Michael Denton, Ph. D, M.D. (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Friday, March 21, 2014, 01:03 (3691 days ago)
Why Darwin does not work. How did the red cell lose its nucleus?-"At King's the subject of my PhD thesis was the development of the red cell and it seemed to me there were aspects of red cell development which posed a severe challenge to the Darwinian framework. The red cell performs one of the most important physiological functions on earth: the carriage of oxygen to the tissues. And in mammals the nucleus is lost in the final stages of red cell development, which is a unique phenomenon. The problem that the process of enucleation poses for Darwinism is twofold: first of all, the final exclusion of the nucleus is a dramatically saltational event and quite enigmatic in terms of any sort of gradualistic explanation in terms of a succession of little adaptive Darwinian steps. Stated bluntly; how does the cell test the adaptive state of 'not having a nucleus' gradually? I mean there is no intermediate stable state between having a nucleus and not having a nucleus."- http://successfulstudent.org/dr-michael-denton-interview/-And more:-"But the other thing that I became aware of at Kings, something that everyone working in fundamental biological research can hardly fail to see, was namely that things are getting more and more complicated every decade as our understanding increases. The endless complexification of biological systems with advancing knowledge was the subject of a recent article in Nature. At the moment we know, for instance, that the DNA comprising the genome adopts all sorts of complex shapes and forms and topologies during development. We know also that there are lots of micro RNAs involved in regulating gene expression and things like this, and every decade we find out new layers of complexity in the cell. Cells can't be infinitely complex of course, but they're very, very complex, and the complexity of regulation within them is wondrously holistic; one process influences lots of other processes and all these (other things) in turn influence everything else in the cell, so it's an astonishingly holistic system. Cells are far, far more holistic than any artifact actualized or theoretically conceived of! And of course there is the infinity of the developing brain where millions of path-finding neurons 'feel' there way through an ever-changing cellular and chemical matrix."-"But the other thing that I became aware of at Kings, something that everyone working in fundamental biological research can hardly fail to see, was namely that things are getting more and more complicated every decade as our understanding increases. The endless complexification of biological systems with advancing knowledge was the subject of a recent article in Nature. At the moment we know, for instance, that the DNA comprising the genome adopts all sorts of complex shapes and forms and topologies during development. We know also that there are lots of micro RNAs involved in regulating gene expression and things like this, and every decade we find out new layers of complexity in the cell. Cells can't be infinitely complex of course, but they're very, very complex, and the complexity of regulation within them is wondrously holistic; one process influences lots of other processes and all these (other things) in turn influence everything else in the cell, so it's an astonishingly holistic system. Cells are far, far more holistic than any artifact actualized or theoretically conceived of! And of course there is the infinity of the developing brain where millions of path-finding neurons 'feel' there way through an ever-changing cellular and chemical matrix."-"Now when you consider all these factors necessary for the generation of oxygen via photosynthesis knowing that not all organisms use oxygen implying that all these coincidences are irrelevant to the vast majority of all species (most of the biomass on the planet may well be anaerobic unicellular life occupying the hot deep biosphere in the sub surface rocks) never use oxygen, its clear that the special fitness of nature for oxygen utilization is for us."
More Denton: unlikely transitions
by David Turell , Saturday, April 18, 2015, 23:26 (3297 days ago) @ David Turell
Fins to limbs looks really impossible, as do scales to feathers, and angiosperms (flowering plants), like the Cambrian animals have no antecedents:-http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-two-Either an IM is extraordinarily inventive or it is guided. Note 'apoptosis' is 'regulated cell death', deleting cells to make a finished product. This is a key concept. The whole essay is fascinating.-Fin to limb:-"Thirty years have passed. We have still not found a single fossil with an appendage that might have bridged the gap between a fish fin and the tetrapod limb. Certainly, since 1985, a great number of early amphibian fossils have been discovered, including Acanthostega, Tulerpeton, and Ventastega, as well as several fossil fish close to the fish-amphibian boundary, including the celebrated Tiktaalik. We have also made huge advances in understanding the developmental genetics of the limb. But we are no closer to giving an account of the fin-to-limb transition in Darwinian terms."-Scale to feather:-"Many of the genes and developmental systems utilized in feather morphogenesis, such as the pattern-forming genes Shh and Bone morphogenetic protein 2, or BMP-2, predated the origin of the feather. Both are widely utilized in the development of hair, limbs, digits, and teeth.30 During feather development, as Prum and Brush pointed out in another paper, the two so-called toolkit proteins, Shh and BMP-2, “[w]ork as a modular pair … The Shh protein induces cell proliferation, and the Bmp2 protein regulates the extent of proliferation and fosters cell differentiation.”31 The two proteins are used repeatedly throughout feather development from the initial formation of the placode to the pattern for the helical growth of the barb ridges.32 These remarkable developmental genetic advances, while providing evidence that the origin of the feather involved the redeployment of existing gene circuits, provide no support for the claim that the redeployment was the result of gradual micro-evolutionary processes."-The "plant bloom" ( its nickname):-"The sudden appearance of the angiosperms, I observed in Evolution, “is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin's time.”43 How true. No real flowers are found in any group of plants save those extant today, and no putative ancestral group has been identified in the fossil record, or by molecular phylogenetics. There is no universally accepted set of transitional forms leading up to earliest angiosperms."
More Denton: unlikely transitions
DAVID: Fins to limbs looks really impossible, as do scales to feathers, and angiosperms (flowering plants), like the Cambrian animals have no antecedents:-http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-two-The basic problem is that there are no transitional fossils. Darwin thought/hoped the gaps would be filled eventually by new discoveries. No luck in the last 150 years. Your response is that God preprogrammed the very first cells with every single change, through a computer programme that would unfold during the next few thousand million years. Either that or he kept dabbling (= separate creation for each innovation). I have suggested an alternative: that innovation, which has never been observed, may have been the product of the same autonomous mechanism within cells/cell communities that organizes their adaptation. The origin of the mechanism is a separate subject. Same problem as usual, same alternatives as usual. Round we go...
More Denton: unlikely transitions
by David Turell , Monday, April 20, 2015, 22:11 (3295 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The basic problem is that there are no transitional fossils. Darwin thought/hoped the gaps would be filled eventually by new discoveries. No luck in the last 150 years.....I have suggested an alternative: that innovation, which has never been observed, may have been the product of the same autonomous mechanism within cells/cell communities that organizes their adaptation. The origin of the mechanism is a separate subject. -And of course, I have the same response: If the gaps are so large then the inventive-ness had to be massive, because we don't see itty-bitty advances along the way. It requires massive planning to create those jumps. I don't see how an on-board IM can do it without guidance.
More Denton: Darwinism doesn't work
by David Turell , Monday, May 25, 2015, 17:15 (3260 days ago) @ David Turell
Trying to explain the origin of limbs from fish, feathers from scales and flowers. Flowering plants have no antecedent fossils, shades of the Cambrian. Limbs and feathers cannot be explained by Darwin theory.-http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-two-"Although these small distal bones bear some similarity to tetrapod limbs in terms of function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them [the distal bones of the fin] and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning."-*****-"Richard Prum and his colleague Alan Brush, in a landmark article in The Quarterly Review of Biology,28 wrote that:-"[o]ver the last half of the 20th century, neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers … have hypothesized a micro-evolutionary and functional continuum between feathers and a hypothesized antecedent structure (usually an elongate scale). Feathers, however, are hierarchically complex assemblages of numerous evolutionary novelties—the feather follicle, tubular feather germ, feather branched structure, interacting differentiated barbules—that have no homolog in any antecedent structures … [Such g]enuine evolutionary novelties are distinct from simple microevolutionary changes in that they are qualitatively or categorically different from any antecedent or homonomous structure."-***-"The sudden appearance of the angiosperms, I observed in Evolution, “is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin's time.”43 How true. No real flowers are found in any group of plants save those extant today, and no putative ancestral group has been identified in the fossil record, or by molecular phylogenetics. There is no universally accepted set of transitional forms leading up to earliest angiosperms."
More Denton: Darwinism doesn't work
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, May 26, 2015, 13:22 (3259 days ago) @ David Turell
Trying to explain the origin of limbs from fish, feathers from scales and flowers. Flowering plants have no antecedent fossils, shades of the Cambrian. Limbs and feathers cannot be explained by Darwin theory. > > http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-two&... > "Although these small distal bones bear some similarity to tetrapod limbs in terms of function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them [the distal bones of the fin] and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning." > > ***** > > "Richard Prum and his colleague Alan Brush, in a landmark article in The Quarterly Review of Biology,28 wrote that: > > "[o]ver the last half of the 20th century, neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers … have hypothesized a micro-evolutionary and functional continuum between feathers and a hypothesized antecedent structure (usually an elongate scale). Feathers, however, are hierarchically complex assemblages of numerous evolutionary novelties—the feather follicle, tubular feather germ, feather branched structure, interacting differentiated barbules—that have no homolog in any antecedent structures … [Such g]enuine evolutionary novelties are distinct from simple microevolutionary changes in that they are qualitatively or categorically different from any antecedent or homonomous structure." > -Been saying this for years, but unless you have a PhD, no one listens.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 14, 2015, 20:10 (3210 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Michael Denton's book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, outlined the problems with Darwin's theory 30 years ago. This series of three essays covers the research since then and makes the point that the complexity of life and evolution in the new discoveries, makes Darwin theory even less likely to be correct than he thought before. This essay briefly covers a variety of subjects, with quotes from many specialist; and of especial interest to me the patterns of development that appear to be set out in the beginning for evolution to follow. A brief sampling:-http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-three-"Whether by pull or push, the evolution of the bat “required many molecular changes to dramatically alter morphology from a limb to a wing.”-"Rewiring the gene circuits required for bat flight, recent studies show, is immensely complex.-"Karen Sears has argued that “a simple change in a single developmental pathway” might lead to dramatically different morphologies in the bat.7 Other researchers have also speculated that major morphological transitions may be achieved by minor genetic changes.8-"In light of the facts, this is a view best described as primitive. Morphological change requires extensive genetic rewriting.-***-"Human language is restricted to the human species; it is, as Noam Chomsky has observed, without any homologue in any other species. In the early 1960s, in one of the landmark advances of twentieth-century science, Chomsky showed that all human languages share the same set of syntactic rules and principles—what has come to be called universal grammar.Universal grammar is innate. It is for this reason that children learn language easily.16 Because universal grammar underlies every human language, we can speak the language of a San Bushman or an Australian aborigine, and they in turn can speak English.-***-"Ancient African hunters were equipped with all the basic linguistic and cognitive potential that modern human beings share. These they never used. The great frescos of Lascaux and Les Combarelles were painted only thirty thousand years ago. Written languages are only five thousand years old. Only during the past five hundred years have human beings undertaken a scientific revolution.-"It is curious that these human powers were acquired over only a few million years. Not only was the interval short, but the miracle occurred in small populations with limited reproduction rates and long generational times. Selection may be a powerful force, but it works effectively only when given a large number of mutations. The size of DNA sequence space searched during primate evolution is a trivial fraction of that searched by bacteria in the human gut in a single day.-***-"Against every Darwinian expectation, there is now a “growing appreciation of the oft-dismissed possibility of evolution of new genes from scratch…” As genomic comparisons become ever more sophisticated, it is increasingly apparent that evolution from scratch may have been the route to new genes throughout the history of life.38 It appears that some 30 percent of all genomes are made of ORFan genes.-"A very significant proportion of all functional genes did not emerge in the course of evolution.-*** "I would suggest that some of the basic forms of life on earth are intrinsic elements of the world. The very icon of modern biology, the double helix itself, is a natural form determined in all its exquisite geometry by the laws of chemistry and physics. Its basic structure arises from the self-organizing properties of matter. No entity in biology exemplifies so beautifully Richard Owen's two types of order: the helix as the primal pattern, and the base sequence as the adaptive mask.-"Protein folds are the basic building blocks of all proteins. The rules that generate the one thousand or so possible protein folds have now been largely elucidated; and remarkably they amount to laws of precisely the kind sought by early nineteenth-century biologists. These rules arise from higher-order packing constraints of alpha helices and beta sheets. .... Moreover, as Daniel Weinreich has shown, even the adaptations built upon the folds are greatly constrained by the biophysical properties and structures of the folds themselves.-***-"One of the most curious aspects of the almost universal acknowledgement that the cosmos is fine-tuned for life is the failure to take the next logical step and infer that nature is fine-tuned, as well, for the origin and evolution of life. This failure is one of the most striking in recent scientific history, an episode made all the more extraordinary when it is also widely conceded that the origin of life remains utterly enigmatic.-"If typology is correct, profound questions nonetheless remain. Of this, there is no doubt. If life is a natural phenomenon, how might its forms have been actualized? How can one type lead to another? Since there is, by definition, nothing between types, how did jumps occur? It is by no means clear that comparable questions have been answered in the case of inorganic chemistry."
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
DAVID: Michael Denton's book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, outlined the problems with Darwin's theory 30 years ago. This series of three essays covers the research since then and makes the point that the complexity of life and evolution in the new discoveries, makes Darwin theory even less likely to be correct than he thought before. [...] A brief sampling: http://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-three-Yet again, thank you for a fascinating essay and for providing us with relevant extracts. I am adding a few quotes (marked EXTRA), with a view to possible discussion. EXTRA: “No one has successfully proposed any kind of selection pressure that would be effective in the change from one niche to the other; whether the bridging group would be pulled by advantages in the new milieu or pushed by disadvantages in the old.” “If not small-scale changes, then what? “[G]enetic mechanisms,” Vincent Lynch has argued, “that are distinct from those involved in the modification of existing characters.”-Darwin proposed random mutations which would provide advantages in any milieu, and his gradualism required bridging groups. On both counts, you and I are sceptical. Your proposal is God's preplanning and/or dabbling, and my alternative is an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) within cell communities, which cooperate to make all the adjustments necessary for the innovation. There is no bridging group, randomness, or even selection pressure (as the goal is improvement rather than survival). Cellular intelligence does it all. EXTRA: “More than a century ago, Alfred Russel Wallace noted correctly that brain size is today more or less uniform across the human species. Assuming that brain size is a marker of intellectual ability, Wallace reasoned that prehistoric man did not use his brain to its capacity. The human brain was, for prehistoric man, “an instrument beyond the needs of its possessor,” and “of a kind and degree far beyond what he ever requires to do.”-"Ancient African hunters were equipped with all the basic linguistic and cognitive potential that modern human beings share. These they never used. The great frescos of Lascaux and Les Combarelles were painted only thirty thousand years ago. Written languages are only five thousand years old. Only during the past five hundred years have human beings undertaken a scientific revolution.”-This is like saying evolution should have happened in a day! The first cell was also “an instrument beyond the needs of its possessor”, since bacteria did not need to evolve. Every innovation has therefore led to organs and organisms of a kind and degree far beyond what was “required”. And just as innovations have changed single-celled organisms into complex beings over billions of years, the human brain has changed simple thoughts - probably concerned only with survival - into complex thoughts over thousands of years. Innovations, ideas, experiences accumulate and are passed on, and languages evolve with this accumulation. Some innovations (e.g.writing) accelerate the process by making ideas more widely accessible. Just as the first cells must have contained the mechanism for evolution (i.e. some kind of “brain”), so too did the early human brain contain the mechanism for reproducing, inventing, sharing, and complexifying ideas. The mystery for me is the source of the mechanism, not the evolution of its products (which include language).-EXTRA: “In the century after Darwin, the majority of paleontologists subscribed to, or otherwise endorsed, some version of orthogenesis: the doctrine that evolutionary change is directed by internal factors having no connection with adaptive fitness…”-"Against every Darwinian expectation, there is now a “growing appreciation of the oft-dismissed possibility of evolution of new genes from scratch…” As genomic comparisons become ever more sophisticated, it is increasingly apparent that evolution from scratch may have been the route to new genes throughout the history of life.” -If we believe in common descent, every innovation must have taken place within existing organisms. “Evolution from scratch” suggests separate creation, but once again, the internal factor governing innovation could be an inventive mechanism or “brain” contained within the cell/cell community.-"One of the most curious aspects of the almost universal acknowledgement that the cosmos is fine-tuned for life is the failure to take the next logical step and infer that nature is fine-tuned, as well, for the origin and evolution of life. This failure is one of the most striking in recent scientific history, an episode made all the more extraordinary when it is also widely conceded that the origin of life remains utterly enigmatic.”-Another great paragraph. Of course it is a powerful argument for theism. The counter argument, as I see it, would be the addition of “as we know it”, applied both to the cosmos and to life. We have no idea if a different cosmos would have resulted in different forms of life or no life at all, and this brings us back to the wretched “anthropic principle”, which can be used equally to support theism and atheism. Obviously if x and y were not x and y, there would be no x and y, but does that mean there would be nothing at all? The whole problem “remains utterly enigmatic”.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 15:33 (3209 days ago) @ dhw
> Dhw: Yet again, thank you for a fascinating essay and for providing us with relevant extracts. I am adding a few quotes (marked EXTRA), with a view to possible discussion. > > EXTRA: “If not small-scale changes, then what? “[G]enetic mechanisms,” Vincent Lynch has argued, “that are distinct from those involved in the modification of existing characters.” > > dhw: Darwin proposed random mutations which would provide advantages in any milieu, and his gradualism required bridging groups. On both counts, you and I are sceptical. Your proposal is God's preplanning and/or dabbling, and my alternative is an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly designed by your God) within cell communities, which cooperate to make all the adjustments necessary for the innovation. There is no bridging group, randomness, or even selection pressure (as the goal is improvement rather than survival). Cellular intelligence does it all.-The problem with your comment is evolution is clearly seen to progress with great jumps and starts, and this not explained in Darwin theory at all. Finally, your 'cellular intelligence' must be extremely bright to make those jumps, and since this 'intelligence' must contain basic information to work with as it makes decisions, where did the information come from? How do cells decided what to invent, or is it scattershot and may the best form win? > > dhw: EXTRA: “More than a century ago, Alfred Russel Wallace noted correctly that brain size is today more or less uniform across the human species. Assuming that brain size is a marker of intellectual ability, Wallace reasoned that prehistoric man did not use his brain to its capacity. > > "Ancient African hunters were equipped with all the basic linguistic and cognitive potential that modern human beings share. These they never used. > > dhw: This is like saying evolution should have happened in a day! The first cell was also “an instrument beyond the needs of its possessor”, since bacteria did not need to evolve. Every innovation has therefore led to organs and organisms of a kind and degree far beyond what was “required”. -And this is the point I have continuously made. this brain arrived with lots more capacity than used, and indicates my point of pre-planning. Another example of the giant leaps in evolution not under selection pressure.-> dhw: Just as the first cells must have contained the mechanism for evolution (i.e. some kind of “brain”), so too did the early human brain contain the mechanism for reproducing, inventing, sharing, and complexifying ideas. The mystery for me is the source of the mechanism, not the evolution of its products (which include language).-Of course the first cells contained a mechanism for evolution. it is called information implanted in the genome. It is your mystery, not mine. > > dhw: EXTRA: > "Against every Darwinian expectation, there is now a “growing appreciation of the oft-dismissed possibility of evolution of new genes from scratch…” As genomic comparisons become ever more sophisticated, it is increasingly apparent that evolution from scratch may have been the route to new genes throughout the history of life.” > > If we believe in common descent, every innovation must have taken place within existing organisms. “Evolution from scratch” suggests separate creation, but once again, the internal factor governing innovation could be an inventive mechanism or “brain” contained within the cell/cell community.-The part you have not quoted is the point in the essay about ORFan genes, ones that pop up out of nowhere to help produce the giant leaps in evolution. This is a discontinuity in genomic evolution, and very anti-Darwin. > > EXTRA: "One of the most curious aspects of the almost universal acknowledgement that the cosmos is fine-tuned for life is the failure to take the next logical step and infer that nature is fine-tuned, as well, for the origin and evolution of life. This failure is one of the most striking in recent scientific history, an episode made all the more extraordinary when it is also widely conceded that the origin of life remains utterly enigmatic.” > > Another great paragraph. Of course it is a powerful argument for theism. The counter argument, as I see it, would be the addition of “as we know it”, applied both to the cosmos and to life. We have no idea if a different cosmos would have resulted in different forms of life or no life at all, and this brings us back to the wretched “anthropic principle”, which can be used equally to support theism and atheism. Obviously if x and y were not x and y, there would be no x and y, but does that mean there would be nothing at all? The whole problem “remains utterly enigmatic”.-We only know carbon-based life. The anthropic principle is circular garbage which, I disagree, does not support theism. And if there is a different possible cosmos with a different life, it would be just as miraculous.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
dhw: Darwin proposed random mutations which would provide advantages in any milieu, and his gradualism required bridging groups. On both counts, you and I are sceptical. [...] my alternative is an autonomous inventive mechanism [...] There is no bridging group, randomness, or even selection pressure (as the goal is improvement rather than survival). DAVID: The problem with your comment is evolution is clearly seen to progress with great jumps and starts, and this not explained in Darwin theory at all. -My theory is not Darwin's theory! I have said that you and I reject gradualism. Innovations produced by the inventive mechanism would have to work straight away (in leaps) or they would not survive.-DAVID: [...] since this 'intelligence' must contain basic information to work with as it makes decisions, where did the information come from? How do cells decide what to invent....?-As always, you ask for the source, and as always I don't know, but it might be your God. Our subject is not the source but how evolution works, and I offer an alternative to chance and your divine preprogramming or dabbling. Perhaps cells decide like humans: if conditions are right, they experiment. If successful, the innovation survives; if not, it perishes. -dhw: EXTRA: “[...] Assuming that brain size is a marker of intellectual ability, Wallace reasoned that prehistoric man did not use his brain to its capacity [...]. "Ancient African hunters were equipped with all the basic linguistic and cognitive potential that modern human beings share. These they never used." dhw: This is like saying evolution should have happened in a day! The first cell was also “an instrument beyond the needs of its possessor”, since bacteria did not need to evolve. Every innovation has therefore led to organs and organisms of a kind and degree far beyond what was “required”. DAVID: And this is the point I have continuously made. this brain arrived with lots more capacity than used, and indicates my point of pre-planning. Another example of the giant leaps in evolution not under selection pressure.-Every human invention, like every evolutionary innovation, is a leap. Just as the potential of the cell unfolded through evolution, so did the potential of the brain. Nobody knows the extent to which ancient African hunters used that potential. “Never used” sounds absurd to me: didn't they communicate, or devise strategies for their hunting? And it seems equally absurd to me to assume that if a potential (e.g. cell or brain) is not completely fulfilled on the spot, that means it's been planned! -dhw: The mystery for me is the source of the mechanism, not the evolution of its products (which include language). DAVID: Of course the first cells contained a mechanism for evolution. it is called information implanted in the genome. It is your mystery, not mine.-This allows for both hypotheses: it might mean information that enabled the mechanism to do its own autonomous inventing, or information that preprogrammed every single innovation that led from bacteria to humans, including the weaverbird's nest and a billion other natural wonders along the way. Which seems more likely? -Dhw: If we believe in common descent, every innovation must have taken place within existing organisms. “Evolution from scratch” suggests separate creation, but once again, the internal factor governing innovation could be an inventive mechanism or “brain” contained within the cell/cell community. DAVID: The part you have not quoted is the point in the essay about ORFan genes, ones that pop up out of nowhere to help produce the giant leaps in evolution. This is a discontinuity in genomic evolution, and very anti-Darwin.-Yet again: I reject Darwin's gradualism. My hypothesis EXPLAINS the leaps, it doesn't ignore them. dhw: EXTRA: "One of the most curious aspects of the almost universal acknowledgement that the cosmos is fine-tuned for life is the failure to take the next logical step and infer that nature is fine-tuned, as well, for the origin and evolution of life...” Dhw: [...] it is a powerful argument for theism. The counter argument, as I see it, would be the addition of “as we know it”, applied both to the cosmos and to life. We have no idea if a different cosmos would have resulted in different forms of life or no life at all, and this brings us back to the wretched “anthropic principle”, which can be used equally to support theism and atheism. DAVID: We only know carbon-based life. The anthropic principle is circular garbage which, I disagree, does not support theism. And if there is a different possible cosmos with a different life, it would be just as miraculous.-As I understand it, the principle allows for teleology (purposeful design) or different universes, ours being the lucky one. Dawkins agrees with you, though: “It is a strange fact, incidentally, that religious apologists love the anthropic principle. For some reason that makes no sense at all, they think it supports their case.” (The God Delusion, p. 136). I mention it only because you will be delighted to have Dawkins on your side! Yes, life is a miracle. That tells us nothing about whether this or any other life-bearing universe was fine-tuned by a god.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Friday, July 17, 2015, 02:56 (3208 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: My theory is not Darwin's theory! I have said that you and I reject gradualism. Innovations produced by the inventive mechanism would have to work straight away (in leaps) or they would not survive.-The leaps bother me and argue against common descent It is as if the inventive mechanism has guidance or pre-planning, which has been my constant comment. > > DAVID: How do cells decide what to invent....? > > dhw: Perhaps cells decide like humans: if conditions are right, they experiment. If successful, the innovation survives; if not, it perishes.-Frankly I don't think there is time enough (by your proposal)to go from apes in six million years and get what we see in humans. Remember human generations are producing at slow rate of 20 years. > > dhw: Every human invention, like every evolutionary innovation, is a leap.-And is just the problem, the leaps by your approach of unguided experimentation are not a reasonable explanation. > > dhw: This allows for both hypotheses: it might mean information that enabled the mechanism to do its own autonomous inventing, or information that preprogrammed every single innovation that led from bacteria to humans, including the weaverbird's nest and a billion other natural wonders along the way. Which seems more likely? -The information that produced patterns of development from the beginning, which patterns are obvious, i.e. Pentadactyl, etc.-> DAVID: The part you have not quoted is the point in the essay about ORFan genes, ones that pop up out of nowhere to help produce the giant leaps in evolution. This is a discontinuity in genomic evolution, and very anti-Darwin. > > dhw: Yet again: I reject Darwin's gradualism. My hypothesis EXPLAINS the leaps, it doesn't ignore them.-It doesn't explain the ORFans, about 10% of unrelated genes to anything in the past, and argue against uncontrolled common descent, as Denton points out. > > dhw: Yes, life is a miracle. That tells us nothing about whether this or any other life-bearing universe was fine-tuned by a god.-John Leslie sums it up best: "Either there is a God and/or multiple universes" (probably slightly paraphrased).
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
dhw: My theory is not Darwin's theory! I have said that you and I reject gradualism. Innovations produced by the inventive mechanism would have to work straight away (in leaps) or they would not survive. DAVID: The leaps bother me and argue against common descent It is as if the inventive mechanism has guidance or pre-planning, which has been my constant comment.-If innovations work promptly - whether guided, preplanned, or invented from within - why should the leaps argue against common descent? They don't happen in mid-air but within existing organisms! Guidance can only mean direct interference, which brings us back to your God personally organizing all the innovations and natural wonders (our beloved weaverbird). Pre-planning can only mean your God putting the programmes into the first cells, to be passed down through billions of years to billions of organisms. Mind boggling, especially if a believer insists that God's purpose was to produce humans. -DAVID: How do cells decide what to invent....? dhw: Perhaps cells decide like humans: if conditions are right, they experiment. If successful, the innovation survives; if not, it perishes. DAVID: Frankly I don't think there is time enough (by your proposal) to go from apes in six million years and get what we see in humans. Remember human generations are producing at slow rate of 20 years.-As I keep saying, innovations must work promptly or they won't survive. If the inventive mechanism guides the changes, what precedent tells you that 300,000 generations would not suffice? (Thank you to whoever invented the pocket calculator.) -dhw: Every human invention, like every evolutionary innovation, is a leap.-DAVID: And is just the problem, the leaps by your approach of unguided experimentation are not a reasonable explanation. -If the experiments are the product of an intelligent inventive mechanism, they would not be "unguided", and they would be motivated, just like ours, by the search for improvement. As always, I offer my hypothesis as an alternative to chance and divine preprogramming or separate creation (dabbling). I think it is just as reasonable, if not more so - but what criteria do we have for “reasonableness”, when the whole process of life and evolution is so shrouded in mystery? -dhw: This allows for both hypotheses: it might mean information that enabled the mechanism to do its own autonomous inventing, or information that preprogrammed every single innovation that led from bacteria to humans, including the weaverbird's nest and a billion other natural wonders along the way. Which seems more likely? DAVID: The information that produced patterns of development from the beginning, which patterns are obvious, i.e. Pentadactyl, etc.-Yes, the patterns are obvious. It is also obvious that if common descent is true, patterns would be handed down. That does not alter the possibility that your God designed the inventive mechanism, and the inventive mechanism designed the patterns. -dhw: Yet again: I reject Darwin's gradualism. My hypothesis EXPLAINS the leaps, it doesn't ignore them. DAVID: It doesn't explain the ORFans, about 10% of unrelated genes to anything in the past, and argue against uncontrolled common descent, as Denton points out.-Inventions are new by definition. What do you mean by “uncontrolled common descent”? If cells/cell communities have their own form of intelligence, then that would “control” the direction they move in. I don't know enough about Denton's work, but perhaps you can tell me if he ever talks of God preprogramming the first cells or dabbling with their make-up.-dhw: Yes, life is a miracle. That tells us nothing about whether this or any other life-bearing universe was fine-tuned by a god. DAVID: John Leslie sums it up best: "Either there is a God and/or multiple universes" (probably slightly paraphrased).-As we have discussed in the past, this is not an alternative. If God exists, there is no reason to suppose that in the course of eternity he would have twiddled his immaterial thumbs until a mere 13.8 billion years ago. And if first cause mindless energy transmuting itself into matter could produce one universe, it could produce many. However, I am far from convinced that this universe began 13.8 billion years ago. Even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded it, and it could just as well have been an event within an existing, eternal and infinite universe. Eternity and infinity offer the same opportunities as a multiverse. The alternative is: “Either there is a God or there is no God.”
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 18, 2015, 01:28 (3207 days ago) @ dhw
DHW, unfortunately for you, your inventive argument suffers from the same pitfalls as Darwins, just on a different scale. You bypass the gradualism by allowing things to leap into being, but there is still no evidence of these types of gradual changes within any given species regardless fo time scale. All humans are human, and have been human since there were humans. All deviations within the species are well within the tolerance for deviation within a species. There is no evidence of gradual change from a common ancestor to us. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Without evidence, the theory is little more than fan fiction.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Saturday, July 18, 2015, 16:15 (3206 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: DHW, unfortunately for you, your inventive argument suffers from the same pitfalls as Darwins, just on a different scale. You bypass the gradualism by allowing things to leap into being, but there is still no evidence of these types of gradual changes within any given species regardless fo time scale. All humans are human, and have been human since there were humans. All deviations within the species are well within the tolerance for deviation within a species. There is no evidence of gradual change from a common ancestor to us. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Without evidence, the theory is little more than fan fiction. -I doubt Darwin theory because of the gaps in the fossil record which get more obvious as time passes and the fossil record becomes more complete. Only a God guided evolution makes sense.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
TONY: DHW, unfortunately for you, your inventive argument suffers from the same pitfalls as Darwins, just on a different scale. You bypass the gradualism by allowing things to leap into being, but there is still no evidence of these types of gradual changes within any given species regardless fo time scale. All humans are human, and have been human since there were humans. All deviations within the species are well within the tolerance for deviation within a species. There is no evidence of gradual change from a common ancestor to us. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Without evidence, the theory is little more than fan fiction.-I can't follow your logic. I am arguing in favour of leaps and against gradualism. If evolution progressed by leaps, then of course there will be no evidence of gradual changes either within species or from one species to another. However, enough fossils have been found to indicate that there were different types of humans, just as there were and are different types of ape, but noone knows where to draw the earliest borderline between the one and the other. So when you say “all humans are humans”, you are glossing over the whole range of hominins. And as a matter of interest, but in all seriousness, if you believe God created humans separately, do you think Adam was a Neanderthal, a Denisovan, a Heidelbergiensis, or a sapiens? -DAVID (in reply to Tony's post above): I doubt Darwin theory because of the gaps in the fossil record which get more obvious as time passes and the fossil record becomes more complete. Only a God guided evolution makes sense.-If the fossil record is becoming more complete, doesn't that suggest that the gaps are becoming less obvious? Tony is questioning common descent. You indiscriminately attack Darwin's theory as if it was all one piece, but you then go on to accept common descent provided God organized it. Either you accept it or you don't. Even Darwin granted the possibility of God's participation, or have you forgotten that? -DAVID: In Nature's Destiny, 1998, he [Denton]takes the position that the universe is designed for humans, again with lots of chemical evidence. TONY: Believe it or not, I actually disagree with this statement, to an extent. The universe was designed to support life, not just humans. I really don't like setting ourselves up as the center stage like that. I think that humans are an integral part of life in general, but not that we are the sole reason for all of creation. DAVID: I think Denton would actually agree with you, but humans seem to be the pinnacle of creation.-What a wonderful piece of intellectual contortionism. Instead of humans being God's purpose, they now “seem to be the pinnacle”. And to whom do they seem to be the pinnacle? Ah, humans, of course.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Sunday, July 19, 2015, 15:19 (3205 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID (in reply to Tony's post above): I doubt Darwin theory because of the gaps in the fossil record which get more obvious as time passes and the fossil record becomes more complete. Only a God guided evolution makes sense. > > dhw: If the fossil record is becoming more complete, doesn't that suggest that the gaps are becoming less obvious? Tony is questioning common descent. You indiscriminately attack Darwin's theory as if it was all one piece, but you then go on to accept common descent provided God organized it. -No, the gaps are more obvious. The fossil record, Darwin hoped would fill in the gaps. Instead the gaps are much more sharply defined. I specifically refer to the pre-Cambrian soft body findings. There is no 'complexity' run-up to the Cambrian. > DAVID: I think Denton would actually agree with you, but humans seem to be the pinnacle of creation. > > dhw: What a wonderful piece of intellectual contortionism. Instead of humans being God's purpose, they now “seem to be the pinnacle”. And to whom do they seem to be the pinnacle? Ah, humans, of course.-If evolution is defined as increasing complexity, a course it certainly seems to follow, what is more complex than humans?
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 19, 2015, 23:36 (3205 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: DHW, unfortunately for you, your inventive argument suffers from the same pitfalls as Darwins, just on a different scale. You bypass the gradualism by allowing things to leap into being, but there is still no evidence of these types of gradual changes within any given species regardless fo time scale. All humans are human, and have been human since there were humans. All deviations within the species are well within the tolerance for deviation within a species. There is no evidence of gradual change from a common ancestor to us. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Without evidence, the theory is little more than fan fiction. > >DHW:I am arguing in favour of leaps and against gradualism. ... However, enough fossils have been found to indicate that there were different types of humans, just as there were and are different types of ape, but noone knows where to draw the earliest borderline between the one and the other. So when you say “all humans are humans”, you are glossing over the whole range of hominins. And as a matter of interest, but in all seriousness, if you believe God created humans separately, do you think Adam was a Neanderthal, a Denisovan, a Heidelbergiensis, or a sapiens? -Gradualism has, as a variable, granularity. Whether your granuals are infintesimally small (Darwinism) or the size of bolders (inventive mechanism), it is still gradualism, just on different scales. -As for the 'different types' of humans, the evidence for that is really, really, really sparce, and mostly conjecture. Even the deviations in genetices between the supposed species of humans are relatively minor, and our understanding of genetics is such that those differences have little to no real meaning for us. The genetic and morphological variance in modern humans should be enough to illustrate that point. So, I am not glossing over the changes, merely pointing out that we have scant evidence upon which to base our speculations about those so-called other species of humans. As for Adam, I think he was a human. The first 'neanderthal' actually does have a biblical record though, in the form of Essau. He is described as 'hairy', with 'red hair', stronger than normal, etc., but he was still born from a human woman and mated with human women, which defies our definition of a separate species. -http://science.time.com/2013/10/17/rethinking-your-ancestors-the-fossilized-ones/-“We have one global human species today,” said Christoph Zollikofer, of the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland, a co-author of the Science report, at a press conference. “And what we can infer from our study is that 1.8 million years ago there was another [single] global human species.”->DHW: If the fossil record is becoming more complete, doesn't that suggest that the gaps are becoming less obvious? Tony is questioning common descent. You indiscriminately attack Darwin's theory as if it was all one piece, but you then go on to accept common descent provided God organized it. Either you accept it or you don't. Even Darwin granted the possibility of God's participation, or have you forgotten that? -The fossil record is hardly becoming more complete. The gaps are becoming more and more obvious, and even growing, as our understanding does.- > > DAVID: In Nature's Destiny, 1998, he [Denton]takes the position that the universe is designed for humans, again with lots of chemical evidence. > > TONY: .. I think that humans are an integral part of life in general, but not that we are the sole reason for all of creation.[/i] > DAVID: I think Denton would actually agree with you, but humans seem to be the pinnacle of creation. > >DHW: What a wonderful piece of intellectual contortionism. Instead of humans being God's purpose, they now “seem to be the pinnacle”. And to whom do they seem to be the pinnacle? Ah, humans, of course.-I did not say (I know David did..) we were the pinnacle. I said we are integral. We are a creature, like all other creatures, with a purpose (one that we admittedly failed miserably at).
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: Gradualism has, as a variable, granularity. Whether your granuals are infintesimally small (Darwinism) or the size of bolders (inventive mechanism), it is still gradualism, just on different scales.-If there is no evidence of transitions from one species to another, or of complex organs slowly developing out of primitive organs, I would talk of leaps. If your God created every species and every new organ separately, I would also regard that as a leap. Darwin specifically argued that natura non facit saltum, which both David and I disagree with, so the distinction is important in any discussion of evolution, whether you accept the theory or not. DHW: I am arguing in favour of leaps and against gradualism. ... However, enough fossils have been found to indicate that there were different types of humans, just as there were and are different types of ape, but noone knows where to draw the earliest borderline between the one and the other. So when you say “all humans are humans”, you are glossing over the whole range of hominins -TONY: As for the 'different types' of humans, the evidence for that is really, really, really sparce, and mostly conjecture. Even the deviations in genetices between the supposed species of humans are relatively minor, and our understanding of genetics is such that those differences have little to no real meaning for us. The genetic and morphological variance in modern humans should be enough to illustrate that point. So, I am not glossing over the changes, merely pointing out that we have scant evidence upon which to base our speculations about those so-called other species of humans. -You have, however, glossed over my point that no one knows where to draw the earliest borderline between ape-like and human-like. Which, if any, of the australopithecine species were our ancestors? I don't know enough about the subject myself, so I've done some googling and have found a useful chart, with an article that is very honest about the gaps in our knowledge, but also seems to me to suggest that there is more than zilch behind the theory of common descent. 1.	Hominini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomininiCached (I can't seem to create the link, but it's easy to find if you google it yourself.)-dhw: ...if you believe God created humans separately, do you think Adam was a Neanderthal, a Denisovan, a Heidelbergiensis, or a sapiens?-TONY: I think he was a human. The first 'neanderthal' actually does have a biblical record though, in the form of Essau. He is described as 'hairy', with 'red hair', stronger than normal, etc., but he was still born from a human woman and mated with human women, which defies our definition of a separate species.-Neanderthals, Denisovans, Heidelbergienses were also “human”. Heidelberg man is believed to have come first, though. If you believe the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, do you think God created Adam as homo sapiens or someone rather less like yourself? TONY: http://science.time.com/2013/10/17/rethinking-your-ancestors-the-fossilized-ones/-Quote: “We have one global human species today,” said Christoph Zollikofer, of the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland, a co-author of the Science report, at a press conference. “And what we can infer from our study is that 1.8 million years ago there was another [single] global human species.”-Clearly his conclusion is hotly disputed (Tattersall is one of David's favourite authors), and frankly the discovery of one hominid in one location doesn't seem to me to offer a reason for dismissing the argument that there have been different forms of hominid elsewhere.-DHW: What a wonderful piece of intellectual contortionism. Instead of humans being God's purpose, they now “seem to be the pinnacle”. And to whom do they seem to be the pinnacle? Ah, humans, of course.-TONY: I did not say (I know David did..) we were the pinnacle. I said we are integral. We are a creature, like all other creatures, with a purpose (one that we admittedly failed miserably at).-My reference was only to David's contortionism, as he had tried to wriggle away from his belief that humans were God's purpose for creating the universe, and substitute his belief that we are the pinnacle (which apparently only means “most complex”).
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 20, 2015, 23:48 (3204 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I am arguing in favour of leaps and against gradualism. ... However, enough fossils have been found to indicate that there were different types of humans, just as there were and are different types of ape, but noone knows where to draw the earliest borderline between the one and the other. So when you say “all humans are humans”, you are glossing over the whole range of hominins > -I am not glossing over anything. I am stating it plainly. Our classifications are wrong. They are wrong because they are based on a faulty line of reasoning. Let me put this another way. Clear your mind of all Darwinian thoughts of evolution for a moment; pretend you had never heard of the theory at all. If I presented you with 10 human skulls of various sizes and shapes, and 10 Ape skulls of various sizes and shapes, would you believe that the humans were anything other than human, or the apes anything other than apes? Would you assume that similarity meant direct relation or causation? Would you feel compelled to come up with some unprovable (and thus un-disprovable) family tree that may or may not have existed? I don't believe in gradualism, whether miniscule or by leaps and bounds. So I do not feel the need to speculate and conjecture about things that can not be proven to have even happened. - >DHW: You have, however, glossed over my point that no one knows where to draw the earliest borderline between ape-like and human-like. Which, if any, of the australopithecine species were our ancestors? I don't know enough about the subject myself, so I've done some googling and have found a useful chart, with an article that is very honest about the gaps in our knowledge, but also seems to me to suggest that there is more than zilch behind the theory of common descent.- No, what you saw was a chart that fits a certain mindset with certain assumptions:-A) That common descent is real (though there is no evidence and all attempts at a unified clasification have failed miserably...like the fact that humans are genetically similar to bananas..) B) That morphological differences are the same as species differences. (Despite the indisputable evidence that we have a wide range of morphological differences in the extant species of mankind) C) That speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed. D) That modern humans are the pinnacle to which life has been driving towards. - > > TONY: I think he was a human. The first 'neanderthal' actually does have a biblical record though, in the form of Essau. He is described as 'hairy', with 'red hair', stronger than normal, etc., but he was still born from a human woman and mated with human women, which defies our definition of a separate species. > >DHW: Neanderthals, Denisovans, Heidelbergienses were also “human”. Heidelberg man is believed to have come first, though. If you believe the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, do you think God created Adam as homo sapiens or someone rather less like yourself?-Yes! Thank you. They were all HUMAN. Not ape, not chimp, not even different species. They were humans, likely with wildly different lifestyles and diets that lead to morphological dissimilarity between groups, much as Americans are morphologically different than Brittish, Arabs, Africans, and Asians. -->DHW: Clearly his conclusion is hotly disputed (Tattersall is one of David's favourite authors), and frankly the discovery of one hominid in one location doesn't seem to me to offer a reason for dismissing the argument that there have been different forms of hominid elsewhere.-It wasn't one hominid at one location. It was 5 hominids, with complete skulls, from the same era, that showed a wide range of morphological differences, which is exactly what I have been trying to tell you all along.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
Thank you for your detailed reply. I can't come up with any definitive answers, but I'll try to cover the various points you raise. The term “species” is always tricky. We talk of the human species, and then we divide that up into species of humans! Anyway, the Dimanisi form of hominid (sorry, yes, there were five skulls) showed “a fresh combination of features we didn't know before in early Homo”. Doesn't this suggest a different "species" within the "species"? However, I don't see the relevance of this to the issue under discussion, which is the theory of common descent.-TONY: Clear your mind of all Darwinian thoughts of evolution for a moment; pretend you had never heard of the theory at all. If I presented you with 10 human skulls of various sizes and shapes, and 10 Ape skulls of various sizes and shapes, would you believe that the humans were anything other than human, or the apes anything other than apes?-Not a problem, if one set is known to be human and the other ape. But I might have a problem if the skeleton indicated features that made it difficult to classify the creature as ape or human, e.g. bipedalism (the Australopithecines). You yourself later mention the difficulty of “a unified classification”, but I take blurred borderlines as evidence FOR common descent, not against.-TONY: Would you assume that similarity meant direct relation or causation? Would you feel compelled to come up with some unprovable (and thus un-disprovable) family tree that may or may not have existed? I don't believe in gradualism, whether miniscule or by leaps and bounds. So I do not feel the need to speculate and conjecture about things that can not be proven to have even happened. -But you do speculate and conjecture etc., and your Creationist explanation of our origins is equally unprovable. I may never have thought of similarities meaning direct relation or causation, but Darwin's book convinced me of the logic of common descent. That's how we learn from one another! I am sceptical, though, about innovation through random mutations and gradual change. (NB, the theory leaves open the possibility that the process was devised by a Creator, as Darwin said repeatedly).-You criticize the assumption that “speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed.” But that is the problem. Species exist, and nobody knows how. That is why we have as many creation myths as we have cultures. Did anyone observe the events described in Genesis? If life began, say, 3.8 billion years ago, and humans have been around for, say, a million years, and writing began, say, 7000-8000 years ago, it's pretty absurd to imagine that humans have an accurate record of what happened before they arrived. All we have to go on are life as we know it now and the remains of creatures that lived before us. (The same applies to all the traces of the past universe that our instruments can detect.) Of course the findings are open to interpretation, methods of dating are suspect, and we can't always trust science or scientists. But fortunately nowadays we are aware of different interpretations, and there are scientists prepared to challenge other scientists. Equally fortunately, there are similar safeguards in religion and philosophy. The man in the pulpit can no longer proclaim without fear of contradiction that his God created Adam out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib.-Ultimately, it all boils down to faith, doesn't it? Who can we trust? As I see it, there is currently no reason for me as a layman to challenge the general consensus among scientists that humans came late on the scene, that the genetic similarities between humans and apes and the admittedly sparse but not non-existent fossil record suggest descent from a common ancestor, and that the patterns David talks of are also evidence that organisms derive from earlier organisms. What I do challenge are what seem to me far more contentious claims about how that descent took place, and how its mechanisms came into existence. (I accept that they MAY have been designed by a Creator.) Again as I see it, you prefer to trust ancient books (mostly anonymous) written, chosen and translated by fallible humans, and which other fallible humans claim to have been inspired by a power for whose existence we have no evidence other than what you have called speculation and conjecture. David is also sceptical about the books, and believes in common descent, but only if the process was organized by a Creator (as allowed for by Darwin). David is certainly more qualified to deal with the science than I am, just as you are more qualified to deal with the theology. But many scientists would disagree with him, and many theologians would disagree with you. All part of life's wonderful diversity! That's why it boils down to who we think we can trust.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 22, 2015, 01:20 (3203 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I don't see the relevance of this to the issue under discussion, which is the theory of common descent.-The relevance is thus:-5 Skulls, from the same location and time period display the same degree of variation found in almost ALL hominid fossil remains ever found. -Two possible explanations:-a)Time travelling hominids of different species converged in the same location for a pow-wow during which all died and were simultaneously fossilized. -b)What we consider different species are all simply humans. -Occam's razor says B is the most likely correct answer.- >DHW: Not a problem, if one set is known to be human and the other ape. But I might have a problem if the skeleton indicated features that made it difficult to classify the creature as ape or human, e.g. bipedalism (the Australopithecines). You yourself later mention the difficulty of “a unified classification”, but I take blurred borderlines as evidence FOR common descent, not against.-Similarity does not indicate common descent, that is purely an assumption. Yes, I mentioned the problem with a unified classification because our classification systems do not even agree with themselves!! Morphologically we are supposed former apes, genetically, we were once bananas or fruit flies or something. Given the disparity between our classification systems, it should be obvious that they are not a sound basis for rational judgement.- > > You criticize the assumption that “speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed.” But that is the problem. Species exist, and nobody knows how. -The existence of species is not the issue. The assumption that they CAN change between species is the issue, because it has never been observed. Your comment here is akin to saying it would be rational for me to believe in unicorns because horses and narwhals exist.->DHW: Of course the findings are open to interpretation, methods of dating are suspect, and we can't always trust science or scientists. But fortunately nowadays we are aware of different interpretations, and there are scientists prepared to challenge other scientists. Equally fortunately, there are similar safeguards in religion and philosophy. The man in the pulpit can no longer proclaim without fear of contradiction that his God created Adam out of dust, and Eve out of Adam's rib.... Ultimately, it all boils down to faith, doesn't it? Who can we trust? As I see it, there is currently no reason for me as a layman to challenge the general consensus among scientists that humans came late on the scene, that the genetic similarities between humans and apes and the admittedly sparse but not non-existent fossil record suggest descent from a common ancestor, and that the patterns David talks of are also evidence that organisms derive from earlier organisms. What I do challenge are what seem to me far more contentious claims about how that descent took place, and how its mechanisms came into existence. (I accept that they MAY have been designed by a Creator.) Again as I see it, you prefer to trust ancient books (mostly anonymous) written, chosen and translated by fallible humans, and which other fallible humans claim to have been inspired by a power for whose existence we have no evidence other than what you have called speculation and conjecture. David is also sceptical about the books, and believes in common descent, but only if the process was organized by a Creator (as allowed for by Darwin). David is certainly more qualified to deal with the science than I am, just as you are more qualified to deal with the theology. But many scientists would disagree with him, and many theologians would disagree with you. All part of life's wonderful diversity! That's why it boils down to who we think we can trust.- You know, the irony of this bit here is that, according to that old book that you seem to think is so misguided and untrustworthy, we aren't really supposed to take everything on faith. Imagine that. The bible actually tells people to seek evidence. -"Romans 1:19-21 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: I don't see the relevance of this to the issue under discussion, which is the theory of common descent.-TONY: The relevance is thus: 5 Skulls, from the same location and time period display the same degree of variation found in almost ALL hominid fossil remains ever found. Two possible explanations: a)Time travelling hominids of different species converged in the same location for a pow-wow during which all died and were simultaneously fossilized. b)What we consider different species are all simply humans. Occam's razor says B is the most likely correct answer.-I don't have a problem with the argument that Neanderthals, Denisovans, the Dimanisi hominids and homo sapiens etc, were/are all humans. How does that prove they did not descend from earlier forms of life? -DHW: Not a problem, if one set is known to be human and the other ape. But I might have a problem if the skeleton indicated features that made it difficult to classify the creature as ape or human, e.g. bipedalism (the Australopithecines). You yourself later mention the difficulty of “a unified classification”, but I take blurred borderlines as evidence FOR common descent, not against. TONY: Similarity does not indicate common descent, that is purely an assumption. -It is a theory, just as the existence of God, and God's separate creation of humans is a theory. (See below on theories and trust.)-TONY: Yes, I mentioned the problem with a unified classification because our classification systems do not even agree with themselves!! Morphologically we are supposed former apes, genetically, we were once bananas or fruit flies or something. Given the disparity between our classification systems, it should be obvious that they are not a sound basis for rational judgement.-I don't know of any disagreement over the classification of bananas, fruit flies, or for that matter gorillas and homo sapiens. I thought the problems arose over the classification of the so-called hominids and hominins, but you obviously know more about these things than I do, so perhaps you can put me right.-Dhw: You criticize the assumption that “speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed.” But that is the problem. Species exist, and nobody knows how. -TONY: The existence of species is not the issue. The assumption that they CAN change between species is the issue, because it has never been observed. Your comment here is akin to saying it would be rational for me to believe in unicorns because horses and narwhals exist.-It would only be rational for you to believe in unicorns if we knew that unicorns existed (e.g. if we found a fossil). The issue is how the diverse species that we do know of came into existence, and all we have are theories, including the theory that there is a supernatural power who created them all separately. I can only repeat that whichever theory you believe in depends on the extent to which you trust the theorists. I wrote: “As I see it, there is currently no reason for me as a layman to challenge the general consensus among scientists that humans came late on the scene, that the genetic similarities between humans and apes and the admittedly sparse but not non-existent fossil record suggest descent from a common ancestor, and that the patterns David talks of are also evidence that organisms derive from earlier organisms.” (Since you mention that speciation has never been observed, perhaps I should add that no-one has ever observed an organism that did not spring from another organism.) You prefer the version of events set out in ancient manuscripts. -TONY: You know, the irony of this bit here is that, according to that old book that you seem to think is so misguided and untrustworthy, we aren't really supposed to take everything on faith. Imagine that. The bible actually tells people to seek evidence. -That old book, which is actually a collection of old books, is full of wonderful stories, human truths, wisdom, beautiful poetry, and in some sections (but not others) what I see as admirable moral guidance. That does not mean that all its different authors are to be trusted when it comes to history or scientific theories.-As for your quote from Romans 1-19, I do not interpret it as an instruction to seek evidence. It reads to me as a statement that God has shown how great he is, and anyone who can't see that is an idiot. But there we go again - different people have different interpretations of the same text, and nobody can tell us which one is right!
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 24, 2015, 22:25 (3200 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I don't have a problem with the argument that Neanderthals, Denisovans, the Dimanisi hominids and homo sapiens etc, were/are all humans. How does that prove they did not descend from earlier forms of life? -Dismantle the problem one stage at a time. If it is unlikely, and it is, that there was any speciation in the hominid line, how much more unlikely is it that there was speciation between some mythical (never observed, even in fossils) common ancestor into humans and apes.- > TONY: Similarity does not indicate common descent, that is purely an assumption. > > > DHW: It is a theory, just as the existence of God, and God's separate creation of humans is a theory. (See below on theories and trust.)-Theories require rigorous evidence and testing, not speculation.-->DHW: I don't know of any disagreement over the classification of bananas, fruit flies, or for that matter gorillas and homo sapiens. I thought the problems arose over the classification of the so-called hominids and hominins, but you obviously know more about these things than I do, so perhaps you can put me right.-The disagreement is not over the classification of fruit flies and bananas. Humans are 50% genetically similar to bananas.-http://genecuisine.blogspot.com/2011/03/human-dna-similarities-to-chimps-and.html-The point being that morphological similarity is what moved Darwin to lump us in with Apes. Genetic similarity is used to set the 'evolutionary clock' for species divergence. But if we are 50% genetically similar to bananas, at what point did humans and bananas share a common ancestor. - > > Dhw: You criticize the assumption that “speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed.” But that is the problem. Species exist, and nobody knows how. > > TONY: The existence of species is not the issue. The assumption that they CAN change between species is the issue, because it has never been observed. Your comment here is akin to saying it would be rational for me to believe in unicorns because horses and narwhals exist. > > DHW: It would only be rational for you to believe in unicorns if we knew that unicorns existed (e.g. if we found a fossil). -True, that would be an 'observation', but we have no observation for common ancestors or even speciation.- >DHW:The issue is how the diverse species that we do know of came into existence, and all we have are theories, including the theory that there is a supernatural power who created them all separately. I can only repeat that whichever theory you believe in depends on the extent to which you trust the theorists. I wrote: “As I see it, there is currently no reason for me as a layman to challenge the general consensus among scientists that humans came late on the scene, that the genetic similarities between humans and apes and the admittedly sparse but not non-existent fossil record suggest descent from a common ancestor, and that the patterns David talks of are also evidence that organisms derive from earlier organisms.” (Since you mention that speciation has never been observed, perhaps I should add that no-one has ever observed an organism that did not spring from another organism.) You prefer the version of events set out in ancient manuscripts. -Because the version set out in said ancient manuscripts fits the observations more closely. We HAVE observed organisms that "did not spring from another organism". It's called the Cambrian explosion. No precursors. Hell, that is the basis for your entire 'inventive mechanism', to deal with the fact that there are no known precursors.- >DHW: As for your quote from Romans 1-19, I do not interpret it as an instruction to seek evidence. It reads to me as a statement that God has shown how great he is, and anyone who can't see that is an idiot. But there we go again - different people have different interpretations of the same text, and nobody can tell us which one is right!-Well, there is some truth to that. He has shown how good he is, and people that can't see that are a little blind. But, it does mention that the 'evidence' in is what is created. If you want to see the evidence, look at creation and 'Keep digging as if for precious treasure..(Prov 2:4) study animals (Prov 6:6-8). The bible is full of references to studying creation. The one I linked you in Romans said the nature of God is revealed in his creation. I.E. If you want to understand God, you have to study it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: I don't have a problem with the argument that Neanderthals, Denisovans, the Dimanisi hominids and homo sapiens etc, were/are all humans. How does that prove they did not descend from earlier forms of life? TONY: Dismantle the problem one stage at a time. If it is unlikely, and it is, that there was any speciation in the hominid line, how much more unlikely is it that there was speciation between some mythical (never observed, even in fossils) common ancestor into humans and apes.-As I said earlier, there is a problem with the term “species” - we use it for the human species (all one) and for species of human (Neanderthal, Denisovan, homo sapiens etc.). It hasn't been proved that the latter are not different, even if they are all human. But that does not affect the argument for common descent, as discussed below. Of course you are right that no one has observed any of the transitions that (may) have taken place millions of years ago. Nor has anyone observed your God separately creating the first dogs, cats, apes and humans. And on that subject, doesn't your own explanation of speciation entail evolution? Did God separately create the gorilla, orang-utan, chimpanzee, gibbon etc., or do they have a common ancestor? I am taking the next exchange out of sequence, as it makes for a clearer line of argument here
hw: (Since you mention that speciation has never been observed, perhaps I should add that no-one has ever observed an organism that did not spring from another organism.) TONY: We HAVE observed organisms that "did not spring from another organism". It's called the Cambrian explosion. No precursors. Hell, that is the basis for your entire 'inventive mechanism', to deal with the fact that there are no known precursors. -My inventive mechanism does not float around in midair waiting to create new organisms. It can only exist within already living creatures. The Cambrian Explosion lasted 5-10 million years. We have no precedent to go by, and so it's conceivable that such a period would allow time for the different innovations to take place in existing organisms, if they were the product of intelligent use of new conditions (Please remember, this hypothesis allows for God being the designer of the inventive mechanism.) David thinks God preprogrammed or dabbled with existing organisms, which still means common descent. Presumably you are suggesting that God made every new organism from scratch. There is of course no evidence for any of these hypotheses, so why do you think yours is more likely than the others?-TONY: Similarity does not indicate common descent, that is purely an assumption. -DHW: It is a theory, just as the existence of God, and God's separate creation of humans is a theory. (See below on theories and trust.) TONY: Theories require rigorous evidence and testing, not speculation.-And when the evidence is conclusive and the tests have been passed, the theory changes from speculation to fact. This is certainly not possible with the Creationist theory, unless God appears to us all in person, and I doubt if it's possible with evolution (though you are right to complain that some folk insist it is already fact). What is your point?-DHW: I don't know of any disagreement over the classification of bananas, fruit flies, or for that matter gorillas and homo sapiens. I thought the problems arose over the classification of the so-called hominids and hominins, but you obviously know more about these things than I do, so perhaps you can put me right. TONY: The disagreement is not over the classification of fruit flies and bananas. Humans are 50% genetically similar to bananas.-See below for bananas. In relation to human history, the problem of classification as I understand it lies with the hominids/hominins, because nobody quite knows to what extent they are to be classified as apes or humans. TONY: http://genecuisine.blogspot.com/2011/03/human-dna-similarities-to-chimps-and.html&#...The point being that morphological similarity is what moved Darwin to lump us in with Apes. Genetic similarity is used to set the 'evolutionary clock' for species divergence. But if we are 50% genetically similar to bananas, at what point did humans and bananas share a common ancestor.-Yes of course it is morphological/genetic similarity that suggests common ancestry. But the theory is that all life, plant and animal, descended from the first living cells, and so all life ultimately goes back to them as the common ancestor, with billions of “splits” once multicellularity had occurred. Your article suggests that plant and animal life split approx. 1.5 billion years ago. But what is your theory? That God separately created, say, bananas, blackberries, pears and pomegranates etc.? If not, then as with gorillas and chimps they too must have split from a common ancestor.-As regards the biblical quotes, I was only pointing out that the one you offered was open to a different interpretation. I'm afraid a biblical instruction to look for evidence really won't make any difference to our debate on evolution - especially as I do not regard evolution as in any way denying or belittling God.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 25, 2015, 23:31 (3199 days ago) @ dhw
Let's agree on what we HAVE observed, and what we have not. -We have observed:-
- Creatures appearing with no precursors
- Deviation within a species group (different types of apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, melons, etc)
- Deviation within the same breed (morphological/genetic differences between Doberman Pincers, for example)
- Functionally perfect 'adaptations' (i.e. shark's electrical impulse sense)
- Purpose for each 'adaptation'
-We have NOT observed:-
- Speciation - i.e. changing from a goat to a llama
- Life appearing from non-life
- Randomly created NEW features without prior instructions (i.e. no eyes where there was not already the genetic information to create eyes)
- Stepwise change within a species leading to new organs.
