https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210810104640.htm

"The study, led by Professor Nick Spencer at Flinders University, maintains that the ENS in the gut is the 'first brain' and that it evolved long before the brain as we know it, in humans. The new findings uncover major new information about how the many thousands of neurons in the ENS communicate with each other to cause the muscle layers to contract and propel content. Until now, this had been a major unresolved issue.

"In a new paper in Communications Biology (Nature), Flinders University Professor Nick Spencer, says the latest findings are far more complex than expected and considerably different from the mechanisms that underlie the propulsion of fluid along other muscle organs that have evolved without an intrinsic nervous system; like in lymphatic vessels, ureters or the portal vein.

"'Synchronisation of neuronal activity across large populations of neurons is common in the nervous system of many vertebrate animals," Professor Spencer says.

"The researchers took advantage of a recent technical advance from their laboratory which enabled them to record the smooth muscle electrical activity along the length of colon at the same time as correlating electrical activities with dynamic changes in colonic wall diameter, during propulsion.

"This process has revealed a key new mechanism that finally explains how all the different types of neurons in the ENS come together and coordinate the firing to generate propulsion of content along the colon.

"'Interestingly, the same neural circuit was activated during both propulsive and non-propulsive contractions.'"

Comment: synchronic successive waves of muscle contraction from stomach to anus drive what is eaten along a 22-foot tract. All automatically. It is monitored by the Vagus nerve from the brain. If you have a colon cramp, that is how your brain tells you. That is evolved before our brain appeared is an obvious point bolded above.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/before-nerves-there-were-peptides

"Animal nervous systems evolved from much more simple structures in part because of a novel form of communication, according to new research.

"An international team of scientists has found that simple multicellular organisms called Placozoa can coordinate their movement and body shape in the absence of a nervous system by signalling between cells using short chains of amino acids known as peptides.

"That’s significant because it echoes how more complex organisms use similar structures, known as neuropeptides, for signalling within the nervous system.

“'It might seem strange to use an animal with no neurons or synapses to study nervous system evolution, but although Placozoans are nerveless, you can still find within their cells the basic molecules needed for communication in complex nervous systems,” says Frédérique Varoqueaux, from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.

"So studying Placozoans can tell us more about the origins of neurons and how they became the body's control system.”

"The organisms are just one millimetre in size and look like tiny hairy discs. Although they have only three cell layers and no true nerve or muscle cells, they glide across surfaces in the ocean with apparent ease.

"The new study found that their cells contain a variety of small peptides, made up of between four and 20 amino acids that are secreted from one cell and detected by neighbouring ones.
Experiments revealed that the peptides changed Placozoan behaviour within seconds. Each had a unique effect, which in some cases was very dramatic. The main changes included crinkling, turning, flattening, and internal churning, a behaviour associated with feeding.

“'Each peptide can be used individually as a different signal, but the peptides could also be used sequentially or together in different combinations which allows for very high numbers of unique signals between cells,” says Gáspár Jékely from the University of Exeter in the UK.

“'This explains how Placozoans can coordinate sophisticated behavioural sequences such as feeding.'"

Comment: It is easy to see how receptors for food spot the concentration of the food and automatically release a cascade of peptides to move toward it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180928162255.htm

"During infection, Salmonella delivers a family of zinc metalloprotease effector proteins (green) into host cells, sabotaging the host immune response. These effectors interact with and then cut a subset of host NF-kB transcription factors (yellow), which are proteins that normally function to turn on immune-related genes following the detection of the pathogen.

***

"When a pathogen like Salmonella enterica infects a cell, the cell activates a series of signals, culminating in certain genes being turned on to activate protective immune responses. One group of proteins that turn on immune-related genes is known as the NF-kappaB transcription factors. Salmonella, however, produces its own set of proteins that stop this from happening.

"'These (bacterial proteins) function as a molecular pair of scissors, cutting up NF-kappaB transcription factors and thereby sabotaging the infected cells' immune response," said Teresa Thurston, the investigator at Imperial who oversaw the work.

