David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, September 30, 2019, 13:14 (68 days ago)

I am combining quotes from different threads in order to avoid the constant repetitions.

David’s theory of evolution is that his God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. David has no idea why God chose this method of fulfilling his one and only goal. He denies that this is his theory, and so I have quoted his own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” He agrees that this is his theory (“Of course.”)

dhw: Do please make up your mind. And let us not forget that you have no idea why he decided to “evolve humans over time” as described in your theory.

DAVID: Same Theory: God, the Creator, created evolution as His choice of life's creation. Obvious logical result of accepting God as Creator.

That is not the theory that is in dispute here! If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, clearly evolution was his chosen means of achieving his purpose. The dispute is over your choice of God's possible purpose and of the possible means of fulfilling that purpose. Since the above theory makes no sense even to you, I have offered alternative explanations of purpose and method. For instance, if he really did specially design us humans with our very special level of consciousness, it may have been an idea that occurred to him only after 3.X billion years, or if he wanted us from the very beginning, he may have spent 3.X billion years experimenting to find a way of achieving this purpose.

DAVID: Experimentation strongly implies a humanized God. God knows what He is doing, and makes His own clear Choices.

Of course God, if he exists, would make his own choices, but an experimenting scientist or inventor “knows what he is doing” or his experiments will have no chance of success! “Humanizing” is your desperate attempt to escape from the illogicality of your theory, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” As indeed are your own. If he “very well could think like us”, a “humanizing” hypothesis is clearly just as likely to be true as a hypothesis based on the belief that he does not think like us. And so you are left with one last straw to clutch at: your theory is logical provided we jettison human logic:

DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
And
DAVID: You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.
Let us remember that your theory as summarized above is your personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. In contrast to my alternatives, apparently your theory is perfectly logical provided we do not use human logic to try and understand it. May I humbly suggest that if God “very well could think like us”, theories which ARE logical by human reasoning are more likely to be true than a theory which you as a human find illogical and which is based on the assumption that God does NOT think like us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, September 30, 2019, 18:51 (68 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am combining quotes from different threads

David’s theory of evolution is that his God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. David has no idea why God chose this method of fulfilling his one and only goal. He denies that this is his theory, and so I have quoted his own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” He agrees that this is his theory (“Of course.”)

dhw: And let us not forget that you have no idea why he decided to “evolve humans over time” as described in your theory.

DAVID: Same Theory: God, the Creator, created evolution as His choice of life's creation. Obvious logical result of accepting God as Creator.

dhw: If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, clearly evolution was his chosen means of achieving his purpose. The dispute is over your choice of God's possible purpose and of the possible means of fulfilling that purpose. Since the above theory makes no sense even to you, I have offered alternative explanations of purpose and method. For instance, if he really did specially design us humans with our very special level of consciousness, it may have been an idea that occurred to him only after 3.X billion years, or if he wanted us from the very beginning, he may have spent 3.X billion years experimenting to find a way of achieving this purpose.

DAVID: Experimentation strongly implies a humanized God. God knows what He is doing, and makes His own clear Choices.

dhw: Of course God, if he exists, would make his own choices, but an experimenting scientist or inventor “knows what he is doing” or his experiments will have no chance of success! “Humanizing” is your desperate attempt to escape from the illogicality of your theory, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” As indeed are your own. If he “very well could think like us”, a “humanizing” hypothesis is clearly just as likely to be true as a hypothesis based on the belief that he does not think like us. And so you are left with one last straw to clutch at: your theory is logical provided we jettison human logic:

DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
And
DAVID: Yyou try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.

dhw: Let us remember that your theory as summarized above is your personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. In contrast to my alternatives, apparently your theory is perfectly logical provided we do not use human logic to try and understand it. May I humbly suggest that if God “very well could think like us”, theories which ARE logical by human reasoning are more likely to be true than a theory which you as a human find illogical and which is based on the assumption that God does NOT think like us.

Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

First of all is the overwhelming evidence that God prefers to evolve, as in the history of the universe from the Big Bang to now, the evolving surface of the Earth and the start of life and its interlocking influence of the properties of the Earth. I view God as in charge starting his creation 13.78 byo and arriving at current humans with their big brained consciousness about 300,000 years ago. The stresses from environment were not severe enough to require humans to appear, as our closest relatives, the apes prove. That removes any Darwin theory from consideration as environmental tresses driving evolution. God, as designer, does the work. As Adler points out, consciousness is the obvious proof God exists, my shorthand for his 300+/- page book. It is obvious God took His own sweet time. He has no need to be swift, as you constantly wish with your illogical human thinking.

I simply look at history to tell me what God decided to do. He has His own reasons for evolving rather than direct creation as in Genesis. And Genesis word 'day' is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which really is any interval in time. You view Him from an impatient human view, of why not be quick? History says He wasn't.

Your problem is you cannot accept God as the Designer/creator. It is your problem, not mine, since you do not wish to follow my line of reasoning and arrive at what you call another mystery to answer the questions. I view the need for a designer as undeniable and irrefutable. God must exist to explain the designed complexity of living organisms. Not by chance. And design is what keeps you agnostic, as you admit. So how do you explain the obvious design? Your position doesn't, as you present a garbled humanized view of God in your attempt to approach Him. Your problem, not mine, noting that I started out as agnostic, but with an open mind in studying the design evidence.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 01, 2019, 09:39 (67 days ago) @ David Turell

David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

“Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

This is your established method of avoiding the illogical sections of your theory, as above.

DAVID: First of all is the overwhelming evidence that God prefers to evolve, as in the history of the universe from the Big Bang to now, the evolving surface of the Earth and the start of life and its interlocking influence of the properties of the Earth. I view God as in charge starting his creation 13.78 byo and arriving at current humans with their big brained consciousness about 300,000 years ago.

If we accept the existence of God, this is perfectly logical and has nothing to do with the illogical parts of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: The stresses from environment were not severe enough to require humans to appear, as our closest relatives, the apes prove. That removes any Darwin theory from consideration as environmental Stresses driving evolution.

We have no idea what “stresses” or opportunities may or may not have driven our ancestors from the trees. But attacking Darwin does not make the bolded theory any more logical.

DAVID: God, as designer, does the work. As Adler points out, consciousness is the obvious proof God exists, my shorthand for his 300+/- page book. It is obvious God took His own sweet time. He has no need to be swift, as you constantly wish with your illogical human thinking.

The argument for design/complexity/consciousness being proof of a designer is not the issue. Nor is the fact that evolution has taken time. Yes, it’s gone on for approx. 3.8 billion years. The issues which you are dodging are bolded above.

DAVID: I simply look at history to tell me what God decided to do. He has His own reasons for evolving rather than direct creation as in Genesis. And Genesis word 'day' is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which really is any interval in time. You view Him from an impatient human view, of why not be quick? History says He wasn't.

But history does not say that he set out with the aim and method bolded above. My alternatives offer logical explanations for the evolutionary bush, as you admit. No “impatience” involved.

DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept God as the Designer/creator. It is your problem, not mine, since you do not wish to follow my line of reasoning and arrive at what you call another mystery to answer the questions. I view the need for a designer as undeniable and irrefutable. God must exist to explain the designed complexity of living organisms. Not by chance. And design is what keeps you agnostic, as you admit. So how do you explain the obvious design? Your position doesn't, as you present a garbled humanized view of God in your attempt to approach Him. Your problem, not mine, noting that I started out as agnostic, but with an open mind in studying the design evidence.

