https://phys.org/news/2022-03-roundworms-egg-cells-backup-division.html

"For reproduction to be successful, an egg cell must divide perfectly. Egg cell divisions are so error-prone, however, that they are the leading cause of miscarriages and birth defects in humans.

"Prior to our work, certain proteins were thought to be essential for cells to divide," said Northwestern's Sadie Wignall, who led the study. "However, when we removed these proteins, we were surprised to discover a previously hidden 'backup' mechanism that was able to kick in when the main proteins were missing. We uncovered something that other researchers missed because, if the major mechanism is in place, then you wouldn't know that backup existed."

***

"When an egg is fertilized with sperm, the resulting embryo begins to rapidly divide, eventually developing into a healthy organism. If either the egg or the sperm have the wrong amount of genetic material, however, then the organism cannot properly develop.

"While other cells in the human body divide perfectly more than 99% of the time, egg cells are mysteriously error prone. About 10-25% of the time, egg cells incorrectly divide, resulting in the wrong amount of genetic material ending up in the embryo.

To understand why egg cells are more susceptible to errors, Wignall studies a football-shaped structure, called the spindle, which organizes genetic material before the egg divides.

"'The spindle is like a machine," Wignall said. "It lines up chromosomes and then pulls them apart, ensuring that the right number of chromosomes end up in each half of the cell."

"'Motor proteins bind to the microtubules and take steps to move along them—just like humans walk using their legs," Wignall said. "When microtubules are first formed, they are a random mess. Then the motors use this walking motion to push the microtubules around to arrange them into the spindle structure."

"Before Wignall's new study, researchers believed two motor proteins (dynein and kinesin-12) were primarily responsible for this task. But when Cavin-Meza removed both proteins from roundworms' egg cells, he saw something shocking.

"'When we removed these proteins, it made the entire spindle blow apart," Wignall said. "Then we were surprised to see the spindle reform."

"In the absence of dynein and kinesin-12, another motor protein (called kinesin-5) came out of hiding to perform its backup duty. In the end, this previously unknown mechanism restored the spindle structure, allowing the chromosomes to be pulled apart.

Before Wignall's new study, researchers believed two motor proteins (dynein and kinesin-12) were primarily responsible for this task. But when Cavin-Meza removed both proteins from roundworms' egg cells, he saw something shocking.

"'When we removed these proteins, it made the entire spindle blow apart," Wignall said. "Then we were surprised to see the spindle reform."

"In the absence of dynein and kinesin-12, another motor protein (called kinesin-5) came out of hiding to perform its backup duty. In the end, this previously unknown mechanism restored the spindle structure, allowing the chromosomes to be pulled apart."

Comment: God designs backup systems at all times. This total system had to be present from the beginning as a 10-25% error rate would have dramatically reduced survival of the species.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210928193834.htm

"Some time in Earth's early history, the planet took a turn toward habitability when a group of enterprising microbes known as cyanobacteria evolved oxygenic photosynthesis -- the ability to turn light and water into energy, releasing oxygen in the process.

"This evolutionary moment made it possible for oxygen to eventually accumulate in the atmosphere and oceans, setting off a domino effect of diversification and shaping the uniquely habitable planet we know today.

***

"Interestingly, this estimate places the appearance of oxygenic photosynthesis at least 400 million years before the Great Oxidation Event, a period in which the Earth's atmosphere and oceans first experienced a rise in oxygen. This suggests that cyanobacteria may have evolved the ability to produce oxygen early on, but that it took a while for this oxygen to really take hold in the environment.

"'In evolution, things always start small," says lead author Greg Fournier, associate professor of geobiology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. "Even though there's evidence for early oxygenic photosynthesis -- which is the single most important and really amazing evolutionary innovation on Earth -- it still took hundreds of millions of years for it to take off."

***

"The analysis also revealed that, shortly before the GOE, around 2.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria experienced a burst of diversification. This implies that a rapid expansion of cyanobacteria may have tipped the Earth into the GOE and launched oxygen into the atmosphere."

Comment: Note God didn't simply put oxygen on Earth. He had organisms develop it. Just like he didn't make all the elements at once, but gave the stars a process to make them internally and release them in explosions. We cannot know if God is limited in His creationist abilities or simply prefers evolving what He wishes. I still think in inventing living biochemistry He developed the only possible working system.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/cell-cannibalism-shows-intelligent-design/

"The actions of cells sometimes look sentient; no wonder we tend to anthropomorphize them. One system that exemplifies this purposeful action is the cell’s ability to sense harm going on in its interior. The cell puts up a flag on its outer membrane to signal any nearby phagocyte to come over and engulf it. It resembles an act of self-sacrifice for the greater good, like an altruistic soldier diving onto a grenade to save his comrades. Biochemists, with uncharacteristic humor, uniformly call this flag the “Eat Me!” signal.

"News from Kyoto University exemplifies the point with the headline, “Eat me: The cell signal of death.” It begins with a cartoon of a lipid calling out to a phagocyte, “Eat me!” What is the mechanistic description for this phenomenon? The article says, “molecular mechanisms” are “involved in eliminating unwanted cells in the body.” The statistics are mind-blowing:

"A nuclear protein fragment released into the cytoplasm activates a plasma membrane protein to display a lipid on the cell surface, signalling other cells to get rid of it. The findings were published in the journal Molecular Cell.

“'Every day, ten billion cells die and are engulfed by blood cells called phagocytes. If this didn’t happen, dead cells would burst, triggering an auto-immune reaction,” explains iCeMS biochemist Jun Suzuki, who led the study. “It is important to understand how dead cells are eliminated as part of our body’s maintenance.”