"These sabotage proteins, collectively called zinc metalloprotease effector proteins, act surprisingly delicately for saboteurs. In the human cells that Salmonella enterica infects, there are five different types of NF-kappaB proteins, but the Salmonella effectors cut up only three of them, leaving the other two untouched.

"'The interaction between the host and the pathogen is very complex," Thurston said. "So what I think this selectivity means is that (the bacterial proteins) are able to affect a particular arm of the immune response while keeping other arms untouched. And, in that way, they're really fine-tuning the host immune response rather than having a blanket bomb-out effect."

***

"They found a sophisticated mechanism of molecular sabotage. The NF-kappaB transcription factors do their job of turning on immune system genes by binding to DNA at specific locations. The Salmonella effector proteins take on the approximate shape and electrical charge of the DNA backbone, essentially tricking NF-kappaB proteins to stick to them instead; once this happens, the Salmonella protein cuts up the NF-kappaB protein.
The precision with which this occurs -- targeting only three out of five NF-kappaB proteins -- is strongly determined by the way the bacterial effectors interact with a single amino acid in the targeted NF-kappaB proteins.

"'With a single change in the amino acid sequence, we could create a target that could no longer be cut," Thurston said. "Also vice versa: After changing just one amino acid, (the effector) was then able to cleave a protein that was not normally targeted."
In other words, the bacterial proteins distinguish between the human proteins based on just one specific amino acid.

"Together, these findings contribute to a complex picture of how Salmonella runs roughshod over its human host by carefully breaking key molecules in immune signaling pathways."

Comment: Note that all of this activity is the result of complex enzymes that act automatically, no thought needed. All it takes is intelligent designed information in the genome.

DAVID: I know you are trying to defend your pet theory of an operating cellular intelligence, which is only an interpretation. What Shapiro talks about is the cells' ability to alter DNA and reprogram, and I totally agree with that.

dhw: Do you really want me to go on reproducing the quotes from Shapiro himself (deploring “large organisms chauvinism”), McClintock, Margulis, Buehler? Cellular intelligence is an interpretation extrapolated from their lifetime studies of the subject. And your view is also “only an interpretation”.

DAVID: I'm sure you noted the portion of my statement of what I agree with Shapiro about?

dhw: Ah, a possible misunderstanding, then. When you wrote: “What Shapiro talks about is the cells’ ability…” you actually meant you agree with him when he talks about the cells’ ability. You simply ignored what he talks about when he talks about cellular intelligence!

You've got it.

dhw: Do you really want me to go on reproducing the quotes from Shapiro himself (deploring “large organisms chauvinism”), McClintock, Margulis, Buehler? Cellular intelligence is an interpretation extrapolated from their lifetime studies of the subject. And your view is also “only an interpretation”.

DAVID: I'm sure you noted the portion of my statement of what I agree with Shapiro about?

Ah, a possible misunderstanding, then. When you wrote: “What Shapiro talks about is the cells’ ability…” you actually meant you agree with him when he talks about the cells’ ability. You simply ignored what he talks about when he talks about cellular intelligence!

DAVID: I know you are trying to defend your pet theory of an operating cellular intelligence, which is only an interpretation. What Shapiro talks about is the cells' ability to alter DNA and reprogram, and I totally agree with that.

dhw: Do you really want me to go on reproducing the quotes from Shapiro himself (deploring “large organisms chauvinism”), McClintock, Margulis, Buehler? Cellular intelligence is an interpretation extrapolated from their lifetime studies of the subject. And your view is also “only an interpretation”.

I'm sure you noted the portion of my statement of what I agree with Shapiro about?

Do you really want me to go on reproducing the quotes from Shapiro himself (deploring “large organisms chauvinism”), McClintock, Margulis, Buehler? Cellular intelligence is an interpretation extrapolated from their lifetime studies of the subject. And your view is also “only an interpretation”.

QUOTE: "'It's like your home wireless network. When you first got it, you set up a password and put it in all of your wireless devices. Over the years, you got new computers and smart phones, or had visitors who needed to use the wireless network. If you changed the password, the old devices wouldn't work, which would be a hassle. So, you continue to use the old password to ensure that everyone could still access the system," Durand said. "Philip's experiments show that the Clostridia and the Bacilli get stuck in the same rut when it comes to changing passwords as we do.'"