None of this even remotely justifies your own fixed belief in the theory of evolution bolded above.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 02, 2019, 00:25 (67 days ago) @ dhw

David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

“Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

dhw: This is your established method of avoiding the illogical sections of your theory, as above.

DAVID: First of all is the overwhelming evidence that God prefers to evolve, as in the history of the universe from the Big Bang to now, the evolving surface of the Earth and the start of life and its interlocking influence of the properties of the Earth. I view God as in charge starting his creation 13.78 byo and arriving at current humans with their big brained consciousness about 300,000 years ago.

dhw: If we accept the existence of God, this is perfectly logical and has nothing to do with the illogical parts of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: The stresses from environment were not severe enough to require humans to appear, as our closest relatives, the apes prove. That removes any Darwin theory from consideration as environmental Stresses driving evolution.

We have no idea what “stresses” or opportunities may or may not have driven our ancestors from the trees. But attacking Darwin does not make the bolded theory any more logical.

DAVID: God, as designer, does the work. As Adler points out, consciousness is the obvious proof God exists, my shorthand for his 300+/- page book. It is obvious God took His own sweet time. He has no need to be swift, as you constantly wish with your illogical human thinking.

dhw: The argument for design/complexity/consciousness being proof of a designer is not the issue. Nor is the fact that evolution has taken time. Yes, it’s gone on for approx. 3.8 billion years. The issues which you are dodging are bolded above.

DAVID: I simply look at history to tell me what God decided to do. He has His own reasons for evolving rather than direct creation as in Genesis. And Genesis word 'day' is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which really is any interval in time. You view Him from an impatient human view, of why not be quick? History says He wasn't.

dhw: But history does not say that he set out with the aim and method bolded above. My alternatives offer logical explanations for the evolutionary bush, as you admit. No “impatience” involved.

DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept God as the Designer/creator. It is your problem, not mine, since you do not wish to follow my line of reasoning and arrive at what you call another mystery to answer the questions. I view the need for a designer as undeniable and irrefutable. God must exist to explain the designed complexity of living organisms. Not by chance. And design is what keeps you agnostic, as you admit. So how do you explain the obvious design? Your position doesn't, as you present a garbled humanized view of God in your attempt to approach Him. Your problem, not mine, noting that I started out as agnostic, but with an open mind in studying the design evidence.

dhw: None of this even remotely justifies your own fixed belief in the theory of evolution bolded above.

This might as well be the end of this debate. I believe in God and the reasoning and positioning I have presented. We will always fully disagree on these points as our concepts of God totally differ. I find you just as illogical as you find me.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 02, 2019, 10:20 (66 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)
“Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

I shan’t reproduce the rest of the post, as it reiterates those parts of your theory which are not the subject of our disagreement.

DAVID: This might as well be the end of this debate. I believe in God and the reasoning and positioning I have presented. We will always fully disagree on these points as our concepts of God totally differ. I find you just as illogical as you find me.

I have offered you several alternative versions of your God’s possible purposes and methods, all of which you have accepted as logical but have dismissed because you believe we “should not apply human reasoning to the history”. Of course if we are to turn our backs on human reasoning, the debate concerning this particular theory can go no further. It’s important, however, not to confuse this issue with other aspects of your beliefs for which I have the highest respect, such as the evidence for design (dealt with in masterly fashion in your book The Atheist Delusion, and reinforced again and again on this website), the importance of psychic experiences like NDEs, and our shared belief in common descent. But whenever you make reference to the theory bolded above, I shall feel obliged to point out its illogicality!

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 02, 2019, 19:23 (66 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

dhw wishes to continue this discussion; fine. Lets review my position. I view God as Creator and boss of the universe. dhw has not denied this when he assumes a position as a theist. The result of my conclusion is that history will obviously tell us what God decided to do. This cannot be denied. I fully accept the Adler point that the advent of humans with unexplained consciousness proves God must exist. Consciousness cannot be explained through natural development by chance natural evolution. I don't question God's choice since history presents it. dhw's paragraph above is a total distortion of this reasoning, as he tries to misinterpret my direct quotes. My approach through a study of history does not require me to know why God made these choices. I can't know, but I do know we evolved, well beyond any surviving animal species.

dhw: “Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.[/i]

Yes we can humanly reason about God, but I have chosen to do it as in my first paragraph answer and no further, as all dhw has done is humanly guess as to God's possible motives. Just guesses, all logical at our human level, but worthless since they are just guesses. Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: It’s important, however, not to confuse this issue with other aspects of your beliefs for which I have the highest respect, such as the evidence for design (dealt with in masterly fashion in your book The Atheist Delusion, and reinforced again and again on this website), the importance of psychic experiences like NDEs, and our shared belief in common descent. But whenever you make reference to the theory bolded above, I shall feel obliged to point out its illogicality!

Thank you for the compliments. As for illogicality, it is yours not mine.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 03, 2019, 13:00 (65 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

DAVID: dhw wishes to continue this discussion; fine. Lets review my position. I view God as Creator and boss of the universe. dhw has not denied this when he assumes a position as a theist. The result of my conclusion is that history will obviously tell us what God decided to do. This cannot be denied. I fully accept the Adler point that the advent of humans with unexplained consciousness proves God must exist. Consciousness cannot be explained through natural development by chance natural evolution. I don't question God's choice since history presents it.

And with my theist hat on, I don’t question any of this either, but none of it covers your illogical theory of what constitutes “God’s choice”, as bolded above.

DAVID: dhw's paragraph above is a total distortion of this reasoning, as he tries to misinterpret my direct quotes. My approach through a study of history does not require me to know why God made these choices. I can't know, but I do know we evolved, well beyond any surviving animal species.

I also believe we evolved and have survived. Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

dhw: “Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Yes we can humanly reason about God, but I have chosen to do it as in my first paragraph answer and no further, as all dhw has done is humanly guess as to God's possible motives. Just guesses, all logical at our human level, but worthless since they are just guesses.

Your theory, as bolded in your own words above, is just a guess, but is illogical at our human level, which is why you tell us that it is only logical if we do not apply human reasoning to the history!

DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. (See also “Feedback loops”.) You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 03, 2019, 20:51 (65 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

DAVID: dhw wishes to continue this discussion; fine. Lets review my position. I view God as Creator and boss of the universe. dhw has not denied this when he assumes a position as a theist. The result of my conclusion is that history will obviously tell us what God decided to do. This cannot be denied. I fully accept the Adler point that the advent of humans with unexplained consciousness proves God must exist. Consciousness cannot be explained through natural development by chance natural evolution. I don't question God's choice since history presents it.

And with my theist hat on, I don’t question any of this either, but none of it covers your illogical theory of what constitutes “God’s choice”, as bolded above.

DAVID: dhw's paragraph above is a total distortion of this reasoning, as he tries to misinterpret my direct quotes. My approach through a study of history does not require me to know why God made these choices. I can't know, but I do know we evolved, well beyond any surviving animal species.

dhw: I also believe we evolved and have survived. Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.


dhw: “Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Yes we can humanly reason about God, but I have chosen to do it as in my first paragraph answer and no further, as all dhw has done is humanly guess as to God's possible motives. Just guesses, all logical at our human level, but worthless since they are just guesses.

dhw: Your theory, as bolded in your own words above, is just a guess, but is illogical at our human level, which is why you tell us that it is only logical if we do not apply human reasoning to the history!