-Based on this, the most likely (least convoluted) explanation is:-
- Life was planned/created by an intelligent designer.
- Creatures were created, at a minimum, and the individual species level. (i.e. Apes, Monkeys, Dogs, Cats, etc)
- The plan allowed for variation within that species group. (i.e. Doberman, rotweiller, corgy)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: Let's agree on what we HAVE observed, and what we have not. We have observed: •	Creatures appearing with no precursors •	Deviation within a species group (different types of apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, melons, etc) •	Deviation within the same breed (morphological/genetic differences between Doberman Pincers, for example) •	Functionally perfect 'adaptations' (i.e. shark's electrical impulse sense) •	Purpose for each 'adaptation' We have NOT observed: •	Speciation - i.e. changing from a goat to a llama •	Life appearing from non-life •	Randomly created NEW features without prior instructions (i.e. no eyes where there was not already the genetic information to create eyes) •	Stepwise change within a species leading to new organs. Based on this, the most likely (least convoluted) explanation is: •	Life was planned/created by an intelligent designer. •	Creatures were created, at a minimum, and the individual species level. (i.e. Apes, Monkeys, Dogs, Cats, etc) •	The plan allowed for variation within that species group. (i.e. Doberman, rotweiller, corgy)-An ingenious scheme, beautifully put together. Thank you. The only problem I have with it is the gap between the first two sections and the last, summed up by the expression “the plan allowed for...”. This has to cover all the variations, all the adaptations, and all the new features. How do you think these came about? I am going to put on my theist's hat here, because it should go without saying that all this is subject to the existence of your God, but our discussion concerns evolution and not God's existence. If God did not personally intervene to create the variations, adaptations and innovations, would you not agree that “the most likely (least convoluted) explanation” is that he provided the cell communities with some kind of intelligence to produce them? And would you not agree that all the variations must have sprung from common ancestors - the ones you say your God created at the individual species level?-If you agree, we now find ourselves confronted with the problem of the term “species”. This is where things get murky. You have yourself pointed out the problem of classification: “Given the disparity between our classification systems, it should be obvious that they are not a sound basis for rational judgement.” I have taken as my example the various hominids and hominins. It's all very well saying God created apes and humans separately, because we can now see a clear distinction, but back in the past which nobody can ever observe, the distinctions become less rigid. And the further back we go, the less we know. I will now add one item to your list of things we have NOT observed: Living organisms that have not sprung from other living organisms. With this in mind, and for the sake of argument granting the existence of an intelligent designer, how about this for a most likely (least convoluted) explanation:-The designer provided the first forms of life with an inventive intelligence which enabled them to adapt, innovate and cooperate in creating different organisms. Over the course of millions of years these diversified into all the plants and animals we now know, together with all the plants and animals that have become extinct.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Sunday, July 26, 2015, 19:58 (3198 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I will now add one item to your list of things we have NOT observed: > Living organisms that have not sprung from other living organisms. > With this in mind, and for the sake of argument granting the existence of an intelligent designer, how about this for a most likely (least convoluted) explanation: > > The designer provided the first forms of life with an inventive intelligence which enabled them to adapt, innovate and cooperate in creating different organisms. Over the course of millions of years these diversified into all the plants and animals we now know, together with all the plants and animals that have become extinct.-This far out theory of yours does not allow for planning to coordinate for the complexity in multiple organ system animals, as in the Cambrian. That is the major stumbling block for your theory. No precursors, just sudden appearance.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 03:59 (3198 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Let's agree on what we HAVE observed, and what we have not. > We have observed: > •	Creatures appearing with no precursors > •	Deviation within a species group (different types of apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, cows, melons, etc) > •	Deviation within the same breed (morphological/genetic differences between Doberman Pincers, for example) > •	Functionally perfect 'adaptations' (i.e. shark's electrical impulse sense) > •	Purpose for each 'adaptation' > We have NOT observed: > •	Speciation - i.e. changing from a goat to a llama > •	Life appearing from non-life > •	Randomly created NEW features without prior instructions (i.e. no eyes where there was not already the genetic information to create eyes) > •	Stepwise change within a species leading to new organs. > Based on this, the most likely (least convoluted) explanation is: > •	Life was planned/created by an intelligent designer. > •	Creatures were created, at a minimum, and the individual species level. (i.e. Apes, Monkeys, Dogs, Cats, etc) > •	The plan allowed for variation within that species group. (i.e. Doberman, rotweiller, corgy) > >DHW: An ingenious scheme, beautifully put together. Thank you. The only problem I have with it is the gap between the first two sections and the last, summed up by the expression “the plan allowed for...”. This has to cover all the variations, all the adaptations, and all the new features. How do you think these came about? I am going to put on my theist's hat here, because it should go without saying that all this is subject to the existence of your God, but our discussion concerns evolution and not God's existence. If God did not personally intervene to create the variations, adaptations and innovations, would you not agree that “the most likely (least convoluted) explanation” is that he provided the cell communities with some kind of intelligence to produce them? And would you not agree that all the variations must have sprung from common ancestors - the ones you say your God created at the individual species level?- Variation within a familial group is relatively small. Whether you are talking about size, color, or other similar things, there is no reason to assume that every single solitary variation had to be pre-planned, only allowed for, similar to how your computer allows for colors within a saturation range of 0-255 for Red, Green, and Blue, thus producing all the myriads of colors that you see on your screen. It is only when you get into major differences that you have to start looking at planning. For example, carnivore vs. a herbivore. Normally, we do not see these kinds of variations within a single family though. -- >DHW: If you agree, we now find ourselves confronted with the problem of the term “species”. This is where things get murky. You have yourself pointed out the problem of classification: “Given the disparity between our classification systems, it should be obvious that they are not a sound basis for rational judgement.” I have taken as my example the various hominids and hominins. It's all very well saying God created apes and humans separately, because we can now see a clear distinction, but back in the past which nobody can ever observe, the distinctions become less rigid. And the further back we go, the less we know.- Not really. The distinctions are always there, and taking a artists rendering of a full bodied hominid that was dirived from a single skull fragment is a bit loony. All of the bones for hominids look well within the ranges we see in modern humans, particularly if we account for all races and naturally occuring genetic deformities such as dwarfism.-> > DHW: I will now add one item to your list of things we have NOT observed: > Living organisms that have not sprung from other living organisms.-I did list this. It was #2 on my not observed list.--> DHW: With this in mind, and for the sake of argument granting the existence of an intelligent designer, how about this for a most likely (least convoluted) explanation: > > The designer provided the first forms of life with an inventive intelligence which enabled them to adapt, innovate and cooperate in creating different organisms. Over the course of millions of years these diversified into all the plants and animals we now know, together with all the plants and animals that have become extinct.-Jeremiah 10:10 "But Jehovah(YHWH) is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.- Even with creation, even the creation of individual species or family, life does not spring from non-life. Your point there violates the fact that we have not observed any intermediates.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: Variation within a familial group is relatively small. Whether you are talking about size, color, or other similar things, there is no reason to assume that every single solitary variation had to be pre-planned, only allowed for...-What does “allowed for” mean? With my theist hat on, I am proposing a God-made mechanism in organisms, but this must organize (not “allow for”) adaptation to changing environments, morphological variations (change cat No. 1 into tabby or lion), cooperation with other organisms, the design of complex habitats and lifestyles etc. Furthermore, you apparently accept common descent, though only within species. But - as I pointed out earlier - you also say our current systems of classification are disparate, so classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgment”. We therefore have common descent for each species, but we can't rely on classifications of species (particularly in the far distant past). Sounds like we're on the way to a theory of evolution! TONY: It is only when you get into major differences that you have to start looking at planning. For example, carnivore vs. a herbivore. Normally, we do not see these kinds of variations within a single family though.-If some kind of mechanism produced the evolution of cat No. 1 to tabby and to lion, why could it not have produced the change from herbivore to carnivore (perhaps triggered by a change in the environment)? Many animals, including ourselves, are both, so does that mean separate creation of herbivores, carnivores and omnivores? Hold on, though. Chimps are omnivores and gorillas are herbivores...It's getting confusing. DHW: It's all very well saying God created apes and humans separately, because we can now see a clear distinction, but back in the past which nobody can ever observe, the distinctions become less rigid. And the further back we go, the less we know.-TONY: Not really...All of the bones for hominids look well within the ranges we see in modern humans, particularly if we account for all races and naturally occuring genetic deformities such as dwarfism.-I'm surprised that you consider all the hominids to be modern humans. You clearly know a great deal more about them than the palaeontologists who have spent a lifetime studying them.-DHW: I will now add one item to your list of things we have NOT observed: Living organisms that have not sprung from other living organisms. TONY: I did list this. It was #2 on my not observed list.-That was life appearing from non-life, which I took to refer to the unsolved mystery of the origin of life. The theory of evolution does not deal with that. But if the Cambrian organisms did not spring from other organisms or from non-life, what did they spring from? (See below) TONY: Jeremiah 10:10 "But Jehovah(YHWH) is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.” TONY: Even with creation, even the creation of individual species or family, life does not spring from non-life. -This is hard to follow. I have no idea what the first forms of life on Earth sprang from, but if they sprang from life, they were not the first forms! Judging by the quote, you are saying God is the first life (and we should be scared stiff of him!), but wouldn't God have had to use non-living materials to create earthly bodies? Wasn't he supposed to have created the first man out of dust and breathed life into him?-TONY: Your point there violates the fact that we have not observed any intermediates. DAVID: This far out theory of yours does not allow for planning to coordinate for the complexity in multiple organ system animals, as in the Cambrian. That is the major stumbling block for your theory. No precursors, just sudden appearance.-You both seize on the fact that no precursors/intermediates have been found. David's evolutionary explanations are that God preprogrammed the first cells with every single innovation, and so approx. 3 thousand million years later, existing organisms suddenly switched on their individual programmes (automatically) and found themselves transformed into a wide range of totally different organisms. Or God personally rummaged around inside existing organisms with the same result. Presumably Tony's explanation is that God started life all over again by separately creating totally new organisms out of not-non-life. You both seem to find your hypotheses believable, which is fine. They do explain why there are no precursors/intermediaries. But so does the hypothesis that organisms are possessed of intelligence, which produced the SAME changes by exploiting new environmental conditions. New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. It's a hypothesis as unproven (unprovable?) as your own, but at least it has the virtue of linking up with the fact that organisms CAN change their structures (by adapting), and with a notion that many experts in the field consider already proven: that cells/cell communities have some form of intelligence.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Monday, July 27, 2015, 20:02 (3197 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You both seem to find your hypotheses believable, which is fine. They do explain why there are no precursors/intermediaries. But so does the hypothesis that organisms are possessed of intelligence, which produced the SAME changes by exploiting new environmental conditions. New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. It's a hypothesis as unproven (unprovable?) as your own, but at least it has the virtue of linking up with the fact that organisms CAN change their structures (by adapting), and with a notion that many experts in the field consider already proven: that cells/cell communities have some form of intelligence.-OR, cells/cell communities have intelligent information which they use in adaptation. Big difference in interpretation and just as likely. Take your choice, I have mine.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 22:11 (3197 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: What does “allowed for” mean? -This is where my computer programming background comes in. In programming, I can say:-A < X > B (The variable X will always be between the values A and B) -I can also say:-IF (X > C){ //Do something one way} Else {//Do something another way}-In this way, a program "allows for" a lot of variation. To give a more practical example:-If (internalBodyTemperature <= X) { //Trigger hair growth; } Else IF (internalBodyTemperature >= Y) { //Trigger hair loss; } Else (hair = defaultHairLength)- This one little snippet would allow for the length of an animals fur to vary with their ability to regulate their internal body temperature, independent of environment. If their temperature is constantly staying below normal, hair growth is started, if it stays above normal, hair loss is started, or if it is normal, their hair stays normal.-- > > TONY: It is only when you get into major differences that you have to start looking at planning. .. > >DHW: If some kind of mechanism produced the evolution of cat No. 1 to tabby and to lion, why could it not have produced the change from herbivore to carnivore (perhaps triggered by a change in the environment)?-Because the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. An animal would need different blueprints for teeth, different build traits for hunting, digestion, etc. The entire primate family are omnivores, eating both plant and meat. The difference is the percentages of plant vs. animal matter that they consume. Already having the morphological ability to eat either/or, varying the amount requires no major changes.- > >DHW: I'm surprised that you consider all the hominids to be modern humans. You clearly know a great deal more about them than the palaeontologists who have spent a lifetime studying them. > -You don't wear sarcasm well. I consider all hominids to be human BASED ON the findings of those palaeontologists, such as the article that I linked to you previously. - > TONY: Jeremiah 10:10 "..He is the living God.. "->DHW:..Judging by the quote, you are saying God is the first life.., but wouldn't God have had to use non-living materials to create earthly bodies? Wasn't he supposed to have created the first man out of dust and breathed life into him?- Yes, God is living, and therefore life he created still comes from life(i.e. him). How he does it, I don't know, though I am definitely curious about it.- >DHW: You both seize on the fact that no precursors/intermediates have been found. ..You both seem to find your hypotheses believable, which is fine. They do explain why there are no precursors/intermediaries. But so does the hypothesis that organisms are possessed of intelligence, which produced the SAME changes by exploiting new environmental conditions. New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. ..-True. New inventions require new information, and intelligence. Given that humans cannot even design a single cell, you are implying that a single cell, or cell community, is vastly superior in terms of knowledge and ability than humans. While I conceded this may be possible, I consider it highly unlikely.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Monday, July 27, 2015, 22:30 (3197 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > >DHW: You both seize on the fact that no precursors/intermediates have been found. ..You both seem to find your hypotheses believable, which is fine. They do explain why there are no precursors/intermediaries. But so does the hypothesis that organisms are possessed of intelligence, which produced the SAME changes by exploiting new environmental conditions. New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. .. > > Tony: True. New inventions require new information, and intelligence. Given that humans cannot even design a single cell, you are implying that a single cell, or cell community, is vastly superior in terms of knowledge and ability than humans. While I conceded this may be possible, I consider it highly unlikely.-This is simple logic that I cannot get across to dhw. A new species requires not just a re-working of information in DNA, it requires planning and development of new control DNA information to manage the new complexities of the new species. We don't know how speciation works, but what I have described is an absolute requirement for speciation to occur. 'Cell communities' do not have the capacity nor the communication skills to accomplish this in any theoretical manner. There is also a time problem In advanced species with sexual reproduction, it requires several generations to fix a change in the genome, with the result that species change takes a long time period, especially in humans with a 18-20 years generation span. Compare that to the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian animals. Like going from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: True. New inventions require new information, and intelligence. Given that humans cannot even design a single cell, you are implying that a single cell, or cell community, is vastly superior in terms of knowledge and ability than humans. While I conceded this may be possible, I consider it highly unlikely.-DAVID: This is simple logic that I cannot get across to dhw. A new species requires not just a re-working of information in DNA, it requires planning and development of new control DNA information to manage the new complexities of the new species. We don't know how speciation works, but what I have described is an absolute requirement for speciation to occur. 'Cell communities' do not have the capacity nor the communication skills to accomplish this in any theoretical manner. -Believe me, I understand how enormously complex the changes have to be, but unlike you I can't announce what cells can and can't do in conditions we don't know about. (See also my response to Tony.) Speciation happened, and ALL the hypotheses entail stretching credulity far beyond what we know (though one of them must be close to the truth). Your own set of programmes for every single innovation and natural wonder, passed down through thousands of millions of years and organisms, with each individual programme switching itself on automatically in the appropriate organism, frankly beggars belief, especially since it must also entail preprogramming the environment or allowing for every possible environmental change. (Alternatively, God personally intervening to show the weaverbird how to build its nest, etc.) But you prefer to dodge the colossal implications with your weasel word “guidance”. -DAVID: There is also a time problem. In advanced species with sexual reproduction, it requires several generations to fix a change in the genome, with the result that species change takes a long time period, especially in humans with a 18-20 years generation span. Compare that to the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian animals. Like going from 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds.-The Cambrian lasted 5-10 million years, which allows for quite a few generations (I calculated the number in an earlier post.) We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the allotted time. These innovations don't happen now, so back we go to the different hypotheses, not one of which fits in with anything we know or perhaps even can know. But mine does have a simple logic, if only I could get it across to you...
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 23:32 (3196 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Believe me, I understand how enormously complex the changes have to be, but unlike you I can't announce what cells can and can't do in conditions we don't know about. (See also my response to Tony.) Speciation happened, and ALL the hypotheses entail stretching credulity far beyond what we know (though one of them must be close to the truth).....But you prefer to dodge the colossal implications with your weasel word “guidance”. -What is wrong with the simple concept of God guiding everything? > > dhw: The Cambrian lasted 5-10 million years, which allows for quite a few generations (I calculated the number in an earlier post.) We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the allotted time.... But mine [theory] does have a simple logic, if only I could get it across to you...-Not simple logic at all. Lets use an analogy: life is progressing along as very simple forms on a flat plain in the Precambrian times, and suddenly falls off a cliff into the Cambrian where it has amazingly changed into very complex multi-organ-system animals at the bottom. This is what the fossil record shows, no time for a change. Suddenly they are just there. This is what Darwin described as his greatest concern in 'Origin'. Your theory simply does not fit the Cambrian Explosion. The use of the word 'explosion' makes the point, very sudden. From Ediacarans, bilatarians, sponges an anemones to as complex as we are sans enormous brains with NOTHING in-between. You are using the whole Cambrian to gloss over the suddenness. Won't work.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 08:03 (3195 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Believe me, I understand how enormously complex the changes have to be, but unlike you I can't announce what cells can and can't do in conditions we don't know about. (See also my response to Tony.) Speciation happened, and ALL the hypotheses entail stretching credulity far beyond what we know (though one of them must be close to the truth). Your own set of programmes for every single innovation and natural wonder, passed down through thousands of millions of years and organisms, with each individual programme switching itself on automatically in the appropriate organism, frankly beggars belief, especially since it must also entail preprogramming the environment or allowing for every possible environmental change. (Alternatively, God personally intervening to show the weaverbird how to build its nest, etc.) But you prefer to dodge the colossal implications with your weasel word “guidance”. > ->DHW: The Cambrian lasted 5-10 million years, which allows for quite a few generations (I calculated the number in an earlier post.) We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the allotted time. These innovations don't happen now, so back we go to the different hypotheses, not one of which fits in with anything we know or perhaps even can know. But mine does have a simple logic, if only I could get it across to you...-I see no reason to say that "Speciation Happened" nor do I see that "We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the alloTted time" specifically because "these innovations don't happen now".
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: What does “allowed for” mean? -TONY: This is where my computer programming background comes in. In programming, I can say: A < X > B (The variable X will always be between the values A and B) etc.-I'm sorry, but computer language doesn't help me! In plain English, I have pointed out that once your God had created the prototype species, something had to organize (not allow for) adaptation, diversification (protocat branching out into tabby and lion), cooperation with other organisms, design of complex habitats and lifestyles. Three questions for you:-1. Do you accept David's hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? 2. Do you believe in common descent from each “prototype” species? 3. Since classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgement”, and we may not know the “prototype”, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors? TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. -The argument that no changes have been observed applies to all hypotheses. The changes are apparently not too great for protocat to turn itself into tabby or lion. How do you know God would not/could not design a mechanism enabling existing organisms also to adapt their bodies to munch meat instead of marigolds (especially if the latter are in short supply)? -DHW: I'm surprised that you consider all the hominids to be modern humans. You clearly know a great deal more about them than the palaeontologists who have spent a lifetime studying them. TONY: You don't wear sarcasm well. I consider all hominids to be human BASED ON the findings of those palaeontologists, such as the article that I linked to you previously.-My apologies - I shouldn't have phrased it that way. You have based your hypothesis on the study of five skulls, which suggest very controversially that 1.8 million years ago there may have been one species of human (but not “modern humans”) and not several. The history of hominids/hominins goes way beyond that. I have found an article that traces the history of the fossil finds (going back 7/6 million years). I'll quote just one paragraph (please ignore the assumptions about evolution):-Early Hominin Evolution: Discovery of Early ... anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm Cached-(Ugh! Failed again! The link works when I put it in my WORD draft. But it should be easy to google.) 	 	 QUOTE: “Over the last decade, there have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa of what may be very early transitional ape/hominins, or proto-hominins. These creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs. The fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera--Sahelanthropus, Orrorin , and Ardipithecus. Sahelanthropus was the earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago. Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago, while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago. At present, the vote is still out as to whether any of these three primates were in fact true hominins and if they were our ancestors. The classification of Sahelanthropus has been the most in question."-If you read on, you will see how utterly confusing it all is (which is your own point about the uselessness of our classifications), and therefore how impossible it is to say what does and does not constitute the earliest form of “humans”. What is clear, however, is that nobody is claiming as you do that “all of the bones for hominids look well within the ranges we see in modern humans”.-DHW: New inventions do not require precursors/intermediaries. .. TONY: True. New inventions require new information, and intelligence. Given that humans cannot even design a single cell, you are implying that a single cell, or cell community, is vastly superior in terms of knowledge and ability than humans. While I conceded this may be possible, I consider it highly unlikely.-There are different types of knowledge and ability. Clearly single cells and other cell communities (our fellow creatures) are capable of doing things we cannot do, and vice versa, but I'm also a community of cells, which David says are all automatic, preprogrammed by God. However, there's a problem: the cell community that is me can think. And the cell community that is his dog can also think, but thinks differently. And crow and rat cell communities think. And some experts say ant cell communities think and even single-cell bacteria think. All differently from us, of course. And so with my theist hat on, I am suggesting that God endowed cells with their own particular form of thinking intelligence, enabling them to cooperate, adapt, diversify, design, and even invent new ways of combining themselves. You say you don't know how God did it but you are curious. All of us are curious. That's why we put forward different possible explanations, even if they all seem "highly unlikely". And that's why we have these discussions, for which I am very grateful.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 08:19 (3195 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: What does “allowed for” mean? > > TONY: This is where my computer programming background comes in. In programming, I can say: > A < X > B (The variable X will always be between the values A and B) etc. > >DHW: I'm sorry, but computer language doesn't help me! In plain English, I have pointed out that once your God had created the prototype species, something had to organize (not allow for) adaptation, diversification (protocat branching out into tabby and lion), cooperation with other organisms, design of complex habitats and lifestyles. Three questions for you: > -This thing (X) may vary between this value (A) and that value (B), based on a given condition. For example, a cat's muscle may vary within a given range based on the proportion of the felines body sized compared to the base size. They will need to consume an amount of food (X) relative to their body size that does not exceed the boundaries of a range (A) or (B). Their hair will be of a given length between two values based on internal temperature. Etc. etc. etc.-Some of this is actually formally stated in Klieber's law:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law- >DHW: > 1. Do you accept David's hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? > 2. Do you believe in common descent from each “prototype” species? > 3. Since classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgement”, and we may not know the “prototype”, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors?-1: I believe that there was, and had to be, pre-programming in place prior to any given creature existing. Failure to have said pre-programming would lead to immediate death, even if it was somehow miraculously conceived, or spontaneously created.-2. This question is ambiguous. Please clarify. If you have a prototype species you don't actually need common decent because no speciation actually occurs. What you have are variations within a single species that tend to breed true. Given the predisposition towards segregation by similarity, the natural course of events would lead to breeds that are fairly homogeneous. -3. By one of the earliest definitions of species which puts the genetic inability (as opposed to geographic or size barrier) to interbreed as the defining, separating factor. That would be a clear indication of species. --> > TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. > > The argument that no changes have been observed applies to all hypotheses. The changes are apparently not too great for protocat to turn itself into tabby or lion. How do you know God would not/could not design a mechanism enabling existing organisms also to adapt their bodies to munch meat instead of marigolds (especially if the latter are in short supply)? -If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn't.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by romansh 
, Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 15:16 (3195 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by romansh, Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 15:21
If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn't.-Don't you find it strange that you know so much about God's abilities and wants? In the next breath we argue that god is transcendent ... ie beyond all categories of thought?
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by romansh , Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 15:44 (3195 days ago) @ romansh
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 17:58 (3195 days ago) @ romansh
Tony: If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn't. > > Romansh:Don't you find it strange that you know so much about God's abilities and wants? In the next breath we argue that god is transcendent ... ie beyond all categories of thought?-I think it is possible to make judgments based on the assumption that if God created the universe, its resultant evolution gives a guide as to His intentions. The same applies to the appearance of life and its subsequent evolution. The human brain is prime evidence. Our cousins the apes have survived without it, as evidence that it is not necessary for survival, a driving point behind Darwin's theory.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by romansh , Thursday, July 30, 2015, 02:54 (3195 days ago) @ David Turell
I think it is possible to make judgments based on the assumption ... The fact that we make judgements based on assumptions is not under dispute.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Thursday, July 30, 2015, 05:25 (3194 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh:I think it is possible to make judgments based on the assumption ... > The fact that we make judgements based on assumptions is not under dispute.-What is your point? It seems like a non-answer to my comment
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 30, 2015, 02:58 (3195 days ago) @ romansh
If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn't. > >Romansh: Don't you find it strange that you know so much about God's abilities and wants? In the next breath we argue that god is transcendent ... ie beyond all categories of thought?-Don't you find it odd that you intentionally misrepresent what was said?-"If he wanted to, I am certain he could"-Translation: If he is powerful enough to create everything in existence, I have no reason to doubt his power.-"I am suggesting that he didn't."-Translation: Given that we are instructed to look at creation for evidence of his nature, nature is logical and ordered, and there are no transitional fossils found, it is reasonable to 'suggest' that he did not use evolution as the means.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by romansh , Thursday, July 30, 2015, 15:35 (3194 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Translation: Given that we are instructed to look at creation for evidence of his nature, nature is logical and ordered, and there are no transitional fossils found, it is reasonable to 'suggest' that he did not use evolution as the means.-How is this a misrepresentation? -What evidence do you have for God being powerful never mind "All Powerful"©. How do you "know" he could have and chose not to? How do you know he chose anything?- Fossils - transitional and otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0CYZvaJLw
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 30, 2015, 20:08 (3194 days ago) @ romansh
Translation: Given that we are instructed to look at creation for evidence of his nature, nature is logical and ordered, and there are no transitional fossils found, it is reasonable to 'suggest' that he did not use evolution as the means. > >Romansh: How is this a misrepresentation? > > What evidence do you have for God being powerful never mind "All Powerful"©. > How do you "know" he could have and chose not to? How do you know he chose anything? > > > Fossils - transitional and otherwise: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0CYZvaJLw-You do understand the difference between suggesting something and knowing something, right? The evidence for God's power is evident in creation, as is the evidence of his wisdom, knowledge, and love. "They have eyes but can not see..."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by romansh , Saturday, August 01, 2015, 02:49 (3193 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You do understand the difference between suggesting something and knowing something, right? The evidence for God's power is evident in creation, as is the evidence of his wisdom, knowledge, and love. "They have eyes but can not see..."-I do understand BM. But I sort get confused when someone suggests that a god might exist and assuming certain properties of that god we might expect certain effects. But when one suggests that the universe is the Evidence of God's Power then I think we have overstepped the mark of simple suggestion.-And your commentary on Occam's razor is a little tainted, I can't help thinking.-God as an explanation is not an explanation, it is an abdication of an explanation. That we don't have the wit to give an accurate account of creation does not mean god did it.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 01, 2015, 03:52 (3193 days ago) @ romansh
You do understand the difference between suggesting something and knowing something, right? The evidence for God's power is evident in creation, as is the evidence of his wisdom, knowledge, and love. "They have eyes but can not see..." > > Romansh: I do understand BM. But I sort get confused when someone suggests that a god might exist and assuming certain properties of that god we might expect certain effects. > But when one suggests that the universe is the Evidence of God's Power then I think we have overstepped the mark of simple suggestion. >-You start from the premise of naturalism. I start from the premise of theism. So, assuming that: If A) I believe in God and B) I believe that God created the Universe, even if I don't claim any certainty about HOW he did then, C) The creation (i.e. the universe and everything in it) is evidence of God's power, among other things. -- >Romansh: And your commentary on Occam's razor is a little tainted, I can't help thinking. > > God as an explanation is not an explanation, it is an abdication of an explanation. That we don't have the wit to give an accurate account of creation does not mean god did it.-Actually, it IS an explanation of first cause. I have repeatedly stated that it is not an explanation of HOW it was done. But, just like you can tell someone that an engineer designed your vehicle, and that is a suitable explanation of the point of origin of the guiding principles behind your vehicles design, so is pointing to God and saying that he designed the universe. Now, if you want to get into the details of HOW or WHY, that is an entirely different question.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: derail
by romansh , Saturday, August 01, 2015, 17:23 (3192 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You start from the premise of naturalism. Actually I start with the premise that naturalism is pretty good at giving us understanding of the universe and continues to improve our understanding of how the universe ticks. Occasionally we have to backtrack but over the long haul it moves forward.-> I start from the premise of theism. So, assuming that: > If > A) I believe in God > and > B) I believe that God created the Universe, even if I don't claim any certainty about HOW he did > then, > C) The creation (i.e. the universe and everything in it) is evidence of God's power, among other things. > This ends up as one massive assertion > >Romansh: And your commentary on Occam's razor is a little tainted, I can't help thinking. > > > > God as an explanation is not an explanation, it is an abdication of an explanation. That we don't have the wit to give an accurate account of creation does not mean god did it. > > Actually, it IS an explanation of first cause. I have repeatedly stated that it is not an explanation of HOW it was done. But, just like you can tell someone that an engineer designed your vehicle, and that is a suitable explanation of the point of origin of the guiding principles behind your vehicles design, so is pointing to God and saying that he designed the universe. Now, if you want to get into the details of HOW or WHY, that is an entirely different question.-Actually it is simply an assertion of the first cause. One is immediately drawn to the question of what are the properties of this god? Is it a delinquent type where it sets the universe is motion and then buggers off and leaves the universe to its own devices? (deism)-Is it more of participatory type of god a la Zeus, Abrahamic god, Norse gods etc (theism)-Or is it one of the more subtle variations that we have ... eg http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28075#p28075
More Denton: derail
by romansh , Monday, August 10, 2015, 19:56 (3183 days ago) @ romansh
Actually it is simply an assertion of the first cause. > One is immediately drawn to the question of what are the properties of this god? Is it a delinquent type where it sets the universe is motion and then buggers off and leaves the universe to its own devices? (deism) > > Is it more of participatory type of god a la Zeus, Abrahamic god, Norse gods etc (theism) > > Or is it one of the more subtle variations that we have ... eg > http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28075#p28075-Based on the quotes fro Abrahamic scripture it is of the theistic variety BM.-So how do we get from Everything being evidence for god, to this being evidence for a monotheistic Abrahamic god?
More Denton: derail
by David Turell , Monday, August 10, 2015, 20:04 (3183 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: One is immediately drawn to the question of what are the properties of this god? Is it a delinquent type where it sets the universe is motion and then buggers off and leaves the universe to its own devices? (deism) > > > > Is it more of participatory type of god a la Zeus, Abrahamic god, Norse gods etc (theism) > > > > Or is it one of the more subtle variations that we have ... eg > > http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28075#p28075 &#... > Based on the quotes from Abrahamic scripture it is of the theistic variety BM. > > So how do we get from Everything being evidence for god, to this being evidence for a monotheistic Abrahamic god?-Good point. How should we handle Eastern religions and first cause?
More Denton: derail
by romansh , Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 00:56 (3183 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by romansh, Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 01:36
So how do we get from Everything being evidence for god, to this being evidence for a monotheistic Abrahamic god? > > Good point. How should we handle Eastern religions and first cause?-Metaphorically?-Buddhists I understand are not overly fussed by the matter ... I could be wrong here.
More Denton: derail
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 08:52 (3182 days ago) @ romansh
So how do we get from Everything being evidence for god, to this being evidence for a monotheistic Abrahamic god? > > > > Good point. How should we handle Eastern religions and first cause? > > Metaphorically? > > Buddhists I understand are not overly fussed by the matter ... I could be wrong here.-You can believe(or not) in which ever God(ess)(s/es) you wish to believe in. Personally, I believe in God in terms of a monotheistic Abrahamic variety. Why, well, that has more to do with my religious research than my scientific, though the scientific factors heavily into it as well. To me, religion is very much like a scientific theory. If it doesn't fit the evidence....
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: derail
by romansh , Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 15:27 (3182 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You can believe(or not) true > in which ever God(ess)(s/es) you wish to believe in. False, at least for me.-> Personally, I believe in God in terms of a monotheistic Abrahamic variety. I can take this statement at face value.-> Why, well, that has more to do with my religious research than my scientific, Well then, perhaps you can discuss with me the Vedic and Buddhist interpretations of their scriptures. As I am not overly familiar of how we should interpret them. I have read a fair amount of Joseph Campbell though and I think he view point would be a useful vehicle examine the various mythologies you have studied.-> though the scientific factors heavily into it as well. To me, religion is very much like a scientific theory. If it doesn't fit the evidence....-Yeah, I am not sure how an Abrahamic god fits the Evidence though.
More Denton: derail
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 00:38 (3182 days ago) @ romansh
Tony: You can believe(or not) > true > >Tony: in which ever God(ess)(s/es) you wish to believe in. >Romansh: False, at least for me.-Random chance is as much of a God as any other. You believe it capable of miracles that defy logic and observation. -> > >Tony: Personally, I believe in God in terms of a monotheistic Abrahamic variety. >Romansh I can take this statement at face value. > > >Tony: Why, well, that has more to do with my religious research than my scientific, >Romansh: Well then, perhaps you can discuss with me the Vedic and Buddhist interpretations of > their scriptures. As I am not overly familiar of how we should interpret them. I have read a fair amount of Joseph Campbell though and I think he view point would be a useful vehicle examine the various mythologies you have studied.-If one assumes that everything is a myth, then they leave no possibility for something to be truth. Sure, they accept that there may be truths in the myths, but not that the myth may be true in and of itself. Joseph Campbell worked from the assumption that they were all myths, and by definition, not true; as apparently do you. I've read Campbell, and while I agree with him on many points, I do disagree on some fairly significant ones, not the least of which is the possibility that a myth could be truth. -> > >Tony: though the scientific factors heavily into it as well. To me, religion is very much like a scientific theory. If it doesn't fit the evidence.... > >Romansh: Yeah, I am not sure how an Abrahamic god fits the Evidence though.-That has been discussed at great lengths elsewhere. The Bible does not get deep into science, but where it does it is accurate and eerily prescient considering that most of the truths revealed were not 'discovered' until many centuries (if not millenia) later. Even in the realm of psychology there are things only recently 'discovered' that were written down in detail some thousands of years ago. -As for the Vedic texts, I view them as part history and part myth. You may claim double standard and cry foul, but the reason is very simple. One trademark of 'divine inspiration' is in the accurate fulfillment of prophecy. Not only do the Vedic texts fail in that regard, they almost completely avoid the subject altogether. However, I do think that there is a strong possibility that they outline a historical level of technology that we presuppose never existed, despite some strong supporting evidence, particularly in India.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: derail
by romansh , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 14:40 (3181 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: You can believe(or not) > > true > > >Tony: in which ever God(ess)(s/es) you wish to believe in. > >Romansh: False, at least for me. > Random chance is as much of a God as any other. You believe it capable of miracles that defy logic and observation. You missed my point completely ... I don't wish to believe in anything per se ... I do end up in believing in stuff like the first and second laws of thermodynamics and concepts like cause and effect. And speaking of cause and effect, I think many people on both sides of the debate misunderstand chance and randomness. Both of these concepts are governed by cause and effect.-Even in the quantum world it would appear quantum events can be described deterministically. The probabilities of these quantum phenomena are determined and the precise outcome is always uncertain. -> > >Tony: Personally, I believe in God in terms of a monotheistic Abrahamic variety. > >Romansh I can take this statement at face value. > > >Tony: Why, well, that has more to do with my religious research than my scientific, > >Romansh: Well then, perhaps you can discuss with me the Vedic and Buddhist interpretations of their scriptures. As I am not overly familiar of how we should interpret them. I have read a fair amount of Joseph Campbell though and I think he view point would be a useful vehicle examine the various mythologies you have studied. > If one assumes that everything is a myth, then they leave no possibility for something to be truth. Sure, they accept that there may be truths in the myths, but not that the myth may be true in and of itself. Joseph Campbell worked from the assumption that they were all myths, and by definition, not true; as apparently do you. I've read Campbell, and while I agree with him on many points, I do disagree on some fairly significant ones, not the least of which is the possibility that a myth could be truth. -So you disagree with Campbell that myths are "more powerful" the religious dogma? > > > > >Tony: though the scientific factors heavily into it as well. To me, religion is very much like a scientific theory. If it doesn't fit the evidence.... > > > >Romansh: Yeah, I am not sure how an Abrahamic god fits the Evidence though. > > That has been discussed at great lengths elsewhere. The Bible does not get deep into science, but where it does it is accurate and eerily prescient considering that most of the truths revealed were not 'discovered' until many centuries (if not millenia) later. Even in the realm of psychology there are things only recently 'discovered' that were written down in detail some thousands of years ago. Islam also claims that the Koran is scientifically accurate, though this too has to be taken with a grain salt.-But you do seem to agree with Campbell that a Myth is somebody else's religion.-> > As for the Vedic texts, I view them as part history and part myth. So what did you think of the two birds in a tree metaphor and the Upanishad and Vedic interpretations. This is neither history nor myth.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
dhw: 1.Do you accept David's hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? -TONY: I believe that there was, and had to be, pre-programming in place prior to any given creature existing. Failure to have said pre-programming would lead to immediate death, even if it was somehow miraculously conceived, or spontaneously created.-OK, but my question was whether you thought every innovation, variation, lifestyle etc. was preprogrammed by God from the very beginning (or individually “guided” by him). As David believes in common descent, this entails continuity (the programmes have to be passed on) and not the separate creation you believe in. But perhaps you would prefer not to give an opinion on David's hypothesis. dhw: 2. Do you believe in common descent from each “prototype” species? TONY: This question is ambiguous. Please clarify. If you have a prototype species you don't actually need common decent because no speciation actually occurs. What you have are variations within a single species that tend to breed true. Given the predisposition towards segregation by similarity, the natural course of events would lead to breeds that are fairly homogeneous.-In this context, by common descent I mean that a group of organisms share a common ancestor. If you believe that the tabby, tiger, cheetah and lion were all descended from the first (prototype) cat, you have common descent. Of course in our discussion I am linking this to the next question: -dhw: 3. Since classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgement”, and we may not know the “prototype”, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors? TONY: By one of the earliest definitions of species which puts the genetic inability (as opposed to geographic or size barrier) to interbreed as the defining, separating factor. That would be a clear indication of species. -Again that is not what I am asking. My point is that we do not know what was the prototype for each species, and there is enormous controversy for instance over how to classify the early hominids (were they more ape than human?). If, as you rightly point out, our classifications “are not a sound basis for rational judgement”, again how do we know that what we now define as species (e.g. humans) did not branch off from common ancestors (e.g. apes)?-TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. Dhw: The argument that no changes have been observed applies to all hypotheses. The changes are apparently not too great for protocat to turn itself into tabby or lion. How do you know God would not/could not design a mechanism enabling existing organisms also to adapt their bodies to munch meat instead of marigolds (especially if the latter are in short supply)? TONY: If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn't.-Fair enough. So may I ask what procedure you suggest he did use - or would you prefer to leave it as a “don't know”?-DHW: The Cambrian lasted 5-10 million years, which allows for quite a few generations (I calculated the number in an earlier post.) We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the allotted time. These innovations don't happen now, so back we go to the different hypotheses, not one of which fits in with anything we know or perhaps even can know. But mine does have a simple logic, if only I could get it across to you...-TONY: I see no reason to say that "Speciation Happened" nor do I see that "We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the alloTted time" specifically because "these innovations don't happen now".-This is a tricky conversation, as my comment was directed towards David, who believes in common descent, as I do. By “speciation” I only meant that the different species appeared, and as there are no known precursors, David and I must assume that the changes to existing organisms took place during the 5-10 million years. The fact that such innovations don't happen now (and therefore cannot be observed) leaves us no choice other than to hypothesize about how the changes took place. I presume that you, on the other hand, assume there were no changes at all because God created all the new species separately. It is this theory that I was starting to probe with my earlier questions.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 22:35 (3195 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This is a tricky conversation, as my comment was directed towards David, who believes in common descent, as I do. By “speciation” I only meant that the different species appeared, and as there are no known precursors, David and I must assume that the changes to existing organisms took place during the 5-10 million years.-Please do not speak for me as I do not accept your view of the Cambrian. The various specimens from that time show complete intact animals of various types, but no variation within the types as if small adjustments were being made over a 5-10 million years period as you imply. From after the Cambrian on forward there are small changes to arrive at today's animals. But the animals arrive de novo in the particular layer they appear to arrive in within the Cambrian. Trilobites arrive as Trilobites intact, and become something else later. There are no pre-Trilobites with alterations either in the Cambrian or before.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
Dhw (to Tony): This is a tricky conversation, as my comment was directed towards David, who believes in common descent, as I do. By “speciation” I only meant that the different species appeared, and as there are no known precursors, David and I must assume that the changes to existing organisms took place during the 5-10 million years.-DAVID: Please do not speak for me as I do not accept your view of the Cambrian. The various specimens from that time show complete intact animals of various types, but no variation within the types as if small adjustments were being made over a 5-10 million years period as you imply.-I'm sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding on two counts. Firstly, you have stated explicitly that you believe in common descent, which means that the new Cambrian organisms must have sprung from existing organisms, and whatever innovations took place did so within the period of 5-10 million years. That's what I meant by the changes. Secondly, I have never stated or even implied that the new species resulted from small adjustments over a period of time. I have repeated over and over again that the intelligent mechanism would explain the “explosion”, as it would explain why organisms were able to produce functioning innovations. You even quoted me in your answer yesterday under “Reply to David”:-dhw: My (hypothetical) intelligent mechanism exploits the opportunities provided by a new environment. A sudden major change in the environment could lead to a sudden burst of major innovations, but innovations that don't work straight away won't survive. That is the simple logic.-A sudden burst of major innovations does not mean small changes spread over 5-10 million years, and “straight away” does not mean 5-10 million years later!
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Thursday, July 30, 2015, 19:38 (3194 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have repeated over and over again that the intelligent mechanism would explain the “explosion”, as it would explain why organisms were able to produce functioning innovations.-> > dhw: My (hypothetical) intelligent mechanism exploits the opportunities provided by a new environment. A sudden major change in the environment could lead to a sudden burst of major innovations, but innovations that don't work straight away won't survive. That is the simple logic.-Agreed > > dhw:A sudden burst of major innovations does not mean small changes spread over 5-10 million years, and “straight away” does not mean 5-10 million years later!-So once again, DNA must have contained the mechanism for these sudden changes.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 30, 2015, 03:15 (3195 days ago) @ dhw
I'm going to focus on these questions, because they seem to get to the heart of the matter-> dhw: 1.Do you accept David's hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? .. whether you thought every innovation, variation, lifestyle etc. was preprogrammed by God from the very beginning (or individually “guided” by him). > -First, on innovation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_innovation-The problem with innovation, as with evolution in general, is that there is no evidence. It has never actually been observed. That brings us to the second two points, variation and lifestyle. Lifestyle is a byproduct of a range of elements in an organism, from their metabolic needs to their particular morphology. That leaves us to focus solely on variation. -Variation was, I believe, in fact pre-programmed into all creation. I tried to explain this using a simply mathematical formula of A<X>B. Any trait (X) exists within a range defined by A and B. That leaves a LOT of room for variation, and given the propensity of genetic reinforcement and the logistics of size and location, this would lead to a wide variety of certain phenotypes. I believe this is sufficient for explaining all the various differences in a given family of creatures, such as feline or canine. --> > dhw: 2. Do you believe in common descent from each “prototype” species? In this context, by common descent I mean that a group of organisms share a common ancestor. If you believe that the tabby, tiger, cheetah and lion were all descended from the first (prototype) cat, you have common descent.-Following from my answer to your first question, yes, I do believe there were prototype species, and that those species were encoded with a variety of properties that could vary within certain ranges. I believe that this is sufficient to explain all of the variants from tabby cat to tiger.-> dhw: 3. Since classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgement”, and we may not know the “prototype”, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors? My point is that we do not know what was the prototype for each species, and there is enormous controversy for instance over how to classify the early hominids (were they more ape than human?).,,,how do we know that what we now define as species (e.g. humans) did not branch off from common ancestors- > TONY: If two creatures are genetically unable to breed, it is impossible for them to produce offspring. If they can produce no viable offspring, then there can be no common decent, no transformation from one or two parent species into a subsequent unique species. What you will have are two members of the same species producing an offspring of the same species with different parameters for the same set of genetic instructions. --> TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. > Dhw: The argument that no changes have been observed applies to all hypotheses. The changes are apparently not too great for protocat to turn itself into tabby or lion. How do you know God would not/could not design a mechanism enabling existing organisms also to adapt their bodies to munch meat instead of marigolds (especially if the latter are in short supply)? > TONY: If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn't. > >DHW Fair enough. So may I ask what procedure you suggest he did use - or would you prefer to leave it as a “don't know”? > -See the answer to question #1
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: I'm going to focus on these questions, because they seem to get to the heart of the matter-dhw: 1.Do you accept David's hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? .. whether you thought every innovation, variation, lifestyle etc. was preprogrammed by God from the very beginning (or individually “guided” by him). -TONY: First, on innovation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_innovation TONY: The problem with innovation, as with evolution in general, is that there is no evidence. It has never actually been observed. That brings us to the second two points, variation and lifestyle. Lifestyle is a byproduct of a range of elements in an organism, from their metabolic needs to their particular morphology. That leaves us to focus solely on variation. -So you reject David's hypothesis on the grounds that innovation has never been observed. Nor of course has separate creation. So that, apparently, gets rid of that. As regards lifestyle (and habitats), no one would question that it arises from what organisms need and what they are capable of achieving, but I would like to know if you think God preprogrammed the plover's migration and the weaverbird's nest, or they worked it out for themselves. -dhw: 2. Do you believe in common descent from each “prototype” species? TONY: Following from my answer to your first question, yes, I do believe there were prototype species, and that those species were encoded with a variety of properties that could vary within certain ranges. I believe that this is sufficient to explain all of the variants from tabby cat to tiger.-Once more, I'm sorry but I don't understand computer language or formulae, but thank you for the above, which I do understand! I take it to mean that God preprogrammed the prototype cat to pass on all the possible variations. dhw: 3. Since classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgement”, and we may not know the “prototype”, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors? My point is that we do not know what was the prototype for each species, and there is enormous controversy for instance over how to classify the early hominids (were they more ape than human?)...how do we know that what we now define as species (e.g. humans) did not branch off from common ancestors?-Although you have reproduced parts of our exchange, you have not answered this question. It is of course key to the theory of evolution, which posits common descent of ALL organisms going back to the first cells. You will certainly have worked out where this is heading: If we do not know what was the prototype human, and if palaeontologists cannot agree among themselves whether the fossils of early hominids were more ape than human, how can you - bearing in mind your acceptance of common descent from the prototype and your distrust of classifications - be so sure that humans and apes did not have a common ancestor? I do not of course expect you to embrace such a hypothesis, but I hope you will understand why many of us find it perfectly feasible.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 30, 2015, 20:49 (3194 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: So you reject David's hypothesis on the grounds that innovation has never been observed. Nor of course has separate creation. So that, apparently, gets rid of that. -Ok, let's be straight and blunt here. We have never observed speciation. We have never observed innovation (in a morphological/genetic sense). What we HAVE observed are creatures being the way they are for the entire time that they have existed with only minor variation within vary tight constraints. Now, which is more sensible: -A ) To assume that something we have never observed must have happened in order to explain something else that we have never observed for the sole purpose of getting rid of God? (i.e. one of the stated primary purposes of naturalism)-B ) To assume that an intelligent design, one that defies all laws of probability, had an intelligent designer. -The first requires that we keep inventing more and more wildly imaginative stories to cover the holes in the theories. The second only requires that we acknowledge the designer and then try to understand what he has done. - >DHW:As regards lifestyle (and habitats), no one would question that it arises from what organisms need and what they are capable of achieving, but I would like to know if you think God pre-programmed the plover's migration and the weaverbird's nest, or they worked it out for themselves. -I do not know. I speculate that it is actually a little bit of both. I.E. God programmed the abilities that make nest building possible, but did not directly dictate how each specific type of nest would be built.- >DHW: Once more, I'm sorry but I don't understand computer language or formulae, but thank you for the above, which I do understand! I take it to mean that God preprogrammed the prototype cat to pass on all the possible variations. > -The prototype would have passed on potential for all variations, but the actual value of each parameter would have also been passed, which would define the specific traits of a given offspring. I also think there was likely a tolerance built in that would make the variance for each offspring smaller, likely limiting it to the range expressed in the parents. I'm not sure that makes sense how I've stated it, so let me give a small example. -A parent (A) contains the potential for a range of values from -1 to 1. The value actualized in the parent is .2. The second parent (B) also contains all potential ranges, but the value actualized in the parent was .7. So when the parents (A & B) have an offspring, the actualized value in the child gets clamped to be between .2 & .7 (+/- some variance factor), even though the genetic code still contains the unrealized potential for all values between -1 & 1. This also explains why we would get things like gigantism and dwarfism. -Using gigantism and dwarfism to further this example, let's consider those two to be the two extremes. Dwarfism = -1, Gigantism = 1, and V= variance factor based on last few generations. All human DNA possesses the full potential range of size, from Dwarf to Giant. Mother(M) has an actual height of 5"5 (0.0), and father(F) has a actual height of 6"2 (0.6). The child would end up within a range of (M+/-V) & (F+/-V) with a small chance to fall anywhere within the range of -1 to 1. --> dhw: 3. Since classifications are not a “sound basis for rational judgement”, and we may not know the “prototype”, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors? My point is that we do not know what was the prototype for each species, and there is enormous controversy for instance over how to classify the early hominids (were they more ape than human?)...how do we know that what we now define as species (e.g. humans) did not branch off from common ancestors? > >DHW: If we do not know what was the prototype human, and if palaeontologists cannot agree among themselves whether the fossils of early hominids were more ape than human, how can you - bearing in mind your acceptance of common descent from the prototype and your distrust of classifications - be so sure that humans and apes did not have a common ancestor? I do not of course expect you to embrace such a hypothesis, but I hope you will understand why many of us find it perfectly feasible.- The prototype human was human. The prototype ape was an ape. The prototype cat was a cat. Given that speciation has never been observed and innovation has never been observed, and given that random chance is clearly out of the questions, I see no reason to speculate that common descent (in the Darwinian sense of speciation and gradual mutation/innovation generating new features) has occurred. I have answered this question repeatedly, and I am not sure how I can make my answer any clearer.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: So you reject David's hypothesis on the grounds that innovation has never been observed. Nor of course has separate creation. So that, apparently, gets rid of that. TONY: Ok, let's be straight and blunt here. We have never observed speciation. We have never observed innovation (in a morphological/genetic sense). What we HAVE observed are creatures being the way they are for the entire time that they have existed with only minor variation within vary tight constraints. Now, which is more sensible: A ) To assume that something we have never observed must have happened in order to explain something else that we have never observed for the sole purpose of getting rid of God? (i.e. one of the stated primary purposes of naturalism)-No, no, no, that is not the purpose of the theory of evolution! David, the Pope, and millions of other theists believe in God and evolution, though they may believe in different versions. Darwin himself even quotes the Rev. Charles Kingsley, who had “learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development....” as to believe in separate creation. TONY: B ) To assume that an intelligent design, one that defies all laws of probability, had an intelligent designer. The first requires that we keep inventing more and more wildly imaginative stories to cover the holes in the theories. The second only requires that we acknowledge the designer and then try to understand what he has done.- As an agnostic, I find it a little sad to hear theistic pots and atheistic kettles using the same language about each other: nothing ever observed (evolution/God) to explain something never observed (speciation/separate creation), no evidence, wildly imaginative stories to cover the holes - usually called gaps. But please can we differentiate between two totally different issues: 1) The existence of God. 2) What method a God might have used to create all the forms of life we know of. I am not an atheist, nor was Darwin, and nor is David, and in our discussions on 2) I have deliberately worn my theist's hat. If we take the Cambrian as our biggest evolutionary problem, here are five hypothetical explanations, every one of which allows for the existence of God: 1) Darwin: the precursors did exist, but we haven't found them yet (common descent). 2) God created all the new species separately. 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent). 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)). 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent).-All of these theistic or potentially theistic hypotheses involve factors that have never been observed and that may well remain unobservable. As such, they are all flawed, and so no matter which one you choose to believe, your belief will have to rest on faith in the (so far) unobserved. (The same applies of course to the atheistic interpretation of common descent, which relies on chance as the initiator and one of the driving forces.) DHW: As regards lifestyle (and habitats), no one would question that it arises from what organisms need and what they are capable of achieving, but I would like to know if you think God pre-programmed the plover's migration and the weaverbird's nest, or they worked it out for themselves. TONY: I do not know. I speculate that it is actually a little bit of both. I.E. God programmed the abilities that make nest building possible, but did not directly dictate how each specific type of nest would be built.-Thank you. We are all speculating. The abilities that make nest building possible would be what I call the autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism which God may have given to all organisms. (I do not share David's belief that the weaverbird is incapable of designing its own nest.) TONY: The prototype human was human. The prototype ape was an ape. The prototype cat was a cat. Given that speciation has never been observed and innovation has never been observed, and given that random chance is clearly out of the questions, I see no reason to speculate that common descent (in the Darwinian sense of speciation and gradual mutation/innovation generating new features) has occurred. -Given that palaeontologists themselves cannot agree on classifications, and you yourself regard classifications as no basis for rational judgement, and given that none of the hypothetical explanations, including your own, have ever been observed, I had hoped to establish some common ground. (I agree, though, about gradualism and random mutations.) Alas, however, it is the sad fate of the agnostic that he is always bound to fail in his peacemaking efforts because, let's face it, somebody is right and the rest are wrong. We just don't know which is which!
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 31, 2015, 21:06 (3193 days ago) @ dhw
Tony: To assume that something we have never observed must have happened in order to explain something else that we have never observed for the sole purpose of getting rid of God? (i.e. one of the stated primary purposes of naturalism)[/i] > > No, no, no, that is not the purpose of the theory of evolution! ...- I did not say evolution, I said naturalism:-"Naturalism is a simple term with an early history. According to J. Donald Butler (1968), naturalism finds its roots among the oldest philosophies in the western world. Ancient philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes found no reason to look beyond nature for truth. As the name implies, the philosophy of naturalism suggests an explanation of life based solely on the laws of nature. With the understanding that natural laws are sufficient to explain all phenomena and life, naturalism abandons the need for a higher power, creator, and God." (Emphasis mine)--> > >DHW: As an agnostic, I find it a little sad to hear theistic pots and atheistic kettles using the same language about each other: nothing ever observed (evolution/God) to explain something never observed (speciation/separate creation), no evidence, wildly imaginative stories to cover the holes - usually called gaps. -Believe it or not, this is not a case of a pot calling the kettle black. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is most often the correct one. Yes, we have not directly observed God or evolution. But which story is simplest: That an intelligent design had an intelligent designer, or that things that defy the laws of probability (and numerous other laws of nature) not only happened, but happened hundreds of millions of times?- >DHW: ..If we take the Cambrian as our biggest evolutionary problem, here are five hypothetical explanations, every one of which allows for the existence of God: > 1) Darwin: the precursors did exist, but we haven't found them yet (common descent). > 2) God created all the new species separately. > 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent). > 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)). > 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent). > >DHW: All of these theistic or potentially theistic hypotheses involve factors that have never been observed and that may well remain unobservable. -This is where your ideas fail, because while direct observations of direct creation are impossible observe, the corollaries to that theory are not impossible to observe. -From the very nature of creation according to kinds: a) Organisms will appear in the fossil record without precursor. b) Organisms will appear fully formed and fully functional. c) There will be no observed macro evolution. d) There will be variation within a 'kind', but no transition between one kind and another.-From the nature of a single designer: a) Organisms will have similar functionality b) Similar functionality will have similar design patterns inherent to it. c) A careful study would show purpose behind the design. d) Disparate systems would be designed to work together, despite having no logical evolutionary pathways to arrive at such cooperation. e) The system would tend towards balance(random systems tend towards chaos)-And that, my friend, is exactly what we OBSERVE. - >DHW: Thank you. We are all speculating. The abilities that make nest building possible would be what I call the autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism which God may have given to all organisms. -But, to counter your point, don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme?- >DHW: Given that palaeontologists themselves cannot agree on classifications, and you yourself regard classifications as no basis for rational judgement, and given that none of the hypothetical explanations, including your own, have ever been observed, I had hoped to establish some common ground. -It is hard to agree on classifications when you are trying to fit the data to the theory instead of the other way around. And given that funding is not granted to anti-evolutionary scientist, which paleontologist with a sense of self-preservation is going to speak out against it?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Friday, July 31, 2015, 23:06 (3193 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: But, to counter your point, don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme?-Thank you for this wonderful point. If weaverbirds set out to invent their nest design in a population of birds, one would expect several different designs instead of all the same, just as weaverbirds are all the same. One type bird, one type nest smells of a designed event.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
I have had to edit some comments to fit into the space available.-TONY: To assume that something we have never observed must have happened in order to explain something else that we have never observed for the sole purpose of getting rid of God? (i.e. one of the stated primary purposes of naturalism) Dhw: No, no, no, that is not the purpose of the theory of evolution! ...-TONY: I did not say evolution, I said naturalism: " [...]naturalism abandons the need for a higher power, creator, and God." -We were and are discussing evolution, not naturalism. Why did you bring this up if you were not trying to link the two? -DHW: As an agnostic, I find it a little sad to hear theistic pots and atheistic kettles using the same language about each other [...] TONY: Believe it or not, this is not a case of a pot calling the kettle black. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor. [...] But which story is simplest: That an intelligent design had an intelligent designer, or that things that defy the laws of probability (and numerous other laws of nature) not only happened, but happened hundreds of millions of times?-There is nothing simple about the concept of an intelligence that had no source (or if it did, what was the source?) but is capable of creating universes and microbes out of materials from who knows where? An atheist will tell you that such a being defies the laws of probability (and every other law of nature). Your “explanation” of life's mystery relies on and creates another mystery. Pots and kettles. -DHW: ..If we take the Cambrian as our biggest evolutionary problem, here are five hypothetical explanations, every one of which allows for the existence of God: 1) Darwin: the precursors did exist, but we haven't found them yet (common descent). 2) God created all the new species separately. 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent). 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)). 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent).-TONY: This is where your ideas fail, because while direct observations of direct creation are impossible observe, the corollaries to that theory are not impossible to observe. From the very nature of creation according to kinds: a) Organisms will appear in the fossil record without precursor. b) Organisms will appear fully formed and fully functional. c) There will be no observed macro evolution. d) There will be variation within a 'kind', but no transition between one kind and another.-My 3), 4) and 5) can tick your a), b) and c), but as regards d) I don't see why separate creation inevitably means variations, whereas my 5) certainly does. TONY: From the nature of a single designer: a) Organisms will have similar functionality b) Similar functionality will have similar design patterns inherent to it. c) A careful study would show purpose behind the design. d) Disparate systems would be designed to work together, despite having no logical evolutionary pathways to arrive at such cooperation. e) The system would tend towards balance(random systems tend towards chaos)-Which of these contradicts my 3), 4) and 5)?-TONY: ... don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme?-DAVID: Thank you for this wonderful point. If weaverbirds set out to invent their nest design in a population of birds, one would expect several different designs instead of all the same...-Once a pattern is successful, it is passed on: this applies to habitats and lifestyles and (for David, not Tony) all the innovations that led from bacteria to humans. What designed these protopatterns? On Wednesday July 29 David agreed that we can't tell if it's a 3.8-billion-year computer programme or an onboard mechanism for planning (= my autonomous inventive mechanism), and on Friday July 31 Tony speculated that God might have given the weaverbird “the abilities that make nest building possible” (= my autonomous inventive mechanism). Thank you both for your support. (Glad you joined in, David. Any chance of your informing Tony why you think he's wrong over common descent?) -TONY: It is hard to agree on classifications when you are trying to fit the data to the theory instead of the other way around. And given that funding is not granted to anti-evolutionary scientist, which paleontologist with a sense of self-preservation is going to speak out against it?-Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts?