DAVID: A perfect example of cellular automaticity, no intellectual action required by the cell, and the mechanism is about 2.7 byo.

dhw: Yeah, just like us, if something works, don’t change it. But you still need intelligence to decide how to use the devices at your disposal.

If cell receptors trigger molecules which trigger the next molecules, which the trigger the final molecular response, it is all automatic chemical reactions, no innate intelligence required as it is all organized. All automatic decisions demanded by the chemistry. Open your mind to the chemistry defined in the article. I know you are trying to defend your pet theory of an operating cellular intelligence, which is only an interpretation. What Shapiro talks about is the cells' ability to alter DNA and reprogram, and I totally agree with that.

DAVID: A perfect example of cellular automaticity, no intellectual action required by the cell, and the mechanism is about 2.7 byo.

Yeah, just like us, if something works, don’t change it. But you still need intelligence to decide how to use the devices at your disposal.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-bacteria-password-sporulation-hasnt-billion.html

"When it comes to changing their passwords, bacteria are just as bad as you and me—maybe even worse. A Carnegie Mellon University research team has found that despite 2.7 billion years of evolution, bacteria are still using the same "password" to initiate the process for making spores.

"Bacteria make spores when times are tough. A protective shell forms around dormant cells to let them withstand harsh conditions like heat, acidity and radiation. Understanding sporulation has implications for many fields, including health care. For example, the spores of C. difficile can survive hand sanitizer, making that bacterium the leading cause of hospital-acquired infections.

"Bacteria use "plug-and-play" signaling networks to sense and respond to environmental challenges. A sensor protein recognizes an environmental signal and passes a message to an activator protein, which turns on the appropriate response. Each sensor-activator pair has a specific set of amino acids that act like a password, which ensures that the sensor passes the message to the correct activator.

"In the case of the sporulation network, a sensor protein recognizes environmental threats and alerts an activator protein that controls sporulation. The plug-and-play nature of signaling networks makes it easy for bacteria to adapt in a constantly changing world by integrating new sensors into the sporulation network. A sensor that recognizes a new challenge can turn on sporulation, as long as it has the password for the sporulation activator.

***

"To better understand these changes, study co-author Philip Davidson built artificial four-protein networks in test tubes, each with different combinations of the proteins found in the four-protein sporulation networks. He was able to replace any protein in a Bacillar four-protein sporulation network with the corresponding protein from a Clostridial four-protein network, and vice versa, and the activator still got the message. This shows that Clostridia and Bacilli are still using the same passwords as their ancestor that lived 2.7 billion years ago.

"'It's like your home wireless network. When you first got it, you set up a password and put it in all of your wireless devices. Over the years, you got new computers and smart phones, or had visitors who needed to use the wireless network. If you changed the password, the old devices wouldn't work, which would be a hassle. So, you continue to use the old password to ensure that everyone could still access the system," Durand said. "Philip's experiments show that the Clostridia and the Bacilli get stuck in the same rut when it comes to changing passwords as we do.'"

Comment: A perfect example of cellular automaticity, no intellectual action required by the cell, and the mechanism is about 2.7 byo.

DAVID: The need for energy is a truism. Balance simply describes the mechanism of supply. The balance has nothing to do with the argument that evolution has a purpose. We all know that. […] And later:
Weaverbirds are a part of an econiche that produces energy for evolution, nothing more. You keep trying to tie the design issue into the final production of the human brain.

dhw: Thank you for this excellent summary, which I shall try to keep handy for future reference. The problem we keep discussing is twofold: 1) your continued insistence that your God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, and 2) that he did so in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his “prime” purpose, which was the production of the human brain. Whenever I challenge these two tenets of yours, you bring up the “balance of nature”, which you now acknowledge is totally irrelevant. I ask why he had to specially design the weaverbird's nest if his prime purpose was to produce the human brain, and now you acknowledge that there is no connection. It is you who constantly harp on about your God’s purposefulness, and who constantly try to link continuation of life to the production of the brain. I’m delighted that you have abandoned that line of argument. All we’re left with now is your belief that he personally designed the complexities of the weaverbird’s nest in order to produce energy for evolution. I can’t help feeling that life would have continued to evolve even without those knots.