***

"A nuclear protein fragment released into the cytoplasm activates a plasma membrane protein to display a lipid on the cell surface, signalling other cells to get rid of it. The findings were published in the journal Molecular Cell.

“'Every day, ten billion cells die and are engulfed by blood cells called phagocytes. If this didn’t happen, dead cells would burst, triggering an auto-immune reaction,” explains iCeMS biochemist Jun Suzuki, who led the study. “It is important to understand how dead cells are eliminated as part of our body’s maintenance.”

"It’s a fail-safe operation, with protein parts acting like locks and keys. The mechanism ensures that the “Eat me” signal is not raised by mistake, leading to the death of a healthy cell. Moreover, Xkr4 is one of a squadron of scramblases that become activated quickly in cell death.

***

"The scramblase Xkr4 is highly expressed in the brain. Another mention of this phenomenon comes from the Salk Institute. The venerable lab, named after polio vaccine pioneer Jonas Salk, found something unexpected. The headline says, “In surprising twist, some Alzheimer’s plaques may be protective, not destructive.” Everyone thought the tangled plaques of amyloid protein in the brain were always nasty. It appears that the diseased plaques come from mis-regulation of a healthy process involving the “Eat Me” signaling system.

"There are numerous forms of plaque, but the two most prevalent are characterized as “diffuse” and “dense-core.” Diffuse plaques are loosely organized, amorphous clouds. Dense-core plaques have a compact center surrounded by a halo. Scientists have generally believed that both types of plaque form spontaneously from excess production of a precursor molecule called amyloid precursor protein (APP).

"But, according to the new study, it is actually microglia that form dense-core plaques from diffuse amyloid-beta fibrils, as part of their cellular cleanup.

"Microglia cells used to be considered mere scaffolding in the brain. In the last decade or so, they have been recognized as essential players with many important functions. One of those roles is coming to light: cleanup of tangled protein clumps.

"This builds on a 2016 discovery by the Lemke lab, which determined that when a brain cell dies, a fatty molecule flips from the inside to the outside of the cell, signaling, “I’m dead, eat me.” Microglia, via surface proteins called TAM receptors, then engulf, or “eat” the dead cell, with the help of an intermediary molecule called Gas6. Without TAM receptors and Gas6, microglia cannot connect to dead cells and consume them.

"The team’s current work shows that it’s not only dead cells that exhibit the eat-me signal and Gas6: So do the amyloid plaques prevalent in Alzheimer’s disease. Using animal models, the researchers were able to demonstrate experimentally for the first time that microglia with TAM receptors eat amyloid plaques via the eat-me signal and Gas6. In mice engineered to lack TAM receptors, the microglia were unable to perform this function."

Comment: There is no question foresight is involved in this design. We know cells have a specific life span and must die around other living cells. Living cells and disposal of dying cells must be simultaneously part of the original design. Note dhw denies foresight is in evidence in evolutionary processes. That might support God exists.

dhw: We are almost there, except that – to put the record straight – I do not regard any of your individual beliefs as nonsense. […] And so, for the last time I hope (because in fact we are in agreement since you yourself can’t find a logical explanation), what does NOT make sense is the combination of an all-powerful God whose purpose is to directly design sapiens – because according to you, he directly designed every phase from hominin to sapiens – with the direct creation of millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen this method of achieving his purpose, but you will stick to your theory. I think that is the point at which we can shake hands and agree to disagree.

DAVID: Note my bold in your statement. I don't think you understand my logic I see it. The bold is where you are wrong about my theory which is logical to me.

dhw:Then look at No. 6 in the list that follows!

DAVID: It is simply the same set of initial steps you have admitted can be correct. 1)God is the creator. 2) God has the right/ability to choose His method or methods of creation. 3) Humans are God's creation. 4) God created life starting as bacteria. 5) God chose to use designed evolution as His method to produce humans from that initial point. 6) No, I don't know, nor can I know, why He chose that method.

dhw: You have confirmed everything I have written, except that with 5) you have glossed over the illogicality of your theory! According to you, God chose to design every life form, natural wonder etc. in life’s history, and although 99% of them had no connection with humans, all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” Your 6) acknowledges that you can’t find any logical reason for this “method”, and if you can’t find a reason, how can it be logical to you?

Same weird problem. In 5) I have chosen to believe God chose evolution to create humans. In 6) He hasn't told me his reasons. 1-4) all lead to 5) & 6)

dhw: There is a shift in your post on “Theodicy”:

DAVID: He wanted the whole bush to appear. That means all 'the unpredictable variety of species' were all planned as part of God's creation of the living bush.”

dhw: If, by living bush, you mean the present, you have acknowledged that there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus (plus a few million other examples) and humans, and between PAST and PRESENT econiches. “He wanted the whole bush to appear” means past and present, and that is logical: whether he designed each twig directly or gave organisms free rein to do their own designing, we can still say the whole bush is what he wanted. And we needn’t ask why. But once again, the dispute between us is that you insist that the whole bush was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” No. 6): You don’t know why he would have chosen such a method for such a goal (which is merely YOUR interpretation of evolution’s history and purpose), but you tell us it is logical to you! We agree that you can’t find any logical explanation for your theory, so why not leave it at that?

My theory is logical to me, but not you. WE can end on that.

DAVID: Note my bold in your statement. I don't think you understand my logic I see it. The bold is where you are wrong about my theory which is logical to me.

Then look at No. 6 in the list that follows!

DAVID: It is simply the same set of initial steps you have admitted can be correct. 1)God is the creator. 2) God has the right/ability to choose His method or methods of creation. 3) Humans are God's creation. 4) God created life starting as bacteria. 5) God chose to use designed evolution as His method to produce humans from that initial point. 6) No, I don't know, nor can I know, why He chose that method.