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Sunday, August 02, 2015, 14:50 (3191 days ago) @ dhw
> TONY: ... don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme? > > DAVID: Thank you for this wonderful point. If weaverbirds set out to invent their nest design in a population of birds, one would expect several different designs instead of all the same... > > dhw: Once a pattern is successful, it is passed on: this applies to habitats and lifestyles and (for David, not Tony) all the innovations that led from bacteria to humans. What designed these protopatterns?-Of course 'once a pattern is successful it is passed on', but that fudges the issue. I've seen all sorts of birds nests that are successful for all sorts of birds. Why is each nest specific for each type of bird? It all makes evolution look patterned and planned or designed. Tony's point holds.-> dhw: Thank you both for your support. (Glad you joined in, David. Any chance of your informing Tony why you think he's wrong over common descent?)-My view is firm. I believe in the science of aging fossils, even if the estimates vary by 10-20%. Over 3.8 billion years of life, the inaccuracies are of little import. There is a progression from simple to very complex, with gaps that refute Darwin and chance. Therefore evolution occurred but not as a natural process. It was guided by God. And this removes any sense of my agreement about your continuous use of the word 'autonomous' in regard to an onboard IM. In this scenario only 'semi-autonomous' works. Gerald Schroeder, the Orthodox Jewish theoretical physicist, explains how the OT with proper interpretation fits our science in his books. Don't take every sentence in the OT literally. They require interpretation.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, August 02, 2015, 19:48 (3191 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: We were and are discussing evolution, not naturalism. Why did you bring this up if you were not trying to link the two? -Because they are linked. Darwin may have accepted that there is a God, or at least acknowledged the possibility, but the majority of those that follow in his footsteps do not. Evolution, ironically, has evolved into a form of naturalism, as has science in general.-> >DHW: There is nothing simple about the concept of an intelligence that had no source (or if it did, what was the source?) but is capable of creating universes and microbes out of materials from who knows where? An atheist will tell you that such a being defies the laws of probability (and every other law of nature). Your “explanation” of life's mystery relies on and creates another mystery. Pots and kettles. -The origin of God may be one of those things like T-1 (one second before the Big Bang), unknown and unknowable. I accept the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Yet, it is simpler to conceive of a single eternally conscious energy than it is to conceive of something coming from nothing.-> > DHW: ..If we take the Cambrian as our biggest evolutionary problem, here are five hypothetical explanations, every one of which allows for the existence of God: > 1) Darwin: the precursors did exist, but we haven't found them yet (common descent). > 2) God created all the new species separately. > 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent). > 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)). > 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent). > > TONY: This is where your ideas fail, because while direct observations of direct creation are impossible observe, the corollaries to that theory are not impossible to observe. > From the very nature of creation according to kinds: > a) Organisms will appear in the fossil record without precursor. > b) Organisms will appear fully formed and fully functional. > c) There will be no observed macro evolution. > d) There will be variation within a 'kind', but no transition between one kind and another. > > My 3), 4) and 5) can tick your a), b) and c), but as regards d) I don't see why separate creation inevitably means variations, whereas my 5) certainly does. > - 3) This would imply intermediaries which have not been observed, or that all the upgrades happened within a single generation. It is possible, but it is not something that there is any evidence whatsoever to support. 4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors. 5) Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great. -There is nothing to support common decent. I see no reason to say that it happened. > TONY: From the nature of a single designer: > a) Organisms will have similar functionality > b) Similar functionality will have similar design patterns inherent to it. > c) A careful study would show purpose behind the design. > d) Disparate systems would be designed to work together, despite having no logical evolutionary pathways to arrive at such cooperation. > e) The system would tend towards balance(random systems tend towards chaos) > >DHW: Which of these contradicts my 3), 4) and 5)? >- C, D, and E, though mainly they would simply contradict 5.- > TONY: ... don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme? > > DAVID: Thank you for this wonderful point. If weaverbirds set out to invent their nest design in a population of birds, one would expect several different designs instead of all the same... > > Once a pattern is successful, it is passed on: this applies to habitats and lifestyles and (for David, not Tony) all the innovations that led from bacteria to humans. What designed these proto-patterns? -I honestly don't know enough about weaver birds nest to get into a strong debate over their nest building habits. However, I do not agree with the idea of innovations from bacteria to humans. I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames.- >DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts?-Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: We were and are discussing evolution, not naturalism. Why did you bring this up if you were not trying to link the two? TONY: Because they are linked. Darwin may have accepted that there is a God, or at least acknowledged the possibility, but the majority of those that follow in his footsteps do not. Evolution, ironically, has evolved into a form of naturalism, as has science in general.-To sum it up: the theory was not devised “for the sole purpose of getting rid of God”, millions of theists believe in the theory (theistic versions), but according to you even more atheists believe in it (atheistic versions). A theory that can convince both theists and atheists may well have some truth in it, but let's look again at your objections to the three theistic versionshw: 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent). 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)). 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent).-TONY: 3) This would imply intermediaries which have not been observed, or that all the upgrades happened within a single generation. It is possible, but it is not something that there is any evidence whatsoever to support.-Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms?-TONY: 4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors.-This version has God personally transforming organisms instead of doing it through a computer programme (3) or creating them from scratch. If he could do the latter, regardless of the environment, why couldn't he just as easily do the former? 5) Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great.-That would depend on how much inventive power God gave the mechanism. In all three of your objections, you have graciously agreed that the scenario is possible but in your opinion unlikely. That is a far cry from dismissing the theory of common descent altogether. Just to set the record straight: I also find options 3 and 4 unlikely (as I do option 2, which is separate creation), and I'm certainly not committing myself to options 1 (precursors will be found) or 5. But with 4 out of 5 options in favour of common descent, I'm sufficiently convinced to go for it. TONY: I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames.-You have no precedent by which to judge what time frames your God needs for his programmes (3), his personal interventions (4) or his inventive mechanism (5) to work.-TONY: The origin of God may be one of those things like T-1 (one second before the Big Bang), unknown and unknowable. I accept the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Yet, it is simpler to conceive of a single eternally conscious energy than it is to conceive of something coming from nothing.-I agree. I do not believe in something coming from nothing. But your version is no simpler in my view than a single eternally unconscious energy that eternally transforms itself into changing matter, from whose endless combinations there eventually emerges one that engenders life and consciousness. Eternity gives you as long as you like for unconscious energy to come up with the first forms from which all others have evolved - but no, I don't believe it either, because the first forms must have been so complex that they are as incredible as a sourceless intelligence. I too accept the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, which I suppose is why I am an agnostic. But it doesn't stop me from speculating! DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts?-TONY: Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races.-I'm not sure what you mean by “Were they HUMAN absolutely”. Are you saying that all the hominid/hominin fossils belonged to one species of human, but that species was not homo sapiens (modern man)? Why would God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form? And are you saying that the palaeontologists are deliberately concealing the fact that all the hominids/hominins - covering a period of millions of years, not thousands - were one type of human and were not apes? Generation upon generation of palaeontologists all taking part in some kind of conspiracy in order to save their jobs? Going a bit far, isn't it?
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Monday, August 03, 2015, 17:06 (3190 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I'm not sure what you mean by “Were they HUMAN absolutely”. Are you saying that all the hominid/hominin fossils belonged to one species of human, but that species was not homo sapiens (modern man)? Why would God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form?-The simplest view is that God controlled evolution and started a line from monkeys destined to become H. sapiens over a period of time. There was a degree of humanness from the beginning.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 03, 2015, 21:13 (3190 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms? > -I never said he couldn't, but that I didn't think he did because of a lack of evidence supporting that line of thought. - > TONY: 4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors. > > This version has God personally transforming organisms instead of doing it through a computer programme (3) or creating them from scratch. If he could do the latter, regardless of the environment, why couldn't he just as easily do the former? > -Again, I do not think it is a matter of *could*, I think it is a matter of "did". i.e. Having the power or ability to do something a particular way does not necessitate that would do it that way because it may not be the best way to do things. > 5) Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great. > >DHW: That would depend on how much inventive power God gave the mechanism. In all three of your objections, you have graciously agreed that the scenario is possible but in your opinion unlikely. That is a far cry from dismissing the theory of common descent altogether. Just to set the record straight: I also find options 3 and 4 unlikely (as I do option 2, which is separate creation), and I'm certainly not committing myself to options 1 (precursors will be found) or 5. But with 4 out of 5 options in favour of common descent, I'm sufficiently convinced to go for it. > -The problem is in the overall balance of things. You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical. All evidence in nature indicates that God is incredibly efficient, and logical. It would be dramatically more efficient to recreate a small subset of organisms to deal with changes they weren't designed for than it would to try and pre-program every single thing for every possible scenario. Further, the evidence is heavily in favor of the fact that every single organism is not pre-programmed for every single scenario. For example, most creatures will die if their environment changes even marginally. - > TONY: I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames. > >DHW: You have no precedent by which to judge what time frames your God needs for his programmes (3), his personal interventions (4) or his inventive mechanism (5) to work.-I only have what we see, what evidence there is. I see no evidence of innovation or speciation. - > DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts? > > TONY: Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races. > > I'm not sure what you mean by “Were they HUMAN absolutely”. Are you saying that all the hominid/hominin fossils belonged to one species of human, but that species was not homo sapiens (modern man)? Why would God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form? And are you saying that the palaeontologists are deliberately concealing the fact that all the hominids/hominins - covering a period of millions of years, not thousands - were one type of human and were not apes? Generation upon generation of palaeontologists all taking part in some kind of conspiracy in order to save their jobs? Going a bit far, isn't it?- Look, I have already conceded that we will see variation within a species. I.e. Not all apes will be identical, but they will all be apes. Not all humans will be identical, but they will all be human. As groups cluster, yes, you will see some traits that become dominant inside that group. Like size, build, hair color, certain immunities. I am not arguing against genetic inheritance. But what you are saying is no different than saying "Blacks are a different species than Whites, Asians, Arabs or Hispanics." -Don't we see morphological differences between all these groups? Don't we see immunity differences in all these groups? Don't they tend to all share similar traits? Of course they do!!! They are ALL HUMAN. Why, then, is it that when we see another group of humans with morphological differences we assume that they are no longer "human" but a different species?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms? TONY: I never said he couldn't, but that I didn't think he did because of a lack of evidence supporting that line of thought.-There is no more evidence supporting your hypothesis of separate creation than there is for David's hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year computer programme.-TONY: 4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors.-Dhw: This version has God personally transforming organisms instead of doing it through a computer programme (3) or creating them from scratch. If he could do the latter, regardless of the environment, why couldn't he just as easily do the former? TONY: Again, I do not think it is a matter of *could*, I think it is a matter of "did". i.e. Having the power or ability to do something a particular way does not necessitate that would do it that way because it may not be the best way to do things. -Agreed. That puts your hypothesis and this one on an equal footing.-TONY: (re the inventive mechanism): Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great. DHW: That would depend on how much inventive power God gave the mechanism. TONY: The problem is in the overall balance of things. You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical. All evidence in nature indicates that God is incredibly efficient, and logical. It would be dramatically more efficient to recreate a small subset of organisms to deal with changes they weren't designed for than it would to try and pre-program every single thing for every possible scenario. Further, the evidence is heavily in favor of the fact that every single organism is not pre-programmed for every single scenario. For example, most creatures will die if their environment changes even marginally.-I couldn't agree more. This is the argument I have used against David's hypotheses (3 and 4) over and over again. Thank you for your support. Of course it is not an argument against the inventive mechanism (a “brain” - possibly provided by God) in all organisms. When the environment changes, some (maybe most) “brains” will not be able to cope, others will adapt, and others may use the changed circumstances to invent new ways of exploiting the new conditions.-TONY: I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames. DHW: You have no precedent by which to judge what time frames your God needs for his programmes (3), his personal interventions (4) or his inventive mechanism (5) to work. TONY: I only have what we see, what evidence there is. I see no evidence of innovation or speciation.-What does this have to do with time frames? If the Cambrian produced organisms without precursors, we have innovation. Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 offer different explanations for the same result as your separate creation (all speculative). Speciation is difficult to pinpoint: as you said yourself, our classifications are not “a sound basis for rational judgement”. DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts? TONY: Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races. Dhw: I'm not sure what you mean by “Were they HUMAN absolutely”. Are you saying that all the hominid/hominin fossils belonged to one species of human, but that species was not homo sapiens (modern man)? [...] TONY: Look, I have already conceded that we will see variation within a species. I.e. Not all apes will be identical, but they will all be apes. Not all humans will be identical, but they will all be human. [...] I am not arguing against genetic inheritance. But what you are saying is no different than saying "Blacks are a different species than Whites, Asians, Arabs or Hispanics."-It is totally different. The very terms hominid and hominin and pre-human indicate that palaeontologists see the differences as far greater. It is easy enough to google “hominin” for details. Even if you really believe the australopithecines, for instance, were simply a different “kind” of human, you are faced with the questions I asked earlier: Why would your “incredibly efficient and logical” God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Let it die out and specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form?-After this discussion on common descent, I hope you will acknowledge that many scientists and religious people genuinely believe the theory to be true, and are not using it as an excuse to keep their jobs or to somehow exclude God.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 02:29 (3189 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms? > TONY: I never said he couldn't, but that I didn't think he did because of a lack of evidence supporting that line of thought. > >DHW: There is no more evidence supporting your hypothesis of separate creation than there is for David's hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year computer programme. > -Well, there is the evidence that creatures show up without precursor and that we don't witness continuous evolution...-> TONY: The problem is in the overall balance of things. You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical. All evidence in nature indicates that God is incredibly efficient, and logical. It would be dramatically more efficient to recreate a small subset of organisms to deal with changes they weren't designed for than it would to try and pre-program every single thing for every possible scenario. Further, the evidence is heavily in favor of the fact that every single organism is not pre-programmed for every single scenario. For example, most creatures will die if their environment changes even marginally. > >DHW: I couldn't agree more. This is the argument I have used against David's hypotheses (3 and 4) over and over again. Thank you for your support. Of course it is not an argument against the inventive mechanism (a “brain” - possibly provided by God) in all organisms. When the environment changes, some (maybe most) “brains” will not be able to cope, others will adapt, and others may use the changed circumstances to invent new ways of exploiting the new conditions. > -The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match?- > TONY: Look, I have already conceded that we will see variation within a species. I.e. Not all apes will be identical, but they will all be apes. Not all humans will be identical, but they will all be human. > [...] I am not arguing against genetic inheritance. But what you are saying is no different than saying "Blacks are a different species than Whites, Asians, Arabs or Hispanics." > > DHW: It is totally different. The very terms hominid and hominin and pre-human indicate that palaeontologists see the differences as far greater. It is easy enough to google “hominin” for details. Even if you really believe the australopithecines, for instance, were simply a different “kind” of human, you are faced with the questions I asked earlier: Why would your “incredibly efficient and logical” God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Let it die out and specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form? > -http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman-All of the genetic differences they site from not from the human DNA, but from the mitochondrial DNA.(mtDNA) The idea that this can determine species relationships is pure speculation because we have no baseline to test against, only theory based on the knowledge that mtDNA is passed through the mother. ->DHW: After this discussion on common descent, I hope you will acknowledge that many scientists and religious people genuinely believe the theory to be true, and are not using it as an excuse to keep their jobs or to somehow exclude God.-I never questioned the beliefs of individuals. Between the indoctrination of schools, the reality of funding and tenureship, and just straight personal reasoning, I am certain that most believe what they believe. However, that the theory, and its precursor of naturalism, are both geared towards excluding or minimizing the role of God there can be no doubt.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: There is no more evidence supporting your hypothesis of separate creation than there is for David's hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year computer programme.-TONY: Well, there is the evidence that creatures show up without precursor and that we don't witness continuous evolution...-That is precisely what David's two hypotheses and my own (3, 4 and 5) try to explain, and many evolutionists oppose the concept of continuity anyway and subscribe to “punctuated equilibrium”. Separate creation is just one of several hypotheses to explain the appearance of creatures without precursors, and there is no evidence for any of them.-dhw (re an inventive mechanism, or “brain”): When the environment changes, some (maybe most) “brains” will not be able to cope, others will adapt, and others may use the changed circumstances to invent new ways of exploiting the new condition.-TONY: The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match?-I'm surprised to hear that this is the only problem! “Chicken and egg” applies to all hypotheses. What is the Creationist solution?-TONY: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman All of the genetic differences they site from not from the human DNA, but from the mitochondrial DNA.(mtDNA) The idea that this can determine species relationships is pure speculation because we have no baseline to test against, only theory based on the knowledge that mtDNA is passed through the mother. -The update on this website informs us that the bone belonged to a Denisovan, and Denisovans were humans (who apparently interbred with Neanderthals and other ancient humans). No-one is questioning their classification as human. The problem of classification arises with much earlier hominids/hominins (e.g. the australopithecines). These fossils exist. Are you prepared to say they were definitely human, or definitely ape? The differences between them and us are huge. And I still don't know whether you think God created all of them separately and then created modern humans separately, or you think modern humans evolved from them as some kind of “variation”. DHW: After this discussion on common descent, I hope you will acknowledge that many scientists and religious people genuinely believe the theory to be true, and are not using it as an excuse to keep their jobs or to somehow exclude God.-TONY: I never questioned the beliefs of individuals. Between the indoctrination of schools, the reality of funding and tenureship, and just straight personal reasoning, I am certain that most believe what they believe. However, that the theory, and its precursor of naturalism, are both geared towards excluding or minimizing the role of God there can be no doubt.-Thank, you for this measured response. Of course you are right about naturalism. How a theory is "geared" depends on the people who do the gearing. I really don't know how many theistic evolutionists there are compared to atheistic evolutionists, but I would agree that it's the latter who seem to shout loudest!
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 14:30 (3188 days ago) @ dhw
> TONY: The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match? > > dhw: I'm surprised to hear that this is the only problem! “Chicken and egg” applies to all hypotheses. What is the Creationist solution?-This is why I present natures wonders with cooperating organisms such as flowers and butterflies (monarchs and milkweed) and symbiotic relationships. They appear 'made for each other' which may well be the case. Your approach asks the cell community in milkweed to invent a flower that will attract Monarch's.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 06, 2015, 04:46 (3187 days ago) @ dhw
dhw (re an inventive mechanism, or “brain”): When the environment changes, some (maybe most) “brains” will not be able to cope, others will adapt, and others may use the changed circumstances to invent new ways of exploiting the new condition. > > TONY: The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match? > >DHW: I'm surprised to hear that this is the only problem! “Chicken and egg” applies to all hypotheses. What is the Creationist solution? > -Perhaps "only" was a bit hasty.
Either way, for the creationist, this is not a problem. If the same designer designed the bees and the flowers, they would know the capabilities of each and could design them to work together from the very beginning, with all the relevant instructions in place.-> TONY: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman > All of the genetic differences they site from not from the human DNA, but from the mitochondrial DNA.(mtDNA) The idea that this can determine species relationships is pure speculation because we have no baseline to test against, only theory based on the knowledge that mtDNA is passed through the mother. > > The update on this website informs us that the bone belonged to a Denisovan, and Denisovans were humans (who apparently interbred with Neanderthals and other ancient humans). No-one is questioning their classification as human. The problem of classification arises with much earlier hominids/hominins (e.g. the australopithecines). These fossils exist. Are you prepared to say they were definitely human, or definitely ape? The differences between them and us are huge. And I still don't know whether you think God created all of them separately and then created modern humans separately, or you think modern humans evolved from them as some kind of “variation”. > -I'm prepared to say that taking the genetic material from one organism, mitochondria, does not tell us anything about the host organism. Ironically, mtDNA doesn't mutate much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA). And the origins of it are presumed, not known. So we are using an element that we have very little knowledge of its origin to determine what is, and is not, a modern human. We do this because nuclear DNA tends not to survive. It is the god of gaps. > DHW: After this discussion on common descent, I hope you will acknowledge that many scientists and religious people genuinely believe the theory to be true, and are not using it as an excuse to keep their jobs or to somehow exclude God. > > TONY: I never questioned the beliefs of individuals. Between the indoctrination of schools, the reality of funding and tenureship, and just straight personal reasoning, I am certain that most believe what they believe. However, that the theory, and its precursor of naturalism, are both geared towards excluding or minimizing the role of God there can be no doubt. > >DHW: Thank, you for this measured response. Of course you are right about naturalism. How a theory is "geared" depends on the people who do the gearing. I really don't know how many theistic evolutionists there are compared to atheistic evolutionists, but I would agree that it's the latter who seem to shout loudest!-:)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match? DHW: I'm surprised to hear that this is the only problem! “Chicken and egg” applies to all hypotheses. What is the Creationist solution?-TONY: Perhaps "only" was a bit hasty. Either way, for the creationist, this is not a problem. If the same designer designed the bees and the flowers, they would know the capabilities of each and could design them to work together from the very beginning, with all the relevant instructions in place.-This is where your Creationism takes on similar dimensions to David's hypothesis - which you criticized so penetratingly (see below) - of a computer programme for all innovations, and complex lifestyles and residences. Now you have God not only creating each prototype separately, but also designing every individual animal, plant, insect and bird that has a symbiotic relationship. Where does this programming end? DAVID: This is why I present natures wonders with cooperating organisms such as flowers and butterflies (monarchs and milkweed) and symbiotic relationships. They appear 'made for each other' which may well be the case. Your approach asks the cell community in milkweed to invent a flower that will attract Monarch's.-And, to quote Tony, your approach asks the first living cells to contain and pass on through billions of years and organisms a computer programme for “every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism,” including the weaverbird's nest, the plover's migration, and the symbiosis between milkweed and Monarch. Symbiosis and cooperation were key factors in evolution according to Lynn Margulis, and by a strange coincidence, she also championed the cause of bacterial intelligence! Just a step away from the intelligent, inventive mechanism that might do away with the need for this extraordinary programme of yours. TONY: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman-Dhw: The update on this website informs us that the bone belonged to a Denisovan, and Denisovans were humans (who apparently interbred with Neanderthals and other ancient humans). No-one is questioning their classification as human. The problem of classification arises with much earlier hominids/hominins (e.g. the australopithecines). These fossils exist. Are you prepared to say they were definitely human, or definitely ape? [...] -TONY: I'm prepared to say that taking the genetic material from one organism, mitochondria, does not tell us anything about the host organism. Ironically, mtDNA doesn't mutate much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA). And the origins of it are presumed, not known. So we are using an element that we have very little knowledge of its origin to determine what is, and is not, a modern human. We do this because nuclear DNA tends not to survive. It is the god of gaps.-I understand your unwillingness to be drawn on this issue, but DNA is not the only factor involved. Enough is known of the australopithecines to tell us that they were bipedal - a crucial difference between apes and humans - whereas their brains and craniums were closer to those of the apes than to ours. They are clearly not modern humans, but they are not apes either, and even evolutionist palaeontologists can't agree amongst themselves which “species” might have been man's ancestor. But if I've understood you correctly, you regard them all as variations on an earlier form of human. My apologies if I've got this wrong, but if I haven't, my question remains: do you think God created them and modern humans separately, or modern humans evolved as “variants” from these so-called pre-humans?
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 06, 2015, 20:42 (3187 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Perhaps "only" was a bit hasty.
- CanFly
- Diet
- Foot Type
- etc
-It would also contain some component code
Component Examples)-
- Wings
- Feet
- Beak
- Bones
- Feathers
-It would also contain some behavior component code
- Predator
- Scavenger
- Fisher
- Swimmer
- Diver
- Flyer
- NestBuilding
- Then program some checks to make sure that each component and behavior matches up with the variables on the main prototype.-If (CanFly is True && Predator is True) Load wingtype X (where X is a wingtype common to hawks, eagles, etc) else if....- This type of programming can create virtually endless variation with a very small amount of programming. For example, just using the number of items in the list above, there are more than 90 possible combinations. If each component contained just 5 definitions, the number would jump to 450 possible combinations. Add one more variable to that and the number jumps to 625.. I'm sure you see how quickly that could escalate in complex organisms.-Now, to make it even easier, some code can be reused across prototypes because of similarities in environment, diet, etc. For example:-Eats Fish - All animals that eat fish have to have some means of getting rid of bones, reducing heavy metal toxicity, being able to see them, etc. So, knowing this, you can program a lot of this into one simple category that could be used in everything from fish to sharks to birds to marine mammals to humans. -Eats Plants - Anything that eats plants must also have certain traits to enable ingestion and digestion of plant material and the conversion of it into usable energy. -etc etc for dietary needs. - This process would explain much of what we actually observe.-
- variation within breeds/prototypes with predefined limits
- the utter lack of modern evolution
- Creatures appearing without pre-cursor
- Shared genetic instruction between creatures with similar environments/diets/functionality.
- Etc..
-The other thing it would do is completely dismantle the Tree of Life. There is no need for pre-cursors or mutations/speciation between one species and another. The bush of life becomes easily explained as a product of variation on prototypes within strict confines. Genetic relationships between species becomes a property of shared functionality between creatures with similar functionality.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Thursday, August 06, 2015, 21:53 (3187 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: This process would explain much of what we actually observe. > > >
- variation within breeds/prototypes with predefined limits >
- the utter lack of modern evolution >
- Creatures appearing without pre-cursor >
- Shared genetic instruction between creatures with similar environments/diets/functionality. >
- Etc.. >
> > The other thing it would do is completely dismantle the Tree of Life. There is no need for pre-cursors or mutations/speciation between one species and another. The bush of life becomes easily explained as a product of variation on prototypes within strict confines. Genetic relationships between species becomes a property of shared functionality between creatures with similar functionality.-It seems to me Tony is describing in his computer program approach my thoughts about patterns and modifications of those patterns from the beginning of life.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
DHW: This is where your Creationism takes on similar dimensions to David's hypothesis - which you criticized so penetratingly (see below) - of a computer programme for all innovations, and complex lifestyles and residences. Now you have God not only creating each prototype separately, but also designing every individual animal, plant, insect and bird that has a symbiotic relationship. Where does this programming end? TONY: While it is complicated, it is not as complicated as you are making it out to be. As a programmer, I can see how it could be done relatively simply (compared to what you suggest).-The computer programme is not my suggestion but David's, and you criticized it for “preprogramming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism.” I share your scepticism. Thank you for the “not as complicated” programme you have suggested, which is a wonderful scheme, beautifully laid out and explained. There isn't room to reproduce it, though I would like to because it is such a model of clarity and systematic thinking.-However, what you are proposing is only slightly different from David's hypothesis. In yours it seems that all the prototypes had their own separate set of programmes for every possible variation etc. The programmes must also have included the symbiotic relationships with variants from other “kinds” (milkweed and Monarch, bees and flowers, Nile crocodile and Egyptian plover), and perhaps - we'll need more details from you - also the weaverbird's nest, the plover's migration, the spider's silk....And so it still seems mighty complicated to me, and I still wonder where programming ends and intelligent inventiveness begins. But perhaps more importantly, your beautiful scheme is only partially opposed to the theory of common descent. All your bird variations evolved from the prototype. That is already common descent. The only difference is that you say God separately created the prototypes, whereas the overall theory of common descent claims that the prototypes evolved from earlier organisms. For instance, although the archaeopteryx is no longer regarded as the prototype bird, most experts seem to agree that it marks a clear transition between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. My point once again is that your version of common descent only differs from others in so far as your theoretical prototype theoretically appears out of the blue made by God, and their theoretical prototype theoretically appears out of the blue from existing organisms (though these themselves may have been programmed by God - David's version - or equipped with the ability to transform themselves - my inventive mechanism.) TONY: This process would explain much of what we actually observe. •	variation within breeds/prototypes with predefined limits •	the utter lack of modern evolution •	Creatures appearing without pre-cursor •	Shared genetic instruction between creatures with similar environments/diets/functionality. •	Etc..-David's preprogramming and my inventive mechanism explain all the variations, the lack of precursors, the shared “instructions” and the etc.(!) In order to explain the lack of modern evolution, both you and David would have to read God's mind. At least I could say that we are going through a period of comparative environmental stasis, and it would take a major environmental change to trigger a new explosion of species. (No, I'm not convinced either - but I'm not convinced by any of the hypotheses.)-TONY: The other thing it would do is completely dismantle the Tree of Life. There is no need for pre-cursors or mutations/speciation between one species and another. The bush of life becomes easily explained as a product of variation on prototypes within strict confines. Genetic relationships between species becomes a property of shared functionality between creatures with similar functionality.-I presume you mean that your version changes the tree (common descent) into a bush (descent from several separate forms), but of course that doesn't mean your version is correct. David and I have offered different theistic evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian, “no need” for speciation does not mean that speciation did not happen, and it would be perfectly logical for genetic relationships and similar functionality to occur between creatures descended from a common ancestor.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 08, 2015, 23:02 (3185 days ago) @ dhw
One of the main things that comes up is that there has to be planning for every possible variant. With my method, that is not precisely true. There are lots of possible variants that simply will not succeed (extinction events). But for all other things, what seems to be missed is that only the variants within a prototype must be accounted. This is different from David's concept and from mainstream evolution in that it doesn't require any prototype to contain the code required to create a different type of prototype. Mainstream evolution requires that their be an origin somewhere that contains all possibilities...
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: One of the main things that comes up is that there has to be planning for every possible variant. With my method, that is not precisely true. There are lots of possible variants that simply will not succeed (extinction events). But for all other things, what seems to be missed is that only the variants within a prototype must be accounted. This is different from David's concept and from mainstream evolution in that it doesn't require any prototype to contain the code required to create a different type of prototype. Mainstream evolution requires that their be an origin somewhere that contains all possibilities...-You are making the same point that I made earlier: David's programme for all species and variants is contained within the first living cells, whereas you have programmes split up between and confined to the prototypes. Your version still entails common descent, but only from your theoretical prototypes, whereas his and mine entail common descent from a theoretical single source. The fact that many variants don't succeed raises difficult questions for both of you (not for me), but we have discussed those before. I still don't know where you yourself, Tony, draw the line between preprogramming and individual intelligence. Do you, for example, believe that the prototype bird passed on a programme for the weaverbird's nest, the plover's migration, the Egyptian plover's symbiotic relationship with the Nile crocodile?-As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves). The alternative that I have proposed - without the conviction of belief - is that the first cells did not contain any programmes at all, but only the ability (i.e. a form of intelligence) to devise an open-ended sequence of programmes, which inevitably became more and more complex as they cooperated and learned to cope with different environments. A perfect analogy and also outcome to this process is provided by us humans. Theistic version: God provided cells/cell communities with the ability to create increasingly complex programmes only for “natural” organic purposes (the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution), and the culmination of this process so far - I agree that humans are special in this respect - is a cell community which began with comparatively simple programmes (e.g. tool-making) and has gone on to create increasingly complex programmes for all kinds of purposes.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Sunday, August 09, 2015, 17:41 (3184 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves).-Tony's prototypes are equal to my pointing out patterns that are used over and over.-> dhw: The alternative that I have proposed - without the conviction of belief - is that the first cells did not contain any programmes at all, but only the ability (i.e. a form of intelligence) to devise an open-ended sequence of programmes, which inevitably became more and more complex as they cooperated and learned to cope with different environments. -I think Tony will tell you that programs which create programs are highly complex, and unlikely to be within the layers of the DNA and its modifying components.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
Dhw: As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, you are absolutely right, and this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves). -DAVID: Tony's prototypes are equal to my pointing out patterns that are used over and over.-Darwin also pointed out patterns that are used over and over. It's an important factor in the theory of common descent. I'll now wait to hear how many “possibilities” Tony thinks were programmed into the prototypes as opposed to their working things out for themselves - and as opposed to your insistence that they were all preprogrammed into the very first cells. -Dhw: The alternative that I have proposed - without the conviction of belief - is that the first cells did not contain any programmes at all, but only the ability (i.e. a form of intelligence) to devise an open-ended sequence of programmes, which inevitably became more and more complex as they cooperated and learned to cope with different environments. A perfect analogy and also outcome to this process is provided by us humans. Theistic version: God provided cells/cell communities with the ability to create increasingly complex programmes only for “natural” organic purposes (the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution), and the culmination of this process so far - I agree that humans are special in this respect - is a cell community that has itself created increasingly complex programmes for all kinds of purposes. -DAVID: I think Tony will tell you that programs which create programs are highly complex, and unlikely to be within the layers of the DNA and its modifying components.-I suspect Tony will be able to give me his own comment, but this is getting too complicated. Last time you said the programme WAS the DNA and the overlying modification mechanisms. I suggested the programme had to be whatever directed the modification mechanisms to change the DNA (i.e. the inventive mechanism), which you have always said is within the DNA, but which you claim works automatically and has no autonomy. In my analogy, I am pointing out that my version of the inventive mechanism (cellular intelligence) has produced programmes resulting in another inventive mechanism (human intelligence) which can create programmes of its own. Most people would say our inventive mechanism is the brain, and my version of the cellular inventive mechanism is the equivalent of the cell's "brain".
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Monday, August 10, 2015, 17:13 (3183 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:In my analogy, I am pointing out that my version of the inventive mechanism (cellular intelligence) has produced programmes resulting in another inventive mechanism (human intelligence) which can create programmes of its own. Most people would say our inventive mechanism is the brain, and my version of the cellular inventive mechanism is the equivalent of the cell's "brain".-You sound like the Tin Woodman or Scarecrow, can't remember which, in the Wizard of Oz: "if the cells only had a brain".
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 10, 2015, 19:08 (3183 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, you are absolutely right, and this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves). -> I suspect Tony will be able to give me his own comment, but this is getting too complicated. Last time you said the programme WAS the DNA and the overlying modification mechanisms. I suggested the programme had to be whatever directed the modification mechanisms to change the DNA (i.e. the inventive mechanism), which you have always said is within the DNA, but which you claim works automatically and has no autonomy. In my analogy, I am pointing out that my version of the inventive mechanism (cellular intelligence) has produced programmes resulting in another inventive mechanism (human intelligence) which can create programmes of its own. Most people would say our inventive mechanism is the brain, and my version of the cellular inventive mechanism is the equivalent of the cell's "brain".--Actually, we don't really know what, if anything, reads the code. We know that the code is DNA, and we know that the expression of certain parts of that code (variables and functions) change based on their current environment (chemical environment inside the cell).-To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have? I would guess, that they have something similar to a finite state machine built in, though one that is far, far more complex than anything that we use today. I also suspect that the state machine is wired to read inputs from other parts of the prototype. I.E. Migration patters in birds, turtles, salmon, etc. being tuned to some sensory organ that detects magnetism, gravity, temperature, or some other event. -In this case, you can have some simple set and get functions tied to a basic mechanic, and leave the grunt work up to other parts of the program, much like we do with AI pathfinding. What I mean is, when the creature is born or reaches their migration target for the first time, that place is imprinted on them. After that, some natural trigger, kickstarts the migration behavior, which really only says go from point a to point b, and allows other natural programs (swim, fly, etc) to handle the actual grunt work of getting there.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
Dhw: As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, you are absolutely right, and this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves). -TONY: To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have? I would guess, that they have something similar to a finite state machine built in, though one that is far, far more complex than anything that we use today. I also suspect that the state machine is wired to read inputs from other parts of the prototype. I.E. Migration patters in birds, turtles, salmon, etc. being tuned to some sensory organ that detects magnetism, gravity, temperature, or some other event. In this case, you can have some simple set and get functions tied to a basic mechanic, and leave the grunt work up to other parts of the program, much like we do with AI pathfinding. What I mean is, when the creature is born or reaches their migration target for the first time, that place is imprinted on them. After that, some natural trigger, kickstarts the migration behavior, which really only says go from point a to point b, and allows other natural programs (swim, fly, etc) to handle the actual grunt work of getting there.- Most behavioural patterns must be linked to some sensory organ and to other physical attributes of the organism, because that is how organisms function: the message has to be implemented physically. This is a constant source of disagreement between David and myself, because science can only examine the material processes that precede or follow the decision. It can't examine the decision-making process itself. David acknowledges this in his discussions on human consciousness and free will, but insists that in organisms such as bacteria, ants, weaverbirds etc. there is no decision-making process - and he focuses solely on the material actions as if they explained the decisions. In cases such as migration, nest-building, strange lifestyle, I agree with most of what you say, but you have begun with Chapter 2, and my focus is on Chapter 1: namely, how these patterns originated. -You have summed up the problem very aptly: “To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have?” Within the limits of what each organism can do and what the environment will allow each organism to do (a fish can't swim if there is no water), the possibilities would seem to be almost endless. However, in David's scenario, all possibilities have been preprogrammed in the first cells, to be passed down through billions of years and organisms until each descendant organism somehow automatically turns on its own special programme (or God “steps in” to write a new programme for it). You are rather more cagey in your musings about how much is preprogrammed, and this can only mean that you are prepared to accept the possibility that (theistic version) God gave cells/cell communities the wherewithal to work out their own “behaviours” which, if successful, will then be handed down.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 18:42 (3182 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: In cases such as migration, nest-building, strange lifestyle, I agree with most of what you say, but you have begun with Chapter 2, and my focus is on Chapter 1: namely, how these patterns originated. > > You have summed up the problem very aptly: “To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have?” Within the limits of what each organism can do and what the environment will allow each organism to do (a fish can't swim if there is no water), the possibilities would seem to be almost endless. -Actually, you bring up an important point here that I think adds more constraints than you might initially suspect. I think the environment adds fairly significant constraints that dramatically reduces the number of programs required, because all un-programmed for behaviors and un-programmed for environmental scenarios end in death. When we look at nature, this is in fact what we see. Fish out of water dies. Fish too deep dies. Fish too cold dies. Fish too hot dies. Water too salty fish dies. Water not salty enough fish dies. Fish eats wrong food fish dies. While there is some limited leeway for most things, the end result is that if the environment exceeds the pre-defined tolerances of the organism, the organism dies. I suspect that even extremophiles if removed from their extreme environments would die, because that is the environment they are programmed for. -All of this is to say that perhaps the easiest way to define this problem is to look at what is NOT possible before trying to look at what IS possible. Narrow the scope of the problem from the infinite of our imaginations to the finite of reality, cut the fat, and then re-examine. ->DHW: However, in David's scenario, all possibilities have been preprogrammed in the first cells, to be passed down through billions of years and organisms until each descendant organism somehow automatically turns on its own special programme (or God “steps in” to write a new programme for it). You are rather more cagey in your musings about how much is preprogrammed, and this can only mean that you are prepared to accept the possibility that (theistic version) God gave cells/cell communities the wherewithal to work out their own “behaviours” which, if successful, will then be handed down.- Err, no. Nice try though. You try to give me the option of Darwinian Evolution or your Intelligent Cell theory as if those were the only two choices. Special creation, even in the limited prototype fashion that I view it, is still a possibility and still consistent with the evidence. Your hangups regarding it seem to be about why God would create something that would die out (extinction events)which is something that I have covered previously and in more depth in other conversations.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
Dhw: You have summed up the problem very aptly: “To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have?” Within the limits of what each organism can do and what the environment will allow each organism to do (a fish can't swim if there is no water), the possibilities would seem to be almost endless. -TONY: Actually, you bring up an important point here that I think adds more constraints than you might initially suspect. I think the environment adds fairly significant constraints that dramatically reduces the number of programs required, because all un-programmed for behaviors and un-programmed for environmental scenarios end in death. When we look at nature, this is in fact what we see. Fish out of water dies. Fish too deep dies [...]-You seem to be suggesting that all survivors have been preprogrammed, whereas all non-survivors have not. David will be pleased, though his convoluted scenario will now have to include God preprogramming the very first cells to pass on instructions as to how, after billions of years, some of their fishy descendants will survive environmental changes (also preprogrammed?) while others will not. When I asked you about the extent of preprogramming, dabbling and organisms' ability to “work things out for themselves”, you said we didn't understand “the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature”. Are you now making a definitive statement that God preprogrammed the prototype fish (and other prototypes)so that their descendants would adapt or not adapt to environmental changes (also preprogrammed?), or do you think it possible that they inherited the ability to work things out for themselves - or not, as the case may be - as you did with nests, and symbiotic and other lifestyles? DHW: ... in David's scenario, all possibilities have been preprogrammed in the first cells... (or God “steps in”)... You are rather more cagey in your musings about how much is preprogrammed, and this can only mean that you are prepared to accept the possibility that (theistic version) God gave cells/cell communities the wherewithal to work out their own “behaviours” which, if successful, will then be handed down.-TONY: Err, no. Nice try though. You try to give me the option of Darwinian Evolution or your Intelligent Cell theory as if those were the only two choices. Special creation, even in the limited prototype fashion that I view it, is still a possibility and still consistent with the evidence. Your hangups regarding it seem to be about why God would create something that would die out (extinction events)which is something that I have covered previously and in more depth in other conversations.-Sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding. The focus of the current discussion is on whether you agree with David's belief that all the variations/lifestyles/nests have been preprogrammed, or you accept the possibility that organisms can work things out for themselves. Throughout the discussion I have worn my theistic hat, and agreed that their intelligence was designed by God, and it makes no difference whether he planted it in David's first cells or in your prototypes. (Extinction can be explained simply by some organisms being more intelligent/inventive/adaptable than others.)
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 19:27 (3181 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: (Extinction can be explained simply by some organisms being more intelligent/inventive/adaptable than others.)-David Raup, who just passed away, in his book "Extinctions". found it was in the vast majority of cases just bad luck.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 13, 2015, 02:06 (3181 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: You have summed up the problem very aptly: “To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have?” Within the limits of what each organism can do and what the environment will allow each organism to do (a fish can't swim if there is no water), the possibilities would seem to be almost endless. > > TONY: Actually, you bring up an important point here that I think adds more constraints than you might initially suspect. I think the environment adds fairly significant constraints that dramatically reduces the number of programs required, because all un-programmed for behaviors and un-programmed for environmental scenarios end in death. When we look at nature, this is in fact what we see. Fish out of water dies. Fish too deep dies [...] > >DHW: You seem to be suggesting that all survivors have been preprogrammed, whereas all non-survivors have not. -Not at all. I am saying that survivors were the ones that stayed within their pre-defined limits, whereas non-survivors were exposed to environments that exceeded their limits, and thus were unable to adapt.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Thursday, August 13, 2015, 04:16 (3180 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Not at all. I am saying that survivors were the ones that stayed within their pre-defined limits, whereas non-survivors were exposed to environments that exceeded their limits, and thus were unable to adapt.-Again David Raup's conclusion. Bad luck.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
TONY: I think the environment adds fairly significant constraints that dramatically reduces the number of programs required, because all un-programmed for behaviors and un-programmed for environmental scenarios end in death. When we look at nature, this is in fact what we see. Fish out of water dies. Fish too deep dies [...]-Dhw: You seem to be suggesting that all survivors have been preprogrammed, whereas all non-survivors have not. -TONY: Not at all. I am saying that survivors were the ones that stayed within their pre-defined limits, whereas non-survivors were exposed to environments that exceeded their limits, and thus were unable to adapt.-Thank you. Perhaps, then, “unprogrammed-for” was misleading. The above certainly leaves ample room for the hypothesis of autonomous cellular intelligence, which would vary immensely between different organisms. Those whose intelligence - whether incorporated in the first cells (common descent) or in the prototypes (separate creation) - was too limited to find ways of coping with environmental change would naturally perish. I trust then that you remain open-minded, since we “don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature” - a beautifully balanced approach which, as I noted earlier, can be applied to so many other fields besides our evolutionary/non-evolutionary hypotheses!
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 14, 2015, 03:36 (3180 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Not at all. I am saying that survivors were the ones that stayed within their pre-defined limits, whereas non-survivors were exposed to environments that exceeded their limits, and thus were unable to adapt. > >DHW: Thank you. Perhaps, then, “unprogrammed-for” was misleading. The above certainly leaves ample room for the hypothesis of autonomous cellular intelligence, which would vary immensely between different organisms. Those whose intelligence - whether incorporated in the first cells (common descent) or in the prototypes (separate creation) - was too limited to find ways of coping with environmental change would naturally perish. I trust then that you remain open-minded, since we “don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature” - a beautifully balanced approach which, as I noted earlier, can be applied to so many other fields besides our evolutionary/non-evolutionary hypotheses!-The issue with autonomous intelligence is still the generation of new information, as opposed to working within pre-defined limitations. If I saw concrete evidence of invention on the part of a cell, I would lend the autonomous cellular intelligence theory more credence.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2015, 04:31 (3179 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: The issue with autonomous intelligence is still the generation of new information, as opposed to working within pre-defined limitations. If I saw concrete evidence of invention on the part of a cell, I would lend the autonomous cellular intelligence theory more credence.-The obvious issue is the analysis of a new experience. Take the dinosaurs and the meteorite. Could they analyze what to try next? No, they didn't have the capacity. On the other hand, advanced animals like wolves can figure out some changes in hunting skills and strategies and pass them down. At the single cell level, no way. They don't analyze, they can only respond in limited ways.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 14, 2015, 05:55 (3179 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: The issue with autonomous intelligence is still the generation of new information, as opposed to working within pre-defined limitations. If I saw concrete evidence of invention on the part of a cell, I would lend the autonomous cellular intelligence theory more credence. > >David: The obvious issue is the analysis of a new experience. Take the dinosaurs and the meteorite. Could they analyze what to try next? No, they didn't have the capacity. On the other hand, advanced animals like wolves can figure out some changes in hunting skills and strategies and pass them down. At the single cell level, no way. They don't analyze, they can only respond in limited ways.-Yes, but how could they analyze environmental detail? Say, temperature and salinity. Chances are, they would die before they could make the necessary adjustments, because the adjustments would have to be made in response to the environmental change within the organism while it is experiencing it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
Tony: The issue with autonomous intelligence is still the generation of new information, as opposed to working within pre-defined limitations. If I saw concrete evidence of invention on the part of a cell, I would lend the autonomous cellular intelligence theory more credence.-I am not asking you to lend it credence, but simply to remain open-minded. Just like David's theory of a 3.8-billion-year programme or divine dabbling, and your own theory of separate creation, and the materialist theory of spontaneous generation, there is no concrete evidence. If there were, we could dispense with all the other hypotheses.-DAVID: The obvious issue is the analysis of a new experience. Take the dinosaurs and the meteorite. Could they analyze what to try next? No, they didn't have the capacity. On the other hand, advanced animals like wolves can figure out some changes in hunting skills and strategies and pass them down. At the single cell level, no way. They don't analyze, they can only respond in limited ways.-Dinosaurs did not have the “capacity” to adapt to changed conditions after the meteorite. Some other organisms did. What is this “capacity”? According to you, it is a computer programme inserted by God into the first living cells to be passed down to their descendants. So what happened? Some inherited the survival programme and some didn't? Sheer luck, or God predetermining which organisms would survive and which would not? You can't even say if he organized Chicxulub or left it to chance (all part of your woolly concept of “guided” evolution). In my hypothesis, devised to explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth, the dinosaur cell communities did not have the form/degree of “intelligence” (perhaps designed initially by God) that would enable them to cope with the chance-changed environment. Who needs preprogramming and dabbling? Either the particular “cellular intelligence” can work things out, or it can't.-You acknowledge autonomous intelligence in wolves figuring out their own strategies, but ants apparently can't, and bacteria can't either. Their strategies have to be preprogrammed. All organisms can only respond in “limited ways” - a wolf can't suddenly decide to fly. But within the limitations of their own nature, even you can't tell if they are using a form of intelligence, and yet somehow you know the wolf does and the ant and the bacterium don't. -TONY: Yes, but how could they analyze environmental detail? Say, temperature and salinity. Chances are, they would die before they could make the necessary adjustments, because the adjustments would have to be made in response to the environmental change within the organism while it is experiencing it.-That is why we have extinctions, though some are gradual, for instance as resources run out. Survival depends on the ability of the cell communities that make up the organism to come up with a solution to the problem. This applies whether you believe in evolution or in separate creation or in chance: the mechanism for finding a solution has to be there - one of a billion programmes handed down from the beginning of life, God personally intervening, programmes to be handed down by the prototypes? Or perhaps the result of autonomous intelligences succeeding or not succeeding in finding a solution? We don't know, and so you rightly - in my view - opt not to give a definitive answer. But some of us may have a sneaky feeling that certain answers are more likely than others!
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2015, 18:32 (3179 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; Who needs preprogramming and dabbling? Either the particular “cellular intelligence” can work things out, or it can't. -Are there gradations of your cellular intelligence depending upon the complexity of the organism. After all, some forms have brains and some do not. > > dhw: You acknowledge autonomous intelligence in wolves figuring out their own strategies, but ants apparently can't, and bacteria can't either. Their strategies have to be preprogrammed. All organisms can only respond in “limited ways” - a wolf can't suddenly decide to fly. But within the limitations of their own nature, even you can't tell if they are using a form of intelligence, and yet somehow you know the wolf does and the ant and the bacterium don't.-I know the wolf has a useful degree of consciousness, and the ant may. I strongly doubt the bacterium, but then again, you like pan-psychism.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, August 06, 2015, 21:07 (3187 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This is why I present natures wonders with cooperating organisms such as flowers and butterflies (monarchs and milkweed) and symbiotic relationships. They appear 'made for each other' which may well be the case. Your approach asks the cell community in milkweed to invent a flower that will attract Monarch's. > >DHW: And, to quote Tony, your approach asks the first living cells to contain and pass on through billions of years and organisms a computer programme for “every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism,” including the weaverbird's nest, the plover's migration, and the symbiosis between milkweed and Monarch. Symbiosis and cooperation were key factors in evolution according to Lynn Margulis, and by a strange coincidence, she also championed the cause of bacterial intelligence! Just a step away from the intelligent, inventive mechanism that might do away with the need for this extraordinary programme of yours. > -See my first response to your post.- -> TONY: I'm prepared to say that taking the genetic material from one organism, mitochondria, does not tell us anything about the host organism. Ironically, mtDNA doesn't mutate much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA). And the origins of it are presumed, not known. So we are using an element that we have very little knowledge of its origin to determine what is, and is not, a modern human. We do this because nuclear DNA tends not to survive. It is the god of gaps. > > I understand your unwillingness to be drawn on this issue, but DNA is not the only factor involved. Enough is known of the australopithecines to tell us that they were bipedal - a crucial difference between apes and humans - whereas their brains and craniums were closer to those of the apes than to ours. They are clearly not modern humans, but they are not apes either, and even evolutionist palaeontologists can't agree amongst themselves which “species” might have been man's ancestor. But if I've understood you correctly, you regard them all as variations on an earlier form of human. My apologies if I've got this wrong, but if I haven't, my question remains: do you think God created them and modern humans separately, or modern humans evolved as “variants” from these so-called pre-humans?-http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap9.html http://johnhawks.net/explainer/laboratory/race-cranium/ http://www.becominghuman.org/node/homo-erectus-0 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/20_daka.html- In general, they are saying that they are all very similar to modern humans when the overall size and stature of the individual is taken into account. Also, that last link calls into question their claims of splitting species as well. -I think that humanity was created in the same prototype fashion that I believe other creatures were created. They have a baseline set of variables, components, and behaviors that can be recombined in unique ways to produce a wide variety of results, but at the end of the day, they are all human.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to Tony
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 21, 2015, 11:21 (3203 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My reference was only to David's contortionism, as he had tried to wriggle away from his belief that humans were God's purpose for creating the universe, and substitute his belief that we are the pinnacle (which apparently only means “most complex”).-Yes, since I view evolution as containing and obvious drive to complexity, humans are obviously the pinnacle of that process. A thought straight from my first book.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Saturday, July 18, 2015, 01:34 (3207 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The leaps bother me and argue against common descent It is as if the inventive mechanism has guidance or pre-planning, which has been my constant comment. > > dhw: If innovations work promptly - whether guided, preplanned, or invented from within - why should the leaps argue against common descent?-The leaps that we see are large changes, and, yes, they obviously survived. But large changes, obvious to me and others thinking like me, require planning to work on arrival. You are suggesting a plethora of larger changes so the best ones could survive, resurrecting natural selection to a major role. This is a major shotgun arrangement, within the short time involved of six million years to get humans. Not a likely scenario, when the evidence of a planning center in cells is not presently known or likely to be discovered as in the immune system I brought up today.-> > dhw: As I keep saying, innovations must work promptly or they won't survive. If the inventive mechanism guides the changes, what precedent tells you that 300,000 generations would not suffice? (Thank you to whoever invented the pocket calculator.)-Remember Lenski's work on E. coli, millions upon millions of generations and almost no changes. It takes several generations to fix a trait in humans, and that is the small stuff.-> > dhw:If the experiments are the product of an intelligent inventive mechanism, they would not be "unguided", and they would be motivated, just like ours, by the search for improvement.-So now you are proposing teleological cells 'mentally' motivated to search. Cells are passive, actively responding to stimuli, not out searching.-> > dhw: Yes, the patterns are obvious. It is also obvious that if common descent is true, patterns would be handed down. That does not alter the possibility that your God designed the inventive mechanism, and the inventive mechanism designed the patterns.-Thank you for recognizing the patterns, and partially accepting the idea that evolution might best work if guided. > dhw: I don't know enough about Denton's work, but perhaps you can tell me if he ever talks of God preprogramming the first cells or dabbling with their make-up.-Denton is an M.D. and does research in molecular biology. In Evolution; A Theory in Crisis >, 1985, he uses molecular evolutionary chemistry to tear Darwin apart, pointing huge gaps in chemical changes such as with hemogolobin. In Nature's Destiny , 1998 , he takes the position that the universe is designed for humans, again with lots of chemical evidence. As you knows I follow his thinking and have read both books. > dhw: I am far from convinced that this universe began 13.8 billion years ago. Even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded it, and it could just as well have been an event within an existing, eternal and infinite universe. Eternity and infinity offer the same opportunities as a multiverse. The alternative is: “Either there is a God or there is no God.”-That is why Einstein didn't want to give up an enteral universe. but your objection to the Big Bang, is that it must have come from an eternal something. I agree and it appears that this universe had a beginning. From there our reasoning diverges. There is a God.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 18, 2015, 03:39 (3207 days ago) @ David Turell
Denton is an M.D. and does research in molecular biology. In Evolution; A Theory in Crisis >, 1985, he uses molecular evolutionary chemistry to tear Darwin apart, pointing huge gaps in chemical changes such as with hemogolobin. In Nature's Destiny , 1998 , he takes the position that the universe is designed for humans, again with lots of chemical evidence. As you knows I follow his thinking and have read both books.- Believe it or not, I actually disagree with this statement, to an extent. The universe was designed to support life, not just humans. I really don't like setting ourselves up as the center stage like that. I think that humans are an integral part of life in general, but not that we are the sole reason for all of creation.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Saturday, July 18, 2015, 16:02 (3206 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Tony: Believe it or not, I actually disagree with this statement, to an extent. The universe was designed to support life, not just humans. I really don't like setting ourselves up as the center stage like that. I think that humans are an integral part of life in general, but not that we are the sole reason for all of creation.-I think Denton would actually agree with you, but humans seem to be the pinnacle of creation.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
DAVID: The leaps bother me and argue against common descent It is as if the inventive mechanism has guidance or pre-planning, which has been my constant comment. dhw: If innovations work promptly - whether guided, preplanned, or invented from within - why should the leaps argue against common descent? DAVID: The leaps that we see are large changes, and, yes, they obviously survived. But large changes, obvious to me and others thinking like me, require planning to work on arrival. You are suggesting a plethora of larger changes so the best ones could survive, resurrecting natural selection to a major role. -This is still not an argument against common descent. If you do believe in it, you will have to accept that ALL the changes, major and minor, took place within existing organisms. Natural selection is just another way of saying that beneficial changes survive, and is a red herring in this discussion. The choice lies between every innovation being preprogrammed in the first cells, God dabbling, random mutations, or an autonomous inventive mechanism within the cells themselves. -DAVID: This is a major shotgun arrangement, within the short time involved of six million years to get humans. Not a likely scenario, when the evidence of a planning center in cells is not presently known or likely to be discovered as in the immune system I brought up today.-In the post on the immune system you have, with customary honesty - and I cannot praise you too highly for this - offered evidence both against your “short time” argument and in favour of cellular intentionality: DAVID: Within germinal centers, B cells evolve in a Darwinian-like fashion. The gene responsible for producing their antibodies mutates rapidly, a million times faster than the normal rate of mutation in the human body, and the cells proliferate Comment: This is the only example I know of that fits dhw's 'inventive mechanism' where cells can mutate at will for a specified purpose.-Thank you.-dhw: If the inventive mechanism guides the changes, what precedent tells you that 300,000 generations would not suffice? DAVID: Remember Lenski's work on E. coli, millions upon millions of generations and almost no changes. It takes several generations to fix a trait in humans, and that is the small stuff.-We know that bacteria have survived without change. They can hardly count as a precedent by which we can judge what time was needed by an autonomous inventive mechanism to produce humans. DAVID: So now you are proposing teleological cells 'mentally' motivated to search. Cells are passive, actively responding to stimuli, not out searching.-That is what I have proposed all along. It is you who insist that cells/cell communities are passive (and confine your focus to their automatic functions), but many experts in the field disagree with you. Cells/cell communities are motivated to find means of survival, and my proposal is that the same ‘mental' motivation may have extended to the search for improvement.-dhw: Yes, the patterns are obvious. It is also obvious that if common descent is true, patterns would be handed down. That does not alter the possibility that your God designed the inventive mechanism, and the inventive mechanism designed the patterns. DAVID: Thank you for recognizing the patterns, and partially accepting the idea that evolution might best work if guided.-I can certainly accept it. Once the mechanism for life and evolution came into existence (how it did so is the mystery), the guidance may have come from organisms looking for ways both to survive and to improve themselves. dhw: ...perhaps you can tell me if he [Denton] ever talks of God preprogramming the first cells or dabbling with their make-up. DAVID: Denton is an M.D. and does research in molecular biology. In Evolution; A Theory in Crisis >, 1985, he uses molecular evolutionary chemistry to tear Darwin apart [...]. In Nature's Destiny , 1998 , he takes the position that the universe is designed for humans, again with lots of chemical evidence... -But does he mention God preprogramming the first cells or dabbling?-dhw: I am far from convinced that this universe began 13.8 billion years ago. Even if the big bang theory is true, we have no idea what preceded it, and it could just as well have been an event within an existing, eternal and infinite universe. Eternity and infinity offer the same opportunities as a multiverse. The alternative is: “Either there is a God or there is no God.”-DAVID: That is why Einstein didn't want to give up an eternal universe, but your objection to the Big Bang, is that it must have come from an eternal something. I agree and it appears that this universe had a beginning. From there our reasoning diverges. There is a God.-I am delighted to be bracketed with Einstein! As regards a beginning, appearances can deceive. But our reasoning only diverges fifty per cent: maybe there is a God, and maybe there isn't.
More Denton: Last essay of a 3 part series
by David Turell , Sunday, July 19, 2015, 15:42 (3205 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This is still not an argument against common descent. -Please remember I have accepted common descent. On that basis, the only way I can accept it is with guidance. The gaps require exquisite planning because they are so large, involving many complex interlocking changes, which I keep showing in references to the Cambrian. Darwin feared the Cambrian. He had every right to be so afraid. > > > dhw: In the post on the immune system you have, with customary honesty - and I cannot praise you too highly for this - offered evidence both against your “short time” argument and in favour of cellular intentionality: > DAVID: Within germinal centers, B cells evolve in a Darwinian-like fashion. The gene responsible for producing their antibodies mutates rapidly, a million times faster than the normal rate of mutation in the human body, and the cells proliferate-> Comment: This is the only example I know of that fits dhw's 'inventive mechanism' where cells can mutate at will for a specified purpose. > > dhw: Thank you.-From your point of view, I wouldn't thank me. These highly specified cells have an enormous degree of information in their DNA, which had to come from their original DNA in the initial one-celled zygote, then modified in translation as the embryo developed. There is a chicken and egg problem in viewing this from the standpoint of Darwin-style chance evolution. How did organisms protect themselves from lethal infections before the immune process was fully developed? Do you want to propose that lethal organisms and immune mechanisms developed at an equal pace, hand in hand through chance? I don't. > > DAVID: Remember Lenski's work on E. coli, millions upon millions of generations and almost no changes. It takes several generations to fix a trait in humans, and that is the small stuff. > > dhw: We know that bacteria have survived without change. They can hardly count as a precedent by which we can judge what time was needed by an autonomous inventive mechanism to produce humans.- You seem unaware that in Lenski's work he challenged the bacteria and got minor changes. His point was to study mutation as a process. > > dhw: I can certainly accept it. Once the mechanism for life and evolution came into existence (how it did so is the mystery), the guidance may have come from organisms looking for ways both to survive and to improve themselves.-You keep using strange images: 'organisms looking for ways to survive'? > > dhw: But does he [Denton] mention God preprogramming the first cells or dabbling?-No, that is our discussion. He inferentially accepts that God had to do it. > > DAVID: That is why Einstein didn't want to give up an eternal universe, but your objection to the Big Bang, is that it must have come from an eternal something. I agree and it appears that this universe had a beginning. From there our reasoning diverges. There is a God. > > dhw: I am delighted to be bracketed with Einstein! As regards a beginning, appearances can deceive. But our reasoning only diverges fifty per cent: maybe there is a God, and maybe there isn't.-Your usual wishy-washy 'maybe' on the picket fence.