DAVID: What you don't seem to remember is that you asked me for possible reasons for God's purposes, so I gave you some, but over and over I've said we really can't know because He is a person like no other person.

dhw: But you keep insisting that you do “know” his purpose: production of the human brain.

DAVID: You can't seem to avoid a human suggestion about what God might have planned or wished. All we see is the result: the miraculous appearance of life on a very specialized planet with an evolution of the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

dhw: You seem to think your human insistence that humans were the primary focus of your God’s plans and wishes is not a human suggestion. The result we see is 3.8 billion years of comings and goings, with a vast variety of species, lifestyles and natural wonders, including but – as you now acknowledge - unconnected with the human brain. This suggests to me that your God must have had a much broader purpose than just producing the human brain - hence the spectacle hypothesis. But you reject this as “humanizing”. I point out that your purposeful God must have had a purpose in wanting to produce the human brain, and so instead of my “humanizing” spectacle, you offer “humanizing” faith, recognition, and a relationship. If you want to discuss your God’s purpose, you cannot avoid making “human suggestions” that “humanize” him. And if you can make them, I can make them. “Humanization” is a non-argument, since all our explanations are human speculations. But I would suggest that some seem more logical than others!

DAVID: And you doubt a designer must exist. Makes no sense to me.

dhw: As you very well know, I do not reject the case for design. But the case for design does not provide any answer to the problem of how an infinite, conscious being of infinite powers can simply “be”, whereas finite beings of finite consciousness and powers have to be designed. I cannot believe in a solution to one mystery if that solution creates an even greater mystery that has no solution. And it does make sense to you, because you always acknowledge that ultimately one needs faith to believe your solution.

We can conclude that you will stay on the fence and I will be with faith in God. I hope this discussion interested followers of this site. To each his own.

Thank you for this excellent summary, which I shall try to keep handy for future reference. The problem we keep discussing is twofold: 1) your continued insistence that your God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, and 2) that he did so in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his “prime” purpose, which was the production of the human brain. Whenever I challenge these two tenets of yours, you bring up the “balance of nature”, which you now acknowledge is totally irrelevant. I ask why he had to specially design the weaverbird's nest if his prime purpose was to produce the human brain, and now you acknowledge that there is no connection. It is you who constantly harp on about your God’s purposefulness, and who constantly try to link continuation of life to the production of the brain. I’m delighted that you have abandoned that line of argument. All we’re left with now is your belief that he personally designed the complexities of the weaverbird’s nest in order to produce energy for evolution. I can’t help feeling that life would have continued to evolve even without those knots.

DAVID: What you don't seem to remember is that you asked me for possible reasons for God's purposes, so I gave you some, but over and over I've said we really can't know because He is a person like no other person.

But you keep insisting that you do “know” his purpose: production of the human brain.

DAVID: You can't seem to avoid a human suggestion about what God might have planned or wished. All we see is the result: the miraculous appearance of life on a very specialized planet with an evolution of the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

You seem to think your human insistence that humans were the primary focus of your God’s plans and wishes is not a human suggestion. The result we see is 3.8 billion years of comings and goings, with a vast variety of species, lifestyles and natural wonders, including but – as you now acknowledge - unconnected with the human brain. This suggests to me that your God must have had a much broader purpose than just producing the human brain - hence the spectacle hypothesis. But you reject this as “humanizing”. I point out that your purposeful God must have had a purpose in wanting to produce the human brain, and so instead of my “humanizing” spectacle, you offer “humanizing” faith, recognition, and a relationship. If you want to discuss your God’s purpose, you cannot avoid making “human suggestions” that “humanize” him. And if you can make them, I can make them. “Humanization” is a non-argument, since all our explanations are human speculations. But I would suggest that some seem more logical than others!

DAVID: And you doubt a designer must exist. Makes no sense to me.