You have confirmed everything I have written, except that with 5) you have glossed over the illogicality of your theory! According to you, God chose to design every life form, natural wonder etc. in life’s history, and although 99% of them had no connection with humans, all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” Your 6) acknowledges that you can’t find any logical reason for this “method”, and if you can’t find a reason, how can it be logical to you?

There is a shift in your post on “Theodicy”:

DAVID: He wanted the whole bush to appear. That means all 'the unpredictable variety of species' were all planned as part of God's creation of the living bush.”

If, by living bush, you mean the present, you have acknowledged that there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus (plus a few million other examples) and humans, and between PAST and PRESENT econiches. “He wanted the whole bush to appear” means past and present, and that is logical: whether he designed each twig directly or gave organisms free rein to do their own designing, we can still say the whole bush is what he wanted. And we needn’t ask why. But once again, the dispute between us is that you insist that the whole bush was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” No. 6): You don’t know why he would have chosen such a method for such a goal (which is merely YOUR interpretation of evolution’s history and purpose), but you tell us it is logical to you! We agree that you can’t find any logical explanation for your theory, so why not leave it at that?

DAVID: Of course the difference is our individual belief systems which are in total disagreement. You call my beliefs nonsense, and I respond to your reasoning about God as logical if you humanize Him. We have different view of God's personality, who is like no other person we know. WE can leave it at that, as we will never reach an agreement.

dhw: We are almost there, except that – to put the record straight – I do not regard any of your individual beliefs as nonsense. That has been a constant source of misunderstanding between us. I see each belief as feasible in its own right: obviously starting with the existence of God. And I can accept the feasibility of your God being in total control, of him designing every life form individually, and of humans being his purpose. Each one on its own is feasible. It is the COMBINATION that makes no sense to me, and logic entails combining ideas to see if they fit together. And so, for the last time I hope (because in fact we are in agreement since you yourself can’t find a logical explanation), what does NOT make sense is the combination of an all-powerful God whose purpose is to directly design sapiens – because according to you, he directly designed every phase from hominin to sapiens – with the direct creation of millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen this method of achieving his purpose, but you will stick to your theory. I think that is the point at which we can shake hands and agree to disagree.

Note my bold in your statement. I don't think you understand my logic I see it. The bold is where you are wrong about my theory which is logical to me. It is simply the same set of initial steps you have admitted can be correct. 1)God is the creator. 2) God has the right/ability to choose His method or methods of creation. 3) Humans are God's creation. 4) God created life starting as bacteria. 5) God chose to use designed evolution as His method to produce humans from that initial point. 6) No, I don't know, nor can I know, why He chose that method.

We are almost there, except that – to put the record straight – I do not regard any of your individual beliefs as nonsense. That has been a constant source of misunderstanding between us. I see each belief as feasible in its own right: obviously starting with the existence of God. And I can accept the feasibility of your God being in total control, of him designing every life form individually, and of humans being his purpose. Each one on its own is feasible. It is the COMBINATION that makes no sense to me, and logic entails combining ideas to see if they fit together. And so, for the last time I hope (because in fact we are in agreement since you yourself can’t find a logical explanation), what does NOT make sense is the combination of an all-powerful God whose purpose is to directly design sapiens – because according to you, he directly designed every phase from hominin to sapiens – with the direct creation of millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen this method of achieving his purpose, but you will stick to your theory. I think that is the point at which we can shake hands and agree to disagree.

DAVID: I start with the firm belief God exists and creates reality, and therefore evolved humans from bacteria. Your opinion/ question in my view is that God did it wrong. In other words why didn't He directly create us if He is so powerful? Ask Him. I don't know His exact thoughts leading to that decision, and for some reason He is not informing me.
And:
I maintain God exists and creates the history we know. In my view you are simply arguing with what He decided to do.

dhw: For argument’s sake, I am accepting that God exists and has created the history that we know. The history that we know is billions of years’ worth of life forms etc., of which humans are the latest. It is not history that your God directly designed every single life form, or that every single life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” But it is YOUR THEORY that this is what he decided to do, and it is YOUR THEORY, not God, that I am arguing with. When you oppose my theory that your God decided to give evolution free rein and watches the results with interest, do I accuse you of arguing with God’s decision? You admit you “don't know why He used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens”, and you can’t find any reason for your God designing millions of extinct life forms and food supplies with no connection to humans, which makes nonsense of your claim that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”. I suggest we leave it at that.

Of course the difference is our individual belief systems which are in total disagreement. You call my beliefs nonsense, and I respond to your reasoning about God as logical if you humanize Him. We have different view of God's personality, who is like no other person we know. WE can leave it at that, as we will never reach an agreement.

For argument’s sake, I am accepting that God exists and has created the history that we know. The history that we know is billions of years’ worth of life forms etc., of which humans are the latest. It is not history that your God directly designed every single life form, or that every single life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” But it is YOUR THEORY that this is what he decided to do, and it is YOUR THEORY, not God, that I am arguing with. When you oppose my theory that your God decided to give evolution free rein and watches the results with interest, do I accuse you of arguing with God’s decision? You admit you “don't know why He used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens”, and you can’t find any reason for your God designing millions of extinct life forms and food supplies with no connection to humans, which makes nonsense of your claim that they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Because, as history tells us, He started with bacteria and chose to design each stage until we arrived under His designs.

dhw: Each “stage” of what? Another dodge! According to you he chose to design every single life form etc. and 99% of them had no direct connection to humans. They were not “stages” to H. sapiens, and they could not have been “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.”