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: I doubt Darwin theory because of the gaps in the fossil record which get more obvious as time passes and the fossil record becomes more complete. dhw: If the fossil record is becoming more complete, doesn't that suggest that the gaps are becoming less obvious? -DAVID: No, the gaps are more obvious. The fossil record, Darwin hoped would fill in the gaps. Instead the gaps are much more sharply defined. I specifically refer to the pre-Cambrian soft body findings. There is no 'complexity' run-up to the Cambrian. -I was questioning your logic. Clearly if the gaps are becoming more sharply defined, the fossil record is NOT becoming more complete. (How can we possibly know its state of “completeness” anyway?) However, as I keep pointing out, if evolution proceeds in leaps through innovations that must work at once or perish, the mystery of the “gaps” is solved. -DAVID: The gaps require exquisite planning because they are so large, involving many complex interlocking changes, which I keep showing in references to the Cambrian. Darwin feared the Cambrian. Agreed. The Cambrian illustrates why gradualism doesn't work. Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. The weaver bird is incapable of designing its nest, ants of designing their cities, bacteria of devising strategies for mastering different environments. “Large organisms chauvinism so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way” (Shapiro). And so according to you, God “guided” them all, which means he either preprogrammed the first cells with every innovation and wonder, or he dabbled. I offer the alternative of cognitive organisms, regardless of size. DAVID: Within germinal centers, B cells evolve in a Darwinian-like fashion. The gene responsible for producing their antibodies mutates rapidly, a million times faster than the normal rate of mutation in the human body, and the cells proliferate Comment: This is the only example I know of that fits dhw's 'inventive mechanism' where cells can mutate at will for a specified purpose. dhw: Thank you.-DAVID: From your point of view, I wouldn't thank me. [...] There is a chicken and egg problem in viewing this from the standpoint of Darwin-style chance evolution. How did organisms protect themselves from lethal infections before the immune process was fully developed? Do you want to propose that lethal organisms and immune mechanisms developed at an equal pace, hand in hand through chance? I don't.-As usual you scurry for refuge in Darwinian chance, which we agreed long ago is unlikely but which is easier for you to handle than my hypothesis that cells are intelligent, whether designed by God or not. If they can mutate at will a million times faster than normal for this one specified purpose, perhaps they can do the same for other purposes. DAVID: You seem unaware that in Lenski's work he challenged the bacteria and got minor changes. His point was to study mutation as a process.-And my point is that this tells us nothing about the innovations that led from bacteria to humans, or about the time needed for that development. Nobody knows how it happened. We can only hypothesize, and Shapiro's work with bacteria suggests that they are intelligent - which might give us a clue as to how evolution happened. But you are only interested in bacteriologists whose research fits in with your own hypotheses. -dhw: Once the mechanism for life and evolution came into existence (how it did so is the mystery), the guidance may have come from organisms looking for ways both to survive and to improve themselves. DAVID: You keep using strange images: 'organisms looking for ways to survive'?-Of course they look for ways to survive. Do you think your dog would lie down and starve if you didn't feed him? But I admit that whether they also look for ways to improve is a different matter - that is why I can only offer the inventive mechanism as a hypothesis, just as you offer a divine, multi-billion-year computer programme as a hypothesis.-dhw: What a wonderful piece of intellectual contortionism. Instead of humans being God's purpose, they now “seem to be the pinnacle”. And to whom do they seem to be the pinnacle? Ah, humans, of course. DAVID: If evolution is defined as increasing complexity, a course it certainly seems to follow, what is more complex than humans?-Who came up with that definition? I understand evolution as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. But the contortionism I am referring to is the acrobatic twist from humans as God's purpose (the position you have constantly advocated) to humans as the pinnacle (which you now define as the most complex). But I'm not complaining! This is a welcome shift of focus.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 21, 2015, 11:15 (3203 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I was questioning your logic. Clearly if the gaps are becoming more sharply defined, the fossil record is NOT becoming more complete.-Check your logic. What is happening is the gap is sharper. What is before is filled with simplicity, and what is after is many new complex Cambrian specimens with coordinated complex organ systems. that takes planning, not shotgun attemps at improvement. -> > dhw:Agreed. The Cambrian illustrates why gradualism doesn't work. Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. -Pipe dream. Frankly, you don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels.- > > dhw: If they [immune cells] can mutate at will a million times faster than normal for this one specified purpose, perhaps they can do the same for other purposes.-A huge 'perhaps'. You have jumped on one very specialized set of cells and assume every cell can do this. They can't because they are not built that way. > > > dhw: And my point is that this tells us nothing about the innovations that led from bacteria to humans, or about the time needed for that development. Nobody knows how it happened. ....But you are only interested in bacteriologists whose research fits in with your own hypotheses.-Lenski is not on my side. He is looking for the mechanism you desire to find, and not finding them. > > > dhw: What a wonderful piece of intellectual contortionism. Instead of humans being God's purpose, they now “seem to be the pinnacle”. And to whom do they seem to be the pinnacle? Ah, humans, of course.-> DAVID: If evolution is defined as increasing complexity, a course it certainly seems to follow, what is more complex than humans?> -> dhw: Who came up with that definition? I understand evolution as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.-Of course the pattern of evolution is to create more complexity. It is a recognized observation. And what is more complex than the human brain?
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: I was questioning your logic. Clearly if the gaps are becoming more sharply defined, the fossil record is NOT becoming more complete. DAVID: Check your logic. What is happening is the gap is sharper. What is before is filled with simplicity, and what is after is many new complex Cambrian specimens with coordinated complex organ systems. -Fair comment. We just have a different starting point. Mine is that the more gaps there are, the less complete is the record. Yours is that the more we find (= a more complete record), the wider the gaps.-DAVID: That takes planning, not shotgun attemps at improvement.-Why shotgun? We know that cell communities are capable of changing their structure in order to adapt to specific changes in the environment. There is nothing shotgun in such procedures. Do you think your God preprogrammed the first living cells 3.8 billion years ago with instructions for countless as yet non-existent organisms to alter their structures in accordance with every conceivable change in every conceivable environment (while countless other organisms were to be left out)? Or does he dabble in order to save one fish/bird/reptile/mammal while others perish? What other form of guidance can you envisage? The alternative is an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by God) within these different cell communities, and my hypothesis is that the same mechanism may have been used innovatively as well as adaptively (the borderlines between the two are not always clear anyway) as a direct response - not a shotgun shoot-and-hope - to the opportunities that arose from environmental change. dhw: The Cambrian illustrates why gradualism doesn't work. Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. DAVID: Pipe dream. Frankly, you don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels.-Since your only alternative is divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, you will have to direct the same criticism at any biologist who doesn't believe in God. dhw: If they [immune cells] can mutate at will a million times faster than normal for this one specified purpose, perhaps they can do the same for other purposes.-DAVID: A huge 'perhaps'. You have jumped on one very specialized set of cells and assume every cell can do this. They can't because they are not built that way.-It is not an assumption but a hypothesis, and it is not applied to every cell. In any cell community, as in any other community you can think of, some cells will organize and others will be organized. dhw: And my point is that this tells us nothing about the innovations that led from bacteria to humans, or about the time needed for that development. Nobody knows how it happened. ....But you are only interested in bacteriologists whose research fits in with your own hypotheses. DAVID: Lenski is not on my side. He is looking for the mechanism you desire to find, and not finding them.-Thank you for the correction. I don't suppose he's found your multi-billion-year computer programme either, but it's always reassuring to hear of bacteriologists who disagree with you.-DAVID: If evolution is defined as increasing complexity, a course it certainly seems to follow, what is more complex than humans? dhw: Who came up with that definition? I understand evolution as the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. DAVID: Of course the pattern of evolution is to create more complexity. It is a recognized observation. And what is more complex than the human brain?-I am not disputing that evolution creates more complexity, or that humans are in certain respects more complex than other organisms. I am disputing your definition. Another "pattern of evolution" is the "recognized observation" that when the environment changes, some organisms survive and others don't, but that is not how we define the term "evolution". However, the main thrust of my comment was that there is a vast difference between humans as the most complex organisms and humans as God's purpose for creating the universe. I am delighted to see you at last abandoning the second claim and focusing all your attention on the first.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 22, 2015, 21:30 (3202 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Check your logic. What is happening is the gap is sharper. What is before is filled with simplicity, and what is after is many new complex Cambrian specimens with coordinated complex organ systems. > > dhw: Fair comment. We just have a different starting point. Mine is that the more gaps there are, the less complete is the record. Yours is that the more we find (= a more complete record), the wider the gaps.-Not wider! When I said sharper I meant more delineated. The contrast between the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian continues to become greater. This is really the main gap to discuss. There is no good reason foundso far for the giant leap in complexity. > > DAVID: That takes planning, not shotgun attemps at improvement. > > dhw: Why shotgun? We know that cell communities are capable of changing their structure in order to adapt to specific changes in the environment. There is nothing shotgun in such procedures.-Shotgun is a good word. In your method cells make blind attempts at improvements by changes, and seeing what survives in natural competition. The giant changes in the Cambrian defy your theory to work.-> > dhw: The Cambrian illustrates why gradualism doesn't work. Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. > DAVID: Pipe dream. Frankly, you don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels. > > dhw:Since your only alternative is divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, you will have to direct the same criticism at any biologist who doesn't believe in God.-Fair enough. They are blind to reason, in my view. > > DAVID: A huge 'perhaps'. You have jumped on one very specialized set of cells and assume every cell can do this. They can't because they are not built that way. > > dhw: It is not an assumption but a hypothesis, and it is not applied to every cell. In any cell community, as in any other community you can think of, some cells will organize and others will be organized.-A very hopeful hypothesis. We know of no mechanism as to how they organize and cooperate which each other, except biochemical reactions and methylation of DNA for minor response adaptations. > > dhw: I am not disputing that evolution creates more complexity, or that humans are in certain respects more complex than other organisms.-"In certain respects?" We are vastly more complex in physical and mental abilities. -> dhw: However, the main thrust of my comment was that there is a vast difference between humans as the most complex organisms and humans as God's purpose for creating the universe. I am delighted to see you at last abandoning the second claim and focusing all your attention on the first.-I don't see the difference. If the humans are so much more complex, why not view them as the pinnacle of evolution?
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: The contrast between the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian continues to become greater. This is really the main gap to discuss. There is no good reason foundso far for the giant leap in complexity.-Agreed. One theory is that there was a major change in the environment which provided a vast increase in opportunities for cell communities to use their autonomous, inventive intelligence. Another theory is that there is a supernatural power which preprogrammed every change 3.8 billion years ago, or which suddenly started monkeying around with the different cell communities. DAVID: Shotgun is a good word. In your method cells make blind attempts at improvements by changes, and seeing what survives in natural competition. The giant changes in the Cambrian defy your theory to work.-My response to your last post argued that the attempts were anything but blind. Just as the mechanism for adaptation is precisely targeted, so too would the intelligent cell community use prevailing conditions to work out new ways of exploiting them. Humans do the same (and also fail as well as succeed). Meanwhile, you continue to gloss over the extreme unlikelihood of your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for all the changes in life's long history (see above).-dhw: The Cambrian illustrates why gradualism doesn't work. Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. DAVID: Pipe dream. Frankly, you don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels. dhw: Since your only alternative is divine preprogramming and/or dabbling, you will have to direct the same criticism at any biologist who doesn't believe in God. -DAVID: Fair enough. They are blind to reason, in my view.-I'm glad you realize that your view entails informing professional biologists that they don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels. I'm sorry you don't realize that this reflects rather badly on your attitude towards people who disagree with you.-DAVID: A huge 'perhaps'. You have jumped on one very specialized set of cells and assume every cell can do this. They can't because they are not built that way.-dhw: It is not an assumption but a hypothesis, and it is not applied to every cell. In any cell community, as in any other community you can think of, some cells will organize and others will be organized.-DAVID: A very hopeful hypothesis. We know of no mechanism as to how they organize and cooperate which each other, except biochemical reactions and methylation of DNA for minor response adaptations.- All forms of communication and physical action, including our own, involve some kind of material process, but that does not explain the decision-making that precedes the communication and action. You simply assume that human organization and cooperation are the result of autonomous intelligence (the source of which is unknown), whereas cellular organization and cooperation are done automatically as a result of divine preprogramming. “Large organisms chauvinism”.-dhw: I am not disputing that evolution creates more complexity, or that humans are in certain respects more complex than other organisms. DAVID: "In certain respects?" We are vastly more complex in physical and mental abilities. -The physical ability of other organisms to see, hear, withstand the heat, withstand the cold, go without food and water, swim, fly, run, communicate over long distances etc. vastly exceeds our own....But I agree that our mental abilities vastly exceed theirs.-dhw: However, the main thrust of my comment was that there is a vast difference between humans as the most complex organisms and humans as God's purpose for creating the universe. I am delighted to see you at last abandoning the second claim and focusing all your attention on the first.-DAVID: I don't see the difference. If the humans are so much more complex, why not view them as the pinnacle of evolution?-You are assuming that evolution has finished, but even if it has, what do you mean by the “pinnacle"? We have the most complex brain. So our brain is the most complex brain of evolution. The dog has the most complex nose (I think). So the dog has the most complex nose of evolution. When you learn to flap your arms and fly three thousand miles non-stop in five days, you may even claim to have reached the evolutionary peak of long-distance flying. So what is the criterion for the pinnacle? But to return to “the main thrust of my comment” which you are still dodging, and to use your pinnacle metaphor quite literally, the fact that Everest is the highest mountain does not mean that your God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce Everest.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Thursday, July 23, 2015, 20:19 (3201 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The contrast between the pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian continues to become greater. This is really the main gap to discuss. There is no good reason foundso far for the giant leap in complexity. > > dhw: Agreed. One theory is that there was a major change in the environment which provided a vast increase in opportunities for cell communities to use their autonomous, inventive intelligence. Another theory is that there is a supernatural power which preprogrammed every change 3.8 billion years ago, or which suddenly started monkeying around with the different cell communities.-One last time. In the Cambrian, from no predecessors, animal appear with fully developed functional organ systems, and those systems are integrated and cooperating. It is beyond my belief system that this occurred by cooperating cells simply jumping together in an organized fashion. Yes increased oxygen allowed the advance, but cellular adaptations through epigenetics are so far demonstrated to be small changes, not giant leaps implied by the fossil record. > > DAVID: Shotgun is a good word. In your method cells make blind attempts at improvements by changes, and seeing what survives in natural competition. The giant changes in the Cambrian defy your theory to work. > > dhw: My response to your last post argued that the attempts were anything but blind. Just as the mechanism for adaptation is precisely targeted, so too would the intelligent cell community use prevailing conditions to work out new ways of exploiting them. Humans do the same (and also fail as well as succeed).-Now you are equating cellular planning with the human ability to plan! Really? > > dhw: The Cambrian illustrates why gradualism doesn't work. Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. -For me that is the natural assumption.- > dhw: I'm glad you realize that your view entails informing professional biologists that they don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels.-That is not what I have said. They know physiology of cells as well as I do. I have a right to a different interpretation, as do you. > > > dhw: All forms of communication and physical action, including our own, involve some kind of material process, but that does not explain the decision-making that precedes the communication and action.-I don't follow this statement. Surely we all understand how humans investigate, conclude and plan from those conclusions.-> > DAVID: I don't see the difference. If the humans are so much more complex, why not view them as the pinnacle of evolution? > > dhw: You are assuming that evolution has finished, but even if it has, what do you mean by the “pinnacle"? We have the most complex brain. So our brain is the most complex brain of evolution.-Pinnacle in the sense of highest achievement of evolutionary changes. Stopped? I don't know, but I think likely.-> dhw:The dog has the most complex nose (I think). So the dog has the most complex nose of evolution. When you learn to flap your arms and fly three thousand miles non-stop in five days, you may even claim to have reached the evolutionary peak of long-distance flying. So what is the criterion for the pinnacle? -The pinnacle of the arrival of consciousness and human mentation, which is still totally unexplained, as Nagel points out.-> dhw:But to return to “the main thrust of my comment” which you are still dodging, and to use your pinnacle metaphor quite literally, the fact that Everest is the highest mountain does not mean that your God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce Everest.-You are reduced to word games. How many dogs (with their noses) climb Everest. By the way I've flown by the peak. We humans do know how to fly and flapping winged machines are being planned as we debate, according to an article a couple days ago..
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: One last time. In the Cambrian, from no predecessors, animal appear with fully developed functional organ systems, and those systems are integrated and cooperating. It is beyond my belief system that this occurred by cooperating cells simply jumping together in an organized fashion. Yes increased oxygen allowed the advance, but cellular adaptations through epigenetics are so far demonstrated to be small changes, not giant leaps implied by the fossil record.-You persist in repeating the problem, whereas I am summarizing possible solutions. I understand perfectly well why you reject my hypothesis: there is no evidence that cell communities are capable of extending their known adaptive abilities to innovation. Nor is there any evidence of a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all the innovations. Nor is there any evidence of a supernatural being reaching inside existing cell communities to give them a shake-up. Your belief system can apparently cope with the last two, but let's not pretend that they are in any way more rational or feasible than my alternative (which is a hypothesis, not a belief).-dhw: Just as the mechanism for adaptation is precisely targeted, so too would the intelligent cell community use prevailing conditions to work out new ways of exploiting them. Humans do the same (and also fail as well as succeed). DAVID: Now you are equating cellular planning with the human ability to plan! Really?-You always seem to think that such statements mean “equating” other organisms with humans, but no one is saying that their intelligence, let alone their level of self-awareness, is the same as ours. However, their form of intelligence enables them to accomplish astonishing feats (Nature's Wonders) that may be unique to themselves and require “exquisite planning”. (Part of our own uniqueness lies in the fact that with our superior intelligence, we can emulate and even transcend their single abilities.) I simply don't accept your contention that weaverbirds, ants, plovers, spiders, monarch butterflies etc. are incapable of designing their own habitats and lifestyles. And if I am right, then their inventive intelligence may mirror that of all cells/cell communities. dhw: Exquisite planning applies to all organs, organisms, and Nature's Wonders. However, your assumption seems to be that only God and humans are capable of exquisite planning. DAVID: For me that is the natural assumption.-“Natural assumptions” are sometimes another term for preconceptions. Why should your God not have given other organisms the ability to do their own exquisite planning (as above)? dhw: I'm glad you realize that your view entails informing professional biologists that they don't understand biologic complexity at the basic physiologic levels. DAVID: That is not what I have said. They know physiology of cells as well as I do. I have a right to a different interpretation, as do you.-Thank you. That is much nicer than your assumption that a different interpretation from your own is based on ignorance or on being “blind to reason”. -dhw: All forms of communication and physical action, including our own, involve some kind of material process, but that does not explain the decision-making that precedes the communication and action. DAVID: I don't follow this statement. Surely we all understand how humans investigate, conclude and plan from those conclusions.-When discussing cells, you always focus on the chemical processes that accompany the actions they perform, but these do not explain the decision-making process that leads to those actions. Our own actions are also accompanied by chemical processes, but you acknowledge that these are preceded by a mental decision-making process, even though we do not know the source of the intelligence that conducts it. You take the latter for granted, but refuse to look beyond the chemical processes when it comes to cellular decision-making. dhw: But to return to “the main thrust of my comment” which you are still dodging, and to use your pinnacle metaphor quite literally, the fact that Everest is the highest mountain does not mean that your God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce Everest. DAVID: You are reduced to word games. How many dogs (with their noses) climb Everest. By the way I've flown by the peak. We humans do know how to fly and flapping winged machines are being planned as we debate, according to an article a couple days ago.-You had claimed that humans were “vastly more complex in physical and mental abilities”. We do not have the physical ability to fly. It is our vast mental superiority that enables us to invent machines which can make up for our physical inferiority. You have also missed the point of my Everest metaphor. Even if we humans are the most intelligent organisms on Earth, that does not mean your God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce us.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, July 25, 2015, 02:09 (3200 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You always seem to think that such statements mean “equating” other organisms with humans, but no one is saying that their intelligence, let alone their level of self-awareness, is the same as ours. However, their form of intelligence enables them to accomplish astonishing feats (Nature's Wonders) that may be unique to themselves and require “exquisite planning”. -Whoa! Please reread that sentence. You are granting them an intelligence instead of hypothesizing one? -> dhw:I simply don't accept your contention that weaverbirds, ants, plovers, spiders, monarch butterflies etc. are incapable of designing their own habitats and lifestyles. And if I am right, then their inventive intelligence may mirror that of all cells/cell communities.-Agreed if you are right. > > dhw: “Natural assumptions” are sometimes another term for preconceptions. Why should your God not have given other organisms the ability to do their own exquisite planning (as above)?-He might have given them an IM, I've agreed. > > dhw: When discussing cells, you always focus on the chemical processes that accompany the actions they perform, but these do not explain the decision-making process that leads to those actions.-Those decision-making processes can all be automatic biochemical reactions, just as our kidney cells decide the urine concentrations for the day.- > dhw: You had claimed that humans were “vastly more complex in physical and mental abilities”. ..... You have also missed the point of my Everest metaphor. Even if we humans are the most intelligent organisms on Earth, that does not mean your God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce us.-But in my view it can mean that.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: You always seem to think that such statements mean “equating” other organisms with humans, but no one is saying that their intelligence, let alone their level of self-awareness, is the same as ours. However, their form of intelligence enables them to accomplish astonishing feats (Nature's Wonders) that may be unique to themselves and require “exquisite planning”. DAVID: Whoa! Please reread that sentence. You are granting them an intelligence instead of hypothesizing one?-Fair comment. It does not alter the fact that you seem unable to conceive of any form of intelligence other than our own. That is why you concoct a 3.8 billion-year-computer programme for all wonders and innovations rather than grant your God the capacity to create a different form of intelligence. dhw:I simply don't accept your contention that weaverbirds, ants, plovers, spiders, monarch butterflies etc. are incapable of designing their own habitats and lifestyles. And if I am right, then their inventive intelligence may mirror that of all cells/cell communities. DAVID: Agreed if you are right.-Thank you. There is hope yet.-dhw: “Natural assumptions” are sometimes another term for preconceptions. Why should your God not have given other organisms the ability to do their own exquisite planning (as above)? DAVID: He might have given them an IM, I've agreed.-No, until now you have insisted that it is not autonomous but is preprogrammed or dabbled with (concepts you try to gloss over with the weasel word “guided”). That does NOT constitute inventiveness. Do you now agree that he might have given other organisms the ability to do their own exquisite planning?-dhw: When discussing cells, you always focus on the chemical processes that accompany the actions they perform, but these do not explain the decision-making process that leads to those actions. DAVID: Those decision-making processes can all be automatic biochemical reactions, just as our kidney cells decide the urine concentrations for the day. -“Can be”. They can also be mental processes, just as our brain produces decisions, strategies, and inventions. You have already agreed that each possibility is as likely as the other, and yet you still exclude one because it does not fit in with your preconceptions.-dhw: Even if we humans are the most intelligent organisms on Earth, that does not mean your God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce us. DAVID: But in my view it can mean that.-When Tony disagreed with you that humans were God's purpose in creating the universe, you shifted the focus to humans being the pinnacle because they were the most complex. (I presume you now accept that this only applies mentally and not physically.) There is a huge difference between your estimation of man's abilities, which has nothing to do with God, and your attempt to read God's mind - an exercise you always warn us against, although you give yourself permission to do it when you feel like it!
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, July 25, 2015, 15:37 (3199 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It does not alter the fact that you seem unable to conceive of any form of intelligence other than our own. That is why you concoct a 3.8 billion-year-computer programme for all wonders and innovations rather than grant your God the capacity to create a different form of intelligence.-Please note my entry today on extremophiles.-> DAVID: He might have given them an IM, I've agreed. > > dhw: No, until now you have insisted that it is not autonomous but is preprogrammed or dabbled with (concepts you try to gloss over with the weasel word “guided”). That does NOT constitute inventiveness. Do you now agree that he might have given other organisms the ability to do their own exquisite planning? > > dhw: When discussing cells, you always focus on the chemical processes that accompany the actions they perform, but these do not explain the decision-making process that leads to those actions.-> DAVID: Those decision-making processes can all be automatic biochemical reactions, just as our kidney cells decide the urine concentrations for the day. > > > dhw: “Can be”. They can also be mental processes, just as our brain produces decisions, strategies, and inventions. You have already agreed that each possibility is as likely as the other, and yet you still exclude one because it does not fit in with your preconceptions.-They are not mental processes. As shown in research reported today they are automatic alterations in gene expression controlled by specialized proteins.- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150724151844.htm -I will place this article as a separate entry so all are aware of I and can review it. This is an example of the progression of research that I anticipate will eventually show that it is all automatic chemistry. > > dhw: When Tony disagreed with you that humans were God's purpose in creating the universe, you shifted the focus to humans being the pinnacle because they were the most complex. (I presume you now accept that this only applies mentally and not physically.)-I think God controlled evolution as His mechanism to produce beings that could relate to Him. Humans are vastly different: "The difference of Man and the Difference It Makes", is not just mental but physical. Imagine ape basketball if you can! Humans have always been the pinnacle. Tony uses ancient texts, not rational articles. My thoughts have never changed.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: It does not alter the fact that you seem unable to conceive of any form of intelligence other than our own. That is why you concoct a 3.8 billion-year-computer programme for all wonders and innovations rather than grant your God the capacity to create a different form of intelligence.-DAVID: Please note my entry today on extremophiles.-I have noted it, and am delighted to see your final questions: “...once life starts it seems it can adapt and survive in almost intolerable circumstance. How did life get this ability? Built-in with latent instructions (information), given instructions when needed, or able to develop solutions on the spot when required, which requires information analysis?” In other words: divine preprogramming, divine dabbling, or autonomous intelligence. You have summed up our whole evolutionary discussion, so thank you for at last giving these three possibilities equal billing. DAVID: Those decision-making processes can all be automatic biochemical reactions, just as our kidney cells decide the urine concentrations for the day.-dhw: “Can be”. They can also be mental processes, just as our brain produces decisions, strategies, and inventions. You have already agreed that each possibility is as likely as the other, and yet you still exclude one because it does not fit in with your preconceptions.-DAVID: They are not mental processes. As shown in research reported today they are automatic alterations in gene expression controlled by specialized proteins.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150724151844.htm-The first words show that the article is dealing with “biological functions”: “In plants as in animals and humans, intricate molecular networks regulate key biological functions, such as development and stress responses.” I would also assume that these are automatic. Does TOPLESS explain how a weaverbird designs its nest, ants design a city, or - to return to my favourite hunting ground - bacteria decide to form communities to exploit the opportunities offered by a million and one different environments? Pfeffer's bacteria could not have got to the soup without automatic perceptions and automatic movements, but what made them decide to swim through the poisoned disinfectant? You are happy to consider research on automatic behaviour, but why do you ignore research on behaviour that suggests intelligence? -dhw: When Tony disagreed with you that humans were God's purpose in creating the universe, you shifted the focus to humans being the pinnacle because they were the most complex. (I presume you now accept that this only applies mentally and not physically.) DAVID: I think God controlled evolution as His mechanism to produce beings that could relate to Him. Humans are vastly different: "The difference of Man and the Difference It Makes", is not just mental but physical. Imagine ape basketball if you can! Humans have always been the pinnacle. Tony uses ancient texts, not rational articles. My thoughts have never changed.-I am aware that you think you know God's intentions. I am also aware of man's vast mental abilities. Physically, we are not THAT different from the apes, and if you think basketball makes us physically superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, then try going without water for six months like a camel, or jumping 200 times the length of your body like a flea...and I wouldn't advise you to have a wrestling match with a grizzly bear. I agree that we are the mental pinnacle of evolution, at least so far. However, I don't know of any rational articles in which God informs us of his intentions, and some people might regard the fact that your thoughts have never changed as evidence of a closed mind. Ts ts!
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Sunday, July 26, 2015, 19:50 (3198 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: “Can be”. They can also be mental processes, just as our brain produces decisions, strategies, and inventions. You have already agreed that each possibility is as likely as the other, and yet you still exclude one because it does not fit in with your preconceptions.-They are not preconceptions. I have explained my thought processes to come from agnostic to theist, and I have not seen anything since to change my mind or conclusions.- > dhw: Pfeffer's bacteria could not have got to the soup without automatic perceptions and automatic movements, but what made them decide to swim through the poisoned disinfectant?-If a bacterium feels the need to eat it will go for the food, all automatically. -> dhw; You are happy to consider research on automatic behaviour, but why do you ignore research on behaviour that suggests intelligence?-Because, as I've explained over and over, one cannot tell the difference in single-cells organisms between automatic and making intelligent choices. I've chosen a point of view that I do not see refuted. If an 'expert' says it looks intelligent, doesn't mean it is. - > dhw: I agree that we are the mental pinnacle of evolution, at least so far. However, I don't know of any rational articles in which God informs us of his intentions, and some people might regard the fact that your thoughts have never changed as evidence of a closed mind. Ts ts!
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: “Can be”. They can also be mental processes, just as our brain produces decisions, strategies, and inventions. You have already agreed that each possibility is as likely as the other, and yet you still exclude one because it does not fit in with your preconceptions. DAVID: They are not preconceptions. I have explained my thought processes to come from agnostic to theist, and I have not seen anything since to change my mind or conclusions. -We are not talking about agnosticism and theism but about the intelligence of bacteria. There is absolutely no reason why intelligent bacteria should be a threat to your theism, but they are a threat to your anthropocentrism.-dhw: Pfeffer's bacteria could not have got to the soup without automatic perceptions and automatic movements, but what made them decide to swim through the poisoned disinfectant? DAVID: If a bacterium feels the need to eat it will go for the food, all automatically. -Pfeffer's point was that if a bacterium senses poison, it will avoid the poison. That was the whole purpose of his test: a conflict of interests which required a decision. He also noted that they swam extra fast.-dhw; You are happy to consider research on automatic behaviour, but why do you ignore research on behaviour that suggests intelligence? DAVID: Because, as I've explained over and over, one cannot tell the difference in single-cells organisms between automatic and making intelligent choices. I've chosen a point of view that I do not see refuted. [You make a similar point under “Climate change”; the fact that you alerted me to the work of Margulis can hardly be said to prove that she was wrong.] DAVID: If an 'expert' says it looks intelligent, doesn't mean it is.-Shapiro and Co do not say bacteria LOOK intelligent. They have concluded that bacteria ARE intelligent. Why do you put ‘expert' in inverted commas? Margulis was a microbiologist, Albrecht-Buehler was a professor of cell biology, James Shapiro is a professor of biochemistry and microcellular biology. I fully accept that experts can be wrong, but hey, can you not accept that they just might be right? -dhw: I agree that we are the mental pinnacle of evolution, at least so far. However, I don't know of any rational articles in which God informs us of his intentions, and some people might regard the fact that your thoughts have never changed as evidence of a closed mind. Ts ts! DAVID: And you can't reach any conclusions to leave the picket fence. Pot and kettles!-Agreed. But there are degrees of closure, e.g. between “I don't know, and so you may be right” and “I think I know, and you are obviously wrong.”
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Monday, July 27, 2015, 19:35 (3197 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: They are not preconceptions. I have explained my thought processes to come from agnostic to theist, and I have not seen anything since to change my mind or conclusions. > > dhw: We are not talking about agnosticism and theism but about the intelligence of bacteria. There is absolutely no reason why intelligent bacteria should be a threat to your theism, but they are a threat to your anthropocentrism.-'Intelligent' bacteria are not a threat to my thought processes. They could use intelligent information just because of God. My anthropocentrism is not the way you have used the word. I try not to interpret God as a mirror for human thought. That humans are the center point of evolution is a different issue asrrived at for different reasons.-> DAVID: If a bacterium feels the need to eat it will go for the food, all automatically. > > dhw: Pfeffer's point was that if a bacterium senses poison, it will avoid the poison. That was the whole purpose of his test: a conflict of interests which required a decision. He also noted that they swam extra fast. -The fast swim was an automatic response > > dhw:Shapiro and Co do not say bacteria LOOK intelligent. They have concluded that bacteria ARE intelligent. Why do you put ‘expert' in inverted commas? Margulis was a microbiologist, Albrecht-Buehler was a professor of cell biology, James Shapiro is a professor of biochemistry and microcellular biology. I fully accept that experts can be wrong, but hey, can you not accept that they just might be right?- As before, I interpret them as using hyperbole. No difference, if one interprets what they do as using intelligent information.
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: They are not preconceptions. I have explained my thought processes to come from agnostic to theist, and I have not seen anything since to change my mind or conclusions. dhw: We are not talking about agnosticism and theism but about the intelligence of bacteria. There is absolutely no reason why intelligent bacteria should be a threat to your theism, but they are a threat to your anthropocentrism.-DAVID: 'Intelligent' bacteria are not a threat to my thought processes. They could use intelligent information just because of God. My anthropocentrism is not the way you have used the word. I try not to interpret God as a mirror for human thought. That humans are the center point of evolution is a different issue asrrived at for different reasons.-The intelligence of bacteria is central to my suggestion that evolution is driven by the inventiveness of organisms themselves, whereas you insist it was all preprogrammed (or dabbled) by God, whose purpose was to end up with humans “that could relate to him”. Your anthropocentric hypothesis leaves you wriggling around to explain the enormous diversity of life, and all its comings and goings, whereas mine gives a direct explanation.-DAVID: If a bacterium feels the need to eat it will go for the food, all automatically. dhw: Pfeffer's point was that if a bacterium senses poison, it will avoid the poison. That was the whole purpose of his test: a conflict of interests which required a decision. He also noted that they swam extra fast. DAVID: The fast swim was an automatic response-You have ignored the conflict of interests which required a decision. But this is just one experiment. Do you in all honesty think that Margulis, Shapiro and Co have reached their conclusion without any evidence to back it?-DAVID: As before, I interpret them as using hyperbole. No difference, if one interprets what they do as using intelligent information.-You have scurried back to your nebulous “intelligent information”, which we already dissected ages ago. What is it supposed to mean here? There is “information” that comes to all organisms from outside and requires processing if they are to survive, adapt, or innovate. There is “information” within all organisms that enables them to do the processing. According to you the internal information was provided 3.8 billion years ago in the form of millions of computer programmes passed on by the first cells to cover every single innovation that led from bacteria to humans (plus most of Nature's Wonders). My counter hypothesis is that this internal information is in the form of intelligence (the equivalent of the human brain) which does its own processing and takes its own decisions. There is a colossal difference between the two, and it is the latter that the experts have described quite explicitly, without any hyperbole.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 23:13 (3196 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The intelligence of bacteria is central to my suggestion that evolution is driven by the inventiveness of organisms themselves, ....Your anthropocentric hypothesis leaves you wriggling around to explain the enormous diversity of life, and all its comings and goings, whereas mine gives a direct explanation.-'Direct explanation' does not correct explanation. Action by God is just as direct. > > dhw: You have scurried back to your nebulous “intelligent information”, which we already dissected ages ago. What is it supposed to mean here? There is “information” that comes to all organisms from outside and requires processing if they are to survive, adapt, or innovate. There is “information” within all organisms that enables them to do the processing.-Same issue. The original DNA of earliest life is a code that contains information. All codes contain information. Information just doesn't appear out of thin air. It can develop from thoughtful observation with experience or it can be given as in schooling.- dhw: My counter hypothesis is that this internal information is in the form of intelligence (the equivalent of the human brain) which does its own processing and takes its own decisions. There is a colossal difference between the two, and it is the latter that the experts have described quite explicitly, without any hyperbole.-What you are saying is, in the earliest single cell groups of molecules trying to act as life forms there was no information to run life, but somehow they had the intelligence to develop the information for life. It makes no sense at all. Living matter follows a continuum from the very first life to now. Understanding that life appears when DNA information is available for life is key to understanding the discussion about information. Information is never intelligence. Intelligence can interpret information and intelligence can create more information, but only after there is enough initial information to have life then create intelligence. Chicken and egg problem! No way around it, except panpsychism as an attribute of a panentheistic God.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: Your anthropocentric hypothesis leaves you wriggling around to explain the enormous diversity of life, and all its comings and goings, whereas mine gives a direct explanation. DAVID: 'Direct explanation' does not correct explanation. Action by God is just as direct.-Nobody knows the correct explanation, but direct “action” is not the issue. Your hypothesis that God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce humans he could relate to doesn't fit in with the vast diversity of organisms and lifestyles which you claim could only be the result of his preprogramming or dabbling. Why would he preprogramme the weaverbird's nest if his purpose was to relate to humans? My hypothesis explains the diversity because in its theistic version, God gives organisms the wherewithal to do their own thing.-dhw: You have scurried back to your nebulous “intelligent information”, which we already dissected ages ago. What is it supposed to mean here? There is “information” that comes to all organisms from outside and requires processing if they are to survive, adapt, or innovate. There is “information” within all organisms that enables them to do the processing. DAVID: Same issue. The original DNA of earliest life is a code that contains information. All codes contain information. Information just doesn't appear out of thin air. It can develop from thoughtful observation with experience or it can be given as in schooling.-The issue is not the origin of the original code (which may or may not be God's doing), but the mechanism that drives evolution. In my hypothesis, once the intelligent cells existed they would have learned from experience, and once they cooperated, they would also have learned from schooling (i.e. from one another's experiences). -DAVID:[...] Intelligence can interpret information and intelligence can create more information, but only after there is enough initial information to have life then create intelligence. Chicken and egg problem! No way around it, except panpsychism as an attribute of a panentheistic God.-Once more: the theory of evolution does not deal with the source of life and intelligence (which may or may not be your God), and nor does my hypothesis of the intelligent cell as its driving force. According to your hypothesis, what enables cells/cell communities to innovate is some kind of computer programme devised by God, which may look like intelligence but isn't. According to mine (theistic version), God gave the cells/cell communities intelligence.-DAVID: What is wrong with the simple concept of God guiding everything?-What is wrong is that it is not simple. Once more (my apologies for the umpteenth repetition): the first cells would have had to pass on millions of computer programmes that would switch themselves on automatically in billions of individual organisms, thus creating every innovation leading from bacteria to us, including a sudden flurry of switching on during the Cambrian. Throughout the billions of years, the programmes would also have had to cope with any number of environments, or alternatively God would have had to preprogramme the environmental changes. The programmes set up in the first cells contained not only all the innovations from single cell to human, but also the instructions for complex habitats and lifestyles. Alternatively, God personally fiddled with the insides of all the organisms to transform them, and personally created programmes for their habitats and lifestyles once they had been preprogrammed into existence. I don't see this as simple. -dhw: The Cambrian lasted 5-10 million years, which allows for quite a few generations (I calculated the number in an earlier post.) We must assume that the necessary changes did take place in the allotted time.... But mine [theory] does have a simple logic, if only I could get it across to you... DAVID: Not simple logic at all. Lets use an analogy: life is progressing along as very simple forms on a flat plain in the Precambrian times, and suddenly falls off a cliff into the Cambrian where it has amazingly changed into very complex multi-organ-system animals at the bottom. This is what the fossil record shows, no time for a change. [...] You are using the whole Cambrian to gloss over the suddenness. Won't work.-Let's try a different analogy. The Earth is covered with water. The water recedes. Freddy Fish sees dry land and decides to investigate. If the relevant parts of his body don't adapt straight away to breathing out of water, he will die. Many of his mates do die. But Freddy is the lucky one, and his cells manage to work it out in time. And his cells also work out that he'll get around much better if they do some rejigging, so they produce legs where once he had fins. My (hypothetical) intelligent mechanism exploits the opportunities provided by a new environment. A sudden major change in the environment could lead to a sudden burst of major innovations, but innovations that don't work straight away won't survive. That is the simple logic. Compare it to the scenario needed for your “guidance”, and tell me which is simpler.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 21:38 (3195 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: 'Direct explanation' does not [offer a] correct explanation. Action by God is just as direct. > > dhw: Nobody knows the correct explanation, but direct “action” is not the issue..... My hypothesis explains the diversity because in its theistic version, God gives organisms the wherewithal to do their own thing.-You are reasonably close to my view. We mortals cannot tell the difference between God helping organisms evolve either by direction or by an onboard mechanism for planning that He gives them.-> > dhw: The issue is not the origin of the original code (which may or may not be God's doing), but the mechanism that drives evolution. In my hypothesis, once the intelligent cells existed they would have learned from experience, and once they cooperated, they would also have learned from schooling (i.e. from one another's experiences).-Do we know how cells transmit learned information and process it without brain function? Very nebulous to me. But we do know how cells function through biochemical reactions.-> > dhw: Once more: the theory of evolution does not deal with the source of life and intelligence (which may or may not be your God), and nor does my hypothesis of the intelligent cell as its driving force. According to your hypothesis, what enables cells/cell communities to innovate is some kind of computer programme devised by God, which may look like intelligence but isn't. According to mine (theistic version), God gave the cells/cell communities intelligence.-Granted we don't know how life started, but the origin of life is entirely a part of what we must study. The first DNA must contain the information that drives evolution from the simple start to the more complex. That is what evolution has accomplished. Is that intelligence hiding in an undiscovered organelle in the cells we study or just part of the original DNA?- >> dhw:the first cells would have had to pass on millions of computer programmes that would switch themselves on automatically in billions of individual organisms, thus creating every innovation leading from bacteria to us, including a sudden flurry of switching on during the Cambrian. Throughout the billions of years, the programmes would also have had to cope with any number of environments, or alternatively God would have had to preprogramme the environmental changes. The programmes set up in the first cells contained not only all the innovations from single cell to human, but also the instructions for complex habitats and lifestyles. Alternatively, God personally fiddled with the insides of all the organisms to transform them, and personally created programmes for their habitats and lifestyles once they had been preprogrammed into existence. I don't see this as simple. -And I don't see all of this as too complex for God, but you have doubts about God. > dhw: Let's try a different analogy. .....And his cells also work out that he'll get around much better if they do some rejigging, so they produce legs where once he had fins.-The point you persist in missing (as obvious as your nose should be to you), is the geologic layers provide no time for experimentation. The new complex Cambrians are JUST THERE, as if out of thin air.-> dhw: My (hypothetical) intelligent mechanism exploits the opportunities provided by a new environment. A sudden major change in the environment could lead to a sudden burst of major innovations, but innovations that don't work straight away won't survive. That is the simple logic.-Then why was Darwin so worried about the 'Silurian' and posited that intermediate forms would be found, which they haven't? There is no known explanation for the GAP in steady development which is present throughout evolution at all other times.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw:..... My hypothesis explains the diversity because in its theistic version, God gives organisms the wherewithal to do their own thing. DAVID: You are reasonably close to my view. We mortals cannot tell the difference between God helping organisms evolve either by direction or by an onboard mechanism for planning that He gives them.-This sounds too good to be true. You have actually accepted my view: namely, it is possible (I stress that it's a hypothesis) that organisms have an inbuilt, autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism - or “onboard mechanism for planning” - which may have been provided by your God. -dhw: The issue is not the origin of the original code (which may or may not be God's doing), but the mechanism that drives evolution. In my hypothesis, once the intelligent cells existed they would have learned from experience, and once they cooperated, they would also have learned from schooling (i.e. from one another's experiences). DAVID: Do we know how cells transmit learned information and process it without brain function? Very nebulous to me. But we do know how cells function through biochemical reactions.-Back we go. We do not know how cells think. Nor do we know how human intelligence/consciousness works, though we do know how the brain functions through biochemical reactions.-dhw: Once more: the theory of evolution does not deal with the source of life and intelligence (which may or may not be your God), and nor does my hypothesis of the intelligent cell as its driving force. DAVID: Granted we don't know how life started, but the origin of life is entirely a part of what we must study. The first DNA must contain the information that drives evolution from the simple start to the more complex. -Or as you so rightly imply in your first comment, the first DNA must contain a mechanism that will autonomously gather and process the information necessary to drive evolution from the simple start to the more complex. DAVID: That is what evolution has accomplished. Is that intelligence hiding in an undiscovered organelle in the cells we study or just part of the original DNA?-You can ask the same question about your undiscovered 3.8-billion-year computer programme containing all the innovations from bacteria to human. Where is it hiding?-dhw: ...the first cells would have had to pass on millions of computer programmes that would switch themselves on automatically in billions of individual organisms, thus creating every innovation leading from bacteria to us, including a sudden flurry of switching on during the Cambrian etc. etc. DAVID: And I don't see all of this as too complex for God, but you have doubts about God.-Nothing is too complex for the God you believe in. But you had asked “What is wrong with the simple concept of God guiding everything?” I was pointing out that the concept was anything but simple.-dhw: Let's try a different analogy. .....And his cells also work out that he'll get around much better if they do some rejigging, so they produce legs where once he had fins. DAVID: The point you persist in missing (as obvious as your nose should be to you), is the geologic layers provide no time for experimentation. The new complex Cambrians are JUST THERE, as if out of thin air.-I answered that in the comment below. We are not talking about experimentation over a long period of time. If the experiment doesn't work, the organism dies! (However, in my example the breathing mechanism must change immediately, whereas fins to legs could undergo refinements.) dhw: My (hypothetical) intelligent mechanism exploits the opportunities provided by a new environment. A sudden major change in the environment could lead to a sudden burst of major innovations, but innovations that don't work straight away won't survive. That is the simple logic. DAVID: Then why was Darwin so worried about the 'Silurian' and posited that intermediate forms would be found, which they haven't? There is no known explanation for the GAP in steady development which is present throughout evolution at all other times.-Why do you always go back to Darwin? We have long since agreed that on this point Darwin was wrong - hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian was the biggest punctuation mark of all.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Thursday, July 30, 2015, 19:33 (3194 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: This sounds too good to be true. You have actually accepted my view: namely, it is possible (I stress that it's a hypothesis) that organisms have an inbuilt, autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism - or “onboard mechanism for planning” - which may have been provided by your God.-> > dhw: Back we go. We do not know how cells think.-If they do, which I doubt.- > dhw: Or as you so rightly imply in your first comment, the first DNA must contain a mechanism that will autonomously gather and process the information necessary to drive evolution from the simple start to the more complex.-Great. You accept it! > > DAVID: That is what evolution has accomplished. Is that intelligence hiding in an undiscovered organelle in the cells we study or just part of the original DNA? > > dhw: You can ask the same question about your undiscovered 3.8-billion-year computer programme containing all the innovations from bacteria to human. Where is it hiding?-As you just stated, in the genome DNA. > > dhw: Nothing is too complex for the God you believe in. But you had asked “What is wrong with the simple concept of God guiding everything?” I was pointing out that the concept was anything but simple.-There are theologians who describe God as simple, you should remember. > > dhw: I answered that in the comment below. We are not talking about experimentation over a long period of time. If the experiment doesn't work, the organism dies! (However, in my example the breathing mechanism must change immediately, whereas fins to legs could undergo refinements.)-In the Cambrian there are no refinements, just very now complex animals. > > dhw: Why do you always go back to Darwin? We have long since agreed that on this point Darwin was wrong - hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian was the biggest punctuation mark of all.-But how do you explain the punctuation in the Cambrian, except as above, as you stated, hidden in the original DNA?
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: We mortals cannot tell the difference between God helping organisms evolve either by direction or by an onboard mechanism for planning that He gives them.-dhw: This sounds too good to be true. You have actually accepted my view: namely, it is possible (I stress that it's a hypothesis) that organisms have an inbuilt, autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism - or “onboard mechanism for planning” - which may have been provided by your God. DAVID: The first DNA must contain the information that drives evolution from the simple start to the more complex. dhw: Or as you so rightly imply in your first comment, the first DNA must contain a mechanism that will autonomously gather and process the information necessary to drive evolution from the simple start to the more complex.-DAVID: Great. You accept it!-Accept what? I am distinguishing between your original “information that drives evolution” - which suggests your 3.8-billlion-year-old plan - and my autonomous inventive mechanism, or “mechanism for planning”, which you appear at last to have accepted as a feasible alternative (though you still say you doubt whether cells think). I don't know why you've suddenly sneaked in the question of the location as if that was the issue we were discussing.-DAVID: That is what evolution has accomplished. Is that intelligence hiding in an undiscovered organelle in the cells we study or just part of the original DNA?-dhw: You can ask the same question about your undiscovered 3.8-billion-year computer programme containing all the innovations from bacteria to human. Where is it hiding? DAVID: As you just stated, in the genome DNA.-I didn't state the location - you did, and I simply repeated your phrasing in order to distinguish between the two hypothetical driving forces. I have always stated that the inventive mechanism must have been present in the first cells, which is as far as I can go, but I'm quite happy to change that to the first DNA if it makes you happy! -dhw: Nothing is too complex for the God you believe in. But you had asked “What is wrong with the simple concept of God guiding everything?” I was pointing out that the concept was anything but simple. DAVID: There are theologians who describe God as simple, you should remember.-Totally irrelevant. You described God's guided evolution as a simple process, and I showed you just how complex it would have had to be. I don't need to repeat it all, do I?-dhw: Why do you always go back to Darwin? We have long since agreed that on this point Darwin was wrong - hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian was the biggest punctuation mark of all. DAVID: But how do you explain the punctuation in the Cambrian, except as above, as you stated, hidden in the original DNA?-As you stated above, through an “onboard mechanism for planning”, which is the exact opposite of an onboard mechanism for automatically carrying out plans already made 3 billion years earlier. (The location of the mechanism is a separate issue.)
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Friday, July 31, 2015, 22:54 (3193 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You can ask the same question about your undiscovered 3.8-billion-year computer programme containing all the innovations from bacteria to human. Where is it hiding? > DAVID: As you just stated, in the genome DNA. > > dhw: I didn't state the location - you did, and I simply repeated your phrasing in order to distinguish between the two hypothetical driving forces. I have always stated that the inventive mechanism must have been present in the first cells, which is as far as I can go, but I'm quite happy to change that to the first DNA if it makes you happy!-The point to be emphasized is that DNA is the code of life. Since we know of no other code, just modifying mechanisms to the expression of genes in DNA, any complexity causing mechanism or inventive mechanism must reside there. > > dhw: You described God's guided evolution as a simple process, and I showed you just how complex it would have had to be. I don't need to repeat it all, do I?-For humans the planning would appear to be very complex, but in my view not for God. > > dhw: As you stated above, through an “onboard mechanism for planning”, which is the exact opposite of an onboard mechanism for automatically carrying out plans already made 3 billion years earlier. (The location of the mechanism is a separate issue.)-I've always said I don't know if plans for complexity are 3.8 billion years old or devolve from guidelines as issues appear. but I'm convinced the mechanism has to be in DNA.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: You can ask the same question about your undiscovered 3.8-billion-year computer programme containing all the innovations from bacteria to human. Where is it hiding? DAVID: As you just stated, in the genome DNA. dhw: I didn't state the location - you did, and I simply repeated your phrasing in order to distinguish between the two hypothetical driving forces. I have always stated that the inventive mechanism must have been present in the first cells, which is as far as I can go, but I'm quite happy to change that to the first DNA if it makes you happy! DAVID: The point to be emphasized is that DNA is the code of life. Since we know of no other code, just modifying mechanisms to the expression of genes in DNA, any complexity causing mechanism or inventive mechanism must reside there. -That's fine with me. The point to be emphasized is that you have at long last agreed to the possibility that evolution might be driven by an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism within the cell. Whereabouts it is situated in the cell is a different issue.-dhw: You described God's guided evolution as a simple process, and I showed you just how complex it would have had to be. I don't need to repeat it all, do I?-DAVID: For humans the planning would appear to be very complex, but in my view not for God.-Sorry, but when you described God's guided evolution (i.e. a colossal set of computer programmes passed down from the first cells through billions of years to billions of organisms to switch on as and when the time was right, catering for all environments - or alternatively God personally fiddling around with the insides of billions of organisms) as a “simple process”, I thought you were speaking for David Turell and not for God.-dhw: As you stated above, through an “onboard mechanism for planning”, which is the exact opposite of an onboard mechanism for automatically carrying out plans already made 3 billion years earlier. (The location of the mechanism is a separate issue.) DAVID: I've always said I don't know if plans for complexity are 3.8 billion years old or devolve from guidelines as issues appear. but I'm convinced the mechanism has to be in DNA.-“Devolve from guidelines as issues appear” (what you used to call God's dabbling) is very different from the “onboard mechanism for planning” you agreed to on Wednesday July 29 as an alternative to your 3.8 billion-year-old programme. I hope these obfuscations are not an attempt to backtrack on our historic agreement.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Sunday, August 02, 2015, 14:54 (3191 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You described God's guided evolution as a simple process, and I showed you just how complex it would have had to be. I don't need to repeat it all, do I? > > DAVID: For humans the planning would appear to be very complex, but in my view not for God. > > dhw: Sorry, but when you described God's guided evolution (i.e. a colossal set of computer programmes passed down from the first cells through billions of years to billions of organisms to switch on as and when the time was right, catering for all environments - or alternatively God personally fiddling around with the insides of billions of organisms) as a “simple process”, I thought you were speaking for David Turell and not for God.-In the other thread with answers for Tony I've explained my view of God-guided evolution. > > dhw: As you stated above, through an “onboard mechanism for planning”, which is the exact opposite of an onboard mechanism for automatically carrying out plans already made 3 billion years earlier. (The location of the mechanism is a separate issue.) > DAVID: I've always said I don't know if plans for complexity are 3.8 billion years old or devolve from guidelines as issues appear. but I'm convinced the mechanism has to be in DNA. > > dhw: “Devolve from guidelines as issues appear” (what you used to call God's dabbling) is very different from the “onboard mechanism for planning” you agreed to on Wednesday July 29 as an alternative to your 3.8 billion-year-old programme. I hope these obfuscations are not an attempt to backtrack on our historic agreement.-I've never left my background thought that all of evolution is under God's guidance, which means any inventive mechanism is semi-autonomous.
More Denton: Reply to David
I'm transferring your "Tony" answers back to this part of the Denton thread. -TONY: ... don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme? DAVID: Thank you for this wonderful point. If weaverbirds set out to invent their nest design in a population of birds, one would expect several different designs instead of all the same... dhw: Once a pattern is successful, it is passed on: this applies to habitats and lifestyles and (for David, not Tony) all the innovations that led from bacteria to humans. What designed these protopatterns?-DAVID: Of course 'once a pattern is successful it is passed on', but that fudges the issue. I've seen all sorts of birds nests that are successful for all sorts of birds. Why is each nest specific for each type of bird? It all makes evolution look patterned and planned or designed. Tony's point holds.-So we now have your God preprogramming the first living cells with every type of nest, or alternatively dabbling to instruct each species of bird how to do it. And that's before we even consider every animal and insect that also creates its own home and lifestyle. (I wonder how all this fits in with your belief that God's purpose in creating the universe was to produce humans.) My proposal: each type of bird has its own type of intelligence, and each originally designed its own nest to fit in with its own requirements. Once it had proved efficacious for the particular type of bird, the “blueprint” was passed on. Evolution is patterned and planned and designed by organisms as and when new patterns/plans/designs are needed or made possible.-dhw: Thank you both for your support. (Glad you joined in, David. Any chance of your informing Tony why you think he's wrong over common descent?)-DAVID: My view is firm. I believe in the science of aging fossils, even if the estimates vary by 10-20%. Over 3.8 billion years of life, the inaccuracies are of little import. There is a progression from simple to very complex, with gaps that refute Darwin and chance. Therefore evolution occurred but not as a natural process. It was guided by God.-This = options 3) and 4) in my response to Tony. Thank you. DAVID: And this removes any sense of my agreement about your continuous use of the word 'autonomous' in regard to an onboard IM. In this scenario only 'semi-autonomous' works. -On 29 July you wrote: “We mortals cannot tell the difference between God helping organisms evolve either by direction or by an onboard mechanism for planning that He gives them.” I commented that it sounded too good to be true, and of course it was, because as usual you have gone scampering back to your nebulous “guidance” or “direction”, and “semi-autonomous”. Firstly, then, can you think of any form of guidance or direction that does not involve preprogramming or direct intervention? -Before you scurry back to another of your favourite hideaways: organisms can only act within the limitations imposed by their own nature and their environment. This does not mean they cannot do their own planning/inventing autonomously within those limitations. So secondly, how can an organism be said to “plan” or “invent” (you have accepted the term inventive mechanism) if it is preprogrammed or directed to act in a certain way? In other words, please explain what "semi-autonomy" means in this context.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Monday, August 03, 2015, 17:01 (3190 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course 'once a pattern is successful it is passed on', but that fudges the issue. I've seen all sorts of birds nests that are successful for all sorts of birds. Why is each nest specific for each type of bird? It all makes evolution look patterned and planned or designed. Tony's point holds. > > dhw: My proposal: each type of bird has its own type of intelligence, and each originally designed its own nest to fit in with its own requirements. Once it had proved efficacious for the particular type of bird, the “blueprint” was passed on. Evolution is patterned and planned and designed by organisms as and when new patterns/plans/designs are needed or made possible.-If you simply recognize that God gives each bird its intelligence, then the plans and patterns and designs make perfect sense. You seem to prefer a scattershot view of evolution reminiscent of Darwin's approach with trials going forth in every direction until the survivors are sorted out. lots of wasted effort. The Cambrian explosion belies this. No scattershot fossils in the gap. > > DAVID: And this removes any sense of my agreement about your continuous use of the word 'autonomous' in regard to an onboard IM. In this scenario only 'semi-autonomous' works. > > dhw: Firstly, then, can you think of any form of guidance or direction that does not involve preprogramming or direct intervention?-Frankly, no. Guidelines limit invention to certain pathways, but considering the wonders of Nature, those guidelines are broad, although I continue to believe that humans were the goal. > > dhw:In other words, please explain what "semi-autonomy" means in this context.-Answered above.
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: Of course 'once a pattern is successful it is passed on', but that fudges the issue. I've seen all sorts of birds nests that are successful for all sorts of birds. Why is each nest specific for each type of bird? It all makes evolution look patterned and planned or designed. Tony's point holds. dhw: My proposal: each type of bird has its own type of intelligence, and each originally designed its own nest to fit in with its own requirements. Once it had proved efficacious for the particular type of bird, the “blueprint” was passed on. Evolution is patterned and planned and designed by organisms as and when new patterns/plans/designs are needed or made possible.-DAVID: If you simply recognize that God gives each bird its intelligence, then the plans and patterns and designs make perfect sense. You seem to prefer a scattershot view of evolution reminiscent of Darwin's approach with trials going forth in every direction until the survivors are sorted out. lots of wasted effort. The Cambrian explosion belies this. No scattershot fossils in the gap.-So now you agree that my proposal makes perfect sense, on condition that God gave each bird its intelligence - a possibility I have acknowledged from the very first time I presented this hypothesis. Thank you. -I have never proposed a scattershot evolution: the whole point of the inventive mechanism is that intelligent beings (from bacteria to humans) target their activities. They are not preprogrammed or directed, but do their own thing - and that is the cause of evolution's diversity. This may appear scattershot to you, because the diversity clearly contradicts your reiterated belief that humans were the goal. It is also an explanation for the Cambrian: there are no gaps, because each innovation would have been produced (it is a hypothesis) by the intelligent inventiveness of the organisms themselves. Please do not twist my proposal, and please do not pretend that I have excluded God when all along I have emphasized that it is meant to explain the course of evolution, whether initiated by God or not. -DAVID: And this removes any sense of my agreement about your continuous use of the word 'autonomous' in regard to an onboard IM. In this scenario only 'semi-autonomous' works. dhw: Firstly, then, can you think of any form of guidance or direction that does not involve preprogramming or direct intervention? DAVID: Frankly, no. Guidelines limit invention to certain pathways, but considering the wonders of Nature, those guidelines are broad, although I continue to believe that humans were the goal.-What guidelines, apart from “the limitations imposed by their own nature and their environment”? I pointed out that “This does not mean they cannot do their own planning/inventing autonomously within those limitations,” and I asked: “How can an organism be said to “plan” or “invent”...if it is preprogrammed or directed to act in a certain way?" The fact that these limitations (which are not guidelines, because they do not guide the organism - they only impose restrictions) are broad and you believe humans were the goal does not answer my question.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 17:38 (3189 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: the whole point of the inventive mechanism is that intelligent beings (from bacteria to humans) target their activities. They are not preprogrammed or directed, but do their own thing - and that is the cause of evolution's diversity. This may appear scattershot to you, because the diversity clearly contradicts your reiterated belief that humans were the goal. It is also an explanation for the Cambrian: there are no gaps, because each innovation would have been produced (it is a hypothesis) by the intelligent inventiveness of the organisms themselves. Please do not twist my proposal, and please do not pretend that I have excluded God when all along I have emphasized that it is meant to explain the course of evolution, whether initiated by God or not. -In my view the inventive mechanism is represented by the epigenetic changes we are seeing in current research, that is, adaptations to specific challenges in nature. It can never produce new species by itself. And it can never explain the Cambrian under my interpretation. The 'gap' in the Cambrian is that there is no fossil bridge between the simple pre-Cambrian organisms and the complexity that abruptly appears. The utter complexity of each organ system is mindboggling. Each system has thermostatic, hydrostatic, electrolytic limitations, and is intimately connected with neurologic and hormonal control systems. And with mammals even to the point of milk production. In my view only God can do this, because of the complex planning to create and coordinate each part so they work together to create life.-> > dhw:The fact that these limitations (which are not guidelines, because they do not guide the organism - they only impose restrictions) are broad and you believe humans were the goal does not answer my question.-It does answer the question in my context that only God can create new species. The same either/or result: on onboard mechanism with full instructions or direct intervention. My guidelines come with full instructions. Where they are limitations is in the area of epigenetic alterations within species that maintain species identity. Whether epigenetic changes can create new species is unknown at this time but I doubt it.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: “How can an organism be said to “plan” or “invent”...if it is preprogrammed or directed to act in a certain way?” The fact that these limitations *** (which are not guidelines, because they do not guide the organism - they only impose restrictions) are broad and you believe humans were the goal does not answer my question.-*** The limitations imposed on organisms by their own nature and their environment-DAVID: It does answer the question in my context that only God can create new species. The same either/or result: on onboard mechanism with full instructions or direct intervention. My guidelines come with full instructions. Where they are limitations is in the area of epigenetic alterations within species that maintain species identity. Whether epigenetic changes can create new species is unknown at this time but I doubt it.-Thank you for this answer and the earlier part of your post expressing the same view.... I am going to put it into my own words, in an attempt to end all the misunderstandings. Firstly, “full instructions” and “direct intervention” do not leave room even for semi-autonomy (whatever that means) or inventiveness or planning. According to you, every single innovation - and also every complex lifestyle (monarch butterfly, plover) and constructed home (weaverbird's nest, anthill) - was the result either of a full programme passed down from the very first cells of 3.8 thousand million years ago, or of God directly manipulating the genome of all the organisms involved. God also set up programmes for adaptation (epigenetic alterations), though presumably he organized these in such a way that they would not work for vast numbers of species, which would die out. His purpose in all this was to produce humans.-Please correct any errors. And if you haven't already done so, do please read Tony's penetrating critique of your hypothesis (“Reply to Tony”: August 3 at 21.13).