You are analyzing God at a human logic level which means you are humanizing Him. Applying human logic to his choices are just guesses.


DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. (See also “Feedback loops”.) You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

The problem is that they are just humanizing guesses.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 04, 2019, 10:04 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining this thread with “feedback loops”, since they now overlap.

dhw: […] Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

DAVID: The problem is that they are just humanizing guesses.

Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

dhw: […] you believe every decision made not only by brainless bacteria but also by some organisms (I presume you exclude humans and other large organisms) with brains was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the very first cells. These decisions apply to all the natural wonders you have listed, […] even though your God’s one and only intention was to specially design H. sapiens. You agree that this seems illogical (you have “no idea” why he chose this method),

DAVID: Your constant distortion: My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

But you guess at his choices! And then you tell us: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” No, human logic doesn’t work if you apply human reasoning to your guess at his choices! You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” Sounds to me as though your human logic has failed to come up with any explanation of the choice you have imposed on your God.

dhw: Since you are not prepared to use human reasoning, the discussion could well end there, but it is bound to be reopened whenever you try to justify your preprogramming theory.

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it, that is the point, which for some unknown reason you refuse to recognize.

How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 04, 2019, 18:18 (64 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

dhw: There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

Our difference is I believe God is in charge of the history. Thus we will disagree.


DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

DAVID: The problem is that they are just humanizing guesses.

dhw: Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

Yes they do at a human level of logic.


dhw: […] you believe every decision made not only by brainless bacteria but also by some organisms (I presume you exclude humans and other large organisms) with brains was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the very first cells. These decisions apply to all the natural wonders you have listed, […] even though your God’s one and only intention was to specially design H. sapiens. You agree that this seems illogical (you have “no idea” why he chose this method),

DAVID: Your constant distortion: My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

dhw: But you guess at his choices!

But I don't guess. I take the position God is in charge and therefore the course of history mirror his choices.

dhw: And then you tell us: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” No, human logic doesn’t work if you apply human reasoning to your guess at his choices! You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” Sounds to me as though your human logic has failed to come up with any explanation of the choice you have imposed on your God.

The difference in our positions is my view of God as above.


dhw: Since you are not prepared to use human reasoning, the discussion could well end there, but it is bound to be reopened whenever you try to justify your preprogramming theory.

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it, that is the point, which for some unknown reason you refuse to recognize.

dhw: How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

Note my statements about God's role, as I believe it.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 05, 2019, 11:22 (63 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

dhw: There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

DAVID: Our difference is I believe God is in charge of the history. Thus we will disagree.

If your God decided to invent a mechanism which would enable organisms to make their own designs (with the proviso that he could always dabble if he wanted to), he would still be “in charge”. Our difference is in the bold above, which apparently is only logical if we abandon human reasoning, as in this next exchange:

dhw: Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

DAVID: Yes they do at a human level of logic.

That is your only defence of your illogical guess: in order for it to be logical, we must abandon all human logic.

DAVID My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

dhw: But you guess at his choices!

DAVID: But I don't guess. I take the position God is in charge and therefore the course of history mirror his choices.

The position you take is bolded above, and it is such a wild guess that you can only justify it by saying that we mustn’t apply human logic!

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it […]

dhw: How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

DAVID: Note my statements about God's role, as I believe it.

I have noted them and I have replied to every single one of them. So do please tell us how you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at God’s choice, even though you acknowledge that God “very well could think like us.”

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 05, 2019, 18:41 (63 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that [/b] he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take[/b]. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

dhw: There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

DAVID: Our difference is I believe God is in charge of the history. Thus we will disagree.

dhw: If your God decided to invent a mechanism which would enable organisms to make their own designs (with the proviso that he could always dabble if he wanted to), he would still be “in charge”. Our difference is in the bold above, which apparently is only logical if we abandon human reasoning, as in this next exchange:

dhw: Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

DAVID: Yes they do at a human level of logic.

dhw: That is your only defence of your illogical guess: in order for it to be logical, we must abandon all human logic.

DAVID My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

dhw: But you guess at his choices!

DAVID: But I don't guess. I take the position God is in charge and therefore the course of history mirror his choices.

dhw: The position you take is bolded above, and it is such a wild guess that you can only justify it by saying that we mustn’t apply human logic!

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it […]

dhw: How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

DAVID: Note my statements about God's role, as I believe it.

dhw: I have noted them and I have replied to every single one of them. So do please tell us how you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at God’s choice, even though you acknowledge that God “very well could think like us.”

Your distortion of my theory : " he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, is answered in the other thread on monarchs:

You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 06, 2019, 10:22 (62 days ago) @ David Turell

Under “monarch adaptation”:

dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.

DAVID: That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.

dhw: Yes, the alternative is my suggested explanation, and yes, all organisms could be called a “necessary part of their econiche” until they become extinct and the econiche changes. You seem to have forgotten the theory which I find so illogical, so let me remind you yet again: “He knew these designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, i.e. 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his actual goal, which was to specially design piece after piece of hominin and homo until he finally specially designed H. sapiens – and you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, but it’s quite logical provided we humans don’t try to figure out its logic.

DAVID: You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.

I am not implying that your God should have been humanly impatient, I am not querying the known fact that evolution has so far lasted 3.8 billion years and that humans came very late on the scene, and I am not complaining about God. I am complaining about your illogical assumption that he only had one goal, but for reasons you cannot imagine decided not to pursue it for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to design the bush of life”, with each non-human innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder being an “interim goal” in order to cover the time he had decided to take. I have offered you several perfectly logical alternative reasons for the bush, all of which by your own admission fit in with the history of life. I see no reason why you should reject them all because of your assumption that your God has a purpose and method which by your own admission defy human logic, especially since you even agree that “he very well could think like us”.

Another example, under “Nature’s wonders: echolocation
"Remarkably, the researchers found that their unbiased analysis homed in on the cochlear ganglion as the single most affected tissue among echolocating mammals. In particular, 25 "convergent" amino acid changes occurred in 18 genes known to be involved in the development of the cochlear ganglion. Only two of the 25 changes had been previously identified in past echolocation studies." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 06, 2019, 19:36 (62 days ago) @ dhw

Under “monarch adaptation”:

dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.

DAVID: That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.

dhw: Yes, the alternative is my suggested explanation, and yes, all organisms could be called a “necessary part of their econiche” until they become extinct and the econiche changes. You seem to have forgotten the theory which I find so illogical, so let me remind you yet again: “He knew these designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, i.e. 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his actual goal, which was to specially design piece after piece of hominin and homo until he finally specially designed H. sapiens – and you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, but it’s quite logical provided we humans don’t try to figure out its logic.

DAVID: You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.

dhw: I am not implying that your God should have been humanly impatient, I am not querying the known fact that evolution has so far lasted 3.8 billion years and that humans came very late on the scene, and I am not complaining about God. I am complaining about your illogical assumption that he only had one goal, but for reasons you cannot imagine decided not to pursue it for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to design the bush of life”, with each non-human innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder being an “interim goal” in order to cover the time he had decided to take. I have offered you several perfectly logical alternative reasons for the bush, all of which by your own admission fit in with the history of life. I see no reason why you should reject them all because of your assumption that your God has a purpose and method which by your own admission defy human logic, especially since you even agree that “he very well could think like us”.