As you very well know, I do not reject the case for design. But the case for design does not provide any answer to the problem of how an infinite, conscious being of infinite powers can simply “be”, whereas finite beings of finite consciousness and powers have to be designed. I cannot believe in a solution to one mystery if that solution creates an even greater mystery that has no solution. And it does make sense to you, because you always acknowledge that ultimately one needs faith to believe your solution.

dhw: Of course the energy has to be present for life to continue, but that does not mean that life continued for the sole purpose of producing sapiens’ brain, or that your God had to personally design the weaverbird’s nest. Life continues in whatever form, with or without the human brain and the weaverbird’s nest, so long as there is food to sustain it. That is why “balance of nature” is irrelevant to your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, and to your claim that organisms are incapable of designing their own nests, lifestyles and wonders.

The need for energy is a truism. Balance simply describes the mechanism of supply. The balance has nothing to do with the argument that evolution has a purpose. We all know that. The argument about design involves the analysis of complexity and whether that complexity requires a designing mind, as in Behe's 'irreducible complexity' (IC). I stand on the position that if IC is present design is required.

DAVID: First, He is not human. He is purposely hidden, so that you must come to believe in Him. If the faith requirement were not an issue, He could perform an obvious miracle and convince all of us. That would be a humanized God!
dhw: Fine, but you have not explained WHY he wants us to have faith in him, which is what I asked.
DAVID: We assume He wants faith. He may not. Religions tell us He loves non-believers also.

dhw: YOU assume it, since you said it in the first place, along with your assumption that he wants us to recognize him and to have a relationship with him, and that was the reason why he created the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. I offer the alternative that he created the bush as an ever changing spectacle that he could “watch with interest” (your words), but you dismiss this as “humanizing”, whereas you cannot see that your own assumptions are every bit as “humanizing”.

What you don't seem to remember is that you asked me for possible reasons for God's purposes, so I gave you some, but over and over I've said we really can't know because He is a person like no other person.

DAVID (under “sentient cells”): Evolution had to proceed under God's direction because of His purpose to produce humans. I think God knew what He wanted to do from the point that He started he universe. You produce a doubtful hesitant God in your mind's meanderings about Him.

dhw: Cart before horse. Of course he had to direct it IF from the start he wanted to produce humans. That is the big IF, since you can’t tell me why he had to “direct” the weaverbird’s nest etc. if he wanted to produce humans.

Weaverbirds are a part of an econiche that produces energy for evolution, nothing more. You keep trying to tie the design issue into the final production of the human brain. Chance could never have designed the human brain. It required a designer.

dhw: I shan’t repeat all the anomalies and contradictions your own meanderings have led you to, but will suggest that if someone deliberately creates a spectacle that he can watch with interest, or has a fixed idea (humans) and experiments in order to achieve it, or has a bright new idea (humans) which he implements, that does not make him doubtful or hesitant. But at least this is a different objection from “humanizing” (which you keep indulging in yourself), so keep trying.

You can't seem to avoid a human suggestion about what God might have planned or wished. All we see is the result: the miraculous appearance of life on a very specialized planet with an evolution of the most complex item in the universe, our brain. And you doubt a designer must exist. Makes no sense to me.

Of course the energy has to be present for life to continue, but that does not mean that life continued for the sole purpose of producing sapiens’ brain, or that your God had to personally design the weaverbird’s nest. Life continues in whatever form, with or without the human brain and the weaverbird’s nest, so long as there is food to sustain it. That is why “balance of nature” is irrelevant to your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, and to your claim that organisms are incapable of designing their own nests, lifestyles and wonders.

DAVID: First, He is not human. He is purposely hidden, so that you must come to believe in Him. If the faith requirement were not an issue, He could perform an obvious miracle and convince all of us. That would be a humanized God!
dhw: Fine, but you have not explained WHY he wants us to have faith in him, which is what I asked.
DAVID: We assume He wants faith. He may not. Religions tell us He loves non-believers also.

YOU assume it, since you said it in the first place, along with your assumption that he wants us to recognize him and to have a relationship with him, and that was the reason why he created the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. I offer the alternative that he created the bush as an ever changing spectacle that he could “watch with interest” (your words), but you dismiss this as “humanizing”, whereas you cannot see that your own assumptions are every bit as “humanizing”.