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 14:22 (3188 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you for this answer and the earlier part of your post expressing the same view.... I am going to put it into my own words, in an attempt to end all the misunderstandings. Firstly, “full instructions” and “direct intervention” do not leave room even for semi-autonomy (whatever that means) or inventiveness or planning. According to you, every single innovation - and also every complex lifestyle (monarch butterfly, plover) and constructed home (weaverbird's nest, anthill) - was the result either of a full programme passed down from the very first cells of 3.8 thousand million years ago, or of God directly manipulating the genome of all the organisms involved. God also set up programmes for adaptation (epigenetic alterations), though presumably he organized these in such a way that they would not work for vast numbers of species, which would die out. His purpose in all this was to produce humans. > > Please correct any errors. And if you haven't already done so, do please read Tony's penetrating critique of your hypothesis (“Reply to Tony”: August 3 at 21.13).-I've read his entry and now re-read it. I think Tony struggles to fit the OT statements into current scientific findings about genetics and evolution, while I struggle to just use science. He seems to view God as an efficient programmer, which is what one would expect knowing his background. As God programs life, what is most obvious to me is the change in DNA. Some of the simplest organisms have enormous DNA sizes with few genes. Humans have a small DNA in comparison, with many overlying coded controls, as if God refined His programming as evolution proceeded. This is partially why I think theistic evolution is the proper theory.- All of our hypotheses are educated guesswork. You have summarized my approach well.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: Thank you for this answer and the earlier part of your post expressing the same view.... I am going to put it into my own words, in an attempt to end all the misunderstandings. Firstly, “full instructions” and “direct intervention” do not leave room even for semi-autonomy (whatever that means) or inventiveness or planning. According to you, every single innovation - and also every complex lifestyle (monarch butterfly, plover) and constructed home (weaverbird's nest, anthill) - was the result either of a full programme passed down from the very first cells of 3.8 thousand million years ago, or of God directly manipulating the genome of all the organisms involved. God also set up programmes for adaptation (epigenetic alterations), though presumably he organized these in such a way that they would not work for vast numbers of species, which would die out. His purpose in all this was to produce humans. -DAVID: All of our hypotheses are educated guesswork. You have summarized my approach well.-I'm glad you approve of the summary. I can well understand why you say you “struggle to just use science” (see below). I suspect that any scientist reading this would advise you to give up the struggle. (In fairness, though, I'm glad you haven't!)-Dhw: ...do please read Tony's penetrating critique of your hypothesis (“Reply to Tony”: August 3 at 21.13).-DAVID: I've read his entry and now re-read it. I think Tony struggles to fit the OT statements into current scientific findings about genetics and evolution, while I struggle to just use science. He seems to view God as an efficient programmer, which is what one would expect knowing his background. -It is your own hypothesis of an astonishingly efficient 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme that Tony has criticized. He wrote: “You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical.” That echoes my own criticism. -DAVID: As God programs life, what is most obvious to me is the change in DNA. Some of the simplest organisms have enormous DNA sizes with few genes. Humans have a small DNA in comparison, with many overlying coded controls, as if God refined His programming as evolution proceeded. This is partially why I think theistic evolution is the proper theory.-There is an interesting variation here. If God did “refine the programme” as he went along (another form of your “dabbling”), do you visualize him personally dipping into the innards of all the individual organisms concerned to change their programme, or sitting at some great console in the firmament, or doing it all by telekinesis? You must have SOME idea of how God might change the programme (or “dabble”).
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Thursday, August 06, 2015, 21:45 (3187 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is your own hypothesis of an astonishingly efficient 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme that Tony has criticized. He wrote: “You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical.” That echoes my own criticism. > > DAVID: As God programs life, what is most obvious to me is the change in DNA. Some of the simplest organisms have enormous DNA sizes with few genes. Humans have a small DNA in comparison, with many overlying coded controls, as if God refined His programming as evolution proceeded. This is partially why I think theistic evolution is the proper theory. > > dhw:There is an interesting variation here. If God did “refine the programme” as he went along (another form of your “dabbling”), do you visualize him personally dipping into the innards of all the individual organisms concerned to change their programme, or sitting at some great console in the firmament, or doing it all by telekinesis? You must have SOME idea of how God might change the programme (or “dabble”).-I have admitted over and over that I have no idea how God does it, and I am sure He is still active. We know the information is in DNA and its overlying control layers. We know evolution follows patterns established in the beginning of life. Therefore there must be an overall control program which God can tweak somehow. That is as far as I can go.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw:There is an interesting variation here. If God did “refine the programme” as he went along (another form of your “dabbling”), do you visualize him personally dipping into the innards of all the individual organisms concerned to change their programme, or sitting at some great console in the firmament, or doing it all by telekinesis? You must have SOME idea of how God might change the programme (or “dabble”).-DAVID: I have admitted over and over that I have no idea how God does it, and I am sure He is still active. We know the information is in DNA and its overlying control layers. We know evolution follows patterns established in the beginning of life. Therefore there must be an overall control program which God can tweak somehow. That is as far as I can go.-Or maybe that is as far as you are prepared to go. You do not hesitate to impose a purpose on your God - who you believe designed the universe in order to produce humans - and you do not hesitate to propose two methods of production: a 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or direct intervention. That, you say, is “how he does it”. But the curiosity that has led you from your agnosticism to your panentheism somehow deserts you when it comes to the practicalities of your hypotheses. It's only when alternatives are proposed that you want to know details: e.g. the evidence and whereabouts of an inventive mechanism in the cell (though no-one has discovered the computer programme either), and how cellular intelligence could design complex organs (though you have no idea how God could insert or refine his programmes in millions of organisms). One law for the theist and another for the agnostic?
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, August 08, 2015, 14:20 (3185 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:You do not hesitate to impose a purpose on your God - who you believe designed the universe in order to produce humans - and you do not hesitate to propose two methods of production: a 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or direct intervention. That, you say, is “how he does it”.-From my exchange with Tony:-Saturday, August 08, 2015, 04:16 - David: Which makes the appearance of the Cambrian organisms even more amazing and brings to the fore your description how God's computer program might work, i.e., no need for precursors.- Tony; Unfortunately, without assuming direct prototype creation, the assumption has to be that all possibilities were in the original source code. I'm not certain the evidence supports that. Of course, we have no access to the original source code, so...-David: It has to be one or the other.-Doesn't it?- > dhw: But the curiosity that has led you from your agnosticism to your panentheism somehow deserts you when it comes to the practicalities of your hypotheses. It's only when alternatives are proposed that you want to know details: e.g. the evidence and whereabouts of an inventive mechanism in the cell (though no-one has discovered the computer programme either), -Isn't the computer program the DNA code and all the overlying modification mechanisms that translate, suppress gene function, methylate, etc.? And God should be able to step in and re-write. How else might we get new species?
More Denton: Reply to David
by BBella , Saturday, August 08, 2015, 18:55 (3185 days ago) @ David Turell
How else might we get new species?-In my opinion, it is more likely "new" species that just suddenly showed up could have been brought here by more advanced species that either created them or periodically gathered different species from other planets and brought them here. For me, that's the simplest answer. Though I have know idea if it's true.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, August 08, 2015, 19:54 (3185 days ago) @ BBella
David:How else might we get new species? > > BBella: In my opinion, it is more likely "new" species that just suddenly showed up could have been brought here by more advanced species that either created them or periodically gathered different species from other planets and brought them here. For me, that's the simplest answer. Though I have know idea if it's true.-I assume you mean from planets in other solar systems. I suspect we are the only current life in the universe.
More Denton: Reply to David
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 08, 2015, 23:50 (3185 days ago) @ David Turell
I tend to agree with David on this one.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: Reply to David
Dhw: You do not hesitate to impose a purpose on your God - who you believe designed the universe in order to produce humans - and you do not hesitate to propose two methods of production: a 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or direct intervention. That, you say, is “how he does it”. But the curiosity that has led you from your agnosticism to your panentheism somehow deserts you when it comes to the practicalities of your hypotheses. It's only when alternatives are proposed that you want to know details: e.g. the evidence and whereabouts of an inventive mechanism in the cell (though no-one has discovered the computer programme either), and how cells could be intelligent enough to design complex organs (though you have no idea how God could insert or refine his programmes in millions of organisms). One law for the theist and another for the agnostic?-DAVID: Isn't the computer programme the DNA code and all the overlying modification mechanisms that translate, suppress gene function, methylate, etc.? And God should be able to step in and re-write. How else might we get new species?-The programme has to be whatever directs the mechanisms to change the DNA (innovate). According to you they are incapable of self-direction. And according to you, there is no autonomous mechanism capable of devising particular lifestyles and specially constructed residences. So either the undiscovered programme for all of these was built into the first cells (whose purpose was to produce human beings), or God (whose purpose was to produce human beings) stepped in and rewrote the programmes. And you have no idea how he might “step in”.-DAVID: It has to be one or the other. Doesn't it?-No. Theistic version of my hypothesis: God might have endowed cells/cell communities with the intelligence to direct themselves (though many fail - hence extinction) as and when the environment - which in your version God must also have preprogrammed/dabbled with, or left to chance - required or facilitated change.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Sunday, August 09, 2015, 17:31 (3184 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The programme has to be whatever directs the mechanisms to change the DNA (innovate). .... So either the undiscovered programme for all of these was built into the first cells (whose purpose was to produce human beings), or God (whose purpose was to produce human beings) stepped in and rewrote the programmes. And you have no idea how he might “step in”.-The first cells had DNA programs, no doubt. I think God wrote them. Codes do not write themselves. They are written with purpose in mind. And it is not 'how He might step in, it is whether he steps in. - > > dhw: Theistic version of my hypothesis: God might have endowed cells/cell communities with the intelligence to direct themselves (though many fail - hence extinction) as and when the environment - which in your version God must also have preprogrammed/dabbled with, or left to chance - required or facilitated change.-Not far from my thoughts. Intelligent instructions from the beginning and/or dabbling.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: The programme has to be whatever directs the mechanisms to change the DNA (innovate). .... So either the undiscovered programme for all of these was built into the first cells (whose purpose was to produce human beings), or God (whose purpose was to produce human beings) stepped in and rewrote the programmes. And you have no idea how he might “step in”.-DAVID: The first cells had DNA programs, no doubt. I think God wrote them. Codes do not write themselves. They are written with purpose in mind. And it is not 'how He might step in, it is whether he steps in.-You have neatly sidestepped the two issues. For the sake of this discussion, I am still wearing my theist hat, and the issue is not whether God wrote the codes, but whether God gave cells the intelligence to use and change those codes. Secondly, I challenged you on the practicalities of your hypothesis of God “stepping in”: “do you visualize him personally dipping into the innards of all the individual organisms concerned to change their programme, or sitting at some great console in the firmament, or doing it all by telekinesis?” You replied: “I have no idea how God does it.” That is why I complained that you were only willing to discuss practicalities when dealing with alternatives to your hypothesis. Double standards.-dhw: Theistic version of my hypothesis: God might have endowed cells/cell communities with the intelligence to direct themselves (though many fail - hence extinction) as and when the environment - which in your version God must also have preprogrammed/dabbled with, or left to chance - required or facilitated change.-DAVID: Not far from my thoughts. Intelligent instructions from the beginning and/or dabbling.-My hypothesis could hardly be further from your thoughts, though you are doing your best to obfuscate with this flabby use of “intelligent”. In my hypothesis cellular intelligence is autonomous and cells/cell communities are not automatons merely obeying God's instructions but are able (in some cases) to work things out for themselves as conditions change.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Monday, August 10, 2015, 17:30 (3183 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:You replied: “I have no idea how God does it.” That is why I complained that you were only willing to discuss practicalities when dealing with alternatives to your hypothesis. Double standards.-Your problem as an agnostic is that you want exactitude at every level of discussion. I can only reach certain conclusions that will have fuzzy edges, but are the best fit for what I observe, some of which is based on previous decisions. My viewpoint is a series of conclusions, which can be changed as science advances. > > dhw: My hypothesis could hardly be further from your thoughts, though you are doing your best to obfuscate with this flabby use of “intelligent”. In my hypothesis cellular intelligence is autonomous and cells/cell communities are not automatons merely obeying God's instructions but are able (in some cases) to work things out for themselves as conditions change.-Does initial life start with information in DNA or not? The controls of all subsequent life is based on this question. Epigenetic changes appear to modify the expression of DNA genes, but not to change the underlying DNA. What cells can add is modulating information, not the basic start of life information.
More Denton: Reply to David
I'm combining various posts, as they are deal with the same subject,-dhw: You replied: “I have no idea how God does it.” That is why I complained that you were only willing to discuss practicalities when dealing with alternatives to your hypothesis. Double standards. DAVID: Your problem as an agnostic is that you want exactitude at every level of discussion. I can only reach certain conclusions that will have fuzzy edges, but are the best fit for what I observe, some of which is based on previous decisions. My viewpoint is a series of conclusions, which can be changed as science advances.-Your problem as a theist is that you want exactitude at every level of discussion that entails a different view from your own. I am unable to reach certain conclusions because I do not regard the fuzzy edges of one hypothesis as any less fuzzy than those of other hypotheses. Your conclusion that God preprogrammed the first cells with every future innovation, lifestyle and constructed home, or personally intervened to organize them - like your conclusion that God's purpose in starting life was to produce humans - has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and so I doubt very much if it will change as science advances. DAVID: Does initial life start with information in DNA or not? The controls of all subsequent life is based on this question. Epigenetic changes appear to modify the expression of DNA genes, but not to change the underlying DNA. What cells can add is modulating information, not the basic start of life information.-Your “basic start of life information” is a billion and one programmes in the first cells which will control all subsequent life by automatically and mindlessly changing the underlying DNA in all their descendants; mine gives the first cells an intelligence which has a vast potential for changing the DNA as their descendants learn to cooperate in new combinations and in new environments, collecting more and more information as they do so. -dhw (under “Reply to Tony”): Most people would say our inventive mechanism is the brain, and my version of the cellular inventive mechanism is the equivalent of the cell's "brain". DAVID: You sound like the Tin Woodman or Scarecrow, can't remember which, in the Wizard of Oz: "if the cells only had a brain".-It's the Scarecrow, and the irony of the matter was that the scarecrow was actually the smartest of them all. Thank you for an excellent analogy.-dhw: (Under "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis") You are - thank heavens! - more polite than Dawkins, but perhaps my use of the word will make you hesitate to dismiss completely the many years of research into what after all is a highly specialized subject. I am not denying your right to your opinion - I just wish it was a little less firm!-DAVID: But I've read Shapiro's book and still have the same conclusion.-I have read your book, and remain an agnostic. What does that prove? It's true that conclusions depend on how we evaluate evidence and arguments, but I would feel very uncomfortable dismissing the conclusions of experts in such a specialized subject, particularly when the only argument you seem to offer is that from the outside one can't tell the difference between intelligent action and automatism. (A determinist could use the same argument against free will, but you would expect a bit more than that, wouldn't you?) dhw: I like the example of the Egyptian plover and the Nile crocodile because it doesn't involve biochemical relationships - only communication and cooperation between the two organisms. DAVID: Of course you like it. Cooperating animals are light years apart from symbiotic biochemical relationships.-The example is still one of symbiosis, which simply entails interdependence and mutual benefit. I developed the point below: -dhw: Not so complex, but perhaps a guide as to how the process develops. Yes, all symbiotic relationships raise the chicken and egg problem, but I don't agree that each organism has to plan its response in advance of the experiment. I don't see why they shouldn't (sometimes) follow the same path as we often do, when we set out to see what will happen if....The first step might simply be communication and an agreement to cooperate. Tony's explanation (if he rejects autonomous intelligence) apparently entails God's preprogramming both variations of their respective prototypes at the same time,-DAVID: I'll buy Tony's approach, but not yours which uses comparisons to how humans approach the problem. The symbiosis involves intricately planned biochemical interactions.-Tony's approach entails separate creation of every prototype. Since when did you buy separate creation as opposed to evolution? Perhaps your constant focus on humans as the be-all and end-all, different in kind and not degree, blinds you to the fact that if humans evolved from earlier forms of life, they may have inherited certain behavioural traits, and these might include intelligent experimentation. When pressed, Tony himself has admitted that he is not prepared to say whether these biochemical interactions are preprogrammed, dabbled, or the result of God giving organisms the ability to work it out for themselves, because “we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.” What part of his approach do you now buy?
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 19:21 (3182 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Your conclusion that God preprogrammed the first cells with every future innovation, lifestyle and constructed home, or personally intervened to organize them - like your conclusion that God's purpose in starting life was to produce humans - has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and so I doubt very much if it will change as science advances.-My thinking has come totally from the science articles and interpretative books on science I have read. I anticipate that science will continue to show more and more complexity in the biochemistry of life, and therefore demand that design be accepted. The same holds true for cosmologic understanding of the universe, which so far has the appearance of being created.-> dhw: Your “basic start of life information” is a billion and one programmes in the first cells which will control all subsequent life by automatically and mindlessly changing the underlying DNA in all their descendants; mine gives the first cells an intelligence which has a vast potential for changing the DNA as their descendants learn to cooperate in new combinations and in new environments, collecting more and more information as they do so. -But all we know cells can do is modify the existing code and the information it contains. Epigenetic markers change gene expression. Mutations modify genes and according to the experts tend to destroy existing information, which is why I am of the opinion God runs evolution. Organisms appear to be incapable of doing it themselves.-> dhw: particularly when the only argument you seem to offer is that from the outside one can't tell the difference between intelligent action and automatism. (A determinist could use the same argument against free will, but you would expect a bit more than that, wouldn't you?)-No, we sense free will but as it is part of consciousness it presents the same problem when looking at a functional brain from the outside. Note my discussions with Romansh.-> > Tony's approach entails separate creation of every prototype. Since when did you buy separate creation as opposed to evolution?-My theistic evolution theory is akin to Tony in many ways. Guided evolution is very similar to separate creations.-> dhw: Perhaps your constant focus on humans as the be-all and end-all, different in kind and not degree, blinds you to the fact that if humans evolved from earlier forms of life, they may have inherited certain behavioural traits, and these might include intelligent experimentation. When pressed, Tony himself has admitted that he is not prepared to say whether these biochemical interactions are preprogrammed, dabbled, or the result of God giving organisms the ability to work it out for themselves, because “we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.” What part of his approach do you now buy?-I'm still the same. I'll buy Tony if the ability to 'work it out' includes God-given guidelines.
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: My thinking has come totally from the science articles and interpretative books on science I have read. I anticipate that science will continue to show more and more complexity in the biochemistry of life, and therefore demand that design be accepted. The same holds true for cosmologic understanding of the universe, which so far has the appearance of being created.-It is obvious from all the articles you have so generously posted that science is already uncovering more and more complexity in the biochemistry of life. I agree that design of some kind has to be accepted, but the various hypotheses concerning the origin of that design are all riddled with “fuzz”. Let me boldly match your prophecy by anticipating that science will never confirm divine preprogramming of the first living cells with all future innovations, lifestyles and nests, or divine intervention to produce them, or that your God's purpose in creating the universe and life was to produce human beings. -dhw: [My hypothesis] gives the first cells an intelligence which has a vast potential for changing the DNA as their descendants learn to cooperate in new combinations and in new environments, collecting more and more information as they do so. DAVID: But all we know cells can do is modify the existing code and the information it contains. Epigenetic markers change gene expression. Mutations modify genes and according to the experts tend to destroy existing information, which is why I am of the opinion God runs evolution. Organisms appear to be incapable of doing it themselves.-“All we know” is that innovations took place (sorry, Tony, this is strictly between us evolutionists), but have not done so for a very long time. Clearly the cause lies beyond what we know now. ALL hypotheses are therefore based on speculation, and speculation about a divine 3.8 billion-year computer programme (undiscovered) or divine dabbling (procedure unknown) has even less scientific backing than speculation about a (possibly God-given) autonomous cellular intelligence. dhw: ... the only argument you seem to offer is that from the outside one can't tell the difference between intelligent action and automatism. (A determinist could use the same argument against free will, but you would expect a bit more than that, wouldn't you?)-DAVID: No, we sense free will but as it is part of consciousness it presents the same problem when looking at a functional brain from the outside. -You sense free will in yourself, whereas a determinist can say it seems to you like free will but it's actually a combination of factors beyond your control. You disagree when it concerns yourself and other humans (though nobody can tell the difference), but you agree when it concerns bacterial intelligence (though nobody can tell the difference). Not being able to tell the difference cuts both ways, and is therefore no argument. -dhw: When pressed, Tony himself has admitted that he is not prepared to say whether these biochemical interactions are preprogrammed, dabbled, or the result of God giving organisms the ability to work it out for themselves, because “we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.” What part of his approach do you now buy? DAVID: I'm still the same. I'll buy Tony if the ability to 'work it out' includes God-given guidelines.-The usual obfuscation. Your guidelines consist of divine preprogramming and/or direct intervention, both of which completely preclude the ability to work it out.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 19:23 (3181 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; It is obvious from all the articles you have so generously posted that science is already uncovering more and more complexity in the biochemistry of life. I agree that design of some kind has to be accepted, but the various hypotheses concerning the origin of that design are all riddled with “fuzz”. Let me boldly match your prophecy by anticipating that science will never confirm divine preprogramming of the first living cells with all future innovations, lifestyles and nests, or divine intervention to produce them, or that your God's purpose in creating the universe and life was to produce human beings. -I agree with you. There will never be absolute proof of ay of this. What will happen is consistent with your statement about ever increasing complexity. My book title says Science IS Proving God. It is a process which I believe will eventually cause folks to accept there must be a designer on the basis of that amazing complexity which will remove any consideration of an uncontrolled process. > > dhw: “All we know” is that innovations took place (sorry, Tony, this is strictly between us evolutionists), but have not done so for a very long time. Clearly the cause lies beyond what we know now.-The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose.-> dhw: You sense free will in yourself, whereas a determinist can say it seems to you like free will but it's actually a combination of factors beyond your control. You disagree when it concerns yourself and other humans (though nobody can tell the difference), but you agree when it concerns bacteria (though nobody can tell the difference). Not being able to tell the difference cuts both ways, and is therefore no argument. -My brain and I work together. What I have studied in this science/religion relationship has created an area of my brain through its plasticity that allows me to pull facts from memory that I did not know before. You can have your determinist and his opinion. It is not mine.-> DAVID: I'm still the same. I'll buy Tony if the ability to 'work it out' includes God-given guidelines. > > dhw: The usual obfuscation. Your guidelines consist of divine preprogramming and/or direct intervention, both of which completely preclude the ability to work it out.-You want independent 'working out' and I want guided 'working out', a small difference of opinion.
More Denton: Reply to David
by BBella , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 20:45 (3181 days ago) @ David Turell
You want independent 'working out' and I want guided 'working out', a small difference of opinion.-I agree, David. It is a very small difference. So small, that from an entities point of view, the difference would be nonexistent, dont you think?
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 21:04 (3181 days ago) @ BBella
BBella: You want independent 'working out' and I want guided 'working out', a small difference of opinion. > > I agree, David. It is a very small difference. So small, that from an entities point of view, the difference would be nonexistent, dont you think?-Yes.
More Denton: Reply to David
by romansh , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 23:15 (3181 days ago) @ David Turell
I agree with you. There will never be absolute proof of ay of this.-True ... the sad part of this is there will never be any corroborative evidence for either dhw's or your position.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 23:57 (3181 days ago) @ romansh
David: I agree with you. There will never be absolute proof of any of this. > > rom: True ... the sad part of this is there will never be any corroborative evidence for either dhw's or your position.-Exactly. I feel eventually the enormous complexities of the living cell will be so completely outlined, the evidence will be overwhelming that a designer is indicated. Absolute proof, no; leap of faith, yes.
More Denton: Reply to David
Dhw: Let me boldly match your prophecy by anticipating that science will never confirm divine preprogramming of the first living cells with all future innovations, lifestyles and nests, or divine intervention to produce them, or that your God's purpose in creating the universe and life was to produce human beings. DAVID: I agree with you. There will never be absolute proof of ay of this. [...] My book title says Science IS Proving God. It is a process which I believe will eventually cause folks to accept there must be a designer on the basis of that amazing complexity which will remove any consideration of an uncontrolled process. -I'm afraid there was a degree of irony in my prophecy which I should have made clearer. You stated: “My thinking has come totally from the science articles and interpretative books on science I have read.” I do not think your divine preprogramming or dabbling (or your anthropocentrism) can claim to “come totally” or even partially from any "scientific" writing, since such conclusions are pure philosophical speculation. That is not in any way to denigrate your book, of which you know I am a great admirer. dhw: “All we know” is that innovations took place (sorry, Tony, this is strictly between us evolutionists), but have not done so for a very long time. Clearly the cause lies beyond what we know now. DAVID: The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose.-In a few thousand million years' time, it is believed that the Earth will die, just as all planets and stars eventually die. The game is probably less than halfway through, and you believe you already know the outcome. If bacteria could speak English, they would probably say something like: “He who laughs last....”-dhw: You sense free will in yourself, whereas a determinist can say it seems to you like free will but it's actually a combination of factors beyond your control. You disagree when it concerns yourself and other humans (though nobody can tell the difference), but you agree when it concerns bacteria (though nobody can tell the difference). Not being able to tell the difference cuts both ways, and is therefore no argument. DAVID: My brain and I work together. What I have studied in this science/religion relationship has created an area of my brain through its plasticity that allows me to pull facts from memory that I did not know before. You can have your determinist and his opinion. It is not mine.-I already said that you disagreed with it. My point is that “you can't tell the difference” does not support either opinion, and can therefore only be used to justify NOT making a decision. DAVID: You want independent 'working out' and I want guided 'working out', a small difference of opinion. BBELLA: I agree, David. It is a very small difference. So small, that from an entities point of view, the difference would be nonexistent, don't you think?-Ah BBella, blessed are the peacemakers, but you have fallen for the obfuscation. There is a colossal difference between organisms automatically obeying instructions, and organisms acting of their own accord. An automaton does not work anything out for itself. David's “guided” entails precise preprogramming or personal intervention by a special being that he calls God. For example, our famous weaverbird's nest: David tells us God preprogrammed the first cells (which you don't believe anyway) so that billions of years later some of their descendants would become weaverbirds and would build intricate nests according to his design. Alternatively, God intervened to tell the weaverbird how to do it. My own alternative hypothesis is that weaverbirds initially worked it out for themselves, and when they got it right, passed on the formula to succeeding generations. Small difference? Dhw: (to Tony): (Extinction can be explained simply by some organisms being more intelligent/inventive/adaptable than others.) DAVID: David Raup...in his book “Extinctions”, found it was in the vast majority of cases just bad luck.-I agree - it would be bad luck on some to have less “intelligence” than others. But I'd be surprised if you agreed. I thought you believed God was always in control of evolution, with his preprogramming and dabbling, but if he deliberately preprogrammed some organisms to survive, leaving others to perish, that is not luck. On the other hand, if he left it to chance to decide which organisms would and which wouldn't survive, he wasn't in control. But perhaps you only quoted Raup for fun.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Thursday, August 13, 2015, 23:56 (3180 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In a few thousand million years' time, it is believed that the Earth will die, just as all planets and stars eventually die. The game is probably less than halfway through, and you believe you already know the outcome. If bacteria could speak English, they would probably say something like: “He who laughs last....”-We have no idea what God has planned next in His next universe, but he has allowed each of us to enjoy a lifetime. > > dhw: I already said that you disagreed with it. My point is that “you can't tell the difference” does not support either opinion, and can therefore only be used to justify NOT making a decision.-Which I fully understand is your choice.-> > dhw: Ah BBella, blessed are the peacemakers, but you have fallen for the obfuscation. There is a colossal difference between organisms automatically obeying instructions, and organisms acting of their own accord. An automaton does not work anything out for itself. David's “guided” entails precise preprogramming or personal intervention by a special being that he calls God. For example, our famous weaverbird's nest: David tells us God preprogrammed the first cells (which you don't believe anyway) so that billions of years later some of their descendants would become weaverbirds and would build intricate nests according to his design. Alternatively, God intervened to tell the weaverbird how to do it. My own alternative hypothesis is that weaverbirds initially worked it out for themselves, and when they got it right, passed on the formula to succeeding generations. Small difference?-Guidelines are not a rigid as you describe. An architect goes to school and learns guidelines of his craft. I promise you my house does not look like yours, but we both had architects using guidelines. > > Dhw: (to Tony): (Extinction can be explained simply by some organisms being more intelligent/inventive/adaptable than others.) > DAVID: David Raup...in his book “Extinctions”, found it was in the vast majority of cases just bad luck. > > dhw: I agree - it would be bad luck on some to have less “intelligence” than others. But I'd be surprised if you agreed. I thought you believed God was always in control of evolution, with his preprogramming and dabbling, but if he deliberately preprogrammed some organisms to survive, leaving others to perish, that is not luck. On the other hand, if he left it to chance to decide which organisms would and which wouldn't survive, he wasn't in control. But perhaps you only quoted Raup for fun.-No, I've read his book thoroughly and understood that luck plays a major role. I don't know if God hurled the Chicxulub or it just happened.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: In a few thousand million years' time, it is believed that the Earth will die, just as all planets and stars eventually die. The game is probably less than halfway through, and you believe you already know the outcome. If bacteria could speak English, they would probably say something like: “He who laughs last....” DAVID: We have no idea what God has planned next in His next universe, but he has allowed each of us to enjoy a lifetime.-My comment was in reply to your statement: “The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose.” I was referring, as you were, to this planet and to this evolution, and references to other universes, plus the fact that we can enjoy our lives, do not lend any support to what seems to me (and to Romansh) a pretty poor argument. -dhw: Ah BBella, blessed are the peacemakers, but you have fallen for the obfuscation. There is a colossal difference between organisms automatically obeying instructions, and organisms acting of their own accord. An automaton does not work anything out for itself. Etc. etc. DAVID: Guidelines are not a rigid as you describe. An architect goes to school and learns guidelines of his craft. I promise you my house does not look like yours, but we both had architects using guidelines. - The guidelines you have attributed to your God's handling of evolution have been preprogramming and personal intervention (which can only result in automatism), plus the fact that no organism can exceed its own physical limitations or those imposed by the environment. Like all other organisms, the architect has to learn about physical and environmental limitations, but then he uses his individual autonomous intelligence to build his house. Thank you for an excellent analogy. Dhw: ...perhaps you only quoted Raup for fun. DAVID: No, I've read his book thoroughly and understood that luck plays a major role. I don't know if God hurled the Chicxulub or it just happened.-So let me speculate on your evolutionary hypothesis. If God hurled Chicxulub, he must have preprogrammed the survivors to survive, knowing from the start that he was going to hurl it; or it was a sudden impulse (“Damn those dastardly dinosaurs!”) so he did a quick dabble to ensure the survivors survived. Otherwise, he'd have lost control, wouldn't he? And his control of evolution is essential to your hypothesis. But if he didn't hurl it, he had lost control anyway. Phew, lucky for the weaverbird and us that some little critter got through carrying our programmes. (See also "Reply to Tony".)
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2015, 18:25 (3179 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: My comment was in reply to your statement: “The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose.” I was referring, as you were, to this planet and to this evolution, and references to other universes, plus the fact that we can enjoy our lives, do not lend any support to what seems to me (and to Romansh) a pretty poor argument. -Don't you think the arrival of sentient beings that can study and understand the workings of their universe as very surprising result? I do. > > dhw: So let me speculate on your evolutionary hypothesis. If God hurled Chicxulub, he must have preprogrammed the survivors to survive, knowing from the start that he was going to hurl it; or it was a sudden impulse (“Damn those dastardly dinosaurs!”) so he did a quick dabble to ensure the survivors survived. Otherwise, he'd have lost control, wouldn't he? And his control of evolution is essential to your hypothesis. But if he didn't hurl it, he had lost control anyway. Phew, lucky for the weaverbird and us that some little critter got through carrying our programmes. (See also "Reply to Tony".)-As I analyze your thoughts all this happened as everything drifted along, but again you cover yourself by not accepting a chance mechanism.
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: Don't you think the arrival of sentient beings that can study and understand the workings of their universe as very surprising result? I do.-I do indeed, and I would even go so far as to agree with you that we are the most surprising result so far, though who knows what the next 3.8 billion years might produce? But the amazing catalogue of Nature's Wonders with which for years now you have entertained and educated us are proof for you of divine design. You even ask us: by chance? So how can you then tell us God's purpose in creating life and evolution was to produce humans? Why would he design all these wonders if they were not part of his purpose? (I am of course arguing here with my theist's hat on. If I put on my atheist's hat, I will say there is no purpose beyond that of each individual organism, but that does not in any way lessen the sheer wonder of Nature's Wonders, including ourselves.)-dhw: So let me speculate on your evolutionary hypothesis. If God hurled Chicxulub, he must have preprogrammed the survivors to survive, knowing from the start that he was going to hurl it; or it was a sudden impulse (“Damn those dastardly dinosaurs!”) so he did a quick dabble to ensure the survivors survived. Otherwise, he'd have lost control, wouldn't he? And his control of evolution is essential to your hypothesis. But if he didn't hurl it, he had lost control anyway. Phew, lucky for the weaverbird and us that some little critter got through carrying our programmes. (See also "Reply to Tony".)-DAVID: As I analyze your thoughts all this happened as everything drifted along, but again you cover yourself by not accepting a chance mechanism.-Do you accept my analysis of your evolutionary hypothesis? If not, please tell me what is wrong with it. As for my own speculations, I would suggest that the environment “drifts along”, i.e. Chixculub was a chance event, and that the cell communities of organisms apply their respective forms/degrees of “intelligence” to coping with the changes or even to exploiting them, but in many cases their “intelligence” is not up to the task and like the dinosaurs they die. These different “intelligences” would have evolved from the earliest cells, diversifying and complexifying as cells linked up in all their different combinations to form new organisms and to cope with new environments. No overall plan, but life branching out in all directions as individual intelligences follow their own paths to survival and/or improvement or, sadly, extinction. This scenario does not exclude your God, who may have set it all in motion. Why? As you repeatedly tell us, we cannot read his mind.
More Denton: Reply to David
“Reply to Tony” is turning into “Reply to David”, so I'm switching this post!-dhw (under “Reply to Tony”): Who needs preprogramming and dabbling? Either the particular “cellular intelligence” can work things out, or it can't. -DAVID: Are there gradations of your cellular intelligence depending upon the complexity of the organism. After all, some forms have brains and some do not. -The sentence before the one you have quoted suggests that “the dinosaurs did not have the form/degree of “intelligence” (perhaps designed initially by God) that would enable them to cope with the chance-changed environment.” “Degree” = “gradation” and I chose “form” because it is obvious that for instance the intelligence of bacteria cannot function in the same way as that of a wolf. For all we know, the absence of a brain might be an evolutionary advantage, since the bacterial form of “intelligence” has enabled them to survive in so many different environments. -dhw: You acknowledge autonomous intelligence in wolves figuring out their own strategies, but ants apparently can't, and bacteria can't either. Their strategies have to be preprogrammed. All organisms can only respond in “limited ways” - a wolf can't suddenly decide to fly. But within the limitations of their own nature, even you can't tell if they are using a form of intelligence, and yet somehow you know the wolf does and the ant and the bacterium don't. (Oops...the bacterium doesn't! Careless of me!)-DAVID: I know the wolf has a useful degree of consciousness, and the ant may. I strongly doubt the bacterium, but then again, you like pan-psychism.-What does my interest in panpsychism have to do with it? I do not see myself as qualified to reject the findings of bacteriologists. I'm pleased to hear that you are now prepared to consider the possibility that ants know what they are doing. Who knows, eventually you may even come round to the idea that the weaverbird worked out how to design its own nest. And you might even acknowledge that God's programmes and/or direct intervention do not constitute “guidelines”, and the limitations imposed by the nature of each organism and its environment do not explain how organisms invent, so either organisms are automatons or they are not, and if they are not, then they must have some form of autonomous intelligence that enables them to work out their strategies, lifestyles, nests etc. for themselves.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, August 15, 2015, 19:07 (3178 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: For all we know, the absence of a brain might be an evolutionary advantage, since the bacterial form of “intelligence” has enabled them to survive in so many different environments. -Or the onboard intelligent information given to them by God. > > dhw: What does my interest in panpsychism have to do with it? I do not see myself as qualified to reject the findings of bacteriologists. I'm pleased to hear that you are now prepared to consider the possibility that ants know what they are doing.-I recognize that ant colonies do some very intricate and complex social behaviors. Since we do not fully understand the development of instinctual behavior, your point is possible that some of it may have developed by experimentation. But what we see now is worker ants, as examples, doing automatic repetitive behaviors.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: For all we know, the absence of a brain might be an evolutionary advantage, since the bacterial form of “intelligence” has enabled them to survive in so many different environments. -DAVID: Or the onboard intelligent information given to them by God. -In that case God must have preprogrammed bacteria to cope automatically with virtually every environmental change you can think of, even though he didn't plan the changes. (“Better put in a programme to cope with crashing asteroids...you never know.”) Wouldn't it have been simpler just to give them the intelligence to work it out for themselves?-dhw: What does my interest in panpsychism have to do with it? I do not see myself as qualified to reject the findings of bacteriologists. I'm pleased to hear that you are now prepared to consider the possibility that ants know what they are doing. DAVID: I recognize that ant colonies do some very intricate and complex social behaviors. Since we do not fully understand the development of instinctual behavior, your point is possible that some of it may have developed by experimentation. But what we see now is worker ants, as examples, doing automatic repetitive behaviors-Once more: I am suggesting that all intricate and complex “behaviours” originated through the intelligence of cell communities, and when the behaviours, designs, strategies, lifestyles, and innovations of all kinds proved successful, they were passed on and became automatic. I do not believe that every generation of weaverbird redesigns the nest. However, these cell communities retain the ability to think for themselves when new problems arise. Ants are a wonderful illustration of this, because they work out new strategies when faced with new enemies.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Sunday, August 16, 2015, 19:04 (3177 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Or the onboard intelligent information given to them by God. > > dhw: In that case God must have preprogrammed bacteria to cope automatically with virtually every environmental change you can think of, even though he didn't plan the changes. ... Wouldn't it have been simpler just to give them the intelligence to work it out for themselves?-Bacteria live in all extreme environments because their adaptability allows than to do so. On this we both agree. I still think onboard information can handle all of it.-> > dhw: Once more: I am suggesting that all intricate and complex “behaviours” originated through the intelligence of cell communities, and when the behaviours, designs, strategies, lifestyles, and innovations of all kinds proved successful, they were passed on and became automatic. I do not believe that every generation of weaverbird redesigns the nest. However, these cell communities retain the ability to think for themselves when new problems arise. Ants are a wonderful illustration of this, because they work out new strategies when faced with new enemies.-Yes, so you have told us. And I admit it is a possible theory, just not mine.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: ...Do you honestly believe your God designed the weaverbird's nest, the spider's silk, the Monarch's lifestyle, the plover's migration, the wasp's parasitism plus all the other existing wonders you have listed for us, plus all the other wonders that have become extinct, in order to feed humans?-DAVID: Everything that is animal has to eat something. These hierarchies of edibles are necessary. the energy to live has to come from somewhere. Why the lifestyles are so complex, I don't really know, but they seem to aid in survivability which is an obvious purpose. -You don't try to read God's mind, you don't know know why the lifestyles are so complex, and you don't know why so many species and lifestyles have come and gone, and yet you think you know that God preprogrammed the first living cells so that billions of years later a wasp would lay its eggs on the back of a spider to provide a food chain for humans? If you acknowledge that survival is a purpose in itself, is it not possible that improvement might also be a purpose in itself, and that your God might have endowed the first living cells with the wherewithal to survive and improve without having to serve the purpose of providing humans with food some 3.79 billion years later? Our exchange on the subject of Chixculub can be reduced to the following: DAVID: ...I agree with you, the environment on Earth drifts along and also is perfect to produce humans. dhw: It is the drift that leaves your interpretation of God's intent at the mercy of luck. That is the point of the above paragraph about Chixculub.-DAVID: Again my point that God is probably fully aware of consequences.-To be fully aware of the consequences, he would have had to forecast all the uncontrolled environmental changes billions of years beforehand so that he could preprogramme the first cells to pass down all the automatic responses that enabled some organisms to survive while the rest perished. If he didn't do so, he was relying on luck. DAVID: Bacteria live in all extreme environments because their adaptability allows than to do so. On this we both agree. I still think onboard information can handle all of it.-“Onboard information” sounds much more feasible than millions of tiny computer programmes for every eventuality, but that's what it means, since you insist that bacteria are automatons that can only obey God's instructions. -dhw: Once more: I am suggesting that all intricate and complex “behaviours” originated through the intelligence of cell communities, and when the behaviours, designs, strategies, lifestyles, and innovations of all kinds proved successful, they were passed on and became automatic. I do not believe that every generation of weaverbird redesigns the nest. However, these cell communities retain the ability to think for themselves when new problems arise. Ants are a wonderful illustration of this, because they work out new strategies when faced with new enemies.-DAVID: Yes, so you have told us. And I admit it is a possible theory, just not mine.-I have only ever asked you to admit that it is possible.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 18, 2015, 16:35 (3175 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If you acknowledge that survival is a purpose in itself, is it not possible that improvement might also be a purpose in itself, and that your God might have endowed the first living cells with the wherewithal to survive and improve without having to serve the purpose of providing humans with food some 3.79 billion years later? -Why have single cells survive and improve unless the process is directed somewhere. I see purpose where you don't.- > DAVID: Again my point that God is probably fully aware of consequences. > > To be fully aware of the consequences, he would have had to forecast all the uncontrolled environmental changes billions of years beforehand so that he could preprogramme the first cells to pass down all the automatic responses that enabled some organisms to survive while the rest perished. If he didn't do so, he was relying on luck.-Of course that is the alternative. > > DAVID: Bacteria live in all extreme environments because their adaptability allows than to do so. On this we both agree. I still think onboard information can handle all of it. > > dhw: “Onboard information” sounds much more feasible than millions of tiny computer programmes for every eventuality, but that's what it means, since you insist that bacteria are automatons that can only obey God's instructions.-That is my view.
More Denton: Reply to David
dhw: If you acknowledge that survival is a purpose in itself, is it not possible that improvement might also be a purpose in itself, and that your God might have endowed the first living cells with the wherewithal to survive and improve without having to serve the purpose of providing humans with food some 3.79 billion years later? -DAVID: Why have single cells survive and improve unless the process is directed somewhere. I see purpose where you don't.- I see purpose in all life, but obviously not the same as you see. I think most organisms, including ourselves, have the shared purpose of survival for as long as possible, and continuing the line. We humans also see improvement as a purpose. Just look at the range of improvements we can make and pass on, but ultimately all of them - technology, art, medicine, education etc. - are geared to the purpose of heightening the quality of life as an end in itself. Why not the rest of the living world? I see the quest for survival and/or improvement as the purpose and driving force of the whole evolutionary process and of all Nature's Wonders. I just don't see how or why the wasp's purpose in laying its eggs on the spider's back must be geared to the production of humans.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 19, 2015, 22:45 (3174 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; I see the quest for survival and/or improvement as the purpose and driving force of the whole evolutionary process and of all Nature's Wonders. I just don't see how or why the wasp's purpose in laying its eggs on the spider's back must be geared to the production of humans.-I don't either, but basically I don't care. The results of life's inventiveness are truly amazing. What is more amazing is the appearance of human beings with enormous intellect and consciousness, and thereby the development of human societal cooperation and helpful interdependence so we don't have to use spiders to develop our babies.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, August 15, 2015, 18:59 (3178 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Don't you think the arrival of sentient beings that can study and understand the workings of their universe as very surprising result? I do. > > dhw: I do indeed, and I would even go so far as to agree with you that we are the most surprising result so far, though who knows what the next 3.8 billion years might produce? But the amazing catalogue of Nature's Wonders with which for years now you have entertained and educated us are proof for you of divine design. You even ask us: by chance? So how can you then tell us God's purpose in creating life and evolution was to produce humans? Why would he design all these wonders if they were not part of his purpose?-We have covered all of this before. The arrival of humans with the big brain was not necessary based on the environmental pressures present. The apes are fine, except for what we do to them, thank you. The variety of types of life is a requirement to supply a natural balance with a food chain supply of energy.-> > dhw: Do you accept my analysis of your evolutionary hypothesis? If not, please tell me what is wrong with it. -Of course I don't. What I present is an analysis of God's apparent intent, humans, because that result is completely beyond the general dawdling trend of evolution until 10-12 million years ago. And then, suddenly in a rush, humans-> dhw: As for my own speculations, I would suggest that the environment “drifts along”, i.e. Chixculub was a chance event, and that the cell communities of organisms apply their respective forms/degrees of “intelligence” to coping with the changes or even to exploiting them, but in many cases their “intelligence” is not up to the task and like the dinosaurs they die. -As Raup showed, bad luck. And I agree with you, the environment on Earth drifts along and also is perfect to produce humans -> dhw: .... No overall plan, but life branching out in all directions as individual intelligences follow their own paths to survival and/or improvement or, sadly, extinction. This scenario does not exclude your God, who may have set it all in motion. Why? As you repeatedly tell us, we cannot read his mind.-As I've stated, I read His intent, not His individual specific choices as you keep insisting upon.
More Denton: Reply to David
DAVID: Don't you think the arrival of sentient beings that can study and understand the workings of their universe as very surprising result? I do. dhw: I do indeed, and I would even go so far as to agree with you that we are the most surprising result so far, though who knows what the next 3.8 billion years might produce? But the amazing catalogue of Nature's Wonders with which for years now you have entertained and educated us are proof for you of divine design. You even ask us: by chance? So how can you then tell us God's purpose in creating life and evolution was to produce humans? Why would he design all these wonders if they were not part of his purpose?-DAVID: We have covered all of this before. The arrival of humans with the big brain was not necessary based on the environmental pressures present. The apes are fine, except for what we do to them, thank you. The variety of types of life is a requirement to supply a natural balance with a food chain supply of energy.-For what? For humans? Do you honestly believe your God designed the weaverbird's nest, the spider's silk, the Monarch's lifestyle, the plover's migration, the wasp's parasitism plus all the other existing wonders you have listed for us, plus all the other wonders that have become extinct, in order to feed humans? Are you not prepared even to consider the possibility that life's vast diversity and the higgledy-piggledy history of its comings and goings are the consequence of your God allowing his invention to follow its own course of development? dhw: Do you accept my analysis of your evolutionary hypothesis? If not, please tell me what is wrong with it. -DAVID: Of course I don't. What I present is an analysis of God's apparent intent, humans, because that result is completely beyond the general dawdling trend of evolution until 10-12 million years ago. And then, suddenly in a rush, humans.- You have changed the hypothesis that I was referring to! My question concerned the implications of your earlier statement: “I don't know if God hurled Chixculub or it just happened”. I wrote: “If God hurled Chicxulub, he must have preprogrammed the survivors to survive, knowing from the start that he was going to hurl it; or it was a sudden impulse (“Damn those dastardly dinosaurs!”) so he did a quick dabble to ensure the survivors survived. Otherwise, he'd have lost control, wouldn't he? And his control of evolution is essential to your hypothesis. But if he didn't hurl it, he had lost control anyway. Phew, lucky for the weaverbird and us that some little critter got through carrying our programmes. (This part of the discussion is all about your insistence that God controlled evolution through preprogramming and intervention. Please tell me what is wrong with any of the above.) dhw: As for my own speculations, I would suggest that the environment “drifts along”, i.e. Chixculub was a chance event, and that the cell communities of organisms apply their respective forms/degrees of “intelligence” to coping with the changes or even to exploiting them, but in many cases their “intelligence” is not up to the task and like the dinosaurs they die. DAVID: As Raup showed, bad luck. And I agree with you, the environment on Earth drifts along and also is perfect to produce humans -It is the drift that leaves your interpretation of God's intent at the mercy of luck. That is the point of the above paragraph about Chixculub. dhw: .... No overall plan, but life branching out in all directions as individual intelligences follow their own paths to survival and/or improvement or, sadly, extinction. This scenario does not exclude your God, who may have set it all in motion. Why? As you repeatedly tell us, we cannot read his mind.-DAVID: As I've stated, I read His intent, not His individual specific choices as you keep insisting upon.-How do you read intent without reading the mind? How do you separate individual choices from intent? If the individual choices don't fit in with your version of intent, maybe you have misread the intent. As above, one concrete example to be multiplied by millions: God's purpose in starting life was to produce humans, and so 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed a wasp to lay its eggs on the back of a spider, thereby creating a natural balance with a food chain supply of energy. It simply doesn't fit, does it?
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Sunday, August 16, 2015, 18:58 (3177 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: For what? For humans? Do you honestly believe your God designed the weaverbird's nest, the spider's silk, the Monarch's lifestyle, the plover's migration, the wasp's parasitism plus all the other existing wonders you have listed for us, plus all the other wonders that have become extinct, in order to feed humans?-Everything that is animal has to eat something. These hierarchies of edibles are necessary. the energy to live has to come from somewhere. Why the lifestyles are so complex, I don't really know, but they seem to aid in survivability which is can obvious purpose. -> > dhw: My question concerned the implications of your earlier statement: “I don't know if God hurled Chixculub or it just happened”. I wrote: “If God hurled Chicxulub, he must have preprogrammed the survivors to survive, knowing from the start that he was going to hurl it; or it was a sudden impulse, so he did a quick dabble to ensure the survivors survived. Otherwise, he'd have lost control, wouldn't he? And his control of evolution is essential to your hypothesis.-You are now reading His mind. His 'sudden impulse' may have been safe for His plans because he knew the mouse-like survivors were fully prepared to survive.- > dhw: But if he didn't hurl it, he had lost control anyway. Phew, lucky for the weaverbird and us that some little critter got through carrying our programmes. (This part of the discussion is all about your insistence that God controlled evolution through preprogramming and intervention. Please tell me what is wrong with any of the above.)-You have no idea any of that supposition is true. His foresight is enough. > > dhw: It is the drift that leaves your interpretation of God's intent at the mercy of luck. That is the point of the above paragraph about Chixculub.-Again my point that God is probably fully aware of consequences. > > dhw: How do you read intent without reading the mind? How do you separate individual choices from intent? If the individual choices don't fit in with your version of intent, maybe you have misread the intent. As above, one concrete example to be multiplied by millions: God's purpose in starting life was to produce humans, and so 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed a wasp to lay its eggs on the back of a spider, thereby creating a natural balance with a food chain supply of energy. It simply doesn't fit, does it?-Of course it fits. Don't lizards eat insects? And some other larger animal up the food chain eats the lizard, and eventually we reach humans who are eating something.
More Denton: Reply to David
by romansh , Thursday, August 13, 2015, 21:44 (3180 days ago) @ David Turell
The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose. > -The fact?-This I am afraid is ridiculous, at least to my understanding of the concept.-I am surprised that no one seriously questions this.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2015, 00:19 (3180 days ago) @ romansh
David: The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose. > > > > Rom:The fact? > > This I am afraid is ridiculous, at least to my understanding of the concept. > > I am surprised that no one seriously questions this.-dhw has mentioned that we have not seen new species. I agree and I think Tony (BM) does also. We discover unknown species all the time. We see species disappear. The antibiotic resistant bacteria that have appeared and have been put forward as new species are an evolutionary adaptation but the bacteria are basically the same with a slightly different metabolism. Lenski's E. coli haven't changed in 20 years of generations every 20 minute. Frankly we seem to be in a pause, and there have been papers on the subject wondering if humans would control future evolution.
More Denton: Reply to David
by romansh , Friday, August 14, 2015, 23:12 (3179 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw has mentioned that we have not seen new species. I will let dhw explain what he means by this statement. > I agree and I think Tony (BM) does also. We discover unknown species all the time. We see species disappear. The antibiotic resistant bacteria that have appeared and have been put forward as new species are an evolutionary adaptation but the bacteria are basically the same with a slightly different metabolism. Ye bacteria do develop new capabilities like digesting nylon wastes that that have not existed until nylon was developed in the thirties.-> Lenski's E. coli haven't changed in 20 years of generations every 20 minute. Frankly we seem to be in a pause, and there have been papers on the subject wondering if humans would control future evolution.-What pressures for evolution was Lenski applying to the bacteria ... either way we still have a few billion years until the end of the experiment.
More Denton: Reply to David
by David Turell , Saturday, August 15, 2015, 00:30 (3179 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: [Th]e bacteria do develop new capabilities like digesting nylon wastes that that have not existed until nylon was developed in the thirties.-Yes, but they are still the same bacteria. It is a metabolic adaptation of existing mechanisms > > > David: Lenski's E. coli haven't changed in 20 years of generations every 20 minute. Frankly we seem to be in a pause, and there have been papers on the subject wondering if humans would control future evolution. > > Rom: What pressures for evolution was Lenski applying to the bacteria ... either way we still have a few billion years until the end of the experiment.-He did apply some pressures with minor results. They still have all the characteristics of E. coli. What I am referring to is that we have not seen a new species with marked phenotypic changes from species we have known since before Darwin.
More Denton: A concise summary for design
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 03, 2015, 00:32 (3099 days ago) @ David Turell
He gives a brief set of biochemistry examples from a long essay as to why design is evident in the biology of humans:-http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1- "Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson's vital ensemble—water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive. It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms."-Comment: Nothing could be clearer. Fred Hoyle who started as an atheist said:-"One might aptly paraphrase Hoyle, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with the laws of chemistry and biology towards the specific end of organisms like us.'”
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Thursday, February 04, 2016, 15:42 (3005 days ago) @ David Turell
Michael Denton continues his sharp criticism of Darwin theory. A book review:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/denton-introduction/-"Enter biochemist Michael Denton, who helped touch off the ID movement over 30 years ago with his seminal Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Dr. Denton is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak to this issue. As a religious agnostic, he has no doubt that evolution occurred and that the process though which it occurred was entirely natural. Moreover, he is firmly convinced that the diversity of life can be accounted for based on “descent with modification” from a common ancestor.-"So what sets Denton apart from your run of the mill materialist Darwinian such as Richard Dawkins? Just this: From the days of Darwin himself to this present moment, the Darwinist has said that if the fossil data do not conform to the theory, so much the worse for the data. In contrast to this approach, Denton subscribes to the crazy notion that one should try to conform his theory to the observations instead of the other way around. Denton's approach has profound implications for evolutionary theory. At a fundamental level it means that a theory of evolution that synchs with the observations must account for the discontinuities that are all but ubiquitous in the fossil record, instead of always struggling to write such discontinuities off as an artifact of an imperfect record. In Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis Denton sets out to do just that.-***-"I found Denton's reference to laws of biological form very interesting in light of my recent post entitled ID for Materialists. In that post I argued that materialists should stop running from the overwhelming teleology that even the most cursory glance at the data reveals and instead join the search for “natural telic laws” that Thomas Nagel described in Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. And indeed Denton cites Nagel in his book.-***-"This means that while the functionalist asserts that organisms are infinitely malleable and arose through a fundamentally stochastic and contingent process, structuralists assert that the development of organisms is constrained by natural telic laws. The Types arose spontaneously and abruptly as a result of the innate properties of biomatter acting in accordance with natural telic law, and only relatively minor adaptations of the Types can be attributed to Darwinian processes.-"The structuralists view, of course, has the advantage of being consistent with the fossil record. That record does not show, as Darwin suggested, a finely graduated organic chain between major Types. Instead, it shows abrupt appearance of various Types followed by stasis.-***-" The fossil record is instead conspicuous for the absence of transitional forms from fish fin to pentadactyl limb. This means one of two things if a purely naturalist account of evolution is true: (1) all of the evidence for the gradual evolution from fish fin to pentadactyl limb has been swallowed up by time, and we have to take the Darwinian account on faith in the teeth of the evidence; or (2) the Darwinian (i.e., functionalist) account is false and something like the structuralist account is true.-"There is, of course, a third alternative, and that is the Types arose as a result of the conscious choices of a designer. Interestingly, though Denton is considered a leading luminary of the ID movement, he never argues for that alternative. As I suggested in my recent post, certain forms of ID are compatible with a materialist paradigm if there is such a thing as a “natural telic law.” Denton argues for this kind of ID, and as we shall see as we explore his book in future posts, he makes a powerful case."-Comment: Who made the 'natural telic law'? And note, an agnostic at Discovery Institute.