Another example, under “Nature’s wonders: echolocation
"Remarkably, the researchers found that their unbiased analysis homed in on the cochlear ganglion as the single most affected tissue among echolocating mammals. In particular, 25 "convergent" amino acid changes occurred in 18 genes known to be involved in the development of the cochlear ganglion. Only two of the 25 changes had been previously identified in past echolocation studies." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

dhw: An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

Same brief logical response. I assume God is in charge of what happened historically as He created our current reality. That humans are an extremely different result expected from a natural process of evolution makes them extremely strong evidence as to God's intent from the beginning. I know you have not read Adler and have rejected his religious philosophy, but he cannot be rejected out of hand.

As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 07, 2019, 08:49 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

dhw: An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

DAVID: Same brief logical response. I assume God is in charge of what happened historically as He created our current reality. That humans are an extremely different result expected from a natural process of evolution makes them extremely strong evidence as to God's intent from the beginning. I know you have not read Adler and have rejected his religious philosophy, but he cannot be rejected out of hand.

Yet again: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 07, 2019, 17:33 (61 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

dhw: An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

DAVID: Same brief logical response. I assume God is in charge of what happened historically as He created our current reality. That humans are an extremely different result expected from a natural process of evolution makes them extremely strong evidence as to God's intent from the beginning. I know you have not read Adler and have rejected his religious philosophy, but he cannot be rejected out of hand.

dhw: Yet again: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”.

Constant repeating of your illogical mantra dos not make it logical. All I've said about Adler is his book does not discuss my theory, but my theory is based on Adler's philosophic theism as it refers to our obvious difference..


DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

Again, distortion: I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 08, 2019, 13:30 (60 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Constant repeating of your illogical mantra dos not make it logical.

I have not repeated any mantra of my own. I have merely repeated all the sections of your own illogical mantra.

DAVID: All I've said about Adler is his book does not discuss my theory, but my theory is based on Adler's philosophic theism as it refers to our obvious difference.

I couldn’t care less what your theory is based on. Since it can only be called logical if we abandon human logic, I suspect that most philosophers, theistic or otherwise, would dismiss it. If Adler doesn’t even discuss it, there is no point in constantly bringing him into our own discussion.

DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

DAVID: Again, distortion: I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human!:-(

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 08, 2019, 15:54 (60 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Constant repeating of your illogical mantra dos not make it logical.

dhw: I have not repeated any mantra of my own. I have merely repeated all the sections of your own illogical mantra.

DAVID: All I've said about Adler is his book does not discuss my theory, but my theory is based on Adler's philosophic theism as it refers to our obvious difference.

dhw: I couldn’t care less what your theory is based on. Since it can only be called logical if we abandon human logic, I suspect that most philosophers, theistic or otherwise, would dismiss it. If Adler doesn’t even discuss it, there is no point in constantly bringing him into our own discussion.

He is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.


DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

DAVID: Again, distortion: I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human!:-(

Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 12:02 (59 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)
0
DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: […] I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human! :-(

DAVID: Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

The little face is not laughing. You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 15:49 (59 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)
0
DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

Yes, you do. You have consciousness evolving from earlier states.


DAVID: […] I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human! :-(

DAVID: Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

dhw: The little face is not laughing. You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

You verbiage laughs. And you forget human logic does not explain God. Again keep it simple: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 10, 2019, 10:24 (58 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: Yes, you do. You have consciousness evolving from earlier states.

You persist in trying to distinguish between conscious and consciousness by saying that our fellow animals are conscious but only humans have consciousness. You are making a mockery of language. Only humans have extreme degrees of consciousness in the form of self-awareness, conceptualisation, creative imagination etc. The fact that I believe these evolved from earlier states of consciousness does not in any way minimize the “vast difference”, and it is no defence of the logical incongruities bolded above.

DAVID: […] You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.

Dhw: […] You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

DAVID: And you forget human logic does not explain God. Again keep it simple: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

The fact that human logic does not explain God is one reason why I remain agnostic, but this particular discussion is not about the existence of God but about your fixed belief in a theistic theory which you can only defend by telling us that we must abandon human logic because you know he doesn’t think like us although “he very well could think like us”. You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. Meanwhile you reject any alternative which has your God creating evolution but which offers different reasons why he created what he did; you agree that these are humanly logical but you reject them because they make him think like a human, even though – once again – “he very well could think like us”.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 10, 2019, 21:08 (58 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: Yes, you do. You have consciousness evolving from earlier states.

dhw: You persist in trying to distinguish between conscious and consciousness by saying that our fellow animals are conscious but only humans have consciousness. You are making a mockery of language. Only humans have extreme degrees of consciousness in the form of self-awareness, conceptualisation, creative imagination etc. The fact that I believe these evolved from earlier states of consciousness does not in any way minimize the “vast difference”, and it is no defence of the logical incongruities bolded above.

You are calling Adler a poor philosopher. I'm still with him. The 'vast difference' is all that counts. I have agreed that monkeys have a smidgen in that it is obvious they have some sense of what other monkeys are thinking (theory of mind) but smidgens is all they have.


DAVID: […] You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.

Dhw: […] You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

DAVID: And you forget human logic does not explain God. Again keep it simple: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw; The fact that human logic does not explain God is one reason why I remain agnostic, but this particular discussion is not about the existence of God but about your fixed belief in a theistic theory which you can only defend by telling us that we must abandon human logic because you know he doesn’t think like us although “he very well could think like us”. You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. Meanwhile you reject any alternative which has your God creating evolution but which offers different reasons why he created what he did; you agree that these are humanly logical but you reject them because they make him think like a human, even though – once again – “he very well could think like us”.

I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story. You simply wonder why He was so patient, and extend the idea that He should have gotten to the evolution of humans sooner. Remember I start with God as the driver of all. I understand you question that. You have accepted at times that if God ran evolution, He obviously was in change, but then you never reach my final conclusion and detour into an irrational side road of why did He wait? .

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 11, 2019, 13:19 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities [I summarized them earlier] which he never discusses.

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher. I'm still with him. The 'vast difference' is all that counts. I have agreed that monkeys have a smidgen in that it is obvious they have some sense of what other monkeys are thinking (theory of mind) but smidgens is all they have.

I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post)that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: You simply wonder why He was so patient, and extend the idea that He should have gotten to the evolution of humans sooner. Remember I start with God as the driver of all. I understand you question that. You have accepted at times that if God ran evolution, He obviously was in change, but then you never reach my final conclusion and detour into an irrational side road of why did He wait?

It is not a matter of patience, but of logic, and logic suggests that if he was totally in charge and only had one purpose, he WOULD have got to the evolution of humans sooner, and even you admit that you have no idea why he didn’t (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”). Because of this inexplicable postponement which you have thrust into his thinking, he “had to” specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life. I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 11, 2019, 19:29 (57 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, October 11, 2019, 19:49

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities [I summarized them earlier] which he never discusses.