DAVID (under “sentient cells”): Evolution had to proceed under God's direction because of His purpose to produce humans. I think God knew what He wanted to do from the point that He started he universe. You produce a doubtful hesitant God in your mind's meanderings about Him.

Cart before horse. Of course he had to direct it IF from the start he wanted to produce humans. That is the big IF, since you can’t tell me why he had to “direct” the weaverbird’s nest etc. if he wanted to produce humans. I shan’t repeat all the anomalies and contradictions your own meanderings have led you to, but will suggest that if someone deliberately creates a spectacle that he can watch with interest, or has a fixed idea (humans) and experiments in order to achieve it, or has a bright new idea (humans) which he implements, that does not make him doubtful or hesitant. But at least this is a different objection from “humanizing” (which you keep indulging in yourself), so keep trying.

DAVID: The brain is the most complex organ to develop in evolution. How can you deny that it is the pinnacle of the process?

dhw: You were trying to explain why your God had to design the weaverbird’s nest etc., and as usual came up with your “balance of nature”, which only means that life has gone on for 3.8 billion years. It does not mean that every organism, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the 3.8 billion years of life so far was designed to produce sapiens’ brain. Unless you can explain why the weaverbird’s nest etc. were all essential for the production of the human brain, your “balance of nature” argument is a complete non sequitur and should be confined to current ecological problems.

How did evolution of life continue for 3.8 billion years unless the energy was present for it to continue. All food gone, no life. Absolutely intertwined. The nest is one tiny aspect of balance of nature, and obviously by itself has no relation to the appearance of the brain, other than it fits into one of the millions of econiches supplying life's energy. Your argument is a total misdirection of thought..
in him?[/i]

DAVID: First, He is not human. He is purposely hidden, so that you must come to believe in Him. If the faith requirement were not an issue, He could perform an obvious miracle and convince all of us. That would be a humanized God!

dhw: Fine, but you have not explained WHY he wants us to have faith in him, which is what I asked.

We assume He wants faith. He may not. Religions tell us He loves non-believers also.

dhw: If you think your version is logical, why – when I challenge its logic – do you keep telling us that God’s logic is different from human logic?
DAVID: Because God is not human. Therefore your human assumptions about Him are all human and not applicable.

dhw: Your “assumption” is that he created the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going for 3.x billion years until he could fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain, which he did because he wants us to recognize him and have faith in him and have a relationship with him (while hiding himself), though somehow not in a human way. And these assumptions are not human because…….because you have read God’s mind? Or he has told you he wants recognition but does not want enjoyment?

We have to assume what He wants. He has never issued a list of requirements, although humans presume to try..

You were trying to explain why your God had to design the weaverbird’s nest etc., and as usual came up with your “balance of nature”, which only means that life has gone on for 3.8 billion years. It does not mean that every organism, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the 3.8 billion years of life so far was designed to produce sapiens’ brain. Unless you can explain why the weaverbird’s nest etc. were all essential for the production of the human brain, your “balance of nature” argument is a complete non sequitur and should be confined to current ecological problems.

DAVID: On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship…
dhw: And what do you think might be the non-humanized purpose of his wanting non-humanized recognition and a non-humanized relationship?
DAVID: To have the sort of relationship we have, one requiring faith.
dhw: And what do you think is the non-humanizing purpose of his wanting us to have faith in him?
DAVID: First, He is not human. He is purposely hidden, so that you must come to believe in Him. If the faith requirement were not an issue, He could perform an obvious miracle and convince all of us. That would be a humanized God!

Fine, but you have not explained WHY he wants us to have faith in him, which is what I asked.

dhw: For 3.x billion years we weren’t even there to marvel! In any case, that is not what I wrote at all, though it certainly ties in with your idea that he wants recognition and he wants us to have faith in him. Sorry, but your version is considerably more humanly vain than mine, which is that he may take pleasure in his creations, and he may enjoy an ever changing spectacle.
DAVID: How do we know God 'enjoys' at all. Do you accept the view of religions that God is 'loving'. That is a hopeful human assumption.