More Denton: A new book
DAVID: Michael Denton continues his sharp criticism of Darwin theory. A book review:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/denton-introduction/-QUOTE: "Enter biochemist Michael Denton, who helped touch off the ID movement over 30 years ago with his seminal Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Dr. Denton is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak to this issue. As a religious agnostic, he has no doubt that evolution occurred and that the process though which it occurred was entirely natural. Moreover, he is firmly convinced that the diversity of life can be accounted for based on “descent with modification” from a common ancestor."-QUOTE: "There is, of course, a third alternative, and that is the Types arose as a result of the conscious choices of a designer. Interestingly, though Denton is considered a leading luminary of the ID movement, he never argues for that alternative. As I suggested in my recent post, certain forms of ID are compatible with a materialist paradigm if there is such a thing as a “natural telic law.” Denton argues for this kind of ID, and as we shall see as we explore his book in future posts, he makes a powerful case."-David's comment: Who made the 'natural telic law'? And note, an agnostic at Discovery Institute.-I do note it, and am astonished that theists should claim an agnostic for one of them. As you very well know, it is perfectly possible for an agnostic to reject randomness without embracing theism. However, talk of a “natural telic law” may gloss over the fact that if common descent is true, innovations can only take place within individual organisms. This means that whatever mechanism caused innovations HAS to be within the organisms themselves. If you believe in God AND evolution, either he interferes with individual organisms, or he has preprogrammed them, or he has given them a mechanism with which to organize their own innovations (and lifestyles and wonders). If you do not believe in God, either you have to opt for random mutations, or again the mechanism within the organisms does its own organizing. Self-organizing organisms thus fit in with both theistic and atheistic evolution, and also happen to fit in with the findings of many researchers in the field, who tell us that cells/cell communities are intelligent, cooperate with one another, and take decisions in accordance with the demands of the environment. This theory requires substituting “opportunities offered by” for “the demands of”. The “telic law” is organisms' drive for survival and/or improvement.-You have also offered us the following comments on the subject of evolution:-Re Spetner:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/02/information_and102571.html-QUOTE: "In the last fifty years it has become recognized that if evolution occurs in the sense of common decent, information has to be built up. For a primitive cell to evolve into an elephant, for example, the evolutionary process has to increase the information from that in the cell until an elephant's worth of information has been achieved. There is no theory that can account for such a thing."-Yes there is. The theory that over thousands of millions of years, intelligent cells/cell communities have combined, shared information extrapolated from their environment, and cooperated in forming new combinations to exploit that environment.-Genome complexity David's comment: As a physician I went from simply accepting evolution created this to realizing that evolution cannot create this as an unguided chance process!-If our evolutionary starting point is the intelligent cell, there is no chance involved in the process, since every innovation is the product of deliberate exploitation of the environment, though changes to the environment may themselves be the products of chance. The origin of the intelligent cell is open to conjecture. Information: a computer scientist's take: David's comment: Matt might consider this. How does biologic evolution learn and add information? Epigenetics?-According to my hypothesis, evolution does not learn or add anything. Individual cells/cell communities (organisms) learn and add and combine information before taking communal decisions, and that is how they innovate and diversify, thereby causing evolution.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Friday, February 05, 2016, 21:33 (3004 days ago) @ dhw
> David's comment: Who made the 'natural telic law'? And note, an agnostic at Discovery Institute. > > dhw: ... However, talk of a “natural telic law” may gloss over the fact that if common descent is true, innovations can only take place within individual organisms. This means that whatever mechanism caused innovations HAS to be within the organisms themselves. If you believe in God AND evolution, either he interferes with individual organisms, or he has preprogrammed them, or he has given them a mechanism with which to organize their own innovations (and lifestyles and wonders).-Those certainly are the three possibilities. I strongly question how an inventive mechanism arose de novo from the original single cells that started life, which is your primary theory.-> dhw: If you do not believe in God, either you have to opt for random mutations, or again the mechanism within the organisms does its own organizing. Self-organizing organisms thus fit in with both theistic and atheistic evolution, and also happen to fit in with the findings of many researchers in the field, .... This theory requires substituting “opportunities offered by” for “the demands of”. The “telic law” is organisms' drive for survival and/or improvement.-I've just gotten Denton's new book, but from the review he is discussing the possibility of a 'telic law' as does Nagel. 'Possible'. maybe yes, maybe no. > > You have also offered us the following comments on the subject of evolution: > > Re Spetner: > > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/02/information_and102571.html > > QUOTE: ".... the evolutionary process has to increase the information from that in the cell until an elephant's worth of information has been achieved. There is no theory that can account for such a thing." > > dhw: Yes there is. The theory that over thousands of millions of years, intelligent cells/cell communities have combined, shared information extrapolated from their environment, and cooperated in forming new combinations to exploit that environment.-Spetner's own theory is called 'nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis', by which he means, as you do hat individuals evolve under stress as epigenetic changes. He does not answer how this developed. Since he is an orthodox Jew, I can make a logical guess. > > Genome complexity > David's comment: As a physician I went from simply accepting evolution created this to realizing that evolution cannot create this as an unguided chance process! > > dhw: If our evolutionary starting point is the intelligent cell, there is no chance involved in the process, since every innovation is the product of deliberate exploitation of the environment, though changes to the environment may themselves be the products of chance. The origin of the intelligent cell is open to conjecture.-And who or what gave the cell intelligence? No proof, but I would still say God. > > Information: a computer scientist's take: > David's comment: Matt might consider this. How does biologic evolution learn and add information? Epigenetics? > > dhw: According to my hypothesis, evolution does not learn or add anything. Individual cells/cell communities (organisms) learn and add and combine information before taking communal decisions, and that is how they innovate and diversify, thereby causing evolution.-Again you are like Spetner.
More Denton: A new book
by BBella , Friday, February 05, 2016, 23:30 (3004 days ago) @ David Turell
> > David's comment: Who made the 'natural telic law'? And note, an agnostic at Discovery Institute. > > > > > Re Spetner: > > > > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/02/information_and102571.html >&a... > dhw: If our evolutionary starting point is the intelligent cell, there is no chance involved in the process, since every innovation is the product of deliberate exploitation of the environment, though changes to the environment may themselves be the products of chance. The origin of the intelligent cell is open to conjecture. > > And who or what gave the cell intelligence? No proof, but I would still say God.-If we have to ask "who" gave the cell intelligence, then wouldn't we have to ask "who" gave God intelligence? Your answer would probably be, God has always had intelligence. Then couldn't one just as well say the cell has always had intelligence, or, in my mind, just as well say intelligence has always been, just as energy and matter has always been? Does intelligence absolutely require a beginning or a place of origin, one central location, as a first mind?
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Saturday, February 06, 2016, 00:44 (3004 days ago) @ BBella
BBella Then couldn't one just as well say the cell has always had intelligence, or, in my mind, just as well say intelligence has always been, just as energy and matter has always been? Does intelligence absolutely require a beginning or a place of origin, one central location, as a first mind?-If intelligence always existed was it form free, contained in some structure, or simply God?
More Denton: A new book
by BBella , Saturday, February 06, 2016, 16:55 (3003 days ago) @ David Turell
BBella Then couldn't one just as well say the cell has always had intelligence, or, in my mind, just as well say intelligence has always been, just as energy and matter has always been? Does intelligence absolutely require a beginning or a place of origin, one central location, as a first mind? > > If intelligence always existed was it form free, contained in some structure, or simply God?-I assume it simply was/is.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Sunday, February 07, 2016, 01:27 (3003 days ago) @ BBella
> BBella: I assume it simply was/is.-Fair enough without defining it. I agree that was/is can be a first cause. Something was.
More Denton: A new book
David's comment: Who made the 'natural telic law'? And note, an agnostic at Discovery Institute.-dhw: ... However, talk of a “natural telic law” may gloss over the fact that if common descent is true, innovations can only take place within individual organisms. This means that whatever mechanism caused innovations HAS to be within the organisms themselves. If you believe in God AND evolution, either he interferes with individual organisms, or he has preprogrammed them, or he has given them a mechanism with which to organize their own innovations (and lifestyles and wonders).-DAVID: Those certainly are the three possibilities. I strongly question how an inventive mechanism arose de novo from the original single cells that started life, which is your primary theory.-I described five possibilities. The other two were random mutations (which we both reject) and an autonomous inventive mechanism, as above, that was not invented by your God. Nobody knows how ANY form of intelligence arose - including your “first cause” intelligence which created and is within and without all those billions of solar systems - and so, as BBella points out below, your objection applies to all hypotheses. BBella: If we have to ask "who" gave the cell intelligence, then wouldn't we have to ask "who" gave God intelligence? Your answer would probably be, God has always had intelligence. Then couldn't one just as well say the cell has always had intelligence, or, in my mind, just as well say intelligence has always been, just as energy and matter has always been? Does intelligence absolutely require a beginning or a place of origin, one central location, as a first mind?-I agree completely with the implications of all your questions, and also with David's question. We do not know how or when intelligence arose, or whether it has always been present, but this does not affect hypotheses as to how evolution actually works. I myself have always tried, as Darwin did, to keep the two questions separate: how does evolution work? What is the origin of life and all its mechanisms? My evolutionary hypothesis therefore leaves open the question of how cells acquired their initial intelligence. Since Denton is an agnostic, I suspect he does the same, but I haven't read his book.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Sunday, February 07, 2016, 01:30 (3003 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:We do not know how or when intelligence arose, or whether it has always been present, but this does not affect hypotheses as to how evolution actually works. I myself have always tried, as Darwin did, to keep the two questions separate: how does evolution work? What is the origin of life and all its mechanisms? My evolutionary hypothesis therefore leaves open the question of how cells acquired their initial intelligence. Since Denton is an agnostic, I suspect he does the same, but I haven't read his book.-I have it in hand and will report.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Thursday, February 25, 2016, 00:36 (2985 days ago) @ David Turell
I've been too busy to get beyond Chapter Four, but this review by a physicist is excellent:-http://www.christianscientific.org/review-of-dentons-evolution-a-theory-still-in-crisis/-"In short, his view is that there are pan-phylogenic Types, or Forms, which exist in nature, to which life spontaneously conforms. This view sounds a lot like neo-Platonism, which, following Plato, posits a spiritual world of Ideals which then instantiate themselves in nature. But Denton explicitly avoids spiritual implications and insists on this view as a purely physical and materialist theory. -***-"Denton, following Owen, draws us to look at a glaring and obvious fact of nature: that living organisms do not exist in a continuum of small differences with gradual transitions between them; rather, they exist in highly distinct types and forms, with specific identities and unique features for each type. Thus, for example, mammals all have four limbs, five digits per limb, two eyes, mammary glands in pairs, etc. These patterns persist over hundreds of millions of years despite all manner of selective pressure in different directions.-***-"First, the record strongly supports the view that new Forms appear suddenly, without precursors. This is known as “saltation”—the sudden appearance of a fully formed new structure. In all of the cases we know, the “transitional forms” between one type of organism and another do not consist of creatures with half-novelties, but rather, creatures with whole and complete novelties. Their transitional nature is identified because they have a subset of a larger set of several wholly novel features belonging to later descendents. But in each step that we see along the way, that which is new is whole and complete. The problem this creates for Darwinian evolution is similar to what is called a “topological argument” in physics. There are some things that can be continuously transformed into other things, while some things cannot.-***- "There are also more generalized topological arguments. Some molecular cycles in the cell are circular—the so-called “chicken-and-egg problems” in which element A is required to create element B, and B is required to create C, but C is required to create A. These loops therefore have the same toplogical problem of lack of continuous generation from a prior process.-***-"The transitional forms which indicate common descent also therefore create huge problems for gradual change via Darwinian selection as a mechanism. The most plain reading of the data is “descent with saltation.” This occurs at every level. New organs occur suddenly, new processes occur suddenly (such as human language), and new genes occur: in every form of life there are whole genes (known as ORFans) that appear to be utterly unique to that form, with no homolog in any other type of creature. In some cases, even when genes from an ancestor are used, they are pressed into service to perform utterly new functions via the sudden appearance of a completely new set of switches and timers.-"Denton's second argument against the Darwinist understanding of the Forms is the “robustness” of these Forms—after their sudden appearance, they endure for tens to hundreds of millions of years with little or no change. This is the case even though these Forms in many cases seem to have very little adaptive value—for example, does having five fingers or toes really make a person more fit than having six, or four? From a Darwinian perspective, the less a feature is pressured by natural selection, the more variable it should be.-***-"Another type of of robustness of the Forms is in their origin: when radically different processes give rise to the same forms. This is called “convergent evolution” in standard Darwinian evolution, but giving it a name doesn't solve the problem it creates.-***-"How could such radical saltation of new forms come about? For those adhering to intelligent design, the saltation events could be miraculous interventions. Is 100,000 too many? Why so? What is the maximum number of interventions we may impose on God?-"Denton does not invoke intelligent miraculous intervention. He favors a physical, materialist mechanism. As discussed above, his argument does not rest on having actually found such a mechanism. His argument is entirely empirical—-Comment: No room for more. The reviewer dos not believe there is a third way. Please read it all. I've used all these arguments.
More Denton: A new book
DAVID: I've been too busy to get beyond Chapter Four, but this review by a physicist is excellent: http://www.christianscientific.org/review-of-dentons-evolution-a-theory-still-in-crisis/-Much of this article deals with “saltation”. You and I have long since agreed that Darwin's gradualism is out. The inventive mechanism is the explanation I favour. -QUOTE: "Denton's second argument against the Darwinist understanding of the Forms is the “robustness” of these Forms—after their sudden appearance, they endure for tens to hundreds of millions of years with little or no change.”-I can't see any problem here. If an innovation (sudden appearance) functions well, there is no need for it to change. QUOTE: "Another type of robustness of the Forms is in their origin: when radically different processes give rise to the same forms. This is called “convergent evolution” in standard Darwinian evolution, but giving it a name doesn't solve the problem it creates.”-I don't see why this is a problem either. If intelligent organisms are faced with similar problems, it makes perfectly good sense that they should come up with similar solutions.-QUOTE: "How could such radical saltation of new forms come about? For those adhering to intelligent design, the saltation events could be miraculous interventions. Is 100,000 too many? Why so? What is the maximum number of interventions we may impose on God?"-This is what you and I have called “dabbling”, but “miraculous interventions” is a nice term, since it emphasizes the vast number of miracles necessary - except that it would have to be millions and millions if we are to include every innovation,lifestyle and natural wonder. You left the next quote incomplete:-QUOTE: "Denton does not invoke intelligent miraculous intervention. He favors a physical, materialist mechanism. As discussed above, his argument does not rest on having actually found such a mechanism. His argument is entirely empirical— the novelties of new Forms cannot have been acquired gradually via natural selection, so we must look for something else. Denton favors some version of “self-organization” along the lines promoted by Ilya Prigogene and Stuart Kaufmann. Somehow, internal physical forces conspire to create something completely new".-The bold is what you left out, and some version of “self-organization” is precisely what I have suggested with my autonomous inventive mechanism. Why Denton talks about internal physical forces instead of intelligence only he knows, although I suspect from your previous post that he would like to keep all explanations under the umbrella of the nebulous “laws of nature”. Interestingly, you had to stop short of the following paragraph: “A third possible cause of the prolific saltation, which Denton alludes to but does not seem to favor, is that all of the dramatic changes were pre-programmed in the very first living organism....There is actually genetic evidence that this has happened, with elements that exist in ancestor life forms and are triggered into operation only in the descendents. The amount of design needed to pre-program this, not just for one transformation but for the whole tree of life, is staggering, but it would not be beyond the powers of an omniscient God.” -This is the first time I have seen your theory repeated by another scientist. Of course, anything would be possible for an omniscient (and omnipotent) God, and so no matter how staggering it may be, the faithful can believe it. One might hope that the faithful might also be able to believe that God is capable of creating an autonomous intelligent inventive mechanism that would not necessitate any of the staggering preprogramming or the millions of personal interventions, but would operate within all organisms to produce the vast variety of forms that make up the history of life on earth. But your reviewer doesn't seem to have thought of that.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Thursday, February 25, 2016, 14:56 (2984 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Interestingly, you had to stop short of the following paragraph: “A third possible cause of the prolific saltation, which Denton alludes to but does not seem to favor, is that all of the dramatic changes were pre-programmed in the very first living organism....There is actually genetic evidence that this has happened, with elements that exist in ancestor life forms and are triggered into operation only in the descendents. The amount of design needed to pre-program this, not just for one transformation but for the whole tree of life, is staggering, but it would not be beyond the powers of an omniscient God.” > > This is the first time I have seen your theory repeated by another scientist. Of course, anything would be possible for an omniscient (and omnipotent) God, and so no matter how staggering it may be, the faithful can believe it. One might hope that the faithful might also be able to believe that God is capable of creating an autonomous intelligent inventive mechanism that would not necessitate any of the staggering preprogramming or the millions of personal interventions, but would operate within all organisms to produce the vast variety of forms that make up the history of life on earth. But your reviewer doesn't seem to have thought of that. - The IM you describe would have to be as complex as God himself to handle the complexity of living organisms and necessary saltations for further evolution, a point you constantly miss.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: Interestingly, you had to stop short of the following paragraph: “A third possible cause of the prolific saltation, which Denton alludes to but does not seem to favor, is that all of the dramatic changes were pre-programmed in the very first living organism....There is actually genetic evidence that this has happened, with elements that exist in ancestor life forms and are triggered into operation only in the descendents. The amount of design needed to pre-program this, not just for one transformation but for the whole tree of life, is staggering, but it would not be beyond the powers of an omniscient God.” - This is the first time I have seen your theory repeated by another scientist. Of course, anything would be possible for an omniscient (and omnipotent) God, and so no matter how staggering it may be, the faithful can believe it. One might hope that the faithful might also be able to believe that God is capable of creating an autonomous intelligent inventive mechanism that would not necessitate any of the staggering preprogramming or the millions of personal interventions, but would operate within all organisms to produce the vast variety of forms that make up the history of life on earth. But your reviewer doesn't seem to have thought of that. - DAVID: The IM you describe would have to be as complex as God himself to handle the complexity of living organisms and necessary saltations for further evolution, a point you constantly miss. - The IM is an explanation of how evolution works, not of origins. Since you believe in a creator God, I don't know why you think the IM must be as complex as its own creator, let alone the creator of a universe containing billions of solar systems and of life itself. It is certainly no more complex than the 3.8-billion-year computer programme or the millions of personal dabblings you claim are responsible for every individual innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder since life began. If your God could create such a programme, or could intervene countless millions of times to supervise such matters as the building of the weaverbird's nest, why do you think he would be incapable of creating an autonomous mechanism that would produce precisely the same effects? That is the point I have made in response to your reviewer's argument - a point you seem to have missed.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Friday, February 26, 2016, 14:54 (2983 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: The IM you describe would have to be as complex as God himself to handle the complexity of living organisms and necessary saltations for further evolution, a point you constantly miss. > > dhw: The IM is an explanation of how evolution works, not of origins. Since you believe in a creator God, I don't know why you think the IM must be as complex as its own creator, let alone the creator of a universe containing billions of solar systems and of life itself. It is certainly no more complex than the 3.8-billion-year computer programme or the millions of personal dabblings you claim are responsible for every individual innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder since life began.-You are right. I wasn't clear. An IM would have to be as complex as a 3.8 billion year computer program as it represents the thinking and planning of God-> dhw; If your God could create such a programme, or could intervene countless millions of times to supervise such matters as the building of the weaverbird's nest, why do you think he would be incapable of creating an autonomous mechanism that would produce precisely the same effects? That is the point I have made in response to your reviewer's argument - a point you seem to have missed.-I don't know what I missed but I agree with your statement. Theistic evolution is, by my definition, completely guided by God, directly or indirectly by an IM.
More Denton: A new book
DAVID: You are right. I wasn't clear. An IM would have to be as complex as a 3.8 billion year computer program as it represents the thinking and planning of God.-Not in the way you mean. See below.-dhw; If your God could create such a programme, or could intervene countless millions of times to supervise such matters as the building of the weaverbird's nest, why do you think he would be incapable of creating an autonomous mechanism that would produce precisely the same effects? That is the point I have made in response to your reviewer's argument - a point you seem to have missed.-DAVID: I don't know what I missed but I agree with your statement. Theistic evolution is, by my definition, completely guided by God, directly or indirectly by an IM.-You have missed the point that the IM I am proposing is AUTONOMOUS. An autonomous mechanism is not guided directly or indirectly. Once more: my alternative definition of theistic evolution is that your God deliberately invented a mechanism that would enable organisms to do their own inventing instead of him preprogramming or personally supervising every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. This is analogous to the human brain, which does its own inventing (unless you believe that God also preprogrammed the internal combustion engine and the works of Shakespeare). You are welcome to believe in your favoured scenario, but you and the reviewer do not have a monopoly on possible forms of theistic evolution.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Saturday, February 27, 2016, 14:50 (2982 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You have missed the point that the IM I am proposing is AUTONOMOUS. An autonomous mechanism is not guided directly or indirectly. Once more: my alternative definition of theistic evolution is that your God deliberately invented a mechanism that would enable organisms to do their own inventing instead of him preprogramming or personally supervising every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. This is analogous to the human brain, which does its own inventing (unless you believe that God also preprogrammed the internal combustion engine and the works of Shakespeare). You are welcome to believe in your favoured scenario, but you and the reviewer do not have a monopoly on possible forms of theistic evolution. - You are allowed to invent any fairytale you wish. My view remains God can invent an independent IM to do his work for him, but that is exactly what it will do; follow His pre-planned instructions coded into it.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: You have missed the point that the IM I am proposing is AUTONOMOUS. An autonomous mechanism is not guided directly or indirectly. Once more: my alternative definition of theistic evolution is that your God deliberately invented a mechanism that would enable organisms to do their own inventing instead of him preprogramming or personally supervising every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. This is analogous to the human brain, which does its own inventing (unless you believe that God also preprogrammed the internal combustion engine and the works of Shakespeare). You are welcome to believe in your favoured scenario, but you and the reviewer do not have a monopoly on possible forms of theistic evolution. - DAVID: You are allowed to invent any fairytale you wish. My view remains God can invent an independent IM to do his work for him, but that is exactly what it will do; follow His pre-planned instructions coded into it - I don't know why you've changed autonomous to independent, but if something simply follows instructions, it is neither autonomous nor independent. “Pre-planned instructions” = your 3.8-billion-year computer programme, so you are only muddying the waters when you equate it with an “independent IM”. Nor do I know why you should consider such a mechanism to be any more of a fairy tale than a fixed programme for the whole of evolution, but I presume you will not deny that if God can create such a programme, he is also capable of creating the AUTONOMOUS mechanism I have described above.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Sunday, February 28, 2016, 15:27 (2981 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I don't know why you've changed autonomous to independent, but if something simply follows instructions, it is neither autonomous nor independent. “Pre-planned instructions” = your 3.8-billion-year computer programme, so you are only muddying the waters when you equate it with an “independent IM”. Nor do I know why you should consider such a mechanism to be any more of a fairy tale than a fixed programme for the whole of evolution, but I presume you will not deny that if God can create such a programme, he is also capable of creating the AUTONOMOUS mechanism I have described above.-To my view autonomous and independent IM's are the same if God programs them with his instructions onboard. It autonomously runs to produce the results He wants, or since it is pre-programmed it runs independently to serve his purpose.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
by David Turell , Monday, February 29, 2016, 01:43 (2981 days ago) @ David Turell
Denton is an agnostic who believes in common descent. However he feels Darwin has no answer for how it works. The evidence is primarily the fact that there is no evidence for gradualism. The record is all saltation and punctuated equilibrium. So he has turned to an old theory of structuralism which preceded Darwin. Nature by some rules or laws provides for initial structures which then can change under 'constraints;' within the organisms. This fits my approach of discussing patterns and the IM becomes a controlled inventor. In contrast he views Darwin as functionalism, where natural selection is the final arbiter of what is presented as organisms respond to environmental challenges. Functional adaptation.-The always obvious problem with Darwin is that one-third or one-half of any advance doesn't work until it is whole and then NS can judge it. The study of evo-devo is covered in chapter 5 and he discusses it as supporting his viewpoint, that is, structuralism he feels is apparent in the research ,and gives examples to support his contention by discussing the known development of various parts of various types of animals. He interprets evo-devo as showing internal controls or constraints on all changes. He concludes the chapter 5 by stating: 'the tree of life and the taxa which forms its branches are pre-ordained into the order of things, part of the fine-tuning of the cosmos for life as manifested on Earth.' No wonder ID'ers and I side with him. BUT, so far he offers no mechanism as to how this works. Evolution is discontinuous, but he admits not knowing how saltations work: 'jumps' or 'actualizations'. -One weird event among many tends to undo Darwin. There are two positions for gut and nerve cord. The arthropods' gut is dorsal and the nerve cord ventral. In vertebrates the spinal cord is dorsal and the gut is ventral. From a common ancestor?? By gradual steps?? But we know this happened.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
DAVID: Denton is an agnostic who believes in common descent. However he feels Darwin has no answer for how it works. The evidence is primarily the fact that there is no evidence for gradualism. The record is all saltation and punctuated equilibrium. So he has turned to an old theory of structuralism which preceded Darwin. Nature by some rules or laws provides for initial structures which then can change under 'constraints;' within the organisms. This fits my approach of discussing patterns and the IM becomes a controlled inventor. In contrast he views Darwin as functionalism, where natural selection is the final arbiter of what is presented as organisms respond to environmental challenges. Functional adaptation.-First of all, I'd like to express my admiration at your dedication in reading such books, and my gratitude for sharing what you learn. I don't know how you find the time and the patience! Anyone who has followed our discussions over the last eight years will know that as far as you and I are concerned, gradualism has long since been a dead duck, and natural selection creates nothing, but simply ensures that useful changes will survive. However, we must distinguish between “functional adaptation” and innovation, which is why the response to environmental challenges may come in two forms: adaptation leaves the organism basically the same (surviving the challenge), whereas innovation changes the organism (possibly as a result of exploiting opportunities offered by the environment). Evolution depends on innovation, not adaptation.-DAVID: ....He interprets evo-devo as showing internal controls or constraints on all changes. He concludes the chapter 5 by stating: 'the tree of life and the taxa which forms its branches are pre-ordained into the order of things, part of the fine-tuning of the cosmos for life as manifested on Earth.' No wonder ID'ers and I side with him. BUT, so far he offers no mechanism as to how this works. Evolution is discontinuous, but he admits not knowing how saltations work: 'jumps' or 'actualizations'.-Of course there are constraints imposed by both internal and external factors, but “pre-ordained into the order of things”, and “nature by some rules or laws provides...” is as nebulous an explanation as you can get. However, you say “so far he offers no mechanism...” and one lives in hope that he will come up with something more concrete. Frankly, if he accepts common descent and wants to discount a preprogramming or dabbling God AND Darwin's random mutations plus gradualism, I see no other possible solution than an autonomous inventive mechanism within organisms themselves.-DAVID: One weird event among many tends to undo Darwin. There are two positions for gut and nerve cord. The arthropods' gut is dorsal and the nerve cord ventral. In vertebrates the spinal cord is dorsal and the gut is ventral. From a common ancestor?? By gradual steps?? But we know this happened.-We know that all innovations happened, and you, he and I reject the theory of gradual steps through random mutations. That leaves the alternatives listed above, plus separate creation. If I were Denton...well, no, let's wait and see what he comes up with.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
by David Turell , Monday, February 29, 2016, 15:15 (2980 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: First of all, I'd like to express my admiration at your dedication in reading such books, and my gratitude for sharing what you learn. I don't know how you find the time and the patience!-Thank you. This study has been an avocation for over 30 years. Believe me I live a very full life outside of it, as you probably realize. > > dhw: Anyone who has followed our discussions over the last eight years will know that as far as you and I are concerned, gradualism has long since been a dead duck, and natural selection creates nothing, but simply ensures that useful changes will survive.-Your comment is somewhat tautological: survival and the concept of 'fit' to survive are one and the same. Natural selection is a name given to the result, nothing more.-> dhw: However, we must distinguish between “functional adaptation” and innovation, which is why the response to environmental challenges may come in two forms: adaptation leaves the organism basically the same (surviving the challenge), whereas innovation changes the organism (possibly as a result of exploiting opportunities offered by the environment). Evolution depends on innovation, not adaptation.-Exactly. this is why epigenetic adaptations may very well not lead to speciation.- > dhw: Frankly, if he accepts common descent and wants to discount a preprogramming or dabbling God AND Darwin's random mutations plus gradualism, I see no other possible solution than an autonomous inventive mechanism within organisms themselves.-And I ask, where did that come from? You will admit it is just as nebulous. At least in his 'structuralism' he thinks the 'drive to complexity' follows built in laws or guidelines.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
dhw: First of all, I'd like to express my admiration at your dedication in reading such books, and my gratitude for sharing what you learn. I don't know how you find the time and the patience! DAVID: Thank you. This study has been an avocation for over 30 years. Believe me I live a very full life outside of it, as you probably realize.-I do indeed, and that gives added cause for admiration!-dhw: Anyone who has followed our discussions over the last eight years will know that as far as you and I are concerned, gradualism has long since been a dead duck, and natural selection creates nothing, but simply ensures that useful changes will survive. DAVID: Your comment is somewhat tautological: survival and the concept of 'fit' to survive are one and the same. Natural selection is a name given to the result, nothing more.-I did not say ‘fit to survive'. There is no disagreement between us here, except that natural selection is a process, not a result. The result of natural selection is extinction or survival.-dhw: However, we must distinguish between “functional adaptation” and innovation, which is why the response to environmental challenges may come in two forms: adaptation leaves the organism basically the same (surviving the challenge), whereas innovation changes the organism (possibly as a result of exploiting opportunities offered by the environment). Evolution depends on innovation, not adaptation.-DAVID: Exactly. this is why epigenetic adaptations may very well not lead to speciation.-So there must be an inventive mechanism that goes beyond epigenetic adaptation.-dhw: Frankly, if he accepts common descent and wants to discount a preprogramming or dabbling God AND Darwin's random mutations plus gradualism, I see no other possible solution than an autonomous inventive mechanism within organisms themselves. DAVID: And I ask, where did that come from? You will admit it is just as nebulous. At least in his 'structuralism' he thinks the 'drive to complexity' follows built in laws or guidelines.-I have always said that the origin is unknown and might be your God. And I have always said that it is an alternative explanation of how evolution works. What is this “at least”? Built in laws or guidelines also require an origin, as does your universal mind, though you prefer to gloss that over	 with “first cause”. I do not see the “drive to complexity” as some sort of abstract principle floating around in the ether. It can only exist within organisms themselves, and that requires individual ‘thinking' mechanisms, not a law.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 01, 2016, 14:56 (2979 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Exactly. this is why epigenetic adaptations may very well not lead to speciation. > > dhw: So there must be an inventive mechanism that goes beyond epigenetic adaptation.-Yes, and we debate what it is.-> [/i] > DAVID: And I ask, where did that come from? You will admit it is just as nebulous. At least in his 'structuralism' he thinks the 'drive to complexity' follows built in laws or guidelines. > > dhw: Built in laws or guidelines also require an origin...-Denton believes they are a natural part of the first forms or 'Types' to use his term.-> dhw:...as does your universal mind, though you prefer to gloss that over	 with “first cause”.-Does first cause (in some form) exist in your view?-> dhw: I do not see the “drive to complexity” as some sort of abstract principle floating around in the ether. It can only exist within organisms themselves, and that requires individual ‘thinking' mechanisms, not a law.-Then you disagree with Denton's approach. He thinks initial structures and constraints guide the advances, following rules of nature. Of course he also accepts functional survival.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
DAVID: And I ask, where did that [the inventive mechanism] come from? You will admit it is just as nebulous. At least in his 'structuralism' he thinks the 'drive to complexity' follows built in laws or guidelines. dhw: Built in laws or guidelines also require an origin... DAVID: Denton believes they are a natural part of the first forms or 'Types' to use his term.-I agree: the forms or types are individual organisms with the ‘will' to survive and in some cases to improve. That still doesn't tell us where the first forms and their “natural parts” (laws, guidelines) come from, which was your question. (I keep saying nobody knows, but you keep asking!)-dhw:...as does your universal mind, though you prefer to gloss that over with “first cause”. DAVID: Does first cause (in some form) exist in your view?-I have told you many times that it does, and I believe it is energy and matter. The question is whether energy and matter have always been conscious or have evolved consciousness. If it's the latter, the question is how and when. But nobody can answer ANY of these questions.-dhw: I do not see the “drive to complexity” as some sort of abstract principle floating around in the ether. It can only exist within organisms themselves, and that requires individual ‘thinking' mechanisms, not a law. DAVID: Then you disagree with Denton's approach. He thinks initial structures and constraints guide the advances, following rules of nature. Of course he also accepts functional survival.-I can only discuss what you tell me as I haven't read the book, but it seems self-evident to me that the advances would be guided by initial structures and constraints. I do not believe that in our current environment the cell communities which form the elephant will be able to rejig themselves so that it can fly. Once the process begins, each cell community will build on what its predecessors have established. “Rules of nature” is what bothers me. There has to be a mechanism within the cell/cell community that enables it to adapt/invent. This leads to two questions: 1) Where did it come from? 2) How does it work? “Rules of nature” answers neither of those questions, and is therefore just as nebulous as all the other hypotheses we come up with, like God, sheer luck, or an evolving panpsychist consciousness. But perhaps Denton will come up with some answers.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 02, 2016, 15:44 (2978 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I can only discuss what you tell me as I haven't read the book, but it seems self-evident to me that the advances would be guided by initial structures and constraints. ...“Rules of nature” is what bothers me. There has to be a mechanism within the cell/cell community that enables it to adapt/invent. This leads to two questions: 1) Where did it come from? 2) How does it work? “Rules of nature” answers neither of those questions, and is therefore just as nebulous as all the other hypotheses we come up with, like God, sheer luck, or an evolving panpsychist consciousness. But perhaps Denton will come up with some answers.-Deeper in the book he describes many odd evolutionary circumstances that, in his opinion could not have been solved by Darwin's theory. No answers yet.
More Denton: Denton on Types
by David Turell , Thursday, March 03, 2016, 05:13 (2977 days ago) @ David Turell
A brief explanation by Denton on his structuralism theory:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/02/the_types_why_s102569.html-"One of the major achievements of pre-Darwinian biology was the discovery that the living world is organized into a hierarchy of ever more inclusive classes or Types, each clearly defined by a unique homolog or suite of homologs possessed by all the members of the Type and which in many cases have remained invariant in divergent phylogenetic lines for tens or hundreds of millions of years.-***-"There is currently a widespread impression that pre-Darwinian biologists derived their discontinuous-typological conception of nature from all sorts of discredited metaphysical beliefs. This view has been severely criticized by recent researchers and shown to be largely a myth created by twentieth-century advocates of the neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis1 -- what Ron Amundson calls "Synthesis Historiography."2 As Amundson shows, whatever their metaphysical leaning, pre-Darwinian biologists did not derive their view of the Types as changeless components of the world order from any a priori metaphysics but from solid empirical observations. -***-"Today, 150 years after Darwin, Owen's "biological atoms" are as distinct as ever. The vast majority of all organisms can be assigned to unique classes based on their possession of particular defining homologs or novelties that are not led up to via Darwin's "innumerable transitional forms." -"For readers subjected to popular and pervasive claims by evolutionary biologists that there are innumerable transitional forms of organisms, it might come as something of a surprise that there are unique taxon-defining novelties not led up to gradually from some antecedent form, and that remain invariant after their actualization for vast periods of time. There is indeed something incongruous about the very notion of distinct taxa and genuine immutable "taxon-defining novelties" in the context of the functionalist Darwinian framework, which implies that all taxa-defining traits should be led up to via long series of adaptive transitional forms! On such a Darwinian model, taxa-defining novelties should not exist; neither should distinct Types in which all members possess unique defining novelties not shared by the members of any other taxa.-"Let me reiterate: If evolution has occurred as conceived of by Darwin, invariant taxa-defining novelties, not led up to via long sequences of transitional forms from some antecedent structure, should not exist. Ironically, it is only because organisms can be classified into distinct groups on the basis of their possession of invariant unique homologs that descent with modification can be inferred in the first place. If it was not for the invariance of the homologs and the Types they define, the common descent of all the members of a particular clade from a common ancestor would be in serious doubt. The living realm would conform to a chaotic network rather than an orderly branching tree. -"Types are still as distinct today as they were for Richard Owen, Agassiz, and the other typologists and structuralists in the pre-Darwinian era and even for Darwin himself.3 They are still clearly defined by homologs or synapomorphies that are true evolutionary novelties without antecedent in earlier putative ancestral forms. "-Comment: An apt comment on the Cambodian forms, no antecedents.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
dhw: I can only discuss what you tell me as I haven't read the book, but it seems self-evident to me that the advances would be guided by initial structures and constraints. ...“Rules of nature” is what bothers me. There has to be a mechanism within the cell/cell community that enables it to adapt/invent. This leads to two questions: 1) Where did it come from? 2) How does it work? “Rules of nature” answers neither of those questions, and is therefore just as nebulous as all the other hypotheses we come up with, like God, sheer luck, or an evolving panpsychist consciousness. But perhaps Denton will come up with some answers.-DAVID: Deeper in the book he describes many odd evolutionary circumstances that, in his opinion could not have been solved by Darwin's theory. No answers yet.-Which theory? So far, the argument only discredits the theory of random mutations and gradualism, which we have long ago dismissed and the basic problem of which, in relation to the Cambrian, even Darwin himself was aware of. Yes, he seems to have got it wrong, but this is flogging a dead horse for the thousandth time.-DAVID (under "Cambrian explosion"): Denton's point was the original body plan in all organisms had the nerve cord ventral and heart, vessels and gut dorsal and with the appearance of vertebrates everything suddenly reversed with no evidence for gradual changes, all controlled by the same genes. Not Darwinian at all. Same functional organs, different positions. A completely different body plan, seemingly by saltation. I view it as advanced pre-planning for upright posture. He made no comment, but used it as anti-Darwin evidence.-Same again, ad nauseam, and the same yet again in the post relating to types: “...there are innumerable taxon-defining novelties not led up to gradually from some antecedent form”. Darwin believed “natura non facit saltum”. We think he was wrong. He also said his theory depended on small gradual changes as opposed to big leaps. We think he was wrong again. So either we opt for biblical separate creation, or we opt for Darwinian common descent, and if we opt for common descent (and you and I think Darwin got that right), we must search for the mechanism that has enabled organisms to innovate, and of course we will wonder how it works and where it came from. Denton's ”rules of nature” won't help us.
More Denton: My review of my reading so far
by David Turell , Thursday, March 03, 2016, 15:42 (2977 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: So either we opt for biblical separate creation, or we opt for Darwinian common descent, and if we opt for common descent (and you and I think Darwin got that right), we must search for the mechanism that has enabled organisms to innovate, and of course we will wonder how it works and where it came from. Denton's ”rules of nature” won't help us.-I'll keep reading. Maybe a possible answer at the end.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: I don't know why you've changed autonomous to independent, but if something simply follows instructions, it is neither autonomous nor independent. “Pre-planned instructions” = your 3.8-billion-year computer programme, so you are only muddying the waters when you equate it with an “independent IM”. Nor do I know why you should consider such a mechanism to be any more of a fairy tale than a fixed programme for the whole of evolution, but I presume you will not deny that if God can create such a programme, he is also capable of creating the AUTONOMOUS mechanism I have described above.-DAVID: To my view autonomous and independent IM's are the same if God programs them with his instructions onboard. It autonomously runs to produce the results He wants, or since it is pre-programmed it runs independently to serve his purpose.-You are the only person I know who defines autonomous/independent as meaning dependent on instructions which have to be obeyed. This is like an atheist defining God as a fictional being invented by humans. Autonomy means the ability to make decisions and to act without instructions or coercion from anyone else. You are of course welcome to believe that the inventive mechanism is a 3.8-billion-year computer programme implanted by God, but please, please, please don't call it autonomous or independent.-And please tell us if you think your God is incapable of creating an AUTONOMOUS mechanism as I have defined it.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Monday, February 29, 2016, 15:00 (2980 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You are the only person I know who defines autonomous/independent as meaning dependent on instructions which have to be obeyed. This is like an atheist defining God as a fictional being invented by humans. Autonomy means the ability to make decisions and to act without instructions or coercion from anyone else. - I use my concept exactly as this entry about autonomous cars in Wiki: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car - They are fully programmed to act autonomously, but I understand they are really not, but under constraints of the internal program - > > dhw:And please tell us if you think your God is incapable of creating an AUTONOMOUS mechanism as I have defined it. - I think He can and it will act like the car above.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: You are the only person I know who defines autonomous/independent as meaning dependent on instructions which have to be obeyed. This is like an atheist defining God as a fictional being invented by humans. Autonomy means the ability to make decisions and to act without instructions or coercion from anyone else. - DAVID: I use my concept exactly as this entry about autonomous cars in Wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car - They are fully programmed to act autonomously, but I understand they are really not, but under constraints of the internal program - QUOTE: An autonomous car (driverless car,[1] self-driving car,[2] robotic car[3]) is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input.[4] - As cars don't invent anything new, I'm afraid the analogy doesn't work, but as far as the meaning of “autonomous” is concerned, it fits once we replace “navigation” with the appropriate characteristics and designer: an autonomous inventive mechanism is a mechanism that is capable of sensing its environment, taking decisions, adapting AND INVENTING without divine input. Humans have invented the autonomous car. Your car analogy is not of a divine computer programme for every innovation, but of your God inventing the autonomous inventive mechanism, i.e. a mechanism which does its own inventing just as the car does its own navigating. - dhw:And please tell us if you think your God is incapable of creating an AUTONOMOUS mechanism as I have defined it. DAVID: I think He can and it will act like the car above. - Thank you. The autonomous inventive mechanism will invent without divine input.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 01, 2016, 14:45 (2979 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As cars don't invent anything new, I'm afraid the analogy doesn't work, but as far as the meaning of “autonomous” is concerned, it fits once we replace “navigation” with the appropriate characteristics and designer: an autonomous inventive mechanism is a mechanism that is capable of sensing its environment, taking decisions, adapting AND INVENTING without divine input.-You still miss my point. If God produced an IM with the characteristics you feel it should have, it can work perfectly well, autonomously using God's wishes by having His guidance software onboard at its invention.-> > dhw:And please tell us if you think your God is incapable of creating an AUTONOMOUS mechanism as I have defined it. > DAVID: I think He can and it will act like the car above. > > dhw: Thank you. The autonomous inventive mechanism will invent without divine input.-Yes it will, as described above, divine will front-loaded.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: As cars don't invent anything new, I'm afraid the analogy doesn't work, but as far as the meaning of “autonomous” is concerned, it fits once we replace “navigation” with the appropriate characteristics and designer: an autonomous inventive mechanism is a mechanism that is capable of sensing its environment, taking decisions, adapting AND INVENTING without divine input.-DAVID: You still miss my point. If God produced an IM with the characteristics you feel it should have, it can work perfectly well, autonomously using God's wishes by having His guidance software onboard at its invention.-And you still miss my point, which is that an autonomous organism by definition does not “use” anyone's wishes except its own and is not guided. Your self-navigating car was invented by humans so that it could navigate “without human input”, and my inventive mechanism was (or rather, may have been) invented by God so that it could invent without God's input. If you really want an analogy, it is one that I have already given you before. You believe humans have free will. That means, in theistic terms, your God gave humans the ability and the mechanism with which to make their own decisions, independently of his wishes and without any “guidance software on board”. Do you believe God programmed Beethoven to write his symphonies? If you don't, then the analogy can be applied to all organisms: your God gave them the ability and the mechanism with which to make their own decisions. That is autonomy. You may not believe organisms have such a mechanism, but please do not define autonomous as being guided by God to obey what you believe to be his wishes.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 02, 2016, 15:38 (2978 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: And you still miss my point, which is that an autonomous organism by definition does not “use” anyone's wishes except its own and is not guided. Your self-navigating car was invented by humans so that it could navigate “without human input”, and my inventive mechanism was (or rather, may have been) invented by God so that it could invent without God's input. If you really want an analogy, it is one that I have already given you before. You believe humans have free will. That means, in theistic terms, your God gave humans the ability and the mechanism with which to make their own decisions, independently of his wishes and without any “guidance software on board”. - But God also gave humans consciousness which means they can plan for any complex advances they wish. - > dhw: Do you believe God programmed Beethoven to write his symphonies? If you don't, then the analogy can be applied to all organisms: your God gave them the ability and the mechanism with which to make their own decisions. That is autonomy. You may not believe organisms have such a mechanism, but please do not define autonomous as being guided by God to obey what you believe to be his wishes. - Your definition of autonomy assumes the IM can plan for complex advances in evolution. There is our difference in interpretation. Evolutionary advances require intricate planning. How does your IM do that without consciousness? Thus my auto analogy fits my concept of an autonomous IM which must have onboard instructions or be given consciousness.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: And you still miss my point, which is that an autonomous organism by definition does not “use” anyone's wishes except its own and is not guided. Your self-navigating car was invented by humans so that it could navigate “without human input”, and my inventive mechanism was (or rather, may have been) invented by God so that it could invent without God's input. If you really want an analogy, it is one that I have already given you before. You believe humans have free will. That means, in theistic terms, your God gave humans the ability and the mechanism with which to make their own decisions, independently of his wishes and without any “guidance software on board”. - DAVID: But God also gave humans consciousness which means they can plan for any complex advances they wish. - In my hypothesis, as you well know, cells have consciousness, which they may have been given by your God (see below). Advance planning is not part of my concept. My IM begins with an opportunity offered by the environment and responds by developing the innovation (much as an artist, writer, composer may begin with an idea and then develop it). According to you, this happens because something (probably also the environment) triggers your God's 3.8-billion year computer programme for the dorsal nervous system, the dragonfly's migration (another wonderful post, thank you), and the weaverbird's nest. According to me, the cooperating cell communities of which the organisms are composed work it out for themselves. In both cases, if it didn't happen relatively quickly, it wouldn't survive (though of course modifications may follow later). See also the very enlightening post on amoeba for how cooperation creates complexity. dhw: Do you believe God programmed Beethoven to write his symphonies? If you don't, then the analogy can be applied to all organisms: your God gave them the ability and the mechanism with which to make their own decisions. That is autonomy. You may not believe organisms have such a mechanism, but please do not define autonomous as being guided by God to obey what you believe to be his wishes. - DAVID: Your definition of autonomy assumes the IM can plan for complex advances in evolution. There is our difference in interpretation. Evolutionary advances require intricate planning. How does your IM do that without consciousness? Thus my auto analogy fits my concept of an autonomous IM which must have onboard instructions or be given consciousness. - As regards “intricate planning”, see above. The IM is within the cell/cell community, and of course my hypothesis depends entirely on cells being conscious! (But cellular consciousness is not the same as human self-awareness.) That is why I keep repeating the unequivocal declaration by different experts in the field that cells are sentient, intelligent, cognitive, decision-making beings. The fact that you dismiss the very possibility of cells being conscious does not invalidate the findings of these experts or the hypothesis that I have based on those findings. Once more: my autonomous IM is conscious, and if it wasn't, it could not be autonomous.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Thursday, March 03, 2016, 15:36 (2977 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:The IM is within the cell/cell community, and of course my hypothesis depends entirely on cells being conscious! (But cellular consciousness is not the same as human self-awareness.) That is why I keep repeating the unequivocal declaration by different experts in the field that cells are sentient, intelligent, cognitive, decision-making beings. The fact that you dismiss the very possibility of cells being conscious does not invalidate the findings of these experts or the hypothesis that I have based on those findings. Once more: my autonomous IM is conscious, and if it wasn't, it could not be autonomous. - In a way you are joining me. I propose a universal consciousness, and every living thing could be part of it, but I favor control thru the UC.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: The IM is within the cell/cell community, and of course my hypothesis depends entirely on cells being conscious! (But cellular consciousness is not the same as human self-awareness.) That is why I keep repeating the unequivocal declaration by different experts in the field that cells are sentient, intelligent, cognitive, decision-making beings. The fact that you dismiss the very possibility of cells being conscious does not invalidate the findings of these experts or the hypothesis that I have based on those findings. Once more: my autonomous IM is conscious, and if it wasn't, it could not be autonomous. - DAVID: In a way you are joining me. I propose a universal consciousness, and every living thing could be part of it, but I favor control thru the UC. - I have always understood your universal consciousness to be a single mind. Maybe it is. But I do not find this hypothesis any more believable than that of zillions of individual consciousnesses contained within zillions of organisms, all with their own different levels and abilities. Different communities may link up with one another as per Sheldrake's morphic resonance, and BBella's ALL THAT IS may be linked together in an endlessly interacting process of causes and effects, but these concepts do not require a single controlling mind.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Friday, March 04, 2016, 15:27 (2976 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:I have always understood your universal consciousness to be a single mind. Maybe it is. But I do not find this hypothesis any more believable than that of zillions of individual consciousnesses contained within zillions of organisms, all with their own different levels and abilities. Different communities may link up with one another as per Sheldrake's morphic resonance, and BBella's ALL THAT IS may be linked together in an endlessly interacting process of causes and effects, but these concepts do not require a single controlling mind.-Part of my thought process is Sheldrake's studies that imply species consciousness exists. A universal consciousness can at its source be God with various species parts, helping to explain our consciousness. BBella's ATI to me still is a version of God.
More Denton: A new book
dhw:I have always understood your universal consciousness to be a single mind. Maybe it is. But I do not find this hypothesis any more believable than that of zillions of individual consciousnesses contained within zillions of organisms, all with their own different levels and abilities. Different communities may link up with one another as per Sheldrake's morphic resonance, and BBella's ALL THAT IS may be linked together in an endlessly interacting process of causes and effects, but these concepts do not require a single controlling mind.-DAVID: Part of my thought process is Sheldrake's studies that imply species consciousness exists. A universal consciousness can at its source be God with various species parts, helping to explain our consciousness. BBella's ATI to me still is a version of God.-Your God is becoming more and more diffuse. How about this, then, for a “version of God”: ALL THAT IS, consisting of energy and matter, some of which is organic and conscious, and some of which is inorganic and probably without consciousness. Then we really needn't bother about where it all came from, or how and when consciousness arose. After all, if God just is (no known source), then ALL THAT IS just is. But maybe, on second thoughts, we should ditch the word “God”, because so many people associate that with a single, conscious, eternal being which deliberately created ALL THAT IS.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Saturday, March 05, 2016, 14:24 (2975 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; Your God is becoming more and more diffuse. How about this, then, for a “version of God”: ALL THAT IS, consisting of energy and matter, some of which is organic and conscious, and some of which is inorganic and probably without consciousness. Then we really needn't bother about where it all came from, or how and when consciousness arose. After all, if God just is (no known source), then ALL THAT IS just is. But maybe, on second thoughts, we should ditch the word “God”, because so many people associate that with a single, conscious, eternal being which deliberately created ALL THAT IS. - At least you definitely accept that something is eternal and has consciousness. Something with consciousness could then plan our reality, design not chance.
More Denton: A new book
by BBella , Saturday, March 05, 2016, 19:33 (2975 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw; Your God is becoming more and more diffuse. How about this, then, for a “version of God”: ALL THAT IS, consisting of energy and matter, some of which is organic and conscious, and some of which is inorganic and probably without consciousness. Then we really needn't bother about where it all came from, or how and when consciousness arose. After all, if God just is (no known source), then ALL THAT IS just is. But maybe, on second thoughts, we should ditch the word “God”, because so many people associate that with a single, conscious, eternal being which deliberately created ALL THAT IS. > > At least you definitely accept that something is eternal and has consciousness. Something with consciousness could then plan our reality, design not chance. - Questions to ponder: - If there is ONE Conscious being that planned and created All That Is, would that suggest that the ONE being came before All That Is and would had to have created All That Is from no-thing? Is that even probable/possible? - If energy, matter and consciousness all arrived at the same time, or always existed together, but at some point consciousness, with or without bodies, began to intelligently plan and create life as we know from what was available at the time - would said creators deserve/demand worship from the created? After all, what was created was made from already available stuff. And why would said creators not continue to hang around to guide the created? Why the great mystery hanging over the created beings head? - If there is ONE conscious, intelligent being that planned and created All That Is, as David proposes, why would this ONE intelligent being, who could create such wondrous life from nothing (or from available material), allow the horrors of life as we know it? - If YOU were the ONE creator of life as we know it and had all the power to create, how would YOU have done, or would do it differently, to bring about a different outcome? - One last ponder (for now): If the creator of life as we know it used available material to create, that would have to mean that consciousness too was/is a part of that available material. If we are made from the same stuff as our creator, what makes us different than our creator?
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Sunday, March 06, 2016, 01:50 (2975 days ago) @ BBella
> > David: At least you definitely accept that something is eternal and has consciousness. Something with consciousness could then plan our reality, design not chance. > > > > BBella: If there is ONE Conscious being that planned and created All That Is, would that suggest that the ONE being came before All That Is and would had to have created All That Is from no-thing? Is that even probable/possible?-Something is eternal. You cannot get something from a true nothing. Whatever is eternal created ATI. > > BBella: If energy, matter and consciousness all arrived at the same time, or always existed together, but at some point consciousness, with or without bodies, began to intelligently plan and create life as we know from what was available at the time - would said creators deserve/demand worship from the created? After all, what was created was made from already available stuff. And why would said creators not continue to hang around to guide the created? Why the great mystery hanging over the created beings head?-Consciousness cannot be amorphous if it is planning and designing. The energy/matter provide the raw materials. > > BBella If there is ONE conscious, intelligent being that planned and created All That Is, as David proposes, why would this ONE intelligent being, who could create such wondrous life from nothing (or from available material), allow the horrors of life as we know it? -You are asking about theodicy, but that applies only if you assign religions' definition of God's personality. How do you know God is loving or for that matter caring? We don't know that. Life is wondrous only from our viewpoint. > > BBella: If YOU were the ONE creator of life as we know it and had all the power to create, how would YOU have done, or would do it differently, to bring about a different outcome?-That thought never occurred to me. I don't know what change would improve what we have. We have the brains to solve all problems. It is just that we haven't gotten there yet. I view God as a tough-love parent. We should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant. > > BBella: One last ponder (for now): If the creator of life as we know it used available material to create, that would have to mean that consciousness too was/is a part of that available material. If we are made from the same stuff as our creator, what makes us different than our creator?-We are made "in the image" through our consciousness. We just don't have the same intellectual capacity.
More Denton: A new book
DAVID: BBella's ATI to me still is a version of God. dhw; Your God is becoming more and more diffuse. How about this, then, for a “version of God”: ALL THAT IS, consisting of energy and matter, some of which is organic and conscious, and some of which is inorganic and probably without consciousness. Then we really needn't bother about where it all came from, or how and when consciousness arose. After all, if God just is (no known source), then ALL THAT IS just is. But maybe, on second thoughts, we should ditch the word “God”, because so many people associate that with a single, conscious, eternal being which deliberately created ALL THAT IS.-DAVID: At least you definitely accept that something is eternal and has consciousness. Something with consciousness could then plan our reality, design not chance.-Neatly twisted. ALL THAT IS is in the present tense. I do accept that energy and matter may be eternal. SOME of it is NOW organic and conscious, but the definition explicitly ignores considerations of how and when consciousness arose. That is why I end up by proposing that we drop the word “God” altogether, because as you make abundantly clear in your response to BBella, theists like yourself insist that your ALL THAT IS (your God) deliberately created ALL THAT IS, which clearly makes no sense (see below). There is therefore no way BBella's ATI can be called a “version of God” unless you strip God of his individual, eternal, creative, purposeful mind.-BBella: If there is ONE Conscious being that planned and created All That Is, would that suggest that the ONE being came before All That Is and would had to have created All That Is from no-thing? Is that even probable/possible? DAVID: Something is eternal. You cannot get something from a true nothing. Whatever is eternal created ATI.-“Created” is a loaded word, and I think you have missed the point of BBella's hyphenated no-thing. If what is eternal is energy and matter, ATI is derived from energy and matter. However, if what is eternal is a disembodied consciousness which uses energy and matter as what you call “raw materials”, BBella is right: it would have had to create energy and matter from consciousness, which is not a “thing”. How can consciousness simply exist without having anything to be conscious of, apart from itself, and then create the raw materials of energy and matter out of its no-thing? But of course the God you imagine has unlimited powers, and for you that explains whatever can't be explained.-BBELLA: If the creator of life as we know it used available material to create, that would have to mean that consciousness too was/is a part of that available material. If we are made from the same stuff as our creator, what makes us different than our creator? DAVID: We are made "in the image" through our consciousness. We just don't have the same intellectual capacity.-An excellent justification for what you call the “anthropomorphization” of God, if we are in his image but just not as clever as he is. You “explain” the higgledy-piggledy history of life by proposing that it was preprogrammed or personally manipulated by your God for the purpose of creating humans, and you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”. And yet you dismiss as “anthropomorphic” the proposal that the higgledy-piggledy history might be explained by your God creating life as an experiment or entertainment in which all organisms either solve or do not solve problems by themselves, by being self-reliant. Double standards, sir, double standards!
More Denton: A new book
by BBella , Sunday, March 06, 2016, 19:38 (2974 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: If the creator of life as we know it used available material to create, that would have to mean that consciousness too was/is a part of that available material. If we are made from the same stuff as our creator, what makes us different than our creator? > DAVID: We are made "in the image" through our consciousness. We just don't have the same intellectual capacity. > -So, you are saying we are made in our creators image only in consciousness? Meaning: the creator does not (or does not have to) inhabit energy and matter or need a body to inhabit - meaning: the creator came before energy and matter?
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Monday, March 07, 2016, 04:59 (2973 days ago) @ BBella
DAVID: We are made "in the image" through our consciousness. We just don't have the same intellectual capacity. > > > > BBella: So, you are saying we are made in our creators image only in consciousness? Meaning: the creator does not (or does not have to) inhabit energy and matter or need a body to inhabit - meaning: the creator came before energy and matter?-I only know that God is consciousness, and we have consciousness. I assume He is eternal conscious energy. What more can we suspect or imagine?
More Denton: A new book
by BBella , Monday, March 07, 2016, 18:12 (2973 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: We are made "in the image" through our consciousness. We just don't have the same intellectual capacity. > > > > > > > BBella: So, you are saying we are made in our creators image only in consciousness? Meaning: the creator does not (or does not have to) inhabit energy and matter or need a body to inhabit - meaning: the creator came before energy and matter? > > I only know that God is consciousness, and we have consciousness. I assume He is eternal conscious energy. What more can we suspect or imagine?-So our consciousness is made in the image of our creator's consciousness, which would seem to imply we are mini start up creators, and given enough time, we too could become as intelligently brilliant and able to create matter from no-thing? But of course, it appears our creator has turned off our time code so we will never become as brilliant, which would seem to mean our creator doesn't want us as intellectually brilliant as he?