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher. I'm still with him. The 'vast difference' is all that counts. I have agreed that monkeys have a smidgen in that it is obvious they have some sense of what other monkeys are thinking (theory of mind) but smidgens is all they have.

dhw: I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post)that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.


DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.


DAVID: You simply wonder why He was so patient, and extend the idea that He should have gotten to the evolution of humans sooner. Remember I start with God as the driver of all. I understand you question that. You have accepted at times that if God ran evolution, He obviously was in change, but then you never reach my final conclusion and detour into an irrational side road of why did He wait?

dhw: It is not a matter of patience, but of logic, and logic suggests that if he was totally in charge and only had one purpose, he WOULD have got to the evolution of humans sooner, and even you admit that you have no idea why he didn’t (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”). Because of this inexplicable postponement which you have thrust into his thinking, he “had to” specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life.

Same silliness. I believe God is in charge and history tells us how He created humans. Again your total argument implies He should have been impatient to do it. It is the same weird thought as to why God made the universe so big if all He wanted was an Earth to start life? I have no way of knowing His reasons. Perhaps it was required.

dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 12, 2019, 12:24 (56 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher.

dhw: I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post) that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal.And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.

No twisting! The bush is the history, “God wanted humans” is your interpretation of the purpose (reason why), and you have no idea why, if he runs everything, he decided not to create what he wanted, but “had to” (your words) create the non-human bush – not in order to create humans, but in order to cover the time until he did create humans!

[…]
dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

DAVID: The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

But it is no argument at all for the incongruities I have listed. Adler’s “key” is to the existence of a designer God, not to the incongruous theory bolded above.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 13, 2019, 05:10 (56 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

dhw: You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal.And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us

[/i]

Same old problem. I simply think God is in charge and chose to evolve humans over time. Nothing incongruous about that.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.

dhw: No twisting! The bush is the history, “God wanted humans” is your interpretation of the purpose (reason why), and you have no idea why, if he runs everything, he decided not to create what he wanted, but “had to” (your words) create the non-human bush – not in order to create humans, but in order to cover the time until he did create humans!

Same nutty objection. If God is in charge He cbose to evolv e humans. That is what happened


[…]
dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

DAVID: The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

dhw: But it is no argument at all for the incongruities I have listed. Adler’s “key” is to the existence of a designer God, not to the incongruous theory bolded above.

No incongruities as I view it. God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What yo u do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 13, 2019, 10:54 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

dhw: You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us.

DAVID: Same old problem. I simply think God is in charge and chose to evolve humans over time. Nothing incongruous about that.
As usual, you leave out approximately half the items in the above list. (See also below.) Your other replies repeat the same diluted version of your theory:

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 13, 2019, 15:57 (55 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

dhw: You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us.

DAVID: Same old problem. I simply think God is in charge and chose to evolve humans over time. Nothing incongruous about that.
As usual, you leave out approximately half the items in the above list. (See also below.) Your other replies repeat the same diluted version of your theory:

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

My beliefs remain the same.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 14, 2019, 12:57 (54 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 14, 2019, 18:49 (54 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

dhw: Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 10:10 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

dhw: Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 15:14 (53 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

dhw: Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

dhw: In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

Remember, I refuse to recognize religious writing about God so as to use only history and science as a proof of God, as shown in my first book. I accept your theorizing about God's intentions the same as the Biblical writings, all conjectures. Karen Anderson 's book shows exactly what I mean, as each book, OT, NT and Quran all have different versions of His personality. All we know about evolution is God took His own sweet time.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 16, 2019, 10:06 (52 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

dhw: In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?”[/i]

DAVID: Remember, I refuse to recognize religious writing about God so as to use only history and science as a proof of God, as shown in my first book. I accept your theorizing about God's intentions the same as the Biblical writings, all conjectures. Karen Anderson 's book shows exactly what I mean, as each book, OT, NT and Quran all have different versions of His personality. All we know about evolution is God took His own sweet time.

My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 16, 2019, 18:35 (52 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

dhw: In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?”[/i]

DAVID: Remember, I refuse to recognize religious writing about God so as to use only history and science as a proof of God, as shown in my first book. I accept your theorizing about God's intentions the same as the Biblical writings, all conjectures. Karen Anderson 's book shows exactly what I mean, as each book, OT, NT and Quran all have different versions of His personality. All we know about evolution is God took His own sweet time.

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

You are so confused. We can assume God thinks like we do, but we cannot prove that, only look at His works, and work out possible conclusions. The three religious books about God, per Karen Anderson, each show a different personality for God. She thinks the Quran is most adult in its approach, as it uses God's works to study Him. Since we have no other direct evidence, I agree with her. You agree our consciousness is very special. So are our physical capacities which are well beyond anything apes can do. I means to me we always were God's endpoint. I rely on expert opinions to reach my conclusions. What do you do?

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 17, 2019, 12:53 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

DAVID: You are so confused. We can assume God thinks like we do, but we cannot prove that, only look at His works, and work out possible conclusions.

Agreed. That is why I have offered you several alternative interpretations of his works based on DIFFERENT interpretations of his thinking. You have agreed that they are logical, but you have a fixed belief in your own conclusions, which you admit require the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: The three religious books about God, per Karen Anderson, each show a different personality for God. She thinks the Quran is most adult in its approach, as it uses God's works to study Him. Since we have no other direct evidence, I agree with her. You agree our consciousness is very special. So are our physical capacities which are well beyond anything apes can do. I means to me we always were God's endpoint. I rely on expert opinions to reach my conclusions. What do you do?

Why are you now bringing religious books into the discussion? Of course I agree that if your hidden God exists, the only evidence we have is his works. As above, all my alternatives are interpretations based on his works. But you have yet to name a single expert who insists that your own conclusions as bolded above are likely to be correct, bearing in mind that they require the abandonment of human reason.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 17, 2019, 22:49 (51 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

DAVID: You are so confused. We can assume God thinks like we do, but we cannot prove that, only look at His works, and work out possible conclusions.

dhw: Agreed. That is why I have offered you several alternative interpretations of his works based on DIFFERENT interpretations of his thinking. You have agreed that they are logical, but you have a fixed belief in your own conclusions, which you admit require the abandonment of human reason.

I've admitted nothing of the sort. See below. all fully reasoned.


DAVID: The three religious books about God, per Karen Anderson, each show a different personality for God. She thinks the Quran is most adult in its approach, as it uses God's works to study Him. Since we have no other direct evidence, I agree with her. You agree our consciousness is very special. So are our physical capacities which are well beyond anything apes can do. I means to me we always were God's endpoint. I rely on expert opinions to reach my conclusions. What do you do?

dhw: Why are you now bringing religious books into the discussion? Of course I agree that if your hidden God exists, the only evidence we have is his works. As above, all my alternatives are interpretations based on his works. But you have yet to name a single expert who insists that your own conclusions as bolded above are likely to be correct, bearing in mind that they require the abandonment of human reason.

My theories are mine based on my reading the religious books among lots of other points of view. Nothing wrong with all sorts of research when one starts at zero and blankly agnostic from bland acceptance. I have good valid logical reasons from all of my positions that disturb you. Your research is?

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 18, 2019, 10:46 (50 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

And:

dhw: You have agreed that they [my alternatives] are logical, but you have a fixed belief in your own conclusions, which you admit require the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. See below. all fully reasoned.