Your usual illogical answer to me. I start with the firm belief God exists and creates reality, and therefore evolved humans from bacteria. Your opinion/ question in my view is that God did it wrong. In other words why didn't He directly create us if He is so powerful? Ask Him. I don't know His exact thoughts leading to that decision, and for some reason He is not informing me..

dhw: Since your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form and every single stage of evolution, why did he preprogramme/dabble all these different homos if he only wanted one? […]

DAVID: I don't know why He used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens. I simply follow the rule that God creates history, so it tells us what He did.

dhw: And this is the nub of our dispute! You don’t know why he directly designed a bush of hominin/homos, and you don’t know why he directly designed bush after bush of life forms with no connection to humans, but you insist that all the non-humans and all the non-sapiens were part of the goal of designing sapiens.

If God is in charge, why not??

Under “Human evolution”:
DAVID: This discussion of the earliest possible proto-hominins rules out the theory that tress disappeared and early forms had to learn to walk. These forms were prepared to do both at will. My point is I believe God designed them this way as a transitional form, not a change forced by natural changes to the environment as trees disappeared. Lucy was built the same way million of years later.

dhw: And you repeat the point in your second post.
It never seems to occur to you that there are different environments in different places. Do you really think that tree-dwellers never explored the ground? If some remained primarily tree-dwellers, they would not have developed the same degree of bipedalism as those that were forced by a changing environment to leave the trees permanently. This is obvious from the following quote: "Questions remain about whether Ardi had the build for regular upright walking — a clear marker of hominid status — or for primarily moving through trees, with occasional two-legged jaunts on the ground.” And you still “don’t know why he used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens.” It doesn’t make sense, does it?

Makes perfect sense to me under my approach that God prepares forms in advance of needs. These are transitional forms in advance of change. I would remind you of the 20 million-year- old monkey in my Atheist Delusion book with spinal vertebrae changes anticipating upright posture.

DAVID (under “Theodicy”): God chose to design evolution as a method of creating humans, as history tells us.

dhw: Usual omission of the fact that if God exists he chose to design evolution as a method of creating every species that ever lived, and history does not tell us that every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans.”

'
The usual distortion. I maintain God exists and creates the history we know. In my view you are simply arguing with what He decided to do.

dhw: You are now deliberately cutting out one of the basic premises that make your theory so illogical. When you talk of “evolution” you mean direct design, because according to you, your God directly designed every innovation, life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, as well as every phase in the evolution of humans: you even have him stepping in and fiddling with brains and skulls and pelvises, and if I remember rightly, legs as well (not to mention operating on pre-whale legs to turn them into fins before the creatures even entered the water). It’s all direct design, and the only sop to evolution is that you agree that all these programme changes or direct dabbles were carried out on existing organisms (hence common descent). And so I continue to ask: if God’s plan was to produce H. sapiens (plus food supply) by directly designing stage after stage of pre-humans through to us, why did he first directly design millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies that had no connection with us?

DAVID: Because, as history tells us, He started with bacteria and chose to design each stage until we arrived under His designs.

Each “stage” of what? Another dodge! According to you he chose to design every single life form etc. and 99% of them had no direct connection to humans. They were not “stages” to H. sapiens, and they could not have been “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.”

DAVID: Nothing is unconnected in the sense that each new stage is more complex and each stage is using the same DNA code.

Again, stage of what? The brontosaurus had no connection with humans, so how could it have been a stage on the way to humans, or “part of the goal” etc.? "Stages" can be applied to hominins and homos on the way to sapiens, but that process is also inexplicable for you, as you admit below.

dhw: Since your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form and every single stage of evolution, why did he preprogramme/dabble all these different homos if he only wanted one? […]

DAVID: I don't know why He used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens. I simply follow the rule that God creates history, so it tells us what He did.

And this is the nub of our dispute! You don’t know why he directly designed a bush of hominin/homos, and you don’t know why he directly designed bush after bush of life forms with no connection to humans, but you insist that all the non-humans and all the non-sapiens were part of the goal of designing sapiens.

Under “Human evolution”:
DAVID: This discussion of the earliest possible proto-hominins rules out the theory that tress disappeared and early forms had to learn to walk. These forms were prepared to do both at will. My point is I believe God designed them this way as a transitional form, not a change forced by natural changes to the environment as trees disappeared. Lucy was built the same way million of years later.

And you repeat the point in your second post.
It never seems to occur to you that there are different environments in different places. Do you really think that tree-dwellers never explored the ground? If some remained primarily tree-dwellers, they would not have developed the same degree of bipedalism as those that were forced by a changing environment to leave the trees permanently. This is obvious from the following quote: "Questions remain about whether Ardi had the build for regular upright walking — a clear marker of hominid status — or for primarily moving through trees, with occasional two-legged jaunts on the ground.” And you still “don’t know why he used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens.” It doesn’t make sense, does it?

DAVID (under “Theodicy”): God chose to design evolution as a method of creating humans, as history tells us.

Usual omission of the fact that if God exists he chose to design evolution as a method of creating every species that ever lived, and history does not tell us that every single one of them was “part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans.”

DAVID: The bold is the problem in your interpretation of my theory. God never planned a direct design. He chose to evolve over time. History shows that.

dhw: You are now deliberately cutting out one of the basic premises that make your theory so illogical. When you talk of “evolution” you mean direct design, because according to you, your God directly designed every innovation, life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, as well as every phase in the evolution of humans: you even have him stepping in and fiddling with brains and skulls and pelvises, and if I remember rightly, legs as well (not to mention operating on pre-whale legs to turn them into fins before the creatures even entered the water). It’s all direct design, and the only sop to evolution is that you agree that all these programme changes or direct dabbles were carried out on existing organisms (hence common descent). And so I continue to ask: if God’s plan was to produce H. sapiens (plus food supply) by directly designing stage after stage of pre-humans through to us, why did he first directly design millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies that had no connection with us?