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Monday, March 07, 2016, 15:11 (2973 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: At least you definitely accept that something is eternal and has consciousness. Something with consciousness could then plan our reality, design not chance. > > dhw: Neatly twisted. ALL THAT IS is in the present tense. I do accept that energy and matter may be eternal. SOME of it is NOW organic and conscious, but the definition explicitly ignores considerations of how and when consciousness arose. That is why I end up by proposing that we drop the word “God” altogether, because as you make abundantly clear in your response to BBella, theists like yourself insist that your ALL THAT IS (your God) deliberately created ALL THAT IS, which clearly makes no sense (see below). There is therefore no way BBella's ATI can be called a “version of God” unless you strip God of his individual, eternal, creative, purposeful mind.-I know it is present tense. And what you skip over is simply the fact that God is also present tense. Yes, He is eternal, but He is present and part of ATI, which He preceded.-> DAVID: Something is eternal. You cannot get something from a true nothing. Whatever is eternal created ATI. > > dhw: “Created” is a loaded word, and I think you have missed the point of BBella's hyphenated no-thing. If what is eternal is energy and matter, ATI is derived from energy and matter. However, if what is eternal is a disembodied consciousness which uses energy and matter as what you call “raw materials”, BBella is right: it would have had to create energy and matter from consciousness, which is not a “thing”. How can consciousness simply exist without having anything to be conscious of, apart from itself, and then create the raw materials of energy and matter out of its no-thing? But of course the God you imagine has unlimited powers, and for you that explains whatever can't be explained.-How do you know God's consciousness is disembodied? I consider it as a fully organized construction called God, conscious of itself and of its intentions. -> DAVID: We are made "in the image" through our consciousness. We just don't have the same intellectual capacity. > > dhw: An excellent justification for what you call the “anthropomorphization” of God, if we are in his image but just not as clever as he is. You “explain” the higgledy-piggledy history of life by proposing that it was preprogrammed or personally manipulated by your God for the purpose of creating humans, and you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”. And yet you dismiss as “anthropomorphic” the proposal that the higgledy-piggledy history might be explained by your God creating life as an experiment or entertainment in which all organisms either solve or do not solve problems by themselves, by being self-reliant. Double standards, sir, double standards!-You can have your God entertaining Himself. He doesn't need the TV, He's got us! What a lightweight view of the possibilities of God's personality. But then again you seek answers with no loose ends, when all we've got is loose ends and no explanation for humans arising from the struggling organisms of life with capacities well beyond the necessity of functionality.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: If what is eternal is energy and matter, ATI is derived from energy and matter. However, if what is eternal is a disembodied consciousness which uses energy and matter as what you call “raw materials”, BBella is right: it would have had to create energy and matter from consciousness, which is not a “thing”. How can consciousness simply exist without having anything to be conscious of, apart from itself, and then create the raw materials of energy and matter out of its no-thing? -DAVID: How do you know God's consciousness is disembodied? I consider it as a fully organized construction called God, conscious of itself and of its intentions. -What sort of “fully organized construction” are you thinking of? You wrote that God was consciousness, and this became “eternal conscious energy”. I assumed then that you were distinguishing between energy and matter. (As an ignorant layman, I must confess that despite all the scientific pronouncements on the subject, I still don't understand how energy can exist independently of matter, or matter independently of energy.) I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists. Therefore if BBella's ATI can be called “a version of God”, ATI is God, and this version of ATI consciously created itself. Does that make sense? On the other hand, we can say energy and matter have always been derived from energy and matter. But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves? Dhw: ...you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”. And yet you dismiss as “anthropomorphic” the proposal that the higgledy-piggledy history might be explained by your God creating life as an experiment or entertainment in which all organisms either solve or do not solve problems by themselves, by being self-reliant. Double standards, sir, double standards! DAVID: You can have your God entertaining Himself. He doesn't need the TV, He's got us! What a lightweight view of the possibilities of God's personality. But then again you seek answers with no loose ends, when all we've got is loose ends and no explanation for humans arising from the struggling organisms of life with capacities well beyond the necessity of functionality.-Why is your view of God as a “tough love parent” any “heavier”, let alone any less “anthropomorphic” (the whole point of my criticism), than the view that God created life to relieve eternal boredom? Double standards.-You are right that we only have loose ends with no explanation, which is why I remain agnostic. Your God is one explanation riddled with loose ends, and your anthropocentric explanation of evolution's higgledy-piggledy history is another: humans “arising from the struggling organisms”, has been countered a thousand times by the fact that ALL multicellular organisms are beyond the necessity of functionality. And yet you believe in your hypotheses with all their loose ends, and reject any other possible explanation because....well, presumably because it has loose ends. Double standards.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 08, 2016, 21:29 (2972 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: (As an ignorant layman, I must confess that despite all the scientific pronouncements on the subject, I still don't understand how energy can exist independently of matter, or matter independently of energy.)-Pure energy is what the LHC and other atom/matter busters pull apart: electrons, protons, positrons, quarks, gluons, photons, are pure energy and are a portion of the particle zoo. Virtual particles at the quantum level are also part of this group, which I have not presented completely. Put back together they make up matter. Could God be an eternal group of these particles as a pure plasma of energy? Why not? I don't know where to let my imagination take me. God could be simply pure energy with consciousness. I've mentioned that religious thinkers have described God as pure simplicity. I don't know how they know that, but that is close to my concept.-> dhw: I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists.-What I presented above can explain to you the possibility of a plasma of energy, no matter formed. Thus disembodied and immaterial just as conscious thought is immaterial.-> dhw: But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves?-Because eternal consciousness cannot appear de novo, it must pre-exist everything else and is first cause. > > Dhw: ...you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”.-I use the 'tough-love parent' as a metaphor, not as a real parent. -> > dhw: You are right that we only have loose ends with no explanation, which is why I remain agnostic. Your God is one explanation riddled with loose ends, and your anthropocentric explanation of evolution's higgledy-piggledy history is another: humans “arising from the struggling organisms”, has been countered a thousand times by the fact that ALL multicellular organisms are beyond the necessity of functionality. And yet you believe in your hypotheses with all their loose ends, and reject any other possible explanation because....well, presumably because it has loose ends. Double standards.-I agree there is no need for multicellularity. There is no need for the enormous jump to conscious humans. Therefore we must look to teleology. There must be a driving purpose behind an evolutionary process that consistently advances beyond necessity.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: (As an ignorant layman, I must confess that despite all the scientific pronouncements on the subject, I still don't understand how energy can exist independently of matter, or matter independently of energy.)-DAVID: Pure energy is what the LHC and other atom/matter busters pull apart: electrons, protons, positrons, quarks, gluons, photons, are pure energy and are a portion of the particle zoo. Virtual particles at the quantum level are also part of this group, which I have not presented completely. Put back together they make up matter. Could God be an eternal group of these particles as a pure plasma of energy? Why not? I don't know where to let my imagination take me. God could be simply pure energy with consciousness...-This sounds impressive, but particles are matter, and you have listed “portions” of particles. My point is not that we cannot separate energy from matter, but that they are interdependent. However, if you believe your God may be composed of “virtual” particles or some unknown “pure plasma of energy”, and created existing energy and matter out of his "pure energy", then so be it. Similarly, your fellow scientists can believe in strings and multiverses, though you suddenly become sceptical when they come up with such “unknowns”. dhw: I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists. DAVID: What I presented above can explain to you the possibility of a plasma of energy, no matter formed. Thus disembodied and immaterial just as conscious thought is immaterial.-This is the real crux of the matter. Is consciousness some unknown form of energy that uses the brain, or is the brain the generator of the energy we call consciousness? Who knows? dhw: But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves? DAVID: Because eternal consciousness cannot appear de novo, it must pre-exist everything else and is first cause.-I'm afraid I find “pre-existing” no more convincing than appearing de novo. That is a sticking-point for me, which is why I stay on my fence.-Dhw: ...you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”.-DAVID: I use the 'tough-love parent' as a metaphor, not as a real parent. -It is an attempt to read your God's mind, as is the suggestion that he created us to relieve the boredom. But let's keep going: what “metaphorical” reasons can you think of for God wanting to set us problems in the first place? DAVID: I agree there is no need for multicellularity. There is no need for the enormous jump to conscious humans. Therefore we must look to teleology. There must be a driving purpose behind an evolutionary process that consistently advances beyond necessity.-There was no need for any jumps...full stop. I agree that there must be a driving purpose: I have suggested survival and/or improvement. That drive (perhaps implanted by your hypothetical God when he hypothetically endowed the first cells with intelligence) would explain every jump you can think of, including from apes to humans.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Thursday, March 10, 2016, 00:19 (2971 days ago) @ dhw
[/i] David: God could be simply pure energy with consciousness...[/i] > > dhw: This sounds impressive, but particles are matter, and you have listed “portions” of particles.-Sorry, wrong: atoms are the basic constituents of matter. I'm discussing pure energy particles, size measured in electron volts which make up atoms.-http://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/fl/What-Is-the-Most-Basic-Building-Block-of-Matter.htm-> dhw: My point is not that we cannot separate energy from matter, but that they are interdependent.-Yes, interdependent, but we can interrupt that relationship with enough energy power to smash matter apart and find the energy particles inside the atoms.-> dhw: However, if you believe your God may be composed of “virtual” particles or some unknown “pure plasma of energy”, and created existing energy and matter out of his "pure energy", then so be it.-Plasmas are pure energy.-> dhw: Similarly, your fellow scientists can believe in strings and multiverses, though you suddenly become sceptical when they come up with such “unknowns”.-Plasmas are knowns! > > dhw: I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists.-You want God to be matter. Why!? > > dhw: This is the real crux of the matter. Is consciousness some unknown form of energy that uses the brain, or is the brain the generator of the energy we call consciousness? Who knows? -Back to the theory that the brain is a receiver of consciousness as a possibility. Consciousness may exist as electromagnetic wave fields, and they are not matter. Magnetic fields are not matter, but magnets are.-> > dhw: But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves?-If you have followed my reasoning, consciousness may be pure energy, and the only matter necessary is the matter that receives the thoughts and feelings and interprets.-> > Dhw: ...you “view God as a tough-love parent.” How anthropomorphic can you get? Furthermore, “we should solve problems by ourselves, by being self-reliant”. > > DAVID: I use the 'tough-love parent' as a metaphor, not as a real parent. > > dhw: It is an attempt to read your God's mind, as is the suggestion that he created us to relieve the boredom. But let's keep going: what “metaphorical” reasons can you think of for God wanting to set us problems in the first place?-My guess: He knew that balance of life would require dangers to us, but with the powerful brains He gave us we can find the answers. Would you like the Garden of Eden without challenges to keep life interesting or do you want the obvious boredom of the Garden? This is all in my first book. > > DAVID: I agree there is no need for multicellularity. There is no need for the enormous jump to conscious humans. Therefore we must look to teleology. There must be a driving purpose behind an evolutionary process that consistently advances beyond necessity. > > dhw: There was no need for any jumps...full stop. I agree that there must be a driving purpose: I have suggested survival and/or improvement. That drive (perhaps implanted by your hypothetical God when he hypothetically endowed the first cells with intelligence) would explain every jump you can think of, including from apes to humans.-Bacteria have survived without any improvement! The point cannot be escaped. Multicellularity gave us sexual reproduction which introduced the ability of opening up genetics to more complexity in progeny. Still looks teleological to me.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: This sounds impressive, but particles are matter, and you have listed “portions” of particles. DAVID: Sorry, wrong: atoms are the basic constituents of matter. I'm discussing pure energy particles, size measured in electron volts which make up atoms.-http://chemistry.about.com/od/matter/fl/What-Is-the-Most-Basic-Building-Block-of-Matter... -Why “sorry, wrong”? You have split my two sentences! dhw: My point is not that we cannot separate energy from matter, but that they are interdependent. DAVID: Yes, interdependent, but we can interrupt that relationship with enough energy power to smash matter apart and find the energy particles inside the atoms. -So you agree with me, and there is no need for a “but”. This is becoming a pattern (see later.) Your examples of “pure energy” included electrons, protons, quarks, which are subatomic particles. Your article says: “at the subatomic level it's difficult to identify a single particle that could be called the basic building block of matter. You could say quarks and leptons [an electron is a lepton] are the basic building blocks of matter, if you like.”-Clearly matter depends on its building blocks. As for “pure energy”, the very concept is controversial, so I don't know on what authority you claim that quarks, electrons, protons etc. are “pure energy”.-DAVID: Plasmas are pure energy.-From Wikipedia: Plasma (from Greek ??????, "anything formed"[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter, the others being solid, liquid, and gas. Plasma is the most abundant form of ordinary matter in the Universe (of the forms proven to exist; the more abundant dark matter is hypothetical and may or may not be explained by ordinary matter)....-No mention here either of plasma as “pure energy”.-dhw: Similarly, your fellow scientists can believe in strings and multiverses, though you suddenly become sceptical when they come up with such “unknowns”. DAVID: Plasmas are knowns!-Are you saying we actually know of a "pure plasma of energy"?-dhw: I don't know of any “body” which is not material. Hence “disembodied”. So now we have eternally conscious energy AND matter (God) consciously creating all the energy and matter that exists. DAVID: You want God to be matter. Why!?-I don't want any such thing. I called your God's consciousness “disembodied”. On Monday you responded “How do you know God's consciousness is disembodied? I consider is as a fully organized construction”. If you don't think it's disembodied, it must be material. But when challenged on Tuesday you described it as a “plasma of energy. Thus disembodied and immaterial...” So you rejected my use of “disembodied”, but then you told me your God was disembodied. This is what comes of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing! Ts, ts!-DAVID: Back to the theory that the brain is a receiver of consciousness as a possibility. Consciousness may exist as electromagnetic wave fields, and they are not matter. Magnetic fields are not matter, but magnets are.-Once again, my question is whether energy and matter can exist without each other - not whether they can be separated. Your “pure energy” God (magnetic fields)would have to exist independently of matter (magnet) and would then have to produce “de novo” the matter (magnet) that produces energy (magnetic fields). But nobody knows what consciousness is, so we should keep an open mind. -dhw: But can we say energy and matter have always been conscious of themselves? Why is that more logical than to claim that at some unknown time, energy and matter BECAME conscious of themselves? DAVID: If you have followed my reasoning, consciousness may be pure energy, and the only matter necessary is the matter that receives the thoughts and feelings and interprets.-I'll accept “may be”, but that still doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make “always been” more logical than “became”.-Dhw: ...what “metaphorical” reasons can you think of for God wanting to set us problems in the first place? DAVID: My guess: He knew that balance of life would require dangers to us, but with the powerful brains He gave us we can find the answers. Would you like the Garden of Eden without challenges to keep life interesting or do you want the obvious boredom of the Garden? -I like the answer. Clearly, then, you think your God knew all about boredom, so it ties in perfectly with him creating life to relieve his own boredom.-dhw: There was no need for any jumps...full stop. I agree that there must be a driving purpose: I have suggested survival and/or improvement. That drive (perhaps implanted by your hypothetical God when he hypothetically endowed the first cells with intelligence) would explain every jump you can think of, including from apes to humans. DAVID: Bacteria have survived without any improvement! The point cannot be escaped. Multicellularity gave us sexual reproduction which introduced the ability of opening up genetics to more complexity in progeny. Still looks teleological to me. -Once again, you are repeating my arguments as if you are disagreeing with me. There was no need for ANY jumps. Yes, teleological, the purpose being survival and/or improvement. You seem to think the word “teleology” is confined to meaning “God created life for the purpose of producing humans”!
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Thursday, March 10, 2016, 18:30 (2970 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; Your article says: “at the subatomic level it's difficult to identify a single particle that could be called the basic building block of matter. You could say quarks and leptons [an electron is a lepton] are the basic building blocks of matter, if you like.” > dhw: Similarly, your fellow scientists can believe in strings and multiverses, though you suddenly become sceptical when they come up with such “unknowns”. > DAVID: Plasmas are knowns! > > Are you saying we actually know of a "pure plasma of energy"?-Yes. Quark gluon plasmas exist briefly at the LHC for example:-http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/heavy-ion-collisions-quark-gluon-plasma-and-quantum-chromodynamics-"For a few millionths of a second, shortly after the big bang, the universe was filled with an astonishingly hot, dense soup made of all kinds of particles moving at near light speed. This mixture was dominated by quarks - fundamental bits of matter - and by gluons, carriers of the strong force that normally “glue” quarks together into familiar protons and neutrons and other species. In those first evanescent moments of extreme temperature, however, quarks and gluons were bound only weakly, free to move on their own in what's called a quark-gluon plasma.-"In these heavy-ion collisions the hundreds of protons and neutrons in two such nuclei smash into one another at energies of upwards of a few trillion electronvolts each. This forms a miniscule fireball in which everything “melts” into a quark-gluon plasma.-"The fireball instantly cools, and the individual quarks and gluons (collectively called partons) recombine into a blizzard of ordinary matter that speeds away in all directions. The debris contains particles such as pions and kaons, which are made of a quark and an antiquark; protons and neutrons, made of three quarks; and even copious antiprotons and antineutrinos, which may combine to form the nuclei of antiatoms as heavy as helium. .. an early discovery was that the quark-gluon plasma behaves more like a perfect fluid with small viscosity than like a gas, as many researchers had expected." -A brick wall is not a wall until the bricks are made into one. Atoms are matter, pure energy particles must as noted in the quote coalesce into atoms of matter. Energy and matter are bound together, but at extreme levels of heat and energy they can be separated, as in The big Bang! I assume that God is in a pure energy state.-> DAVID: You want God to be matter. Why!? > >dhw: I don't want any such thing. I called your God's consciousness “disembodied”. On Monday you responded “How do you know God's consciousness is disembodied? I consider is as a fully organized construction”. If you don't think it's disembodied, it must be material. -I wasn't clear. I apologize: I view God as a force of organized energy, a 'consciousness' and being organized it is not disembodied (and is a 'body' or a 'formation'), but not material at the same time because God does not have a material body. Obviously this concept of God is not of this reality, but exists in the quantum layer of reality, remembering the interconnectedness of all quantum sister particles.-> DAVID: Back to the theory that the brain is a receiver of consciousness as a possibility. Consciousness may exist as electromagnetic wave fields, and they are not matter. Magnetic fields are not matter, but magnets are.-> > dhw: Once again, my question is whether energy and matter can exist without each other - not whether they can be separated. Your “pure energy” God (magnetic fields)would have to exist independently of matter (magnet) and would then have to produce “de novo” the matter (magnet) that produces energy (magnetic fields). But nobody knows what consciousness is, so we should keep an open mind. -My mind is not closed, but what we know about reality needs a reasonable explanation, and I've given one I accept. I don't expect you to since you don't appear to like supernatural explanations, remembering that whatever created this universe existed prior to this natural reality we have and may well be considered supernatural, i.e., not of this reality.-> DAVID: If you have followed my reasoning, consciousness may be pure energy, and the only matter necessary is the matter that receives the thoughts and feelings and interprets. > > dhw; I'll accept “may be”, but that still doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make “always been” more logical than “became”.-I don't know how anything can become conscious all by itself, when we recognize that consciousness is so mysterious we have no explanation at all for its existence (Nagel).-> dhw:Clearly, then, you think your God knew all about boredom, so it ties in perfectly with him creating life to relieve his own boredom.-I'm sure God know about all human emotions before we had any. Why you want Him to avoid boredom is beyond me. He had lots to do inventing the fine-tuned universe and running the process of evolution.-> > dhw: There was no need for ANY jumps [in evolution]. Yes, teleological, the purpose being survival and/or improvement. You seem to think the word “teleology” is confined to meaning “God created life for the purpose of producing humans”!-That is exactly my thought.
More Denton: A new book
Dhw: Are you saying we actually know of a "pure plasma of energy"? DAVID: Yes. Quark gluon plasmas exist briefly at the LHC for example:-http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/heavy-ion-collisions-quark-gluon-plasma-and-quan... I have hunted in vain for the word “pure”. The article says: “...an early discovery was that the quark-gluon plasma behaves more like a perfect fluid with small viscosity than like a gas, as many researchers had expected." With quarks as one of the building blocks of matter, how does this make a quark-gluon plasma into a “pure plasma of energy”? DAVID: A brick wall is not a wall until the bricks are made into one. Atoms are matter, pure energy particles must as noted in the quote coalesce into atoms of matter. Energy and matter are bound together, but at extreme levels of heat and energy they can be separated, as in The big Bang! I assume that God is in a pure energy state.-Again - and understandably, since the whole concept is controversial - the word “pure” is not used anywhere in the quote. The fact that energy and matter can be separated does not mean they can exist without each other. DAVID: You want God to be matter. Why!? dhw: I don't want any such thing. I called your God's consciousness “disembodied”. On Monday you responded “How do you know God's consciousness is disembodied? I consider is as a fully organized construction”. If you don't think it's disembodied, it must be material. -DAVID: I wasn't clear. I apologize. I view God as a force of organized energy, a 'consciousness' and being organized it is not disembodied (and is a 'body' or a 'formation'), but not material at the same time because God does not have a material body. Obviously this concept of God is not of this reality, but exists in the quantum layer of reality, remembering the interconnectedness of all quantum sister particles.-Apology accepted. No concept of God can be “of this reality”, and I guess we can imagine whatever we like in the “quantum layer of reality”.-DAVID: Back to the theory that the brain is a receiver of consciousness as a possibility. Consciousness may exist as electromagnetic wave fields, and they are not matter. Magnetic fields are not matter, but magnets are. dhw: Once again, my question is whether energy and matter can exist without each other - not whether they can be separated. Your “pure energy” God (magnetic fields) would have to exist independently of matter (magnet) and would then have to produce “de novo” the matter (magnet) that produces energy (magnetic fields). But nobody knows what consciousness is, so we should keep an open mind. -DAVID: My mind is not closed, but what we know about reality needs a reasonable explanation, and I've given one I accept. I don't expect you to since you don't appear to like supernatural explanations, remembering that whatever created this universe existed prior to this natural reality we have and may well be considered supernatural, i.e., not of this reality.-I agree that our reality needs a reasonable explanation, and whatever gave rise to life and consciousness has to lie outside of nature AS WE KNOW IT. (Otherwise, we would already have found the explanation.) Your “supernatural” God is one possibility among others that I find equally difficult to believe in. That is the agnostic's dilemma. DAVID: If you have followed my reasoning, consciousness may be pure energy, and the only matter necessary is the matter that receives the thoughts and feelings and interprets. dhw; I'll accept “may be”, but that still doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make “always been” more logical than “became”. DAVID: I don't know how anything can become conscious all by itself, when we recognize that consciousness is so mysterious we have no explanation at all for its existence (Nagel).-Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't know how eternal energy can simply ”be” conscious all by itself. Maybe one day an LHC will be able to test your quark-gluon plasma for signs of consciousness.
dhw: Clearly, then, you think your God knew all about boredom, so it ties in perfectly with him creating life to relieve his own boredom. DAVID: I'm sure God know about all human emotions before we had any. Why you want Him to avoid boredom is beyond me. He had lots to do inventing the fine-tuned universe and running the process of evolution.-Thank you. If he knew all about them before we existed, it can only be because he felt them. It would seem, then, that just like our animal ancestors, your God has passed fundamental attributes down to us. We are not anthropomorphizing them or him - we have inherited these attributes. I offer boredom as a feasible motive for him inventing the fine-tuned universe and setting the process of evolution in motion. Having lots to do is a good antidote for boredom. dhw: There was no need for ANY jumps [in evolution]. Yes, teleological, the purpose being survival and/or improvement. You seem to think the word “teleology” is confined to meaning “God created life for the purpose of producing humans”!-DAVID: That is exactly my thought.-Teleology simply denotes purpose, not one person's idea of one particular purpose.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Friday, March 11, 2016, 15:52 (2969 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, March 11, 2016, 16:04
> dhw: I have hunted in vain for the word “pure”. The article says: “...an early discovery was that the quark-gluon plasma behaves more like a perfect fluid with small viscosity than like a gas, as many researchers had expected." With quarks as one of the building blocks of matter, how does this make a quark-gluon plasma into a “pure plasma of energy”?-I've shown you that atoms are considered the building blocks of matter. The substrate are all the energy particles, quarks, gluons, muons, electrons, photons, etc. They are pure energy whether the article states the word 'pure' or not. I've told you they are measured in electron volts, not weight as formed matter would be measured! It is understood they are pure energy as the basis of the construction of matter, both inextricably tied together in two layers, pure energy as the foundation of matter. The LHC brings out that foundation of particle energy. > > > dhw: Again - and understandably, since the whole concept is controversial - the word “pure” is not used anywhere in the quote. The fact that energy and matter can be separated does not mean they can exist without each other.-You have invented a controversy. A quark gluon plasma antedated the formation of matter in the model of how the universe became matter from the Big Bang.-http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/heavy-ion-collisions-quark-gluon-plasma-and-quantum-chromodynamics-"For a few millionths of a second, shortly after the big bang, the universe was filled with an astonishingly hot, dense soup made of all kinds of particles moving at near light speed. This mixture was dominated by quarks - fundamental bits of matter - and by gluons, carriers of the strong force that normally “glue” quarks together into familiar protons and neutrons and other species. In those first evanescent moments of extreme temperature, however, quarks and gluons were bound only weakly, free to move on their own in what's called a quark-gluon plasma. (my bold)-"To recreate conditions similar to those of the very early universe, powerful accelerators make head-on collisions between massive ions, such as gold or lead nuclei. In these heavy-ion collisions the hundreds of protons and neutrons in two such nuclei smash into one another at energies of upwards of a few trillion electronvolts each. This forms a miniscule fireball in which everything “melts” into a quark-gluon plasma."-Energy bits of matter are not matter until they coalesce into atoms! It is a process from raw materials to finished product, matter.-> dhw; Maybe one day an LHC will be able to test your quark-gluon plasma for signs of consciousness.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: I have hunted in vain for the word “pure”. The article says: “...an early discovery was that the quark-gluon plasma behaves more like a perfect fluid with small viscosity than like a gas, as many researchers had expected." With quarks as one of the building blocks of matter, how does this make a quark-gluon plasma into a “pure plasma of energy”? DAVID: I've shown you that atoms are considered the building blocks of matter. The substrate are all the energy particles, quarks, gluons, muons, electrons, photons, etc. They are pure energy whether the article states the word 'pure' or not. I've told you they are measured in electron volts, not weight as formed matter would be measured! It is understood they are pure energy as the basis of the construction of matter, both inextricably tied together in two layers, pure energy as the foundation of matter. The LHC brings out that foundation of particle energy. -As always, when it comes to matters of science, I am dependent on the experts, including yourself. However, when experts disagree, I cannot be expected to take one side against another. In this instance, perhaps the much admired Matt Strassler has explained why this is all so confusing:-	profmattstrassler.com/.../matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy-(Sorry, I don't seem to be able to provide a direct link.)-QUOTE: The word Matter. “Matter” as a term is terribly ambiguous; there isn't a universal definition that is context-independent. There are at least three possible definitions that are used in various places: •	“Matter” can refer to atoms, the basic building blocks of what we think of as “material”: tables, air, rocks, skin, orange juice — and by extension, to the particles out of which atoms are made, including electrons and the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom.-•	OR it can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.) Read here about the known apparently-elementary particles of nature. [The Higgs particle, by the way, doesn't neatly fit into the classification of particles as matter particles and force particles, which was somewhat artificial to start with; I have a whole section about this classification below.]-•	OR it can refer to classes of particles that are found out there, in the wider universe, and that on average move much more slowly than the speed of light.-Clearly, then, most of what you define as energy can also be defined as matter, and the others he calls “force particles”. As for “pure” energy:-Strassler: What is meant by “pure energy”? This is almost always used in reference to photons, commonly in the context of an electron and a positron (or some other massive particle and anti-particle) annihilating to make two photons (recall the antiparticle of a photon is also a photon.) But it's a terrible thing to do. Energy is something that photons have; it is not what photons are. [I have height and weight; that does not mean I am height and weight.] -“The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.”-However, we are really being sidetracked here, and it's my fault for dragging you into technicalities. If your God exists, you believe that he is some kind of eternal, pure, conscious energy, and that he turned his own conscious energy into what we now recognize as matter, regardless of definitions. But even if we accept a first cause of “pure” energy, it makes just as much/little sense to say that this energy unconsciously turned itself into “matter”, and this process itself engendered consciousness, though we don't know at what point energy/matter became conscious. We are back to the fact that “being” conscious is no more of a solution to the mystery than “becoming” conscious. -Dhw: Teleology simply denotes purpose, not one person's idea of one particular purpose. DAVID: Agreed. I use it for explanation, do you?-Yes, though only hypothetically, not dogmatically. For example, your God may have created the universe and life for the purpose of relieving his own boredom (as opposed to the purpose of creating humans, though you don't like to tell us the purpose of creating humans, which could also be covered by relief of boredom). Or evolution is driven by intelligent organisms whose purpose is to survive and/or improve (as opposed to it being driven by a computer programme whose purpose is to produce humans).
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Saturday, March 12, 2016, 15:20 (2968 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Clearly, then, most of what you define as energy can also be defined as matter, and the others he calls “force particles”. As for “pure” energy:- > “The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.”-Strassler, as you state, is a favorite of mine. I can use his science explanations of a very complex area as a starting point for my own conclusions. He admits the definitions are controversial when discussing the particles. He is a lumper not a splitter in viewing this. Note they are sized in electron-volts, pure energy, not height and weight. And quark-gluon plasmas, pure energy, appear very briefly at the LHC.-> > dhw: However, we are really being sidetracked here, and it's my fault for dragging you into technicalities. If your God exists, you believe that he is some kind of eternal, pure, conscious energy, and that he turned his own conscious energy into what we now recognize as matter, regardless of definitions.-Yes. 'Energy is eternal' is my starting point.-> dhw: But even if we accept a first cause of “pure” energy, it makes just as much/little sense to say that this energy unconsciously turned itself into “matter”, and this process itself engendered consciousness, though we don't know at what point energy/matter became conscious. We are back to the fact that “being” conscious is no more of a solution to the mystery than “becoming” conscious.-Yes, there is much we do not 'know', but we do know consciousness exists, and Darwin does not explain it. Thus Nagel. My thought remains that it always existed as a part of eternal energy, the best current answer to the problem. A rocky planet cannot be the inventor of life and consciousness without help. > > Dhw: Teleology simply denotes purpose, not one person's idea of one particular purpose.-> DAVID: Agreed. I use it for explanation, do you? > > dhw: Or evolution is driven by intelligent organisms whose purpose is to survive and/or improve (as opposed to it being driven by a computer programme whose purpose is to produce humans).-Your thoughts above about consciousness above make your theory about intelligent organisms confusing. The source of neither is unknown in your view. You simply accept they might just exist? No first cause?
More Denton: A new book
dhw: Clearly, then, most of what you define as energy can also be defined as matter, and the others he calls “force particles”. As for “pure” energy:-STRASSLER: “The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.”-DAVID: Strassler, as you state, is a favorite of mine. I can use his science explanations of a very complex area as a starting point for my own conclusions. He admits the definitions are controversial when discussing the particles. He is a lumper not a splitter in viewing this. Note they are sized in electron-volts, pure energy, not height and weight. And quark-gluon plasmas, pure energy, appear very briefly at the LHC.-I am well aware that you have your own ideas. I am merely pointing out that Strassler has explained some of the confusion and that he regards your concept of ”pure” energy as a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage. We needn't argue about it, as it does not affect the discussion below.-dhw: But even if we accept a first cause of “pure” energy, it makes just as much/little sense to say that this energy unconsciously turned itself into “matter”, and this process itself engendered consciousness, though we don't know at what point energy/matter became conscious. We are back to the fact that “being” conscious is no more of a solution to the mystery than “becoming” conscious. DAVID: Yes, there is much we do not 'know', but we do know consciousness exists, and Darwin does not explain it. Thus Nagel. My thought remains that it always existed as a part of eternal energy, the best current answer to the problem. A rocky planet cannot be the inventor of life and consciousness without help.-I don't know why you keep bringing Darwin and/or Nagel into the discussion. We know that nobody can explain consciousness (even Dawkins acknowledges that it is a mystery). If one explanation for the existence of consciousness is an unknown form of consciousness that has existed throughout eternity, we might just as well argue that consciousness can be explained by an unknown combination of energy and matter which occurred at an unknown moment during eternity.-DAVID: Your thoughts above about consciousness above make your theory about intelligent organisms confusing. The source of neither is unknown in your view. You simply accept they might just exist? No first cause?-The confusion is entirely your own. I don't know how often I have said that I can accept eternal energy and matter as a first cause. And I have NEVER said that the source of life and consciousness is not unknown! The source of both is unknown (or is that what you meant to say?). Nor do I accept that they “might just” exist - you are quoting the objection I raise to your assumption of an eternal consciousness with NO source. See above for my alternative of "becoming", though I do not “accept” that either. I am an agnostic. As for my theory about intelligent organisms, it relates to how evolution works. The source of that intelligence remains unknown, but might be your God.
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Sunday, March 13, 2016, 18:23 (2967 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I don't know why you keep bringing Darwin and/or Nagel into the discussion.-Because Nagel's book is a reason to recognize that any theory of evolution, to be complete, must include an explanation for consciousness, and n one does so far. -> dhw: We know that nobody can explain consciousness (even Dawkins acknowledges that it is a mystery). If one explanation for the existence of consciousness is an unknown form of consciousness that has existed throughout eternity, we might just as well argue that consciousness can be explained by an unknown combination of energy and matter which occurred at an unknown moment during eternity.-I cannot believe that consciousness can simply arrive creating itself on its own from pre-existing eternal energy, which must precede the Big Bang. > > dhw: The confusion is entirely your own. I don't know how often I have said that I can accept eternal energy and matter as a first cause. ....I am an agnostic. As for my theory about intelligent organisms, it relates to how evolution works. The source of that intelligence remains unknown, but might be your God.-Stuck on the fence, but thank you for admitting my side of the discussion is possible. I still see first cause as pure energy. God dos not have a material body.
More Denton: A new book
dhw: I don't know why you keep bringing Darwin and/or Nagel into the discussion. DAVID: Because Nagel's book is a reason to recognize that any theory of evolution, to be complete, must include an explanation for consciousness, and none does so far. -There is as yet no theory of any kind that can explain consciousness, but that does not invalidate the theory of evolution, which claims that all organisms apart from the very first have descended from earlier organisms. (You and I have accepted this.) We are all perfectly aware that there is no “complete” theory about the origin of the first cells, the origin of consciousness, or how evolution works. How can there be a “complete” theory when we don't have all the facts? These are the subjects we've been discussing for the last eight years, so you really don't need to keep on sniping at Darwin or propping yourself up on Nagel!-dhw: We know that nobody can explain consciousness (even Dawkins acknowledges that it is a mystery). If one explanation for the existence of consciousness is an unknown form of consciousness that has existed throughout eternity, we might just as well argue that consciousness can be explained by an unknown combination of energy and matter which occurred at an unknown moment during eternity. DAVID: I cannot believe that consciousness can simply arrive creating itself on its own from pre-existing eternal energy, which must precede the Big Bang.-I share your incredulity. I also cannot believe that pre-existing eternal energy can simply “be” conscious, and can simply “have” all the knowledge required to create a universe and life. But you do not share my incredulity.-dhw: The confusion is entirely your own. I don't know how often I have said that I can accept eternal energy and matter as a first cause. ....I am an agnostic. As for my theory about intelligent organisms, it relates to how evolution works. The source of that intelligence remains unknown, but might be your God.-DAVID: Stuck on the fence, but thank you for admitting my side of the discussion is possible. I still see first cause as pure energy. God does not have a material body.-I have always admitted that your side of the discussion is possible, though some of the details seem less likely to me than others. This is AgnosticWeb, not AtheistWeb.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Monday, March 14, 2016, 15:08 (2966 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: How can there be a “complete” theory when we don't have all the facts? These are the subjects we've been discussing for the last eight years, so you really don't need to keep on sniping at Darwin or propping yourself up on Nagel!-My 'sniping' at Darwin is to reduce your dependence on him. He made a tremendous contribution based on the evidence he had, and it turns out most of his suppositions are wrong, and you now admit them. RM and NS don't explain evolution. His key remaining contribution is the acceptance of common descent, but not how it works.-> dhw: I have always admitted that your side of the discussion is possible, though some of the details seem less likely to me than others. This is AgnosticWeb, not AtheistWeb.-I know.- Now I'm returning to Denton and language. He clearly relies on the research of Chomsky and Pinker, but primarily the former. They support his claim that language is a saltation: all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains, so that all of Earth's thousands of languages have the same grammar, syntax patterns and recursive sentence structures. Further no genes have been found that cover language development, and language involves multiple 'modules' within the brain. Therefore, Denton notes the appearance of language required first the growth of the size and capacity of the brain to supply the necessary areas that are used for it. There are no prior homologs, but I'm sure you will point out that most animals make meaningful sounds which in your mind will mitigate Denton's point. This again is different in kind. A horse nickers at me to say hello, but we don't go on to discuss breakfast! He uses body language for that.-There are no prior homologs for human language. Of course we only know current history to see expressions of language, but he claims no one has expressed an evolutionary mechanism for its development. One major reason is the small human population in the past with a long time between generations and the strong probability that language developed in the past 200,000 years. It would need a machine gun fire of mutations to create the complexity we see in such a short time.-He quotes comments by Tattersall and Gould as supporting the possibility of saltation.-More evidence of difference in kind, and perhaps God's hand. Denton is agnostic and very anti-Darwin.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID: Because Nagel's book is a reason to recognize that any theory of evolution, to be complete, must include an explanation for consciousness, and none does so far. Dhw: There is as yet no theory of any kind that can explain consciousness, but that does not invalidate the theory of evolution, which claims that all organisms apart from the very first have descended from earlier organisms. (You and I have accepted this.) We are all perfectly aware that there is no “complete” theory about the origin of the first cells, the origin of consciousness, or how evolution works. How can there be a “complete” theory when we don't have all the facts? These are the subjects we've been discussing for the last eight years, so you really don't need to keep on sniping at Darwin or propping yourself up on Nagel!-I have reproduced the whole paragraph, since most of your response below simply repeats my own argument.-DAVID: My 'sniping' at Darwin is to reduce your dependence on him. He made a tremendous contribution based on the evidence he had, and it turns out most of his suppositions are wrong, and you now admit them. RM and NS don't explain evolution. His key remaining contribution is the acceptance of common descent, but not how it works.-My “dependence” on Darwin is limited to the theory of common descent and the fact that natural selection explains why some organisms survive and others don't. We agreed years ago that we do not accept random mutations and gradualism. You are flogging a dead horse. DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...]-Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit. Or do you think your God preprogrammed these too 3.8 billion years ago? DAVID: [...] I'm sure you will point out that most animals make meaningful sounds which in your mind will mitigate Denton's point. This again is different in kind. A horse nickers at me to say hello, but we don't go on to discuss breakfast! He uses body language for that.-Of course humans use human language and horses use horse language, and some organisms use chemical signals, and bees dance. As with every aspect of our culture, we have developed the basics into colossally complex structures. A sparrow builds a simple nest, and we build skyscrapers. A sparrow tweets, and we transform sounds into a vast vocabulary and myriad linguistic structures. How? See below.-DAVID: Of course we only know current history to see expressions of language, but he claims no one has expressed an evolutionary mechanism for its development...It would need a machine gun fire of mutations to create the complexity we see in such a short time.-Then let me offer a possible explanation. Other organisms work perfectly well within their existing range of language, but humans - with their additional layers of consciousness - constantly seek to expand their range. Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds. And once the machinery is there, the development is almost limitless. Eventually (a concrete analogy), some particularly intelligent humans even find a way to preserve the information that has been embodied in sounds, and they invent writing. And in no time at all (geologically speaking) you have zillions of books. This “mechanism” (writing) also undergoes intelligently organized mutations, but they are simply developments from the original invention.-DAVID: He quotes comments by Tattersall and Gould as supporting the possibility of saltation.-Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. Darwin, we think, got it wrong. Another dead horse.-DAVID: More evidence of difference in kind, and perhaps God's hand. Denton is agnostic and very anti-Darwin.-Yes, God may have created the (hypothetical) original inventive, intelligent, autonomous mechanism that has enabled all organisms to do their own inventing. I find that more convincing than God (hypothetically) providing the first cells with a programme for every possible evolutionary development for every type of organism in every type of environment, apparently now including a guide to syntax.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 15:05 (2965 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My “dependence” on Darwin is limited to the theory of common descent and the fact that natural selection explains why some organisms survive and others don't. We agreed years ago that we do not accept random mutations and gradualism. You are flogging a dead horse.-According to Denton what replaces mutations might be an internal rearrangement of primal structures, not the functionalism of natural selection which is a survival mechanism analysis. Competition between types may not really apply even though it seems logical. Raup pointed out in his book, each extinction was more bad luck than bad genes! > > DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...] > > dhw: Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit. Or do you think your God preprogrammed these too 3.8 billion years ago?-We do not know that weaver ancestors did anything of the kind. This is only in your imagination. We only know our brain had to greatly enlarge to allow for language to be spoken heard and written, requiring plastic modifications in the motor area, the auditory area, the optic area. Not to forget the physical changes required as noted by McCrone: high arched palate, dropped larynx with epiglottis, more mobile tongue, stronger lip muscles, more powerful throat muscles to help control 'bites of air' that allow us to speak up to 200 words a minute, while the chimp has none of these anatomical changes and grunts one sound at a time. And as Denton notes, no specific language genes have been found. Again it leads to saltation as a consideration. > > dhw: Of course humans use human language and horses use horse language, and some organisms use chemical signals, and bees dance. As with every aspect of our culture, we have developed the basics into colossally complex structures. A sparrow builds a simple nest, and we build skyscrapers. A sparrow tweets, and we transform sounds into a vast vocabulary and myriad linguistic structures. How? See below.-Again you have just proven we are different in kind, not degree. > > dhw: Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds.-There is a chicken/egg problem here. How did the brain know there was a need to interpret sounds if the sounds could not yet be made?-> dhw:.... This “mechanism” (writing) also undergoes intelligently organized mutations, but they are simply developments from the original invention.-And no one can find the genes to control this. Now you sound like Denton. > > DAVID: He quotes comments by Tattersall and Gould as supporting the possibility of saltation. > > dhw: Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. -Please look at the real definition of saltation which is an unexplained sudden advance. Obviously it will survive or we would not see it. The tautology is not part of the definition:-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/saltation - "the origin of a new species or a higher taxon in essentially a single evolutionary step that in some especially former theories is held to be due to a major mutation or to unknown causes"-Mutation in what gene for language? ->dhw: I find that more convincing than God (hypothetically) providing the first cells with a programme for every possible evolutionary development for every type of organism in every type of environment, apparently now including a guide to syntax.-Yep! The IM invented all the anatomic and neurologic changes for human language with exquisite planning and everything works together beautifully, no genes to study available. Strong evidence for Denton's structuralism concept. No evidence for an IM without brain capacity, only hunt and peck.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID: According to Denton what replaces mutations might be an internal rearrangement of primal structures, not the functionalism of natural selection which is a survival mechanism analysis. Competition between types may not really apply even though it seems logical… -An internal rearrangement of primal structures presumably = innovations. As I see it, adaptations are part of the survival mechanism, while innovations result from the drive for improvement, though we can't always draw a clear borderline. I don't see why the rearrangement of structures should exclude the functionalism of natural selection. It is the randomness of Darwinian mutations that is the problem - solved by intelligently targeted “rearrangements” (mutations). Competition will still be a factor, but not the only one.-DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...] dhw: Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit… DAVID: We do not know that weaver ancestors did anything of the kind. This is only in your imagination. -We do not know that your hypothetical God created a programme for the weaverbird's nest 3.8 billion years ago. This is only in your imagination. All hypothetical, but I might just put my money on the weaverbird. dhw: As with every aspect of our culture, we have developed the basics into colossally complex structures. A sparrow builds a simple nest, and we build skyscrapers. A sparrow tweets, and we transform sounds into a vast vocabulary and myriad linguistic structures. DAVID: Again you have just proven we are different in kind, not degree.-Sparrows, horses, ants and humans are all different in kind and have different languages. Humans have languages which are countless degrees more complex than those of other organisms. “Kind versus degree” is a dead end.-I'm juxtaposing comments now for the sake of clarityAVID: We only know our brain had to greatly enlarge to allow for language to be spoken heard and written, requiring plastic modifications in the motor area, the auditory area, the optic area. Not to forget the physical changes required as noted by McCrone: high arched palate, dropped larynx with epiglottis, more mobile tongue, stronger lip muscles etc. […] dhw: Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds. DAVID: There is a chicken/egg problem here. How did the brain know there was a need to interpret sounds if the sounds could not yet be made?-You have missed the point. The need was not to interpret sounds but to MAKE sounds that would communicate the ever expanding range of subject-matter embraced by our enhanced consciousness. As with all communication among all species, there then has to be agreement that particular sounds and signals correspond to the subject-matter to be communicated (= interpretation). How did this work originally with humans? You have offered an explanation under “Brain Plasticity”: -QUOTE: "'We are all capable of retuning our brains if we're prepared to put the work in," says Szwed."-QUOTE: "'The extra flexibility that we have uncovered might be one those features that made us human, and allowed us to create a sophisticated culture…”-Your own comment: The brain is under our control and command to adapt to our various needs for new areas of activity and new connections.-This ties in with my hypothesis that cell communities can change themselves (the brain is also a cell community) and cooperate throughout the organism to do so. It explains all the changes you have listed above. (NB: Humans have “extra flexibility”, so other organisms also have flexibility.)-DAVID: And no one can find the genes to control this. Now you sound like Denton. Why must we confine ourselves to genes? Language - like thought - is not a material object but a product and a manifestation of consciousness, whose source is unknown. Has anyone “found” your divine computer programme? dhw: Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. DAVID: Please look at the real definition of saltation which is an unexplained sudden advance.-I know what saltation is. I am the one who keeps quoting Darwin's “Natura non facit saltum” which we disagree with. My point is that if innovations did not work swiftly (= by jumps), they would not survive. dhw: God may have created the (hypothetical) original inventive, intelligent, autonomous mechanism that has enabled all organisms to do their own inventing [...] -DAVID: Yep! The IM invented all the anatomic and neurologic changes for human language with exquisite planning and everything works together beautifully, no genes to study available. Strong evidence for Denton's structuralism concept. No evidence for an IM without brain capacity, only hunt and peck.-I don't know how Denton explains the "rearrangement of primal structures", but since he is an agnostic, I doubt if he would subscribe to your divine computer programme theory, for which there is also no evidence.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 15:00 (2964 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: An internal rearrangement of primal structures presumably = innovations. As I see it, adaptations are part of the survival mechanism, while innovations result from the drive for improvement, Competition will still be a factor, but not the only one.-I'm just presenting Denton. You are correct, competition must arbitrate to some degree.-> > DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...] > dhw: Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit… -You've neatly skipped over my whole presentation. The complexities of anatomic changes, coupled with basic reorganization of modules in the brain and the establishment of a basic language guide for babies strongly suggests saltation. Early humans, leaving Africa, were scattered all over. Language is thought to have developed in the past 200,000 years, after the scatter. Why are all humans exactly the same in language anatomy and speech itself and babies' language guide?-> > dhw: Sparrows, horses, ants and humans are all different in kind and have different languages. Humans have languages which are countless degrees more complex than those of other organisms. “Kind versus degree” is a dead end.-You keep misinterpreting "difference in kind." Degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point.-> > I'm juxtaposing comments now for the sake of clarity:-> dhw: Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds.-> DAVID: There is a chicken/egg problem here. How did the brain know there was a need to interpret sounds if the sounds could not yet be made? > > dhw: You have missed the point. The need was not to interpret sounds but to MAKE sounds that would communicate the ever expanding range of subject-matter embraced by our enhanced consciousness. As with all communication among all species, there then has to be agreement that particular sounds and signals correspond to the subject-matter to be communicated (= interpretation).-I disagree. Making sounds and interpreting sounds are two separate things. They require simultaneous changes in brain and anatomy, Denton's point. > dhw: Your own comment: The brain is under our control and command to adapt to our various needs for new areas of activity and new connections. > > This ties in with my hypothesis that cell communities can change themselves (the brain is also a cell community) and cooperate throughout the organism to do so. It explains all the changes you have listed above. (NB: Humans have “extra flexibility”, so other organisms also have flexibility.)-I agree that epigenetics shows minor adaptations, but not the giant leaps required for language. > > DAVID: And no one can find the genes to control this. Now you sound like Denton.-> > dhw: Why must we confine ourselves to genes? Language - like thought - is not a material object but a product and a manifestation of consciousness, whose source is unknown.-I just brought up another thought from Denton. Why no genes found for language? He feels this is a reason to consider rearrangement of structure rather than new mutations to do the job. -> dhw: Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. -> DAVID: Please look at the real definition of saltation which is an unexplained sudden advance. > > dhw: I know what saltation is. I am the one who keeps quoting Darwin's “Natura non facit saltum” which we disagree with. My point is that if innovations did not work swiftly (= by jumps), they would not survive.-OK, but the major point is still major unexplained jump. Denton quotes it also. If they didn't survive we wouldn't know about them. -> > dhw: I don't know how Denton explains the "rearrangement of primal structures", but since he is an agnostic, I doubt if he would subscribe to your divine computer programme theory, for which there is also no evidence.-Quite correct. He offers no mechanism, but as an agnostic he won't entertain the supernatural.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID: [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains dhw: Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit… DAVID: You've neatly skipped over my whole presentation. The complexities of anatomic changes, coupled with basic reorganization of modules in the brain and the establishment of a basic language guide for babies strongly suggests saltation. -See below for saltation (your new favourite word!). I discussed the complexities when I referred to “Brain plasticity”, which showed how we can “retune” our brains: "This ties in with my hypothesis that cell communities can change themselves (the brain is also a cell community) and cooperate throughout the organism to do so. It explains all the changes you have listed above. (NB: Humans have “extra flexibility”, so other organisms also have flexibility.)" You have replied: “I agree that epigenetics shows minor adaptations, but not the giant leaps required for language.” You are simply repeating the fact that we do not know the mechanism for innovations. Hence the different hypotheses. As regards saltation, this remains controversial: 	Did Neandertals have language? | Max Planck Society www.mpg.de/7448453/Neandertals-language-QUOTE: This reassessment of the evidence goes against a saltationist scenario where a single catastrophic mutation in a single individual would suddenly give rise to language, and suggests that a gradual accumulation of biological and cultural innovations is much more plausible. -However, I don't see this as an either/or. We have no way of knowing how early language developed, but my proposal - that the need for expression gave rise to the anatomical changes and not the other way round - allows both for jumps and for a gradual accumulation. DAVID: Why are all humans exactly the same in language anatomy and speech itself and babies' language guide?-What do you mean by “humans”? Do you include hominins and hominids? We can't know if our ancestors were exactly the same in speech itself, and I'm not even sure about anatomy, but what is your point? Mine, once more, is that enhanced consciousness led to the need for wider expression, and that applies to all “humans”. Consequently the brain “retuned” itself together with the cell communities associated with expression (the anatomical changes). The fact that this is common to scattered communities is logical, since they would all have had the same needs (“convergent” evolution).-DAVID: I just brought up another thought from Denton. Why no genes found for language? He feels this is a reason to consider rearrangement of structure rather than new mutations to do the job.-I wrote earlier: “Why must we confine ourselves to genes? Language - like thought - is not a material object but a product and a manifestation of consciousness, whose source is unknown.” I still don't understand why anyone would expect language genes. Since Denton apparently offers no explanation for the restructuring, his observations - as you report them - don't seem to take us very far. But perhaps there is more to come.-dhw: Sparrows, horses, ants and humans are all different in kind and have different languages. Humans have languages which are countless degrees more complex than those of other organisms. “Kind versus degree” is a dead end. DAVID: You keep misinterpreting "difference in kind." Degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point.-From all your previous references, I thought you and Adler were trying to tell us that the human mind was so totally different “in kind” from the animal mind that it was somehow proof of God's existence and we must have been specially made by God. If Adler's “whole book point” was to indicate that Darwin's gradualism is wrong and nature makes jumps, we agreed on that years ago without even considering the differences between humans and their fellow animals. dhw: Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds. DAVID: There is a chicken/egg problem here. How did the brain know there was a need to interpret sounds if the sounds could not yet be made? dhw: You have missed the point. The need was not to interpret sounds but to MAKE sounds that would communicate the ever expanding range of subject-matter embraced by our enhanced consciousness. As with all communication among all species, there then has to be agreement that particular sounds and signals correspond to the subject-matter to be communicated (= interpretation). DAVID: I disagree. Making sounds and interpreting sounds are two separate things. They require simultaneous changes in brain and anatomy, Denton's point.-What do you disagree with? I have shown that they are separate, but the point of language is communication, and so the sounds and the interpretation must be linked. That is the reason why the changes in brain and anatomy must be simultaneous! The same applies to all innovations: the cell communities must cooperate, whether programmed to do so by your God or making their own autonomous decisions.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Thursday, March 17, 2016, 15:14 (2963 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: As regards saltation, this remains controversial: > 	Did Neandertals have language? | Max Planck Society www.mpg.de/7448453/Neandertals-language-Not controversial to me. McCrone describes speech probabilities in earlier ancestors before Neanderthal based on anatomy.-> dhw: We have no way of knowing how early language developed, but my proposal - that the need for expression gave rise to the anatomical changes and not the other way round - allows both for jumps and for a gradual accumulation.-You are forgetting that speech appeared only after the brain enlarged to allow for all the modules (Denton's word) necessary for language in all of its forms, written, spoken, heard. I agree that anatomic changes and language modules must develop together somehow, but remember each human ancestor appears without the tiny Darwin steps. Still looks directed to me. > > DAVID: Why are all humans exactly the same in language anatomy and speech itself and babies' language guide? > > dhw: What do you mean by “humans”?-We only really know sapiens. That is what I meant. -> dhw: Mine [point], once more, is that enhanced consciousness led to the need for wider expression, and that applies to all “humans”. Consequently the brain “retuned” itself together with the cell communities associated with expression (the anatomical changes). The fact that this is common to scattered communities is logical, since they would all have had the same needs (“convergent” evolution).-The exact coordination of anatomic and neural development requires planning. I see a directive force again. If syntax and grammar are invariant and human ancestor groups are isolated, why doesn't punctuated equilibrium apply resulting in several types of language arrangements. There is only one. Again I see direction.-> dhw:I still don't understand why anyone would expect language genes. Since Denton apparently offers no explanation for the restructuring, his observations - as you report them - don't seem to take us very far. But perhaps there is more to come.-No there isn't, but since everything else is run by information in genes, Denton's observation is a valid thought. > > dhw: From all your previous references, I thought you and Adler were trying to tell us that the human mind was so totally different “in kind” from the animal mind that it was somehow proof of God's existence and we must have been specially made by God.-Exactly right. You are the one who was making confusing references to 'degree' and 'kind'. Of course we are different in kind from elephants, but that has never been the point, but one you keep raising.-> DAVID: I disagree. Making sounds and interpreting sounds are two separate things. They require simultaneous changes in brain and anatomy, Denton's point. > > dhw: What do you disagree with? I have shown that they are separate, but the point of language is communication, and so the sounds and the interpretation must be linked. That is the reason why the changes in brain and anatomy must be simultaneous! -Full agreement!-> dhw: The same applies to all innovations: the cell communities must cooperate, whether programmed to do so by your God or making their own autonomous decisions.-Now you are telling me those 'cell communities' 'know' they must cooperate. Really? What instructs them?
More Denton: A new book; language
dhw: As regards saltation, this remains controversial:-Did Neandertals have language? | Max Planck Society www.mpg.de/7448453/Neandertals-language DAVID: Not controversial to me. McCrone describes speech probabilities in earlier ancestors before Neanderthal based on anatomy.-Controversy entails different opinions. The MP Society folk have different opinions from yours and McCrone's.-dhw: We have no way of knowing how early language developed, but my proposal - that the need for expression gave rise to the anatomical changes and not the other way round - allows both for jumps and for a gradual accumulation. DAVID: You are forgetting that speech appeared only after the brain enlarged to allow for all the modules (Denton's word) necessary for language in all of its forms, written, spoken, heard. -You seem to think that before homo sapiens came along, our ancestors could not communicate! Even different animal sounds are known to have different meanings. When did meaningful sounds turn into what you are calling “speech”, and how do you define the difference? The beginning of speech is complete speculation.-dhw: [My point is] that enhanced consciousness led to the need for wider expression, and that applies to all “humans”. Consequently the brain “retuned” itself together with the cell communities associated with expression (the anatomical changes). The fact that this is common to scattered communities is logical, since they would all have had the same needs (“convergent” evolution). DAVID: The exact coordination of anatomic and neural development requires planning. I see a directive force again. If syntax and grammar are invariant and human ancestor groups are isolated, why doesn't punctuated equilibrium apply resulting in several types of language arrangements. There is only one. Again I see direction.-Hold on, hold on! Syntax and grammar are not invariant at all. Each language does have its own “arrangements”, even if there are similarities between some of them - often through common roots. (If you can tell me what grammatical structures Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" consists of, you know more about language than I do.) Personally, I would suspect that when humans first began to “speak”, there was no syntax and no grammar. Language evolves, and there is no equilibrium to be punctuated. Each neologism is a “saltation”. Yes of course there is direction: we humans direct the evolution of our languages. As for exact coordination of anatomic and neural development, once again you emphasize planning because you are desperate to bring God into every evolutionary advancement. If (as good a hypothesis as any) your God gave organisms the means of making their own advancements, the cell communities themselves - including those of the brain - would have done the directing. -dhw: From all your previous references, I thought you and Adler were trying to tell us that the human mind was so totally different “in kind” from the animal mind that it was somehow proof of God's existence and we must have been specially made by God. DAVID: Exactly right. You are the one who was making confusing references to 'degree' and 'kind'. Of course we are different in kind from elephants, but that has never been the point, but one you keep raising.-The confusion is entirely yours. You wrote that “degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point”. Clearly gradualism versus saltation was NOT Adler's whole point. In the context of all our discussions, degree = the level or amount of something; kind = the nature of something. If you disagree, please give me your definition of each term. You and Adler emphasize that our minds are different in nature from those of other animals. But all species (broad sense) have minds that are different in nature. You have agreed that at least some animals have a lesser degree of consciousness than our own. My argument is that our minds are different in kind because we have far greater levels of consciousness (degree), which enable us to explore far more fields (degree) than our fellow animals can explore. Our minds are different in kind (as are those of all species) AND degree, which makes kind versus degree a non-argument, unless you disagree with my definitions. It is our huge mental superiority that you think is proof of some kind of special creation, whereas I see it as a natural progression from the animal mind, precisely because of our greater degrees of consciousness. You actually believe God specially created ALL minds anyway, since you think he devised a 3.8-billion-year programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder! dhw: The same applies to all innovations: the cell communities must cooperate, whether programmed to do so by your God or making their own autonomous decisions. DAVID: Now you are telling me those 'cell communities' 'know' they must cooperate. Really? What instructs them?-I am telling you they DO cooperate. You tell me they cooperate because of your God's 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every single act of cooperation throughout the history of evolution. I am suggesting to you that they cooperate because they are intelligent enough to do so, and it may be that your God gave them their intelligence.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Friday, March 18, 2016, 17:52 (2962 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You seem to think that before homo sapiens came along, our ancestors could not communicate!-Of course not! McCrone is quite explicit in his description of H. Habilis possible few words a minute.-> > dhw: Hold on, hold on! Syntax and grammar are not invariant at all. Each language does have its own “arrangements”, even if there are similarities between some of them - often through common roots. (If you can tell me what grammatical structures Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" consists of, you know more about language than I do.)-You are the translator of several languages. I can only repeat what the experts propose. Universal basic structure built into infants.-> dhw: Personally, I would suspect that when humans first began to “speak”, there was no syntax and no grammar. Language evolves, and there is no equilibrium to be punctuated. -Why did disparate groups all invent the same basis of language? You have no answer.-> dhw: Each neologism is a “saltation”. Yes of course there is direction: we humans direct the evolution of our languages. As for exact coordination of anatomic and neural development........the cell communities themselves - including those of the brain - would have done the directing. -As you propose only if God might have helped them. Think! Anatomic bone cells cooperating with equal advancements with brain neuron cells so it all works. Yes, God helped them. Can primitive bone cell communities plan and cooperate with neuron cell communities by themselves? How do brain cells talk to bone cells? > > dhw: The confusion is entirely yours. You wrote that “degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point”. Clearly gradualism versus saltation was NOT Adler's whole point. -That is exactly the way I have interpreted the whole book! The appearance of our brain is exactly Adler's point. There is no other explanation for our brain except god's intervention. Adler was religious and ended up as a devout Catholic, although born Jewish.-> dhw:In the context of all our discussions, degree = the level or amount of something; kind = the nature of something. If you disagree, please give me your definition of each term. -For Adler 'kind' is a giant saltation. The title "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" gives the import. -> > dhw: I am telling you they DO cooperate. You tell me they cooperate because of your God's 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every single act of cooperation throughout the history of evolution. I am suggesting to you that they cooperate because they are intelligent enough to do so, and it may be that your God gave them their intelligence.-We are very close together. Your God 'hedge' works to put you close to me.
More Denton: A new book; language
dhw: You seem to think that before homo sapiens came along, our ancestors could not communicate! DAVID: Of course not! McCrone is quite explicit in his description of H. Habilis possible few words a minute.-I specifically asked what you meant by humans, and you said homo sapiens. However, my main point was: “Even different animal sounds are known to have different meanings. When did meaningful sounds turn into what you are calling “speech”, and how do you define the difference? The beginning of speech is pure speculation." “Possible few words a minute” is also speculation, and is hardly an explicit description of how language was born. DAVID: If syntax and grammar are invariant and human ancestor groups are isolated, why doesn't punctuated equilibrium apply resulting in several types of language arrangements. There is only one. (My bold) dhw: Syntax and grammar are not invariant at all. Each language does have its own “arrangements” [….]. (If you can tell me what grammatical structures Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" consists of, you know more about language than I do.) DAVID: You are the translator of several languages. I can only repeat what the experts propose. Universal basic structure built into infants.-Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section: 	Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar-Then please tell me what are the universal grammatical structures and what is the one type of “language arrangement”.-Dhw: Language evolves, and there is no equilibrium to be punctuated. DAVID: Why did disparate groups all invent the same basis of language? You have no answer.-What do you mean by “basis of language”? Disparate human groups use different sounds (writing came much later of course), just as disparate animal species use different sounds. As humans have higher levels of consciousness, the range of sounds (each “group” language having its own vocabulary and structures) expands massively to cover the ever expanding range of subject-matter. Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. -dhw: As for exact coordination of anatomic and neural development........the cell communities themselves - including those of the brain - would have done the directing. DAVID: […] Yes, God helped them. Can primitive bone cell communities plan and cooperate with neuron cell communities by themselves? How do brain cells talk to bone cells?-How do brain cells talk to muscle cells to control movement? Does God have to pass the message from my brain to my arm to enable me to raise my glass? Even as a layman I know that cells communicate. If you can ask me to explain how brains talk to bones, then I can ask you how “God helped them”. Did he preprogramme the first cells to pass on instructions to every single brain, bone and muscle of every single member of every single disparate group that “invented” every single language? Or did he personally dabble with their brains, bones and muscles? dhw: The confusion is entirely yours. You wrote that “degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point”. Clearly gradualism versus saltation was NOT Adler's whole point. DAVID: That is exactly the way I have interpreted the whole book! The appearance of our brain is exactly Adler's point. There is no other explanation for our brain except god's intervention. Adler was religious and ended up as a devout Catholic, although born Jewish.-Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, who proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, were respectively agnostic and atheist. dhw: In the context of all our discussions, degree = the level or amount of something; kind = the nature of something. If you disagree, please give me your definition of each term. DAVID: For Adler 'kind' is a giant saltation. The title "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" gives the import. -I wonder how Adler defines the difference between saltations and giant saltations. If he equated ‘kind' with giant saltations only possible through God's intervention, then he must have believed that every species (broad sense = kind) was a special creation or was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. I know he was anti-Darwin, but before we go on, please clarify whether he rejected common descent and was a creationist, or did he subscribe to your divine computer programme theory?-dhw: I am telling you they DO cooperate. You tell me they cooperate because of your God's 3.8-billion-year computer programme... I am suggesting to you that they cooperate because they are intelligent enough to do so, and it may be that your God gave them their intelligence. DAVID: We are very close together. Your God 'hedge' works to put you close to me. -As an agnostic, I am as close to you as I am to atheists! I see both sides of the argument. But even with my theist hat on, I'm afraid I can't find any credibility in your divine computer programme theory for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder - all created for the sake of humans.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Saturday, March 19, 2016, 14:39 (2961 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section: > 	Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar-I've read them and have many points I could refute. A major complaint is that Chomsky's UG theory doesn't fit Darwin! Whew! That is the point. Why didn't you offer your point of view? > > dhw: Then please tell me what are the universal grammatical structures and what is the one type of “language arrangement”.-I'm not an expert, and can only quote authorities on the subject. > > dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”?-The UG theory.-> dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. -Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work.-> > dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate.-Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no.-> dhw:If you can ask me to explain how brains talk to bones, then I can ask you how “God helped them”. Did he preprogramme the first cells to pass on instructions to every single brain, bone and muscle of every single member of every single disparate group that “invented” every single language? Or did he personally dabble with their brains, bones and muscles?-Stop asking the question. I don't know how He helped, but of course He did. > > dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God.-No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists. -> > dhw: I wonder how Adler defines the difference between saltations and giant saltations. .... I know he was anti-Darwin, but before we go on, please clarify whether he rejected common descent and was a creationist, or did he subscribe to your divine computer programme theory?-Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more. > > dhw: As an agnostic, I am as close to you as I am to atheists! I see both sides of the argument. But even with my theist hat on, I'm afraid I can't find any credibility in your divine computer programme theory for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder - all created for the sake of humans.-Your theistic hat is very askew. You theistic thinking is very limited by your agnosticism in my opinion. Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.