Your "fully reasoned" comment is:
DAVID: My theories are mine based on my reading the religious books among lots of other points of view. Nothing wrong with all sorts of research when one starts at zero and blankly agnostic from bland acceptance. I have good valid logical reasons from all of my positions that disturb you. Your research is?

I admire the breadth of your research, but how can you claim that this provides you with “good valid logical reasons” for all the positions that disturb me, when you explicitly acknowledge that : “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” And “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

If it is of any help to you, I gladly acknowledge that you have done far more reading than I have, I am indebted to you for passing on the fruits of your research as subject matter for us to discuss, and I freely acknowledge that for many years now, you have greatly enhanced my knowledge of the sciences. But I do not know how my own reading list is supposed to lend credence to your illogical theories and to discredit the logical alternatives I offer, so do please tell us the “good valid logical reasons” for the incongruities which demand the abandonment of human reasoning, and while you're at it, please explain why you dismiss my humanly logical alternatives as "humanizing" God, while you agree that he "very well could think like us".

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 18, 2019, 17:50 (50 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

And:

dhw: You have agreed that they [my alternatives] are logical, but you have a fixed belief in your own conclusions, which you admit require the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. See below. all fully reasoned.

Your "fully reasoned" comment is:
DAVID: My theories are mine based on my reading the religious books among lots of other points of view. Nothing wrong with all sorts of research when one starts at zero and blankly agnostic from bland acceptance. I have good valid logical reasons from all of my positions that disturb you. Your research is?

dhw: I admire the breadth of your research, but how can you claim that this provides you with “good valid logical reasons” for all the positions that disturb me, when you explicitly acknowledge that : “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” And “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

We cannot know how God thinks. I'll stick to the point that His personality is like no other person we know. It is all guesswork from studying His works. Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level. I'm human also, but that dos not mean you are correct in any sense. You guess, but can't believe your conclusions since they are simply suppositions.


dhw: If it is of any help to you, I gladly acknowledge that you have done far more reading than I have, I am indebted to you for passing on the fruits of your research as subject matter for us to discuss, and I freely acknowledge that for many years now, you have greatly enhanced my knowledge of the sciences. But I do not know how my own reading list is supposed to lend credence to your illogical theories and to discredit the logical alternatives I offer, so do please tell us the “good valid logical reasons” for the incongruities which demand the abandonment of human reasoning, and while you're at it, please explain why you dismiss my humanly logical alternatives as "humanizing" God, while you agree that he "very well could think like us".

It is your illogicality not mine. I honestly do not see the incongruities you have invented in your mind. We both use human reasoning, and you admit we cannot know God's reasoning. We cannot know why God chose the Big Bang and then evolved everything else until He got to H. sapiens. He has His reasons for the history He produced. We can only guess at His reasoning with our human reasoning we can produce all sorts of theories, which at their base are on only human reasoning. That is why I tell you you are humanizing God. And that is why I look primarily at what science tells us and don't make the guesses you make. I don't extrapolate from the history. The history provides the only real facts we have.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 19, 2019, 10:28 (49 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I admire the breadth of your research, but how can you claim that this provides you with “good valid logical reasons” for all the positions that disturb me, when you explicitly acknowledge that : “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” And “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. I'll stick to the point that His personality is like no other person we know. It is all guesswork from studying His works. Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level. I'm human also, but that dos not mean you are correct in any sense. You guess, but can't believe your conclusions since they are simply suppositions.

Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

dhw: […] do please tell us the “good valid logical reasons” for the incongruities which demand the abandonment of human reasoning, and while you're at it, please explain why you dismiss my humanly logical alternatives as "humanizing" God, while you agree that he "very well could think like us".

DAVID: It is your illogicality not mine. I honestly do not see the incongruities you have invented in your mind.

So when you admit that your theory requires the abandonment of human reasoning, you regard my logical human reasoning as illogical! When you admit that your theory is illogical, and you cry out that you have no idea why your God chose to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) and therefore had to specially design all the non-human branches of the evolutionary bush, you still don’t see the incongruities of your theory!

DAVID: […] We can only guess at His reasoning with our human reasoning we can produce all sorts of theories, which at their base are on only human reasoning. That is why I tell you you are humanizing God. And that is why I look primarily at what science tells us and don't make the guesses you make. I don't extrapolate from the history. The history provides the only real facts we have.

But you do extrapolate from the history, because you tell us that your God’s sole purpose was to create H. sapiens, but first he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” [i.e. before embarking on the fulfilment of his one and only purpose]. And you tell us that you look primarily at what science tells us and you don’t make guesses!

DAVID: ( under “balance of nature”): another example of the importance of ecosystems and how tightly controlled they are and must not be disturbed by humans. But we humans are put in charge and must be careful in how we manage these systems.

I don’t know about “put in charge”, but we certainly have the power to destroy the balance.

DAVID: These had to be set up before H. sapiens arrived with the ability to learn to handle them. Yet dhw wants God to rush to create humans.

I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 19, 2019, 19:28 (49 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. I'll stick to the point that His personality is like no other person we know. It is all guesswork from studying His works. Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level. I'm human also, but that does not mean you are correct in any sense. You guess, but can't believe your conclusions since they are simply suppositions.

dhw: Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special a nd our consciousnessc cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.


dhw: […] do please tell us the “good valid logical reasons” for the incongruities which demand the abandonment of human reasoning, and while you're at it, please explain why you dismiss my humanly logical alternatives as "humanizing" God, while you agree that he "very well could think like us".

DAVID: It is your illogicality not mine. I honestly do not see the incongruities you have invented in your mind.

dhw: So when you admit that your theory requires the abandonment of human reasoning, you regard my logical human reasoning as illogical! When you admit that your theory is illogical, and you cry out that you have no idea why your God chose to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) and therefore had to specially design all the non-human branches of the evolutionary bush, you still don’t see the incongruities of your theory!

My reasoning is explained above. I've never stopped reasoning. You are the one who invents all sorts of woolly possibilities, none of which are supported by the reality of the history of God's works.,


DAVID: […] We can only guess at His reasoning with our human reasoning we can produce all sorts of theories, which at their base are on only human reasoning. That is why I tell you you are humanizing God. And that is why I look primarily at what science tells us and don't make the guesses you make. I don't extrapolate from the history. The history provides the only real facts we have.

dhw: But you do extrapolate from the history, because you tell us that your God’s sole purpose was to create H. sapiens, but first he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” [i.e. before embarking on the fulfilment of his one and only purpose]. And you tell us that you look primarily at what science tells us and you don’t make guesses!

And you ignore the specialness of humans, which no one can explain.


DAVID: ( under “balance of nature”): another example of the importance of ecosystems and how tightly controlled they are and must not be disturbed by humans. But we humans are put in charge and must be careful in how we manage these systems.

dhw: I don’t know about “put in charge”, but we certainly have the power to destroy the balance.

DAVID: These had to be set up before H. sapiens arrived with the ability to learn to handle them. Yet dhw wants God to rush to create humans.

dhw: I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

God made the proper preparations for humans. If He simply produced us and nothing else, that is the totally illogical extension of the points you constantly make, that are so illogical. The Earth was prepared for us over time, that is the logical thought.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 20, 2019, 10:15 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. I'll stick to the point that His personality is like no other person we know. It is all guesswork from studying His works. Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level. I'm human also, but that does not mean you are correct in any sense. You guess, but can't believe your conclusions since they are simply suppositions. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

DAVID: I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special and our consciousness cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.