We don’t even “know” whether he exists, let alone what is his nature and his purpose. But you say he wants recognition and a relationship with us. Why is his desire for recognition less human than his desire to produce something he can enjoy?

dhw: If you think your version is logical, why – when I challenge its logic – do you keep telling us that God’s logic is different from human logic?
DAVID: Because God is not human. Therefore your human assumptions about Him are all human and not applicable.

Your “assumption” is that he created the weaverbird’s nest (plus a few million other examples) in order to keep life going for 3.x billion years until he could fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain, which he did because he wants us to recognize him and have faith in him and have a relationship with him (while hiding himself), though somehow not in a human way. And these assumptions are not human because…….because you have read God’s mind? Or he has told you he wants recognition but does not want enjoyment?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180409103942.htm

"A team of scientists at Nagoya University has discovered new compounds that can control stomatal movements in plants. Some of the compounds have shown to prevent leaves from drying up and suppress withering when sprayed onto rose and oat leaves.

"Stomata consist of a pair of guard cells and open in response to the blue light present in sunlight. Opening of stomata leads to carbon dioxide uptake, explaining why photosynthesis occurs during the day. When plants are under dark conditions and/or drought stress, a plant hormone, abscisic acid (ABA) is biosynthesized and induces stomata closure. Stomata are closed during the night to prevent water loss from the plant.

"When the guard cells in the stomata detect blue light, the photoreceptor, phototropin is activated and induces signaling within the cell. As a result of the signaling, the enzyme, plasma membrane proton pump (PM H+-ATPase) is activated, leading to the uptake of potassium ions. This triggers water uptake and cell swelling that opens the stomata. Although activation of PM H+-ATPase is known to be significant for stomatal opening, the full mechanism of stomatal opening is yet to be clarified.

***

"Using the herb, Benghal dayflower as a model plant, Dr. Shigeo Toh, Mr. Shinpei Inoue, and Dr.?Yosuke Toda, established experimental conditions to screen over 20,000 compounds. They managed to find hit compounds after a year of random screening of the chemical library. This includes 9 compounds that suppress light-induced stomatal opening by more than 50%, and 2 compounds that induce stomatal opening even in the dark.

***

"Further analysis of stomatal closing compounds (SCLs), SCL1 and SCL2, revealed that that they inhibit the signaling components between the phototropin receptor and the PM H+-ATPase enzyme, thus inhibiting light-induced activation of PM H+-ATPase and leading to suppression of stomatal opening."

Comment: A great example of automaticity.

DAVID: All part of balance of nature to supply energy for evolution to proceed over 3.8 billion years.

dhw: That simply means that the ever changing evolutionary bush of life has lasted for 3.8 billion years so far. Nothing to do with the human brain being its one and only purpose!

The brain is the most complex organ to develop in evolution. How can you deny that it is the pinnacle of the process?

DAVID: On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship…
dhw: And what do you think might be the non-humanized purpose of his wanting non-humanized recognition and a non-humanized relationship?
DAVID: To have the sort of relationship we have, one requiring faith.

dhw: And what do you think is the non-humanizing purpose of his wanting us to have faith in him?

First, He is not human. He is purposely hidden, so that you must come to believe in Him. If the faith requirement were not an issue, He could perform an obvious miracle and convince all of us. That would be a humanized God!

dhw: For 3.x billion years we weren’t even there to marvel! In any case, that is not what I wrote at all, though it certainly ties in with your idea that he wants recognition and he wants us to have faith in him. Sorry, but your version is considerably more humanly vain than mine, which is that he may take pleasure in his creations, and he may enjoy an ever changing spectacle.

How do we know God 'enjoys' at all. Do you accept the view of religions that God is 'loving'. That is a hopeful human assumption.

DAVID: As for a group of other goals, with humans as the primary one, all others are basically secondary and subordinated to that one, as balance of nature, the one I offered. I might ask why do you want me to produce a group of other God's purposes. He might not have any.
dhw: A short time ago you denied that you regarded the human brain as God’s only purpose, and I challenged you to name other purposes. All you came up with was “balance of nature”, which turned out to be geared to the production of the human brain. Therefore God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest plus a few million other special designs extant and extinct in order to be able to produce the human brain. The only explanation you have offered for this illogicality is that God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. mine). Maybe it’s not.
DAVID: I think it is very logical. Sorry you don't.

dhw: If you think your version is logical, why – when I challenge its logic – do you keep telling us that God’s logic is different from human logic?