Because, as history tells us, He started with bacteria and chose to design each stage until we arrived under His designs.

DAVID: Humans were an endpoint goal stated over and over.

dhw: How does that come to mean that all the unconnected forms of life (plus food supplies) were “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”?

Nothing is unconnected in the sense that each new stage is more complex and each stage is using the same DNA code.

DAVID: (under “Human evolution”): Sapiens co-exited with both Denisovans and Neanderthals, while some of these others were still around. Back to my same old question: apes and monkeys were living happily until we began our huge population growth. Darwin proposes stepwise change to aid survival. That is not the hominin historical evidence in the fossil record to date. Each new find seems to refute Darwin, and I'll bet that trend will continue. I view our history as bursting forward for no good demonstrable reason. I would suggest an agency is driving the process, an agency we call God.

dhw: The historical evidence to date shows a variety of hominins and homos. This would suggest to me that our ancestors evolved their different traits as they responded to different conditions. Co-existence is no problem, since H. sapiens is not the first species to migrate. The “good demonstrable reason” would have been the quest for better living conditions (just as we see today). But all of this creates a major problem for your theory of evolution. Since your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form and every single stage of evolution, why did he preprogramme/dabble all these different homos if he only wanted one? I know you say we inherited certain benefits from the others, but it does seem a very roundabout way of directly designing the only homo he wanted. No, I am not criticizing him. I am pointing out the sheer illogicality of your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, as bolded at the start of this post.

I don't know why He used a bush of hominin/homos to reach a final goal of sapiens. I simply follow the rule that God creates history, so it tells us what He did.

dhw: If, for argument’s sake, we accept the premise that your God’s goal was humans, you are left with the insoluble problem within your theory which you dodge and dodge and dodge again: if his goal was to directly design humans and their food supply, why did he directly design millions of extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans? THAT is what doesn’t make sense, and that is what you dodge and dodge and dodge again.

DAVID: The bold is the problem in your interpretation of my theory. God never planned a direct design. He chose to evolve over time. History shows that.

You are now deliberately cutting out one of the basic premises that make your theory so illogical. When you talk of “evolution” you mean direct design, because according to you, your God directly designed every innovation, life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, as well as every phase in the evolution of humans: you even have him stepping in and fiddling with brains and skulls and pelvises, and if I remember rightly, legs as well (not to mention operating on pre-whale legs to turn them into fins before the creatures even entered the water). It’s all direct design, and the only sop to evolution is that you agree that all these programme changes or direct dabbles were carried out on existing organisms (hence common descent). And so I continue to ask: if God’s plan was to produce H. sapiens (plus food supply) by directly designing stage after stage of pre-humans through to us, why did he first directly design millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies that had no connection with us?

DAVID: Humans were an endpoint goal stated over and over.

How does that come to mean that all the unconnected forms of life (plus food supplies) were “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”?

DAVID: (under “Human evolution”): Sapiens co-exited with both Denisovans and Neanderthals, while some of these others were still around. Back to my same old question: apes and monkeys were living happily until we began our huge population growth. Darwin proposes stepwise change to aid survival. That is not the hominin historical evidence in the fossil record to date. Each new find seems to refute Darwin, and I'll bet that trend will continue. I view our history as bursting forward for no good demonstrable reason. I would suggest an agency is driving the process, an agency we call God.

The historical evidence to date shows a variety of hominins and homos. This would suggest to me that our ancestors evolved their different traits as they responded to different conditions. Co-existence is no problem, since H. sapiens is not the first species to migrate. The “good demonstrable reason” would have been the quest for better living conditions (just as we see today). But all of this creates a major problem for your theory of evolution. Since your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form and every single stage of evolution, why did he preprogramme/dabble all these different homos if he only wanted one? I know you say we inherited certain benefits from the others, but it does seem a very roundabout way of directly designing the only homo he wanted. No, I am not criticizing him. I am pointing out the sheer illogicality of your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, as bolded at the start of this post.

“Our Galaxy is huge” and “Stephen Talbott’s view” are now repeating the same arguments as used in this thread. I will simply extract your comments and my answers.

DAVID: If God created evolution, and we are here at its end, His goal was humans.

dhw: If, for argument’s sake, we accept the premise that your God’s goal was humans, you are left with the insoluble problem within your theory which you dodge and dodge and dodge again: if his goal was to directly design humans and their food supply, why did he directly design millions of extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans? THAT is what doesn’t make sense, and that is what you dodge and dodge and dodge again.

The bold is the problem in your interpretation of my theory. God never planned a direct design. He chose to evolve over time. History shows that.

dhw: [Extinctions] also raise the question of why your God would have designed all these ecosystems and all these life forms which had no connection with humans, if all he wanted were humans.

Under my theory humans were not the only want He had. It is your total confusion about how I think. He never planned for direct creation.

DAVID: History tells us evolution occurred, and I say God did it with humans at the end. You question translates as a question, why did God evolve us over time? Ask Him.

dhw: Please don’t rephrase my question. I am asking you why you think your God directly designed all those ecosystems and life forms that had no connection with humans if his goal was to design humans.

Humans were an endpoint goal stated over and over.

dhw: There are two levels here: 1) I regard the sheer enormity and impersonality of the ever changing universe as a major hindrance to belief in a sourceless mind that created and “controls” it. This is a counter to the logic of the design theory. Hence my agnosticism.

DAVID: It is not counter to design theory: why a Big Bang, followed by amorphous plasma, which then produced matter particles? I don't accept chance. Just because the universe confuses you, don't assume chance arrival of it as we see it now.