Nobody can explain consciousness at any level. Again you say “a” prime purpose, but you have never yet offered us any other prime purpose. Your theory that your God decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” is the one which requires the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. (Apologies for repeating points made on the consciousness hread. I will try to telescope these threads next time.)

DAVID: My reasoning is explained above. I've never stopped reasoning. You are the one who invents all sorts of woolly possibilities, none of which are supported by the reality of the history of God's works.

And yet you agreed above that my “suggestions are logical at a human level”! Only yours requires the abandonment of human reason.

dhw: I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: God made the proper preparations for humans. If He simply produced us and nothing else, that is the totally illogical extension of the points you constantly make, that are so illogical. The Earth was prepared for us over time, that is the logical thought.

Of course he would have had to make the proper preparations for humans, but that does not mean that 3.X billion years' worth of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders were “interim goals”…as quoted above! Do you honestly believe that part of the preparation for H. sapiens was a wibbly-wobbly oojamiflip or a creepy-crawly what’sname that died out 3 billion years ago?

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 20, 2019, 23:10 (48 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

DAVID: I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special and our consciousness cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.

dhw: Nobody can explain consciousness at any level. Again you say “a” prime purpose, but you have never yet offered us any other prime purpose. Your theory that your God decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” is the one which requires the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. (Apologies for repeating points made on the consciousness hread. I will try to telescope these threads next time.)

For me the word prime means just that. I'm with Adler. We were the prime goal. The universe, the Earth and all the bush of life had to be accomplished to allow us as the final result. I firmly believe we are the end point, and major evolution is over.


DAVID: My reasoning is explained above. I've never stopped reasoning. You are the one who invents all sorts of woolly possibilities, none of which are supported by the reality of the history of God's works.

dhw: And yet you agreed above that my “suggestions are logical at a human level”! Only yours requires the abandonment of human reason.

Not abandonment. My position is fully reasoned from my research


dhw: I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: God made the proper preparations for humans. If He simply produced us and nothing else, that is the totally illogical extension of the points you constantly make, that are so illogical. The Earth was prepared for us over time, that is the logical thought.

dhw: Of course he would have had to make the proper preparations for humans, but that does not mean that 3.X billion years' worth of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders were “interim goals”…as quoted above! Do you honestly believe that part of the preparation for H. sapiens was a wibbly-wobbly oojamiflip or a creepy-crawly what’sname that died out 3 billion years ago?

You know the answer. God evolved starting with single-celled organisms, and worked up to us.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 21, 2019, 14:17 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

DAVID: I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special and our consciousness cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.

dhw: Nobody can explain consciousness at any level. Again you say “a” prime purpose, but you have never yet offered us any other prime purpose. Your theory that your God decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” is the one which requires the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: For me the word prime means just that. I'm with Adler. We were the prime goal. The universe, the Earth and all the bush of life had to be accomplished to allow us as the final result. I firmly believe we are the end point, and major evolution is over.

The bold – which means every life form etc. had to be specially designed in order to cover the time he had decided to take before designing us, his only goal - is precisely the incongruity you refuse to recognize or, when you do recognize it, you say we must abandon human logic for it to make sense. The two quotes that I have bolded above could hardly make it clearer.

DAVID: The Earth was prepared for us over time, that is the logical thought.

dhw: Of course he would have had to make the proper preparations for humans, but that does not mean that 3.X billion years' worth of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders were “interim goals”…as quoted above! Do you honestly believe that part of the preparation for H. sapiens was a wibbly-wobbly oojamiflip or a creepy-crawly what’sname that died out 3 billion years ago?

DAVID: You know the answer. God evolved starting with single-celled organisms, and worked up to us.

That does not explain why he decided to spend 3.X billion years designing billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders (i.e. "all the bush of life") before starting to design us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 21, 2019, 17:44 (47 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Yes, they are alternative theistic explanations of the course and purpose of evolution, and you agree that they are logical. When I challenge your own guess, you acknowledge that in order to believe it, you must abandon human reasoning when you apply it to the history. I don’t know how you can stick to your one fixed belief when as far as you, a human being, are concerned it is illogical.

DAVID: I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special and our consciousness cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.

dhw: Nobody can explain consciousness at any level. Again you say “a” prime purpose, but you have never yet offered us any other prime purpose. Your theory that your God decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” is the one which requires the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: For me the word prime means just that. I'm with Adler. We were the prime goal. The universe, the Earth and all the bush of life had to be accomplished to allow us as the final result. I firmly believe we are the end point, and major evolution is over.

dhw: The bold – which means every life form etc. had to be specially designed in order to cover the time he had decided to take before designing us, his only goal - is precisely the incongruity you refuse to recognize or, when you do recognize it, you say we must abandon human logic for it to make sense. The two quotes that I have bolded above could hardly make it clearer.

Again, your incongruity, not mine. God prepared the earth for humans with the bush of life. All makes sense, except to you, as you do not accept humans as the end point.


DAVID: The Earth was prepared for us over time, that is the logical thought.

dhw: Of course he would have had to make the proper preparations for humans, but that does not mean that 3.X billion years' worth of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders were “interim goals”…as quoted above! Do you honestly believe that part of the preparation for H. sapiens was a wibbly-wobbly oojamiflip or a creepy-crawly what’sname that died out 3 billion years ago?

DAVID: You know the answer. God evolved starting with single-celled organisms, and worked up to us.

dhw: That does not explain why he decided to spend 3.X billion years designing billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders (i.e. "all the bush of life") before starting to design us.

God chose to evolve us. The history shows his plan which prepares the Earth for us. We need the bush of life, and you seem to ignore that.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 10:59 (46 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special and our consciousness cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.

dhw: Nobody can explain consciousness at any level. Again you say “a” prime purpose, but you have never yet offered us any other prime purpose. Your theory that your God decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” is the one which requires the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: For me the word prime means just that. I'm with Adler. We were the prime goal. The universe, the Earth and all the bush of life had to be accomplished to allow us as the final result. I firmly believe we are the end point, and major evolution is over.

dhw: The bold – which means every life form etc. had to be specially designed in order to cover the time he had decided to take before designing us, his only goal - is precisely the incongruity you refuse to recognize or, when you do recognize it, you say we must abandon human logic for it to make sense. The two quotes that I have bolded above could hardly make it clearer.

DAVID: Again, your incongruity, not mine. God prepared the earth for humans with the bush of life. All makes sense, except to you, as you do not accept humans as the end point.

“End point” is ambiguous. It is not the same as the one and only purpose. You keep acknowledging that you have no idea why your God chose to spend 3.X billion years specially designing a bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders “to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, but apparently this is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. I’m sorry, but if we cannot apply human reasoning to the history, then for humans like me and you, it does not make sense.

DAVID (UNDER “TOAD MIMICS VIPER HEAD”): this must require several specialized mutations. I think the toad was helped.

So either your God did a dabble or 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed the toad’s camouflage, because although his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, it wouldn’t have been possible without a toad’s head that imitates a viper’s head (plus the rest of the bush of non-human life over 3.X billion years of history).

