression”?

DAVID: If you admit God was in charge of evolution, why can't He have freedom of choice? You make no sense.

Of course he has freedom of choice! My complaint is that you keep insisting that he chose what you want him to choose (specially designing 3.5+ billion years of non-human life forms to eat or not eat each other before he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design: H. sapiens). There are several alternatives to this incomprehensible one (you have “no idea” why he would have chosen it), but now you try to dismiss them on the grounds that your God was free to choose your version!

DAVID: All of your suppositions about God imply limits, indecision or incompetence, or your own self-imposed impatience wondering why He waited so long. I fully understand He has the right to choose His method and you've agreed. I'm sure you can follow this logic.

dhw: At one moment you say I insist on God’s omnipotence, and the next that I insist on his limitations! My different hypotheses embrace ALL the different possibilities, and you accept that they all provide logical explanations of life’s history, in contrast to your own.

DAVID: The difference is I've made decisions and you can't or won't.

You have decided to stick to your own hypothesis and reject the others, despite your agreement that at least one vital portion of it (the preprogramming and dabbling method of achieving your interpretation of your God’s purpose) is not strong enough to constitute a belief! Your decision, once we accept the God hypothesis, is that his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens, except that it might not have been his sole purpose, he may have preprogrammed or dabbled the whole of evolution, but you don’t actually believe that, and he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but the one thing he wanted to specially design and you have no idea why.

DAVID: My point is simpler than your question. I believe God is in charge of evolution and guides its development to achieve His goals. Pre-programming and dabbling are my suggestions as to how it might be accomplished. They are not at the level of belief.

dhw: If your God exists, then of course he is in charge of evolution. Now you are once again talking of goals rather than goal, and you do not even believe in your hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled bacterial action, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, the alternative to which can only be that your God allows autonomy (which is NOT autonomy if organisms must follow "guidelines", i.e. a programme).

My point above is quite clear. We both state God is in charge of evolution, as you assume a theistic position. My suggested ways God might have exerted control are obvious possibilities. Since God has purposes in His methods, I strongly doubt He allows free expression by organisms as they evolve.

dhw: You admit to having no idea why your God would have chosen your suggested method to achieve your suggested purpose, and since you accept the logicality of all the different alternatives that I have suggested,why not join me on this particular fence and remain open to them all? (NB, the free-for-all hypothesis allows for your God to dabble if he feels like it, and therefore covers your “guides its development”.)

It is your insistence I should know exactly why God chose to evolve humans. I accept it as God's choice, which should end that portion of the discussion. My thought process is totally acceptable to me. If you admit God was in charge of evolution, why can't He have freedom of choice? You make no sense.

DAVID: And, of course, God did specifically design humans by carefully managing their eventual appearance, including providing the enlargement of their magnificent brains.

dhw: But you keep insisting that everything else was also specifically designed, from whale fins to cuttlefish camouflage to weaverbirds’ nests, and that is why your hypotheses clash. If his sole purpose was to specifically design our magnificent brains, why did he bother with the rest?

DAVID: To feed evolution throughout the time it took remember?

dhw: Back we go: if he specifically designed humans, including specifically designing their magnificent brains, it makes no sense to say that he couldn’t specifically design them until he had spent 3.5+ billion years specifically designing millions of non-human life forms simply so that they could eat or not eat one another! Why keep harping on about food when you yourself admit that you have no idea why your God chose the method YOU insist on, although you have now stopped insisting and tell us you don’t actually believe it.

All answered above. If God is in charge of evolution He can choose just how to evolve humans and over what period of time. My proposals of how God exerted control are obvious possibilities.

DAVID: All of your suppositions about God imply limits, indecision or incompetence, or your own self-imposed impatience wondering why He waited so long. I fully understand He has the right to choose His method and you've agreed. I'm sure you can follow this logic.

dhw: At one moment you say I insist on God’s omnipotence, and the next that I insist on his limitations! My different hypotheses embrace ALL the different possibilities, and you accept that they all provide logical explanations of life’s history, in contrast to your own.

The difference is I've made decisions and you can't or won't.

dhw: A hidden, unknowable, universal mind that never came from anywhere but has always been there is as difficult for me to believe in as it is to believe in chance as the creator of all life’s complexities. Yes, I am neutral. Now please tell us: do you really believe that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single bacterial action throughout the history of life?

DAVID: My point is simpler than your question. I believe God is in charge of evolution and guides its development to achieve His goals. Pre-programming and dabbling are my suggestions as to how it might be accomplished. They are not at the level of belief.

If your God exists, then of course he is in charge of evolution. Now you are once again talking of goals rather than goal, and you do not even believe in your hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled bacterial action, evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, the alternative to which can only be that your God allows autonomy (which is NOT autonomy if organisms must follow "guidelines", i.e. a programme). You admit to having no idea why your God would have chosen your suggested method to achieve your suggested purpose, and since you accept the logicality of all the different alternatives that I have suggested,why not join me on this particular fence and remain open to them all? (NB, the free-for-all hypothesis allows for your God to dabble if he feels like it, and therefore covers your “guides its development”.)

DAVID: And, of course, God did specifically design humans by carefully managing their eventual appearance, including providing the enlargement of their magnificent brains.

dhw: But you keep insisting that everything else was also specifically designed, from whale fins to cuttlefish camouflage to weaverbirds’ nests, and that is why your hypotheses clash. If his sole purpose was to specifically design our magnificent brains, why did he bother with the rest?

DAVID: To feed evolution throughout the time it took remember?

Back we go: if he specifically designed humans, including specifically designing their magnificent brains, it makes no sense to say that he couldn’t specifically design them until he had spent 3.5+ billion years specifically designing millions of non-human life forms simply so that they could eat or not eat one another! Why keep harping on about food when you yourself admit that you have no idea why your God chose the method YOU insist on, although you have now stopped insisting and tell us you don’t actually believe it.

DAVID: All of your suppositions about God imply limits, indecision or incompetence, or your own self-imposed impatience wondering why He waited so long. I fully understand He has the right to choose His method and you've agreed. I'm sure you can follow this logic.

At one moment you say I insist on God’s omnipotence, and the next that I insist on his limitations! My different hypotheses embrace ALL the different possibilities, and you accept that they all provide logical explanations of life’s history, in contrast to your own.