I do not assume anything. I know and accept the logic of your design theory. But I cannot apply it to billions of stars coming and going – just as millions of life forms have come and gone – all apparently specially designed for the sake of humans. Nor can I imagine a single, sourceless conscious mind (your “within and without” God) creating, encompassing, directing and inhabiting all this vastness. That is what I meant by a counter to your design argument.

DAVID: Obviously intelligent information/instructions is at work, and the source is?

dhw: How can information be intelligent? It takes intelligence to collect and to use information.

DAVID: 'Intelligent information' is a way of saying intelligently sourced information.

dhw: That fits in nicely with the concept of the intelligent cell, the designing source of which may have been your God.

DAVID: Chance is laughable.

dhw:I have not advocated chance as the source. Not knowing the source does not preclude the existence of something, which of course is your argument when you defend your belief in God. I leave the source open, but your God is a possibility. I’m afraid I find your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old instructions for every undabbled life form, econiche, natural wonder, strategy etc. in life’s history no less laughable than chance.

DAVID: […] you can laugh at God if you wish. Chance arrival of consciousness in humans is not reasonable, just an out for agnostics and atheists.

dhw: You seem to have a blind spot. I accept the logic of the argument against chance (“no less laughable than chance” means chance is also laughable), but the preprogramming of every undabbled life form etc. – plus the theory that every one was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans” – is your theory. It is not a fact. And I find your theory laughable. I am not laughing at God. However, your misguided attack is an understandable tactic in your constant effort to dodge the illogicality of your overall theory of evolution. I really think this post has covered all your dodges, and suggest we draw a line under it.

You have a huge blind spot. It is your dodge in totally misrepresenting beyond all recognition my theory about God and His purposes in conducting evolution. We can skip chance as a side issue.

DAVID: If God created evolution, and we are here at its end, His goal was humans.

If, for argument’s sake, we accept the premise that your God’s goal was humans, you are left with the insoluble problem within your theory which you dodge and dodge and dodge again: if his goal was to directly design humans and their food supply, why did he directly design millions of extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans? THAT is what doesn’t make sense, and that is what you dodge and dodge and dodge again.

DAVID: I think He follows His purposes very directly with strict controls.

dhw: You think that directly designing millions of life forms that have nothing to do with humans constitutes a very direct, strictly controlled method of achieving his purpose of directly designing humans.

DAVID: You forget the food supply bush. […]

According to you, your God designed millions and millions of PAST food supply bushes for the PAST, 99% of which had no connection with humans. How can you call this a “very direct, strictly controlled method of achieving his purpose of directly designing humans” and their food supply?

dhw: [Extinctions] also raise the question of why your God would have designed all these ecosystems and all these life forms which had no connection with humans, if all he wanted were humans.

DAVID: History tells us evolution occurred, and I say God did it with humans at the end. You question translates as a question, why did God evolve us over time? Ask Him.

Please don’t rephrase my question. I am asking you why you think your God directly designed all those ecosystems and life forms that had no connection with humans if his goal was to design humans.

DAVID: Why question the fact that evolution lead to humans?

Evolution led to millions of life forms, including humans! That does not mean that every star in the vast universe and every life form on Earth was designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.”

DAVID: Previous life forms evolved to produce humans.

99% of previous life forms had no connection with the production of humans! We took the brontosaurus as our example. We could have taken millions of others.

dhw: There are two levels here: 1) I regard the sheer enormity and impersonality of the ever changing universe as a major hindrance to belief in a sourceless mind that created and “controls” it. This is a counter to the logic of the design theory. Hence my agnosticism.

DAVID: It is not counter to design theory: why a Big Bang, followed by amorphous plasma, which then produced matter particles? I don't accept chance. Just because the universe confuses you, don't assume chance arrival of it as we see it now.

I do not assume anything. I know and accept the logic of your design theory. But I cannot apply it to billions of stars coming and going – just as millions of life forms have come and gone – all apparently specially designed for the sake of humans. Nor can I imagine a single, sourceless conscious mind (your “within and without” God) creating, encompassing, directing and inhabiting all this vastness. That is what I meant by a counter to your design argument.

DAVID: Obviously intelligent information/instructions is at work, and the source is?

dhw: How can information be intelligent? It takes intelligence to collect and to use information.

DAVID: 'Intelligent information' is a way of saying intelligently sourced information.

That fits in nicely with the concept of the intelligent cell, the designing source of which may have been your God.

DAVID: Chance is laughable.

dhw:I have not advocated chance as the source. Not knowing the source does not preclude the existence of something, which of course is your argument when you defend your belief in God. I leave the source open, but your God is a possibility. I’m afraid I find your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old instructions for every undabbled life form, econiche, natural wonder, strategy etc. in life’s history no less laughable than chance.

DAVID: […] you can laugh at God if you wish. Chance arrival of consciousness in humans is not reasonable, just an out for agnostics and atheists.

You seem to have a blind spot. I accept the logic of the argument against chance (“no less laughable than chance” means chance is also laughable), but the preprogramming of every undabbled life form etc. – plus the theory that every one was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans” – is your theory. It is not a fact. And I find your theory laughable. I am not laughing at God. However, your misguided attack is an understandable tactic in your constant effort to dodge the illogicality of your overall theory of evolution. I really think this post has covered all your dodges, and suggest we draw a line under it.

DAVID: Makes perfect sense if you accept God created evolution, which means what we know about the process is what He did!

dhw: We do not know that he directly designed every life form and food supply, and we do not know that if he did so, his goal was to directly design H. sapiens. We only know that there was a great big bush of life forms and food supplies which you agree had no connection with humans. Hence the illogicality bolded above and which you continue to dodge.