Because God is not human. Therefore your human assumptions about Him are all human and not applicable.

That simply means that the ever changing evolutionary bush of life has lasted for 3.8 billion years so far. Nothing to do with the human brain being its one and only purpose!

DAVID: On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship…
dhw: And what do you think might be the non-humanized purpose of his wanting non-humanized recognition and a non-humanized relationship?
DAVID: To have the sort of relationship we have, one requiring faith.

And what do you think is the non-humanizing purpose of his wanting us to have faith in him?

DAVID: ….but that is not the same as your idea that He wanted to watch a spectacle of diversity, which implies to me God is a 'showoff' in your view, saying "look what I can produce in variety".
dhw: Sorry, but that is plain daft. Unless there are other gods watching, who the heck could he show off to? Have you never experienced the pleasure of creating something you enjoy? And what do you enjoy more: a spectacle in which every item is predictable, or one in which you are constantly being surprised?
DAVID: A total humanization of God! A distant God is showing off to us who marvel at his creations.

For 3.x billion years we weren’t even there to marvel! In any case, that is not what I wrote at all, though it certainly ties in with your idea that he wants recognition and he wants us to have faith in him. Sorry, but your version is considerably more humanly vain than mine, which is that he may take pleasure in his creations, and he may enjoy an ever changing spectacle.

DAVID: As for a group of other goals, with humans as the primary one, all others are basically secondary and subordinated to that one, as balance of nature, the one I offered. I might ask why do you want me to produce a group of other God's purposes. He might not have any.
dhw: A short time ago you denied that you regarded the human brain as God’s only purpose, and I challenged you to name other purposes. All you came up with was “balance of nature”, which turned out to be geared to the production of the human brain. Therefore God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest plus a few million other special designs extant and extinct in order to be able to produce the human brain. The only explanation you have offered for this illogicality is that God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. mine). Maybe it’s not.
DAVID: I think it is very logical. Sorry you don't.

If you think your version is logical, why – when I challenge its logic – do you keep telling us that God’s logic is different from human logic?

DAVID: Again you have twisted the argument about survival. Nothing beyond bacteria was necessary, therefore it was arranged as a required advance, which is strong evidence for a designed advance.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the initial mechanisms for advance. That does not mean he specially designed the weaverbird’s nest and millions of other lifestyles and wonders extant and extinct for the sole purpose of creating the brain of Homo sapiens!

All part of balance of nature to supply energy for evolution to proceed over 3.8 billion years.

[/i]

DAVID: On the issue of relationship, if Humans are God's goal, of course He has a purpose of a relationship…

dhw: And what do you think might be the non-humanized purpose of his wanting non-humanized recognition and a non-humanized relationship?

To have the sort of relationship we have, one requiring faith.

DAVID: ….but that is not the same as your idea that He wanted to watch a spectacle of diversity, which implies to me God is a 'showoff' in your view, saying "look what I can produce in variety".

dhw: Sorry, but that is plain daft. Unless there are other gods watching, who the heck could he show off to? Have you never experienced the pleasure of creating something you enjoy? And what do you enjoy more: a spectacle in which every item is predictable, or one in which you are constantly being surprised?

A total humanization of God! A distant God is showing off to us who marvel at his creations.

DAVID: As for a group of other goals, with humans as the primary one, all others are basically secondary and subordinated to that one, as balance of nature, the one I offered. I might ask why do you want me to produce a group of other God's purposes. He might not have any.

dhw: A short time ago you denied that you regarded the human brain as God’s only purpose, and I challenged you to name other purposes. All you came up with was “balance of nature”, which turned out to be geared to the production of the human brain. Therefore God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest plus a few million other special designs extant and extinct in order to be able to produce the human brain. The only explanation you have offered for this illogicality is that God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. mine). Maybe it’s not.

I think it is very logical. Sorry you don't