More Denton: A new book; language
dhw: Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section: Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar DAVID: I've read them and have many points I could refute. A major complaint is that Chomsky's UG theory doesn't fit Darwin! Whew! That is the point. Why didn't you offer your point of view?-QUOTE: Hinzen summarizes the most common criticisms of Universal Grammar: 1.	Universal Grammar has no coherent formulation and is indeed unnecessary. 2.	Universal Grammar is in conflict with biology: it cannot have evolved by standardly accepted Neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles. 3.	There are no linguistic universals: Universal Grammar is refuted by abundant variation at all levels of linguistic organization, which lies at the heart of human faculty of language.You have focused on 2. -1 and 3 sum up the point of view I expressed in my last post. I'm afraid I don't know how Chomsky relates the single basis concept to biology, but as you well know, I do not accept random mutations as a credible explanation for innovations. dhw: Then please tell me what are the universal grammatical structures and what is the one type of “language arrangement”. DAVID: I'm not an expert, and can only quote authorities on the subject.-There are different experts with different opinions, which means there are no authorities.-dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”? DAVID: The UG theory.-That is like saying there is a common basis of language, and that basis of language is the common basis of language.-dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. DAVID: Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work.-Convergent evolution requires intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. According to you, all the solutions were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God dabbled. Does Conway Morris support your theory? A theistic alternative is that God gave organisms the intelligence to devise their own solutions. dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate. DAVID: Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no.-They communicate information and take decisions according to the information they receive.-dhw: If you can ask me to explain how brains talk to bones, then I can ask you how “God helped them”. Did he preprogramme the first cells to pass on instructions to every single brain, bone and muscle of every single member of every single disparate group that “invented” every single language? Or did he personally dabble with their brains, bones and muscles? DAVID: Stop asking the question. I don't know how He helped, but of course He did. You constantly question me on how cells (with their possibly God-given intelligence) might innovate through cooperation, and yet you object if I ask you how your God did it. In the words of the jilted brunette, “This is not fair.”-dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God. DAVID: No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists.-I understand your point, apart from what you are referring to when you say “no”. -dhw: I wonder how Adler defines the difference between saltations and giant saltations. .... I know he was anti-Darwin, but before we go on, please clarify whether he rejected common descent and was a creationist, or did he subscribe to your divine computer programme theory? DAVID: Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more.-What a shame! As he was such a vehemently anti-Darwin theist, one would have expected him to consider how his God might have engineered our stupendous brain. In that case, we can go no further in our discussion of Adler - we are simply back to your hypotheses and mine.-dhw: As an agnostic, I am as close to you as I am to atheists! I see both sides of the argument. But even with my theist hat on, I'm afraid I can't find any credibility in your divine computer programme theory for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder - all created for the sake of humans. DAVID: Your theistic hat is very askew. You theistic thinking is very limited by your agnosticism in my opinion. -Our discussion on evolution has nothing to do with agnosticism. I would be surprised if your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for all innovations, lifestyles etc. was supported by all your fellow theistic evolutionists, and see no reason why my hypothesis should not be viewed theistically. It is your interpretation of evolutionary history and your teleology that I oppose. DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.-A remarkable change since Friday, when you wrote: “”We are very close together. Your God ‘hedge' works to put you close to me.” The God ‘hedge' remains, as I am 50/50 as regards the origin of life and of my hypothetical cellular intelligence, but this volte face comes in direct response to my opposition to your 3.8-billion-year computer programme. For some reason, that has become dogma for you.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Sunday, March 20, 2016, 18:47 (2960 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Many experts disagree. If you're really interested, read the criticisms section: > Universal Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar > DAVID: I've read them and have many points I could refute. A major complaint is that Chomsky's UG theory doesn't fit Darwin! Whew! That is the point. Why didn't you offer your point of view? > > dhw: QUOTE: Hinzen summarizes the most common criticisms of Universal Grammar: > 1.	Universal Grammar has no coherent formulation and is indeed unnecessary. > 2.	Universal Grammar is in conflict with biology: it cannot have evolved by standardly accepted Neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles. > 3.	There are no linguistic universals: Universal Grammar is refuted by abundant variation at all levels of linguistic organization, which lies at the heart of human faculty of language.You have focused on 2. -We are now using battling experts. Chomsky and Pinker seem to agree. I'm not expert enough to know what theory is most likely right, but you are correct, there are counter arguments. I would note it also is important to note the point of view of the expert. Denton is anti Darwin and accepts C & P. Hinzen is pro-Darwin and makes point 2. Prior prejudice for all going into the fray. I know I have mine.-> > dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”? > DAVID: The UG theory. > > dhw: That is like saying there is a common basis of language, and that basis of language is the common basis of language.-The theory states just that, a common basis for all. > > dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. > DAVID: Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work. > > dhw: Convergent evolution requires intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. According to you, all the solutions were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God dabbled. Does Conway Morris support your theory? A theistic alternative is that God gave organisms the intelligence to devise their own solutions.-His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used. > > dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate. > DAVID: Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no. > > dhw: They communicate information and take decisions according to the information they receive.-Yes, automatically.-> DAVID: Stop asking the question. I don't know how He helped, but of course He did.> -> dhw: You constantly question me on how cells (with their possibly God-given intelligence) might innovate through cooperation, and yet you object if I ask you how your God did it. In the words of the jilted brunette, “This is not fair.”-Fair enough. I'll stop and so will you. Agreed. > > dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God.-> DAVID: No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists. > > dhw: I understand your point, apart from what you are referring to when you say “no”. -My 'no' rejected your version of Adler's point. He was only looking for reasons for God, not methods. He did not accept gradualism for our brain's existence. -> DAVID: Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more. > > dhw: What a shame! As he was such a vehemently anti-Darwin theist, one would have expected him to consider how his God might have engineered our stupendous brain. In that case, we can go no further in our discussion of Adler - we are simply back to your hypotheses and mine.-He was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist.-> DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression. > > dhw: A remarkable change since Friday, when you wrote: “”We are very close together. Your God ‘hedge' works to put you close to me.” The God ‘hedge' remains, as I am 50/50 as regards the origin of life and of my hypothetical cellular intelligence, but this volte face comes in direct response to my opposition to your 3.8-billion-year computer programme. For some reason, that has become dogma for you.-No, it hasn't. I don't know, repeated over and over, how God did his guiding of evolution, directly or through a program from original life. I do however believe in the guidance.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID [on the subject of Chomsky's so-called Universal Grammar]: We are now using battling experts. Chomsky and Pinker seem to agree. I'm not expert enough to know what theory is most likely right, but you are correct, there are counter arguments. I would note it also is important to note the point of view of the expert. Denton is anti Darwin and accepts C & P. Hinzen is pro-Darwin and makes point 2. Prior prejudice for all going into the fray. I know I have mine.-It is important to note the point of view of all the experts, but when they disagree, the layman would be well advised to keep an open mind. You have chosen experts whose view fits in with your prejudices, and I have done the same, though I must stress that I do not consider my views on the subject to be in any way atheistic, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin other than the fact that language evolves. dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”? DAVID: The UG theory. dhw: That is like saying there is a common basis of language, and that basis of language is the common basis of language. DAVID: The theory states just that, a common basis for all.-But it does not give us any coherent description of what that basis is!-dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. DAVID: Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work. dhw: Convergent evolution requires intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. According to you, all the solutions were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God dabbled. Does Conway Morris support your theory? A theistic alternative is that God gave organisms the intelligence to devise their own solutions. DAVID: His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used.-Back to square one!-dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate. DAVID: Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no. dhw: They communicate information and take decisions according to the information they receive. DAVID: Yes, automatically.-As above, there is no expert consensus on this. Back to your prejudices. dhw: You constantly question me on how cells (with their possibly God-given intelligence) might innovate through cooperation, and yet you object if I ask you how your God did it. In the words of the jilted brunette, “This is not fair.”-DAVID: Fair enough. I'll stop and so will you. Agreed.-Agreed.-dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God. DAVID: No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists.dhw: I understand your point, apart from what you are referring to when you say “no”. DAVID: My 'no' rejected your version of Adler's point. He was only looking for reasons for God, not methods. He did not accept gradualism for our brain's existence. -My point was that Adler's point was the existence of God and not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God. (You (theist) and I (agnostic) do not accept gradualism for innovations, and the agnostic/atheist pair of Gould and Eldredge rejected gradualism as well.) -DAVID: Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more. dhw: What a shame! As he was such a vehemently anti-Darwin theist, one would have expected him to consider how his God might have engineered our stupendous brain. In that case, we can go no further in our discussion of Adler - we are simply back to your hypotheses and mine. DAVID: He was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist.-One does not have to be a biologist to discuss evolution or God's possible methods. Adler obviously felt he knew enough about the subject to oppose the views of an expert in the field by the name of Darwin, plus every other expert who agrees with Darwin.-DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression. dhw: A remarkable change since Friday, when you wrote: “”We are very close together. Your God ‘hedge' works to put you close to me.” The God ‘hedge' remains, as I am 50/50 as regards the origin of life and of my hypothetical cellular intelligence, but this volte face comes in direct response to my opposition to your 3.8-billion-year computer programme. For some reason, that has become dogma for you. -DAVID: No, it hasn't. I don't know, repeated over and over, how God did his guiding of evolution, directly or through a program from original life. I do however believe in the guidance.-I know what you believe. I am merely pointing out that your belief in this one personal interpretation of God's methods and purpose is so fixed that when I offer you an alternative theistic version of evolution, you take it to be a sign that I am an atheist disguising myself as an agnostic!
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Monday, March 21, 2016, 15:15 (2959 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The theory states just that, a common basis for all. > > dhw: But it does not give us any coherent description of what that basis is!-Back to stating Chomsky's and Pinker's point, grammar and syntax are basically the same throughout all languages.-> DAVID: His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used. > > dhw: Back to square one!-No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution.- > DAVID: He was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist. > > dhw: One does not have to be a biologist to discuss evolution or God's possible methods. Adler obviously felt he knew enough about the subject to oppose the views of an expert in the field by the name of Darwin, plus every other expert who agrees with Darwin.-Strange answer. Darwin's expertise was at an 1850's level of knowledge in biology. Adler is/was a modern day philosopher, educator, and proposed an interpretation of the human brain development in philosophic terms.-> > DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.-> > dhw:I know what you believe. I am merely pointing out that your belief in this one personal interpretation of God's methods and purpose is so fixed that when I offer you an alternative theistic version of evolution, you take it to be a sign that I am an atheist disguising myself as an agnostic!-I didn't say that. To me you come across as an agnostic tilted toward atheism in your reasoning. Using Dawkins scale of nine, five atheist, four agnostic. Perhaps it is the way you try to analyze my reasons for theism which are in part an overall impression of purpose, without full interpretation of details, which details cannot be answered, but which details you insist upon for your thinking. There are lots which have no direct answers.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID: The theory states just that, a common basis for all. dhw: But it does not give us any coherent description of what that basis is. DAVID: Back to stating Chomsky's and Pinker's point, grammar and syntax are basically the same throughout all languages.-Not worth arguing about, since so many experts point out that grammar and syntax are NOT basically the same throughout all languages. DAVID (re Simon Conway Morris): His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used. dhw: Back to square one! DAVID: No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution. The appearance of convergence implies intelligent organisms coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. Back to square one. DAVID: [Adler] was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist. dhw: One does not have to be a biologist to discuss evolution or God's possible methods. Adler obviously felt he knew enough about the subject to oppose the views of an expert in the field by the name of Darwin, plus every other expert who agrees with Darwin. DAVID: Strange answer. Darwin's expertise was at an 1850's level of knowledge in biology. Adler is/was a modern day philosopher, educator, and proposed an interpretation of the human brain development in philosophic terms.-Strange answer. I included every other expert who agrees with Darwin, which means all modern Darwinists who agree that all organisms, apart from the first cells and including humans, descended from earlier organisms. But if a philosopher believes humans are so clever that there must be a God who made them separately, that is fine with me. There are other modern day philosophers and educators who believe humans are (sophisticated) organisms directly descended from earlier anthropoids and there is no God. That is also fine with me. I am an agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves in God. -dhw: I am merely pointing out that your belief in this one personal interpretation of God's methods and purpose is so fixed that when I offer you an alternative theistic version of evolution, you take it to be a sign that I am an atheist disguising myself as an agnostic! DAVID: I didn't say that. To me you come across as an agnostic tilted toward atheism in your reasoning. Using Dawkins scale of nine, five atheist, four agnostic. Perhaps it is the way you try to analyze my reasons for theism which are in part an overall impression of purpose, without full interpretation of details, which details cannot be answered, but which details you insist upon for your thinking. There are lots which have no direct answers.-Your reasons for theism have always seemed to me to be completely acceptable: namely, that the complexities of life are such that it is impossible to believe in chance, and among these complexities are the unsolved mysteries of consciousness with all its manifestations, including so-called psychic experiences. These are the arguments I use when discussing such matters with atheists. They are balanced, though, by the fact that I find it equally impossible to believe in an eternal, sourceless consciousness of whose existence there is no evidence and which I find just as unlikely (50/50) as the ability of chance to create the first living cells. However, the third area of our discussion is very, very different. Your analysis of the course, purpose and methods of evolution seems to me not just to be “without full interpretation of details”, but to run contrary to the course of evolution as I see it. That has absolutely nothing to do with theism versus atheism. In place of evolution preprogrammed or directly engineered by your God for the purpose of creating humans, I offer you evolution driven by organisms themselves endowed with an autonomous form of intelligence, possibly created by your God, that has fashioned the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth. This does not fit in with your beliefs, but it is not an argument against God - it is an argument against your concept of God and his evolutionary purpose and methods.-PS In my personal experience, most theists regard agnostics as closet atheists, and most atheists regard agnostics as closet theists. We are a sadly misunderstood species.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 15:34 (2958 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution. > > dhw: The appearance of convergence implies intelligent organisms coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. Back to square one.-It only tells us that whatever guides evolutionary progress allows for similar solutions.-> dhw: But if a philosopher believes humans are so clever that there must be a God who made them separately, that is fine with me.-Adler believed that human consciousness and intellect did not fit the gradual descent seen in evolution but was a giant leap making humans different in kind. He did not debate the origin of humans as evolved organisms other than that single point. > dhw: PS In my personal experience, most theists regard agnostics as closet atheists, and most atheists regard agnostics as closet theists. We are a sadly misunderstood species.-No, I fully understand your position on the painful picket fence, and your painfully contrived theories which you use to protect your position.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID: No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution. dhw: The appearance of convergence implies intelligent organisms coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. Back to square one. DAVID: It only tells us that whatever guides evolutionary progress allows for similar solutions.-Agreed. It does not tell us that evolution was planned.-dhw: But if a philosopher believes humans are so clever that there must be a God who made them separately, that is fine with me. DAVID: Adler believed that human consciousness and intellect did not fit the gradual descent seen in evolution but was a giant leap making humans different in kind. He did not debate the origin of humans as evolved organisms other than that single point.-The agnostic Gould and the atheist Eldredge, not to mention you and me and countless others, have long since agreed that major innovations of all kinds do not fit the theory of gradual descent. In this respect, we believe Darwin got it wrong. And I'm sure we evolutionists all agree that our human consciousness and intellect make us very different from our anthropoid ancestors. Indeed all current species (broad sense) are very different from the original organisms from which we believe we are all descended. I understand why you are so desperate to use this “difference in kind” to bolster your interpretation of God's evolutionary intentions and methods, but if this is as far as Adler went, he is irrelevant to our discussions on the subject. YOU believe man is so special that God preprogrammed/personally oversaw the whole of evolution (so far) for the sake of humans. If Adler didn't, then we can forget about Adler. dhw: PS In my personal experience, most theists regard agnostics as closet atheists, and most atheists regard agnostics as closet theists. We are a sadly misunderstood species.-DAVID: No, I fully understand your position on the painful picket fence, and your painfully contrived theories which you use to protect your position. No, my painfully contrived theories are alternatives to the painfully contrived theories you have devised to protect your position.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 15:08 (2957 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Adler believed that human consciousness and intellect did not fit the gradual descent seen in evolution but was a giant leap making humans different in kind. He did not debate the origin of humans as evolved organisms other than that single point.-> dhw: I understand why you are so desperate to use this “difference in kind” to bolster your interpretation of God's evolutionary intentions and methods, but if this is as far as Adler went, he is irrelevant to our discussions on the subject. YOU believe man is so special that God preprogrammed/personally oversaw the whole of evolution (so far) for the sake of humans. If Adler didn't, then we can forget about Adler.-You may want to dismiss Adler. I can't. His book dates to the 1960's. His Darwin description is straightforward early Neo-Darwinism, never related to God. It is entirely a philosophic discussion. It starts with a definition of what different in kind means! It has an index of the philosophers and others whose thoughts he analyzes. The development of language plays a large role in his thinking. It is 300 pages of dense prose. Its importance to some thinkers is shown by the fact it has been constantly reprinted. My copy is a fourth printing, 1998.-> DAVID: No, I fully understand your position on the painful picket fence, and your painfully contrived theories which you use to protect your position.
More Denton: plant fertilization
by David Turell , Thursday, March 24, 2016, 00:34 (2957 days ago) @ David Turell
How the pollen reaches the ovule is amazing. It has to grow a tubule!:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/baroque_botany102711.html-"The origin of angiosperms is frequently called "Darwin's abominable mystery" because the rise and diversification of flowering plants in the fossil record is so sudden.-***-"The mystery goes much deeper than the lack of ancestors, however. On pages 151-156, Denton pulls back the curtain on one of the most elaborate reproductive cycles in nature: the pollination of flowers. In particular, the "arduous" journey of the pollen tube to its target synergids in the ovule, leading to double fertilization -- unique to angiosperms -- is part of a pathway so complex it "simply beggars belief." There's no way, Denton contends, this "baroque" arrangement could have arisen by natural selection.-"The curtain pulled open a little more with the publication of two papers in Nature about pollen tube guidance. Pollen grains are as fine as dust, from 6 to 100 micrometers across depending on the species. Yet when they land on the pistil of a flower, an amazing transformation begins. The pollen grain grows a tube down the long style on the pistil toward the ovary, where ovules await fertilization. The tip of the tube contains two sperm cells needed to fertilize the egg and build the endosperm, a food source that the future seedling will consume upon sprouting.-"How does the pollen tube find its target in the dark? That's what the Nature papers discuss. The process requires detailed signaling between pollen and ovule. "In flowering plants, the female gametophyte secretes chemoattractant peptides to guide pollen tube growth so that it delivers the immobile sperm to the ovule-enclosed female gametophyte," the Editor's summary states.-***-"How pollen tubes find their target has long puzzled biologists. The female gametophyte is known to produce chemoattractant molecules, such as cysteine-rich peptides called LUREs, but the identity of their receptors on pollen tubes has been unclear. Two papers in this issue identify several molecules on the cell membrane that are involved in sensing one such attractant -- AtLURE1 -- in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. These discoveries underscore the molecular complexity of this male-female communication process,-***- "It is well established that pollen-specific receptor-like kinase (RLK) proteins can regulate the growth of pollen tubes. These proteins typically have three domains: an ectodomain that interacts with extracellular signal molecules; a membrane-spanning domain; and a cytoplasmic domain that attaches phosphate groups to target molecules, inducing cellular responses to incoming signals (Fig. 1b). Using different genetic strategies and starting from an overlapping list of almost 30 pollen-expressed RLKs, the two groups searched for proteins that support ovule targeting by pollen tubes.-"The receptors, in other words, are complex three times over. They need to have docking ports for the incoming signal molecules (called "male discoverer" 1 and 2, as well as a pair of RLKs that regulate the tube growth). They need to span the membrane of the pollen tube. And they need to respond by switching on genes in the nucleus. Another team found a second pair of pollen-specific receptor kinases that also are involved. -***-"The number of players in just this one aspect of angiosperm fertilization has grown, and the scientists are still not sure they have found them all. This underscores Denton's point: these are all novelties that defy Darwinian selection. If all that is needed is getting sperm and egg together, there are simpler ways to do it than building a long pistil that requires an arduous journey by a pollen tube, multiple signaling molecules and receptors, and the elaborate dance of double fertilization. -***-"The arsenal of signalling molecules in plants -- in particular peptide signal molecules and RLKs -- is immense. It will not be surprising if more attractant-receptor pairs are discovered."-Comment: Darwin style evolution cannot create this complexity stepwise! Only saltation fits.
More Denton: A new book; language
DAVID: Adler believed that human consciousness and intellect did not fit the gradual descent seen in evolution but was a giant leap making humans different in kind. He did not debate the origin of humans as evolved organisms other than that single point.-dhw: I understand why you are so desperate to use this “difference in kind” to bolster your interpretation of God's evolutionary intentions and methods, but if this is as far as Adler went, he is irrelevant to our discussions on the subject. YOU believe man is so special that God preprogrammed/personally oversaw the whole of evolution (so far) for the sake of humans. If Adler didn't, then we can forget about Adler.-DAVID: You may want to dismiss Adler. I can't. His book dates to the 1960's. His Darwin description is straightforward early Neo-Darwinism, never related to God. It is entirely a philosophic discussion. It starts with a definition of what different in kind means! It has an index of the philosophers and others whose thoughts he analyzes. The development of language plays a large role in his thinking. It is 300 pages of dense prose. Its importance to some thinkers is shown by the fact it has been constantly reprinted. My copy is a fourth printing, 1998.-Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't read Adler, but you use him in order to bolster your case for your interpretation of God's evolutionary purpose, complete with your theory that God preprogrammed or personally organized every innovation in order to produce or feed man. I am merely pointing out that if Adler was not concerned with the purpose and mechanisms of evolution, then you are on your own when we are discussing your theory, and there is no point in constantly bringing him into the conversation. DAVID: No, I fully understand your position on the painful picket fence, and your painfully contrived theories which you use to protect your position. dhw: No, my painfully contrived theories are alternatives to the painfully contrived theories you have devised to protect your position. DAVID: I feel your pain; I have none, only the comfortableness of my conclusions. -Then we must change the vocabulary. My painstakingly contrived theories with all their flaws are alternatives to your painstakingly contrived theories with all their flaws. I am glad you are comfortable with your conclusions. I am also comfortable with my conclusion that currently it is impossible to draw any conclusive conclusion other than the fact that it is currently impossible to draw any conclusive conclusion.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Thursday, March 24, 2016, 15:15 (2956 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't read Adler, but you use him in order to bolster your case for your interpretation of God's evolutionary purpose, complete with your theory that God preprogrammed or personally organized every innovation in order to produce or feed man. I am merely pointing out that if Adler was not concerned with the purpose and mechanisms of evolution, then you are on your own when we are discussing your theory, and there is no point in constantly bringing him into the conversation.-I don't misunderstand you. Adler's point is quite clear. Humans are a totally different breed of cat and a natural evolution should not have produced them. He is bedrock support of my thoughts. "Different in kind" speaks to this gap. You persist in using the word 'kind' in a diminished context of difference. If you will stop, I'll stop.
More Denton: A new book; language
dhw: Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't read Adler, but you use him in order to bolster your case for your interpretation of God's evolutionary purpose, complete with your theory that God preprogrammed or personally organized every innovation in order to produce or feed man. I am merely pointing out that if Adler was not concerned with the purpose and mechanisms of evolution, then you are on your own when we are discussing your theory, and there is no point in constantly bringing him into the conversation.-DAVID: I don't misunderstand you. Adler's point is quite clear. Humans are a totally different breed of cat and a natural evolution should not have produced them. He is bedrock support of my thoughts. "Different in kind" speaks to this gap. You persist in using the word 'kind' in a diminished context of difference. If you will stop, I'll stop.-I like the different breed of cat! It is you who persist in emphasizing Adler's “difference in kind” during all our discussions on evolution, and I shall be delighted to put an end to this particular form of tail-chasing.
More Denton: A new book; language
by David Turell , Friday, March 25, 2016, 15:21 (2955 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I like the different breed of cat! It is you who persist in emphasizing Adler's “difference in kind” during all our discussions on evolution, and I shall be delighted to put an end to this particular form of tail-chasing.-Cats don't chase tails, only dogs who are not as couth. Different. End.
More Denton: Chomsky's new book negative review
by David Turell , Saturday, April 02, 2016, 01:59 (2948 days ago) @ dhw
A review of Chomsky's new book which takes a negative slant:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078294-why-only-us-the-language-paradox/-"In Why Only Us, Chomsky and Berwick argue that this pared- down version of universal grammar is what would have enabled early humans to make the evolutionary jump from language-less creatures to the loquacious beings of the Upper Palaeolithic, some 40,000 years ago. This, in turn, would have resulted in the unheralded rich cultural explosion around that time, including cave art, jewelry and ritual burials.-"Their argument goes like this. As our capability for grammar is genetically programmed, and as no other species has language, it stands to reason that language emerged fairly suddenly, in one fell swoop, because of a random mutation. This is what the authors refer to as the “gambler's-eye view” in contrast to a “gene's-eye view” of evolution. The sudden appearance of language occurred perhaps no more than 80,000 years ago, just before modern humans engaged in an out-of-Africa dispersion.-***-"Developmental and cognitive psychologists now have a clearer sense of the ways in which conceptual and linguistic learning works. A human infant seems to have a range of both primate and species-specific learning mechanisms and abilities that enable the acquisition of language. The emerging consensus is that language acquisition can occur without an innate blueprint for grammar.-***-"In short, as language exists only in our species, without precedent elsewhere, then it did not evolve from some simpler form of communication. Hence, it must have evolved fairly quickly and in one discontinuous jump. As the hallmark of language is a simple, computational syntax-engine, then, so the argument goes, this sort of species-specific event is not at all improbable.-"However, this ultimately paints Homo sapiens, a species no more than about 200,000 years old, into a corner. Modern humans become an evolutionary curiosity, isolated from the 2.8-million-year evolutionary trajectory of the genus that led to us. It also amounts to a highly selective and partial presentation of the recent research literature.-***- "Indeed, the book attempts to make a virtue of disagreeing with almost everyone on how language evolved. To see language bucking the kind of gradual evolutionary change that Darwin proposed is surely a controversial perspective.-***-"The reader is asked to swallow the following unlikely implication of their logic: language didn't evolve for communication, but rather for internal thought. If language did evolve as a chance mutation, without precedent, then it first emerged in one individual. And what is the value of language as a communicative tool when there is no one else to talk to? Hence, the evolutionary advantage of language, once it emerged, must have been for something else: assisting thought.-***-"Ultimately, the reader is left with a paradox: the evolutionary view entailed by Chomsky's stripped down, minimalistic universal grammar calls into question the very account of language Berwick and Chomsky attempt to provide us with.-Comment: The reviewer is pro-Darwin and Chomsky's view is really not, suggesting a saltation.
More Denton: Another review of Denon's new book
by David Turell , Friday, May 27, 2016, 00:19 (2893 days ago) @ David Turell
Once again an emphasis on the structuralism approach to evolutionary theory: - http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2016/05/14/denton-emergence-and-common-descent/ - "I might add (because Denton doesn't stress it) that structuralism - the idea that much of biological form depends on lawlike constraints, rather than adaptive contingency - was the prevalent theory of evolution, in the form of orthogenesis, at the time when Darwinism was found wanting in explanatory power at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was only the Neodarwinian Synthesis that rehabilitated Darwinism, and it was the hegemony of that Synthesis within western biology that not only wrote the case for structuralism out of science, but virtually out of history as well. - *** - "Denton's structuralism is a well-argued return to the reality of essentialism in biology: there are indeed true discontinuities between taxa that simply cannot be explained by natural selection. If so, then Aristotle was actually observing nature more accurately than we have for the last century or so, in our dogma that all life is a continuum of contingently changing components. Because these discontinuities constitute some of the most significant features of living things, they radically relativise the significance of natural selection. To a large extent, selection becomes the tinkerer that merely fine-tunes microevolution, whereas what Denton argues to be natural laws of emergence are what paints the grand picture of life. - *** - "Denton actually quotes from Darwin himself: that the features that we highlight to construct the nested heirarchies used to support common descent are by their very nature those farthest removed from adaptive selection. To take his first example, the pentadactyl vertebrate limb (extensively studied by Owen), the whole point is that it has remained universal amongst the whole vertebrate clade for 400 million years, despite every adaptational exigency to which it has been turned from flying or swimming or digging holes to writing books. It cannot possibly, then, be evidence for Darwinian evolution. Indeed, Denton points out that the very existence of a nested heirarchy is evidence against Darwinian processes as the major player in evolution, for change without direction ought to lead to taxonomy without patterns. - "Denton himself considers that pentadactyly, and similar examples, constitute good evidence for common descent itself, but I should remind you that the nested heirarchy was formerly, by those like Linnaeus, considered telling evidence for the special creation of every possible species by God. - *** - "If there are emergent laws of form, as Denton argues, then gradualism is no longer a requirement in evolution. He consistently argues that the evidence from the fossil record, taxonomy and much genetics is that the important changes were relatively, at least, saltational. Let me run with that for a moment, commencing with an example that seems fairly well established: the saltational acquisition of mitochondria by eukaryotes through Lynn Margulis' suggestion of a fusion of two disparate forms of life. Whatever further adjustments arose by adaptation through that assumed saltation, there was a profound discontinuity between the two pre-existing lineages and the resulting clade of eukaryotes. - *** - "let us suppose that emergent laws explain some of Denton's other examples, such as the necessarily sudden (and yet horrendously complex) extrusion of the nucleus from the mammalian erythrocyte, the evolution of the theropod feather or, indeed, that pentadactyl limb. Or ORFan genes. Or turtle anatomy… or the phenomenon of developmental systems drift. Such discontinuities have no known, and in most cases no conceivable, adaptive origin. They arose de novo - and perhaps they even arose more than once in different lineages, as some examples of “convergent evolution” suggest. In such cases (a majority, in fact, of taxon-defining features), not only do we have no clear knowledge of the ancestors in which they occurred, but it doesn't appear to matter much anyway. - *** - "Meanwhile, I'll just ask you to consider whether the obsession of biology with common ancestry would have any purpose whatsoever if the day came when Darwinian gradualism were finally concluded to have only secondary importance for the origin of the species." - Comment: If Darwin evolution was truly at random why the fixed patterns from the beginning of Pentadactyl forms? Note my bold. It all looks like saltation of complexities. This review fits my point of view exactly.
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
I will make my own selection of quotes: - "Denton himself considers that pentadactyly, and similar examples, constitute good evidence for common descent itself, but I should remind you that the nested heirarchy was formerly, by those like Linnaeus, considered telling evidence for the special creation of every possible species by God.” - I would have thought it was obvious that common structures like the pentadactyl are evidence for Darwin's theory of common descent. Clearly Denton thinks so too. - "If there are emergent laws of form, as Denton argues, then gradualism is no longer a requirement in evolution. He consistently argues that the evidence from the fossil record, taxonomy and much genetics is that the important changes were relatively, at least, saltational.” - How many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's gradualism is out? - “Such discontinuities have no known, and in most cases no conceivable, adaptive origin. They arose de novo - and perhaps they even arose more than once in different lineages, as some examples of “convergent evolution” suggest. In such cases (a majority, in fact, of taxon-defining features), not only do we have no clear knowledge of the ancestors in which they occurred, but it doesn't appear to matter much anyway. “ (David's bold) - I don't know why you have put this in bold. How many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's gradualism is out? - "Meanwhile, I'll just ask you to consider whether the obsession of biology with common ancestry would have any purpose whatsoever if the day came when Darwinian gradualism were finally concluded to have only secondary importance for the origin of the species." - How many more times, many more times, more times, times….? - David's comment: If Darwin evolution was truly at random why the fixed patterns from the beginning of Pentadactyl forms? Note my bold. It all looks like saltation of complexities. This review fits my point of view exactly. - How many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's randomness is out? The fixed patterns are clear evidence of common descent. Adaptations and improvements must work swiftly if they are to survive, so how many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's gradualism is out? Saltation of innovations, engineered by the autonomous intelligence of cells - yep, fits my hypothesis exactly (see also under “Defining life”).
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
by David Turell , Friday, May 27, 2016, 19:02 (2892 days ago) @ dhw
"If there are emergent laws of form, as Denton argues, then gradualism is no longer a requirement in evolution. He consistently argues that the evidence from the fossil record, taxonomy and much genetics is that the important changes were relatively, at least, saltational.” > > Dhw: How many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's gradualism is out? > > “Such discontinuities have no known, and in most cases no conceivable, adaptive origin. They arose de novo - and perhaps they even arose more than once in different lineages, as some examples of “convergent evolution” suggest. In such cases (a majority, in fact, of taxon-defining features), not only do we have no clear knowledge of the ancestors in which they occurred, but it doesn't appear to matter much anyway. “ (David's bold) > > dhw: I don't know why you have put this in bold. How many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's gradualism is out? - Because you do not think of saltation the way I do. I made much of this in my first book. Gradualism is NEVER the point. We are discussing giant leaps in form and functionality. Saltation looks and smells like magical advances. Nothing explains them, but there they are! Perhaps God, a supernatural force? > > dhw: Saltation of innovations, engineered by the autonomous intelligence of cells - yep, fits my hypothesis exactly. - Yep, pipe dreams of superior planning intelligence hidden in bacteria who plotted to become multicellular, a process which is not understood, but looks like saltation.
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
dhw: How many more times do we have to agree that Darwin's gradualism is out? DAVID: Because you do not think of saltation the way I do. I made much of this in my first book. Gradualism is NEVER the point. We are discussing giant leaps in form and functionality. Saltation looks and smells like magical advances. Nothing explains them, but there they are! Perhaps God, a supernatural force? - It is you who keep quoting authors who flog the dead horse of gradualism. I agree with you entirely on the subject of “magical” saltations, but how often do we have to repeat that nobody can explain them? That is why we come up with different hypotheses: Darwin's random mutations, now matched by your shotgun complexifications; your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all innovations and natural wonders; your divine dabbles; separate creation; my autonomous inventive mechanism (depending on cellular intelligence). Nobody knows. - dhw: Saltation of innovations, engineered by the autonomous intelligence of cells - yep, fits my hypothesis exactly. - DAVID: Yep, pipe dreams of superior planning intelligence hidden in bacteria who plotted to become multicellular, a process which is not understood, but looks like saltation. - Of course it's saltation, but in this particular instance, Margulis's theory did not involve plotting. She suggests that the symbiosis originally took place by chance. The intelligence comes in with the recognition of mutual benefit, which then leads to further exploration of the potential benefits of symbiosis and cooperation. Humans also make accidental discoveries and then develop them. (But to anticipate your usual riposte, that is an analogy: bacteria think like bacteria, and humans think like humans.)
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
by David Turell , Saturday, May 28, 2016, 21:56 (2891 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It is you who keep quoting authors who flog the dead horse of gradualism. I agree with you entirely on the subject of “magical” saltations, but how often do we have to repeat that nobody can explain them?-Belief in God does. Remember I'm on his side. > > dhw: Of course it's saltation, but in this particular instance, Margulis's theory did not involve plotting. She suggests that the symbiosis originally took place by chance. The intelligence comes in with the recognition of mutual benefit, which then leads to further exploration of the potential benefits of symbiosis and cooperation. -Since when is natural selection a recognition of 'mutual benefit'? Bacteria don't think. The Margolis theory cannot tell us whether it was chance engulfment, or God's saltation. That the newly combined organism had a better reproductive and survival fitness is all that was needed to establish a new form.
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
dhw: It is you who keep quoting authors who flog the dead horse of gradualism. I agree with you entirely on the subject of “magical” saltations, but how often do we have to repeat that nobody can explain them? DAVID: Belief in God does. Remember I'm on his side.-You are right. Belief in chance or in an autonomous inventive mechanism also explains them. I should have said that nobody knows which is the true explanation.-dhw: Of course it's saltation, but in this particular instance, Margulis's theory did not involve plotting. She suggests that the symbiosis originally took place by chance. The intelligence comes in with the recognition of mutual benefit, which then leads to further exploration of the potential benefits of symbiosis and cooperation. DAVID: Since when is natural selection a recognition of 'mutual benefit'? Bacteria don't think.-As usual, you state your opinion as if it were a fact. Natural selection does not preclude thought! Natural selection merely describes the process by which things survive or don't survive. If organisms find they benefit from something - whether it's symbiosis, sexual reproduction, vision, smell, nest-building, migration, parasitism - that “something” will survive. You say bacteria are automatons that don't know what they're doing. And yet you are prepared to grant autonomy to their multicellular descendants, even to the extent that they create functioning “complexifications” which your God may subsequently approve of (i.e. which he did not programme for them). Why should cells in communities be able to think for themselves and communicate with one another, but single cells can't?-DAVID: The Margolis theory cannot tell us whether it was chance engulfment, or God's saltation. -True. But you had ridiculed the idea of bacteria “plotting” to become multicellular, and I was explaining that there was no “plot” in Margulis's theory - even though she believed in bacterial intelligence. She attributed the beginnings to chance, not a “plot”. And I pointed out that the intelligence (perhaps God-given) came into play with recognition of the mutual benefit.-DAVID: That the newly combined organism had a better reproductive and survival fitness is all that was needed to establish a new form.-A better reproductive system = improvement. Better survival fitness, no, because unicellular bacteria have survived to this day. The whole point is that multicellularity allowed for an almost infinitely expandable range of life forms - a big improvement over the limitations of the single cell. Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
by David Turell , Sunday, May 29, 2016, 15:28 (2890 days ago) @ dhw
[/i] > DAVID: Since when is natural selection a recognition of 'mutual benefit'? Bacteria don't think. > > dhw: As usual, you state your opinion as if it were a fact. Natural selection does not preclude thought!-Natural selection is affected by thinking animals like us, and to a less extent by lesser animals. Not in plants.-> dhw: Why should cells in communities be able to think for themselves and communicate with one another, but single cells can't?-Because single cells have automatic functions, while multicellulars have specialized networks of cells that allow thought. - > dhw;The whole point is that multicellularity allowed for an almost infinitely expandable range of life forms - a big improvement over the limitations of the single cell. Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.-No question.
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
DAVID: Since when is natural selection a recognition of 'mutual benefit'? Bacteria don't think.-dhw: As usual, you state your opinion as if it were a fact. Natural selection does not preclude thought!-DAVID: Natural selection is affected by thinking animals like us, and to a less extent by lesser animals. Not in plants.-According to you there are no thinking animals “like us”, and we arrived billions of years after natural selection began. Nobody knows the extent to which “lesser” organisms think, but it is not unreasonable to assume that “lesser” organisms are able to recognize relationships that are beneficial to them.-dhw: Why should cells in communities be able to think for themselves and communicate with one another, but single cells can't?-DAVID: Because single cells have automatic functions, while multicellulars have specialized networks of cells that allow thought.-Multicellulars consist of single cells working together! All organisms, unicellular and multicellular, have automatic functions, but nobody knows to what extent single cells can think (which does not mean think "like us").
More Denton: Another review of Denton's new book
by David Turell , Monday, May 30, 2016, 14:59 (2889 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Natural selection is affected by thinking animals like us, and to a less extent by lesser animals. Not in plants. > > dhw:According to you there are no thinking animals “like us”, and we arrived billions of years after natural selection began. Nobody knows the extent to which “lesser” organisms think, but it is not unreasonable to assume that “lesser” organisms are able to recognize relationships that are beneficial to them.-Of course they do. > > dhw: Why should cells in communities be able to think for themselves and communicate with one another, but single cells can't? > > DAVID: Because single cells have automatic functions, while multicellulars have specialized networks of cells that allow thought. > > dhw: Multicellulars consist of single cells working together! All organisms, unicellular and multicellular, have automatic functions, but nobody knows to what extent single cells can think (which does not mean think "like us").-We are at the same point we keep circling back to. Nobody 'knows' because they cannot know. Automaticity in a single cell can simply be intelligently planned.
More Denton: pure energy theoretically exists
by David Turell , Monday, March 21, 2016, 01:30 (2960 days ago) @ dhw
Current cosmological theories include dark energy (without any matter involved):-http://phys.org/news/2016-03-dark.html-"Dark matter and dark energy •27% of the universe is believed to consist of dark matter. Dark matter is thought to be the gravitational "glue" that binds the galaxies together. No one knows what dark matter actually is. •5% the universe consists of known material such as atoms and subatomic particles. •The rest of the universe is believed to consist of dark energy. Dark energy is believed to be responsible for the current rate of the expansion of the universe."- Comment: Matt Strassler didn't mention this idea. A part of eternal energy? God?
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
David's heading: More Denton: pure energy theoretically exists -DAVID: Current cosmological theories include dark energy (without any matter involved):-http://phys.org/news/2016-03-dark.html-QUOTE: "Dark matter and dark energy •27% of the universe is believed to consist of dark matter. Dark matter is thought to be the gravitational "glue" that binds the galaxies together. No one knows what dark matter actually is. •5% the universe consists of known material such as atoms and subatomic particles. •The rest of the universe is believed to consist of dark energy. Dark energy is believed to be responsible for the current rate of the expansion of the universe."-David's comment: Matt Strassler didn't mention this idea. A part of eternal energy? God?-I couldn't find the word "pure" anywhere, but your heading shows what nonsense all of this is, as Russell showed with his invisible teapot orbiting the sun, and as you constantly point out with your attacks on string theory and multiverses. God also exists theoretically, and theoretically chance is capable of creating life. In any case dark matter and dark energy are "unknowns" (that's why they are called dark), which means they are also nothing but theoretical.
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 22, 2016, 15:23 (2958 days ago) @ dhw
[/i]." > > David's comment: Matt Strassler didn't mention this idea. A part of eternal energy? God? > > dhw: I couldn't find the word "pure" anywhere, but your heading shows what nonsense all of this is, as Russell showed with his invisible teapot orbiting the sun, and as you constantly point out with your attacks on string theory and multiverses. God also exists theoretically, and theoretically chance is capable of creating life. In any case dark matter and dark energy are "unknowns" (that's why they are called dark), which means they are also nothing but theoretical.-The article only used the word 'energy' and did not use the word' pure' because by definition the concept is only about energy expanding the matter of the universe. Dark matter is a different breed of cat and causes gravitational effects not otherwise understood by observation of visible matter. The word 'dark' does not join the two concepts. Orbiting tea pots should be observable.
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
David's comment: Matt Strassler didn't mention this idea. A part of eternal energy? God?-dhw: I couldn't find the word "pure" anywhere, but your heading shows what nonsense all of this is, as Russell showed with his invisible teapot orbiting the sun, and as you constantly point out with your attacks on string theory and multiverses. God also exists theoretically, and theoretically chance is capable of creating life. In any case dark matter and dark energy are "unknowns" (that's why they are called dark), which means they are also nothing but theoretical.-DAVID: The article only used the word 'energy' and did not use the word' pure' because by definition the concept is only about energy expanding the matter of the universe. Dark matter is a different breed of cat and causes gravitational effects not otherwise understood by observation of visible matter. The word 'dark' does not join the two concepts. Orbiting tea pots should be observable.-I'm afraid I still think your heading “pure energy theoretically exists” is as pointless as “multiverses, 11 dimensions and invisible orbiting teapots theoretically exist”, and all the other theories so eloquently dismissed by Neil Turok under “Far out cosmology” (for which many thanks).
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 14:44 (2957 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I'm afraid I still think your heading “pure energy theoretically exists” is as pointless as “multiverses, 11 dimensions and invisible orbiting teapots theoretically exist”, and all the other theories so eloquently dismissed by Neil Turok under “Far out cosmology” (for which many thanks).-My only point was to show you that despite Matt Strassler poo-pooing the energy matter debate as inseparable two parts of the same thing, cosmologic physicists are currently considering the existence of pure dark energy. God can be pure energy.
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
dhw: I'm afraid I still think your heading “pure energy theoretically exists” is as pointless as “multiverses, 11 dimensions and invisible orbiting teapots theoretically exist”, and all the other theories so eloquently dismissed by Neil Turok under “Far out cosmology” (for which many thanks).-DAVID: My only point was to show you that despite Matt Strassler poo-pooing the energy matter debate as inseparable two parts of the same thing, cosmologic physicists are currently considering the existence of pure dark energy. God can be pure energy.-I understand your point. My points are (a) that the word “pure” is not used, and an unknown form of energy is not by definition “pure” energy, whatever that may be; (b) that cosmologic physicists have been considering the existence of all kinds of things which other cosmologic physicists and you yourself consider to be pie (or invisible orbiting teapots) in the sky. Theoretically, though, anything can exist, including the chance sparking of life, so this gets us nowhere.
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
by David Turell , Thursday, March 24, 2016, 15:07 (2956 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I understand your point. My points are (a) that the word “pure” is not used, and an unknown form of energy is not by definition “pure” energy, whatever that may be;-You cannot avoid the fact they only use the word 'energy'.-> dhw: (b) that cosmologic physicists have been considering the existence of all kinds of things which other cosmologic physicists and you yourself consider to be pie (or invisible orbiting teapots) in the sky. Theoretically, though, anything can exist, including the chance sparking of life, so this gets us nowhere.-Life did spark. No good theory as yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics won't join. But thinking human keep trying with open minds. That is all I am doing. But I like reaching concrete landing spots, and will change if the evidence changes. Where are your intellectual feet?
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
dhw: I understand your point. My points are (a) that the word “pure” is not used, and an unknown form of energy is not by definition “pure” energy, whatever that may be... DAVID: You cannot avoid the fact they only use the word 'energy'.-Are you telling us that whenever people use the word ‘energy' on its own they actually mean “pure” energy, though its very existence is controversial? Matt Strassler does talk of “pure” energy: he tells us that “the term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.” But as usual I rely on experts, and if experts disagree, I can't make a judgement. dhw: (b) that cosmologic physicists have been considering the existence of all kinds of things which other cosmologic physicists and you yourself consider to be pie (or invisible orbiting teapots) in the sky. Theoretically, though, anything can exist, including the chance sparking of life, so this gets us nowhere.-DAVID: Life did spark. No good theory as yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics won't join. But thinking human keep trying with open minds. That is all I am doing. But I like reaching concrete landing spots, and will change if the evidence changes. Where are your intellectual feet?-No good theory yet: agreed. Keep trying with open minds: agreed. Concrete landing spots: a bit of a problem. If there is no good theory yet, how do you justify a concrete landing spot? My intellectual feet are dangling down, one on each side of the intellectual fence. I will reach a concrete landing spot if and when the evidence provides a good theory.
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
by David Turell , Friday, March 25, 2016, 15:17 (2955 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You cannot avoid the fact they only use the word 'energy'. > > dhw: Are you telling us that whenever people use the word ‘energy' on its own they actually mean “pure” energy, though its very existence is controversial? Matt Strassler does talk of “pure” energy: he tells us that “the term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.” -Matt Strassler was discussing the energy/matter we know. He is right It is hard to spot the exact point where pure energy becomes the beginnings of matter. BUT, we are discussing dark energy, a force field of energy that drives the expansion of the universe. Matter is not involved in the theoretical proposal, only energy.-> > DAVID: Life did spark. No good theory as yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics won't join. But thinking human keep trying with open minds. That is all I am doing. But I like reaching concrete landing spots, and will change if the evidence changes. Where are your intellectual feet? > > dhw: No good theory yet: agreed. Keep trying with open minds: agreed. Concrete landing spots: a bit of a problem. If there is no good theory yet, how do you justify a concrete landing spot? My intellectual feet are dangling down, one on each side of the intellectual fence. I will reach a concrete landing spot if and when the evidence provides a good theory.-Which may be never!
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
DAVID: You cannot avoid the fact they only use the word 'energy'. dhw: Are you telling us that whenever people use the word ‘energy' on its own they actually mean “pure” energy, though its very existence is controversial? Matt Strassler does talk of “pure” energy: he tells us that “the term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.” -DAVID: Matt Strassler was discussing the energy/matter we know. He is right It is hard to spot the exact point where pure energy becomes the beginnings of matter. BUT, we are discussing dark energy, a force field of energy that drives the expansion of the universe. Matter is not involved in the theoretical proposal, only energy.-Dark energy is indeed a theory, and since nobody has a clue what it is, how do you know the theoretical dark energy is not interdependent with the theoretical dark matter that it theoretically drives? Why not just stick to the fact that pure energy - like multiverses, 11 dimensions, invisible orbiting teapots, the chance origin of life, a 3.8 billion-year programme for all evolutionary innovations, an autonomous cellular intelligence, and God himself - is theoretically possible? -DAVID: Life did spark. No good theory as yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics won't join. But thinking human keep trying with open minds. That is all I am doing. But I like reaching concrete landing spots, and will change if the evidence changes. Where are your intellectual feet? dhw: No good theory yet: agreed. Keep trying with open minds: agreed. Concrete landing spots: a bit of a problem. If there is no good theory yet, how do you justify a concrete landing spot? My intellectual feet are dangling down, one on each side of the intellectual fence. I will reach a concrete landing spot if and when the evidence provides a good theory.-DAVID: Which may be never!-Yes indeed.
More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist
by David Turell , Saturday, March 26, 2016, 14:25 (2954 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Dark energy is indeed a theory, and since nobody has a clue what it is, how do you know the theoretical dark energy is not interdependent with the theoretical dark matter that it theoretically drives? Why not just stick to the fact that pure energy - like multiverses, 11 dimensions, invisible orbiting teapots, the chance origin of life, a 3.8 billion-year programme for all evolutionary innovations, an autonomous cellular intelligence, and God himself - is theoretically possible? - Agreed, but not tea pots. Silly straw man
More Denton: A new book
by David Turell , Saturday, November 28, 2020, 21:35 (1246 days ago) @ dhw
Yet another book I have not read; the review:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/karsten-pultz-review-of-dentons-the-mira...
"Denton shows that an intelligent designer already had living things in mind when creating the universe with all its differing elements. Because I had always viewed matter as some random cosmic product, which the designer eventually used for building living things, this came as a revelation to me.
"Denton made me realize that life is not put together from elements that came into existence via cosmic randomness, but that the elements of the periodic table were carefully produced with life as end goal in the mind of the designer.
"I came to think of this analogy: Building an object from random Lego bricks compared to building an object for which a specific set of Legos were produced.
"My children, when they were young, had a huge bag of Legos from which they could build all sorts of things, using pieces that were not actually produced to serve as roof on a house, wheels on a truck, hatches on a tank, furniture in the garden etc.
"On the other hand sometimes they got, as a birthday gift, a set of Legos specifically meant to be assembled into a ship, a motorcycle, a castle, or a caterpillar. In this case, unlike building Lego structures from randomly available pieces, they had individual pieces that were made to serve specific purposes in the overall construction. Denton makes this latter analogy in his book, arguing that hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, copper, zinc etc, were most likely created specifically to serve as building materials for life.
"Denton reveals the extreme specificity of the elements, how the properties—the configuration of electrons—of every single element is clearly tuned to fit the properties of the other elements such that no substitutions seem possible. The chemical characteristics of each element play together in a symphony of awesome fine tuning.
"If the elements were not designed specifically to accommodate life, we should be able to detect spots where improvement could be done or where one element could be substituted for another. According to Denton, this seems not to be the case.
"Although modern cosmology portrays events that led to the creation of matter as undirected, The Miracle of the Cell (2020) makes it clear that this is not what evidence suggests. The designer of life was also the designer of the variety of elements constituting what we call matter. The chemical workings of the cell reveal that matter is a Lego set with designated pieces predestined to be assembled to what we call life."
Comment: The alternative view is The Anthropic Principal which says if things weren't this way we wouldn't be here. The fine-tuning argument is taken to its extreme by the book. I'll stay with fine-tuning versus chance. After all, how to explain our unexpected arrival? Nothing from Darwin anticipates us.
Biochemist doesn't understand speciation
by David Turell , Saturday, October 03, 2015, 05:17 (3129 days ago) @ dhw
edited by dhw, Saturday, October 03, 2015, 08:03
https://youtu.be/_TAUw4pvbug-He makes biochemical molecules as a university professor from scratch.
More Denton: unlikely transitions
by David Turell , Thursday, August 03, 2017, 01:50 (2460 days ago) @ David Turell
From the previous entry from Michael Denton:
"The sudden appearance of the angiosperms, I observed in Evolution, is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin's time.How true. No real flowers are found in any group of plants save those extant today, and no putative ancestral group has been identified in the fossil record, or by molecular phylogenetics. There is no universally accepted set of transitional forms leading up to earliest angiosperms."
Now a virtual computer simulation has produced a possible flower reproduction:
https://www.livescience.com/60000-first-flower-on-earth.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&a...
"There are many mysteries in plant evolution, and Sauquet and his colleagues were determined to solve one of the biggest ones: what the original angiosperm looked like.
"We know a lot about the evolutionary history of this group, in particular how plant families are related to one another, but we still know very little about how their emblematic structure — the flower — has evolved and diversified since their origin," Sauquet told Live Science in an email. "That's why I decided to join forces with other experts and create the international eFLOWER initiative to tackle these questions."
"Because there are no known fossils of the world's oldest angiosperm— the oldest uncontroversial fossil flower dates to about 130 million years ago, a good 10 million years before the likely birth of the earliest flower — Sauquet and his colleagues used a method known as ancestral state reconstruction, he said.
***
"The results showed that when flowers first popped up on Earth, they went through a series of simplifications in which structures were reduced or merged until the flowers settled on an optimal and stable architecture, he said.
"Once flowers achieved this stable architecture, they likely started to diversify and develop other features, such as symmetry, he noted.
"However, there is still much to learn about early angiosperms and their environments. For instance, it's unclear which animals might have eaten or pollinated these flowers, although "some authors have speculated that flies might have been among the earliest pollinators of flowers," Sauquet said.
"Moreover, studies on fossilized animal poop, known as coprolites, show that certain paleo-beasts munched on angiosperms. For example, an unknown dinosaur — but apparently a large one, judging from the size of its droppings — ate angiosperms about 75 million years ago, according to research presented at the 2015 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology conference in Dallas."
Comment: As noted in the previous entry and in this one, no one knows how angiosperms really evolved and presents as much a gap in the evolutionary story as the Cambrian Explosion, which is why it is known as the plant bloom. Darwin was puzzled by both. See the pictures in the article.
More Denton: unlikely transitions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 04, 2017, 05:59 (2458 days ago) @ David Turell
From the Article(Bold Mine):
To reveal the first flower's anatomy, the researchers used probabilistic models that would calculate the likelihood of the emergence of certain floral characteristics throughout time. This method allowed them "not only to find out what ancestral flowers were like, but also to measure uncertainty" around the results, Sauquet said.
Who determined what was the probability of the emergence of any characteristic that did not previously exist? Essentially, this experiment could confirm darn near anything.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More Denton: unlikely transitions
by David Turell , Friday, August 04, 2017, 21:55 (2458 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
From the Article(Bold Mine):
To reveal the first flower's anatomy, the researchers used probabilistic models that would calculate the likelihood of the emergence of certain floral characteristics throughout time. This method allowed them "not only to find out what ancestral flowers were like, but also to measure uncertainty" around the results, Sauquet said.
Tony: Who determined what was the probability of the emergence of any characteristic that did not previously exist? Essentially, this experiment could confirm darn near anything.
You feel about computer simulations just as I do.
More Denton: another new book
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 16:34 (717 days ago) @ David Turell
Humans were destined to arrive:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-dentons-new-book-nature-is-fine-...
From the publisher:
"For years, leading scientists and science popularizers have insisted humans are nothing special in the cosmic scheme of things. In this important and provocative new book, renowned biologist Michael Denton argues otherwise. According to Denton, the cosmos is stunningly fit not just for cellular life, not just for carbon-based animal life, and not even just for air-breathing animals, but especially for bipedal, land-roving, technology-pursuing creatures of our general physiological design. In short, the cosmos is specifically fit for creatures like us. Drawing on discoveries from a myriad of scientific fields, Denton masterfully documents how contemporary science has revived humanity’s special place in nature. “The human person as revealed by modern science is no contingent assemblage of elements, an irrelevant afterthought of cosmic evolution,” Denton writes. “Rather, our destiny was inscribed in the light of stars and the properties of atoms since the beginning. Now we know that all nature sings the song of man. Our seeming exile from nature is over. We now know what the medieval scholars only believed, that the underlying rationality of nature is indeed ‘manifest in human flesh.’ And with this revelation the… delusion of humankind’s irrelevance on the cosmic stage has been revoked.'”
Quotes from Denton:
ID comment: "a vast suite of chemical and physical parameters were precisely set. These parameters are “uniquely fit” for creatures like ourselves, as Denton shows:
"[O]ur existence as energy-demanding active air-breathing terrestrial organisms critically depends on a wildly improbable ensemble of natural environmental fitness comprising various chemical and physical laws as well as the properties of specific molecules such as oxygen and CO2 and specific elements such as the transition metals, properties that must be almost exactly as they are."
"The exquisitely fine-tuned ensembles of environmental fitness described here, each enabling a vital aspect of our physiological design, amount to nothing less than a primal blueprint for our being, written into the fabric of reality since the moment of creation, providing compelling evidence that we do indeed, after all, occupy a central place in the great cosmic drama of being.
"This is the miracle of man. We are not positioned in the spatial center of the universe as was believed before Copernicus, but what we have found over the past two centuries confirms the deep intuition of the medieval Christian scholars who believed that “in the cognition of nature in all her depths, man finds himself.”
Comment: Denton is a Ph.D. & M.D. Like Adler and Schroeder he is one of the authorities who shapes my views
More Denton: unlikely transitions
by David Turell , Monday, February 20, 2023, 17:32 (432 days ago) @ David Turell
Tiktaalik revisited showing transition skeletal changes:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2360024-spine-of-early-crawling-fish-was-becoming-...
"A CT scan of a fossil of Tiktaalik, one of the first fish to crawl on land, has revealed more features of its body that are intermediate between fish and land-dwelling animals. In particular, they show that its fins were becoming connected to its spine, a feature of limbs in land vertebrates, but not of fins in fish.
***
"In land vertebrates, the hind legs are connected to the spine via the pelvis. In fish, the equivalent of the pelvis is positioned away from the spine with no direct connection to it. In Tiktaalik, the shape of the vertebrae and ribs suggest that the pelvis was closer to the spine and that there was a soft tissue connection between the pelvis and spine, says Stuart.
"Other features, such as the shape of Tiktaalik’s ribs, are also intermediate, says Stuart.
“'It is a very nice looking piece of research,” says Martin Brazeau at Imperial College London, who wasn’t part of the team. “A connection between the vertebral column and the pelvis is one of those things that’s neither explicitly expected or excluded based on where Tiktaalik sits in the evolutionary tree.'”
Comment: a valuable transitional form. we should expect to find more examples.
Michael Denton, Ph. D, M.D.
by romansh , Saturday, July 18, 2015, 14:12 (3206 days ago) @ David Turell
Oh dear ... the Discovery Institute.-http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29304#p29304
Michael Denton, Ph. D, M.D.
by David Turell , Saturday, July 18, 2015, 15:33 (3206 days ago) @ romansh
Romansh: Oh dear ... the Discovery Institute. > > http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29304#p29304-Denton wrote his first book long before the Discovery Institute existed. Such a poor answer.