If God created evolution, and we are here at its end, His goal was humans.

dhw: Another dodge. By evolve you mean directly design, but we are not talking about why he designed humans. We are talking about why, if his only purpose was to design humans, he first of all designed million of life forms etc., 99% of which had nothing to do with humans. My objection is not against God’s choice, but against the sheer illogicality of the choice you have imposed on him.

History tells us His choice. It is your puzzle, not mine.

DAVID: Your God wants to relinquish tight control over advances in evolution. I think He follows His purposes very directly with strict controls. We differ, as I have constantly noted, on God's personality. Assuming your God's personality you are logical. We will still differ.

dhw: You think that directly designing millions of life forms that have nothing to do with humans constitutes a very direct, strictly controlled method of achieving his purpose of directly designing humans. This has nothing to do with differences concerning God’s “personality”.

You forget the food supply bush. Your God's personality is nothing like my image of God.

Under “The Triassic extinction”

QUOTE: "Delicate marine ecosystems collapsed, and a sweep of prehistoric creatures such as conodonts and phytosaurs went extinct – though somehow, plants, dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mammals scraped through. This new world allowed dinosaurs to expand their ecological niche and reign supreme for the next 135 million years.

DAVID: The big extinctions certainly allowed marked shifts in the course of evolution. It is obvious that tectonic plate activity played a major role and is a requirement for a planet to host life.

dhw: They also raise the question of why your God would have designed all these ecosystems and all these life forms which had no connection with humans, if all he wanted were humans.

History tells us evolution occurred, and I say God did it with humans at the end. You question translates as a question, why did God evolve us over time? Ask Him.

Under “Junk DNA”:

DAVID: How new genes appear when necessary:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/essential-genes-fast-evolution-junk-dna-heterochrom...

QUOTE: “About a decade ago, researchers discovered that new genes don’t just confer new functions; some may actually be necessary for survival. […] The discovery overturned a long-held belief that important genes don’t really change much over the course of evolution.”

DAVID: This study suggests much support for my theory that God dabbles as evolution proceeds. And. of course, more 'junk DNA' disappears.

dhw: This study confirms my proposal that “the process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection”. Initially you supported a proposal that evolution advances always result from loss of genes. This study emphasizes that new genes appear when necessary, i.e. IN RESPONSE to changing conditions, and not in anticipation of them.

Agreed.

QUOTE: "In a new study published in Science, we found that humans, mice, zebrafish — and most likely the entire animal kingdom — share enhancer regions with a sea sponge that comes from the Great Barrier Reef…”

DAVID: Complete proof of common descent, if we ever needed it. More junk DNA gone, and more complexity understood. Genes primarily code for protein but networks of other DNA regions perform lots of the organizational work making phenotypes and physiological systems.

dhw: Yes indeed, all the cell communities (networks) cooperate in organizing new organs and new species.

As God codes DNA

dhw: Round we go. Your conclusion that God personally designed every life form, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life makes sense on its own. What does not make sense is that every life form, econiche and natural wonder was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Makes perfect sense if you accept God created evolution, which means what we know about the process is what He did!

We do not know that he directly designed every life form and food supply, and we do not know that if he did so, his goal was to directly design H. sapiens. We only know that there was a great big bush of life forms and food supplies which you agree had no connection with humans. Hence the illogicality bolded above and which you continue to dodge.

DAVID: I don't deny or dodge. I don't know why He chose to evolve us, stated over and over. But as He chose that method, I view your objection as a complaint against God's choice.

Another dodge. By evolve you mean directly design, but we are not talking about why he designed humans. We are talking about why, if his only purpose was to design humans, he first of all designed million of life forms etc., 99% of which had nothing to do with humans. My objection is not against God’s choice, but against the sheer illogicality of the choice you have imposed on him.

DAVID: Your God wants to relinquish tight control over advances in evolution. I think He follows His purposes very directly with strict controls. We differ, as I have constantly noted, on God's personality. Assuming your God's personality you are logical. We will still differ.

You think that directly designing millions of life forms that have nothing to do with humans constitutes a very direct, strictly controlled method of achieving his purpose of directly designing humans. This has nothing to do with differences concerning God’s “personality”.

Under “The Triassic extinction”

QUOTE: "Delicate marine ecosystems collapsed, and a sweep of prehistoric creatures such as conodonts and phytosaurs went extinct – though somehow, plants, dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mammals scraped through. This new world allowed dinosaurs to expand their ecological niche and reign supreme for the next 135 million years.

DAVID: The big extinctions certainly allowed marked shifts in the course of evolution. It is obvious that tectonic plate activity played a major role and is a requirement for a planet to host life.

They also raise the question of why your God would have designed all these ecosystems and all these life forms which had no connection with humans, if all he wanted were humans.

Under “Junk DNA”:

DAVID: How new genes appear when necessary:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/essential-genes-fast-evolution-junk-dna-heterochrom...

QUOTE: “About a decade ago, researchers discovered that new genes don’t just confer new functions; some may actually be necessary for survival. […] The discovery overturned a long-held belief that important genes don’t really change much over the course of evolution.”

DAVID: This study suggests much support for my theory that God dabbles as evolution proceeds. And. of course, more 'junk DNA' disappears.

This study confirms my proposal that “the process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection”. Initially you supported a proposal that evolution advances always result from loss of genes. This study emphasizes that new genes appear when necessary, i.e. IN RESPONSE to changing conditions, and not in anticipation of them.

QUOTE: "In a new study published in Science, we found that humans, mice, zebrafish — and most likely the entire animal kingdom — share enhancer regions with a sea sponge that comes from the Great Barrier Reef…”

DAVID: Complete proof of common descent, if we ever needed it. More junk DNA gone, and more complexity understood. Genes primarily code for protein but networks of other DNA regions perform lots of the organizational work making phenotypes and physiological systems.

Yes indeed, all the cell communities (networks) cooperate in organizing new organs and new species.

DAVID: Your confusion about my beliefs comes from the logic that starts from my conclusion God is in charge and created all the historical events we know. Therefore He created the process of evolution, and designed each new stage. I view your complaints as complaining about what God obviously did!!

dhw: Round we go. Your conclusion that God personally designed every life form, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life makes sense on its own. What does not make sense is that every life form, econiche and natural wonder was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

Makes perfect sense if you accept God created evolution, which means what we know about the process is what He did!

DAVID: That is why we debate. For me God took all the time He wanted to bring us on the scene. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with my having no guess as to why He decided to produce us or why He chose that mechanism. We are here, dayenu. The wisdom of the ancient Hebrews on exhibit.

dhw: In this context we are not discussing why he decided to produce us but why, if his (ultimate) goal was to design humans, he would have chosen to directly design millions of extinct life forms etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. You simply continue to dodge the issue.

I don't deny or dodge. I don't know why He chose to evolve us, stated over and over. But as He chose that method, I view your objection as a complaint against God's choice.

DAVID: All of your confusion comes from questioning the history and comes from an approach of, in your opinion, 'God shouldn't have done that way'. So your reasoning is that you object to what God chose to do as I see it. The difference between us causes this circular discussion to continue. I accept God as totally in charge, knows what He wants, and you are at "maybe".

dhw: I do not question the history, and I do not object to what God chose to do (if he exists), and I have offered alternative (theistic) explanations of the history, which you agree are logical. However, you prefer not to recognize the illogicality of your own explanation, as twice bolded above. In all of my theories, God knows what he wants. But you are only prepared to “accept” one theory, which entails your having no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of what he wants.

Your God wants to relinquish tight control over advances in evolution. I think He follows His purposes very directly with strict controls. We differ, as I have constantly noted, on God's personality. Assuming your God's personality you are logical. We will still differ.

Round we go. Your conclusion that God personally designed every life form, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life makes sense on its own. What does not make sense is that every life form, econiche and natural wonder was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: That is why we debate. For me God took all the time He wanted to bring us on the scene. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with my having no guess as to why He decided to produce us or why He chose that mechanism. We are here, dayenu. The wisdom of the ancient Hebrews on exhibit.

In this context we are not discussing why he decided to produce us but why, if his (ultimate) goal was to design humans, he would have chosen to directly design millions of extinct life forms etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. You simply continue to dodge the issue.

DAVID: All of your confusion comes from questioning the history and comes from an approach of, in your opinion, 'God shouldn't have done that way'. So your reasoning is that you object to what God chose to do as I see it. The difference between us causes this circular discussion to continue. I accept God as totally in charge, knows what He wants, and you are at "maybe".

I do not question the history, and I do not object to what God chose to do (if he exists), and I have offered alternative (theistic) explanations of the history, which you agree are logical. However, you prefer not to recognize the illogicality of your own explanation, as twice bolded above. In all of my theories, God knows what he wants. But you are only prepared to “accept” one theory, which entails your having no idea why he would have chosen your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of what he wants.

DAVID: Why do you dodge the point that God chose to evolve us as His method of creation? Your weird objection to my approach is that you fault God for spending all that time evolving us. That is my belief which your illogical rejection will never shake!!!

dhw: Why do you dodge the point that if your God exists he chose to evolve (by which you mean directly design) every species that ever lived, 99% of which had no connection with humans, although according to you humans were his only goal? For the umpteenth time, I am not faulting God! I am pointing out the utter illogicality of your theory that his goal was to create humans and so he spent “all that time” creating life forms that had nothing to do with humans.

Your confusion about my beliefs comes from the logic that starts from my conclusion God is in charge and created all the historical events we know. Therefore He created the process of evolution, and designed each new stage. I view your complaints as complaining about what God obviously did!! That is why we debate. For me God took all the time He wanted to bring us on the scene. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with my having no guess as to why He decided to produce us or why He chose that mechanism. We are here, dayenu. The wisdom of the ancient Hebrews on exhibit.

dhw: I criticize your theory because it is illogical. You acknowledge the logic of my theory - theistic version: God invented cellular intelligence to allow organisms to design their own modes of survival in response to changing conditions – but you criticize it because it “humanizes” your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to our own!

DAVID: Can't I convince you my belief will remain logical to me, even if you constantly reject it is your own mixed up thoughts about God. Your concept of God has never matched mine.

dhw: I keep asking you to explain the logic behind your belief that your God’s (ultimate) goal was to design humans and their food supply, and so he designed millions of non-human life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You have said that you have no idea why he chose to evolve (= directly design) humans in this way, and so I don’t know how you can claim that you find it logical. I offer you different theories, all of which you agree are logical but which you reject on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, although you believe he probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to ours and “very well could think like us”. However, you are quite right that my own thoughts about your God (and his existence) are mixed up, in so far as I can find several different and perfectly logical explanations of life and evolution and am unable to choose between them.

My explanation is simple and above. All of your confusion comes from questioning the history and comes from an approach of, in your opinion, 'God shouldn't have done that way'. So your reasoning is that you object to what God chose to do as I see it. The difference between us causes this circular discussion to continue. I accept God as totally in charge, knows what He wants, and you are at "maybe".

dhw: Thank you for clarifying what you meant by “dhw confusion” on the other thread. We can close that one now.

You are welcome.