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 15:13 (46 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 15:21

DAVID: I've never abandoned reason. The only guess I've made about God's intentions is humans were a prime goal. You accept our specialness, which can't be denied, and then attempt to reduce its importance. We are not just naked apes. We are extremely special and our consciousness cannot be explained by any theory of materialistic evolution.

dhw: Nobody can explain consciousness at any level. Again you say “a” prime purpose, but you have never yet offered us any other prime purpose. Your theory that your God decided to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, and all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” is the one which requires the abandonment of human reason: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: For me the word prime means just that. I'm with Adler. We were the prime goal. The universe, the Earth and all the bush of life had to be accomplished to allow us as the final result. I firmly believe we are the end point, and major evolution is over.

dhw: The bold – which means every life form etc. had to be specially designed in order to cover the time he had decided to take before designing us, his only goal - is precisely the incongruity you refuse to recognize or, when you do recognize it, you say we must abandon human logic for it to make sense. The two quotes that I have bolded above could hardly make it clearer.

DAVID: Again, your incongruity, not mine. God prepared the earth for humans with the bush of life. All makes sense, except to you, as you do not accept humans as the end point.

dhw: “End point” is ambiguous. It is not the same as the one and only purpose. You keep acknowledging that you have no idea why your God chose to spend 3.X billion years specially designing a bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders “to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, but apparently this is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. I’m sorry, but if we cannot apply human reasoning to the history, then for humans like me and you, it does not make sense.

God has reasons behind the history He created. THAT is logical, and that is something you cannot debate. Guesses as to the reasons are nothing but pure guesses. My point is why bother.


DAVID (UNDER “TOAD MIMICS VIPER HEAD”): this must require several specialized mutations. I think the toad was helped.

dhw: So either your God did a dabble or 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed the toad’s camouflage, because although his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, it wouldn’t have been possible without a toad’s head that imitates a viper’s head (plus the rest of the bush of non-human life over 3.X billion years of history).

All econiches are important in the balance of nature as provided by God, as He controlled the process of evolution. See new balance of nature entry today.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 11:49 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God prepared the earth for humans with the bush of life. All makes sense, except to you, as you do not accept humans as the end point.

dhw: “End point” is ambiguous. It is not the same as the one and only purpose. You keep acknowledging that you have no idea why your God chose to spend 3.X billion years specially designing a bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders “to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, but apparently this is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. I’m sorry, but if we cannot apply human reasoning to the history, then for humans like me and you, it does not make sense.

DAVID: God has reasons behind the history He created. THAT is logical, and that is something you cannot debate. Guesses as to the reasons are nothing but pure guesses. My point is why bother.

Of course it’s logical. Your point is not why bother, because it is your own irrational guess outlined above that we are debating!

DAVID (UNDER “TOAD MIMICS VIPER HEAD”): this must require several specialized mutations. I think the toad was helped.

dhw: So either your God did a dabble or 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed the toad’s camouflage, because although his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, it wouldn’t have been possible without a toad’s head that imitates a viper’s head (plus the rest of the bush of non-human life over 3.X billion years of history).

DAVID: All econiches are important in the balance of nature as provided by God, as He controlled the process of evolution. See new balance of nature entry today.
DAVID: This shows how God set up econiches for balance in nature. Special plants for giant dinosaurs, milkweed for monarchs. The bush of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary appearance of humans. Perhaps dhw will understand this explanation as to why God took all that time to reach humans. He seems confused to me.

All econiches depend on balance, and when the balance changes, the econiche changes, and the history of life is the history of comings and goings which, until some 3.X billion years ago, had nothing to do with humans. You are trying to conflate the history of life with the history of human evolution. Yes, A bush of life in the form of an econiche is essential for humans, just as it is/was for all species that ever lived. That does not mean that THE bush of life throughout life’s history was necessary for humans! You have ignored your own explanation! Once more: all of these non-human organisms and econiches were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” – i.e. before he started to design the only thing he actually wanted to design, namely us. And you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 23, 2019, 20:01 (45 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God prepared the earth for humans with the bush of life. All makes sense, except to you, as you do not accept humans as the end point.

dhw: “End point” is ambiguous. It is not the same as the one and only purpose. You keep acknowledging that you have no idea why your God chose to spend 3.X billion years specially designing a bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders “to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, but apparently this is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. I’m sorry, but if we cannot apply human reasoning to the history, then for humans like me and you, it does not make sense.

You may be a wordsmith, but for me endpoint and final purpose are exactly the same in meaning. Humans are God's final goal. He evolved organisms to get there as history tells us.


DAVID: God has reasons behind the history He created. THAT is logical, and that is something you cannot debate. Guesses as to the reasons are nothing but pure guesses. My point is why bother.

dhw: Of course it’s logical. Your point is not why bother, because it is your own irrational guess outlined above that we are debating!

Using history is not an illogical guess, nor is our specialness which makes the point.


DAVID (UNDER “TOAD MIMICS VIPER HEAD”): this must require several specialized mutations. I think the toad was helped.

dhw: So either your God did a dabble or 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed the toad’s camouflage, because although his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, it wouldn’t have been possible without a toad’s head that imitates a viper’s head (plus the rest of the bush of non-human life over 3.X billion years of history).

DAVID: All econiches are important in the balance of nature as provided by God, as He controlled the process of evolution. See new balance of nature entry today.

DAVID: This shows how God set up econiches for balance in nature. Special plants for giant dinosaurs, milkweed for monarchs. The bush of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary appearance of humans. Perhaps dhw will understand this explanation as to why God took all that time to reach humans. He seems confused to me.

dhw: All econiches depend on balance, and when the balance changes, the econiche changes, and the history of life is the history of comings and goings which, until some 3.X billion years ago, had nothing to do with humans. You are trying to conflate the history of life with the history of human evolution.

Of course it is. What is evolution about but creations for the future from the past?

dhw: Yes, A bush of life in the form of an econiche is essential for humans, just as it is/was for all species that ever lived. That does not mean that THE bush of life throughout life’s history was necessary for humans! You have ignored your own explanation! Once more: all of these non-human organisms and econiches were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” – i.e. before he started to design the only thing he actually wanted to design, namely us. And you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”.

Stop the illogical repetitions. They make no sense to me. Of course in using evolution to create, He created interim animals and eco-niches over the time involved. Of course the bush of life was necessary for the creation of humans which were His goal, since they are God's endpoint. I don't ever intend to explain His reasoning, and it is obvious you can't as you constantly humanize Him, and attempt to distort the history of His works, which tell us exactly what He decided to do and how to do it.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 24, 2019, 10:36 (44 days ago) @ David Turell

Again I am telescoping threads to avoid some of the repetition.

DAVID: Humans are God's final goal. He evolved organisms to get there as history tells us.

Humans may be the last product of evolution (itself a guess), but that does not mean every preceding life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was specially designed to cover the time your God decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal, and it does not alter the fact that you can only accept your own theory by NOT applying human reason to the history.

dhw: Yes, A bush of life in the form of an econiche is essential for humans, just as it is/was for all species that ever lived. That does not mean that THE bush of life throughout life’s history was necessary for humans! You have ignored your own explanation! Once more: all of these non-human organisms and econiches were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” – i.e. before he started to design the only thing he actually wanted to design, namely us. And you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

DAVID: Stop the illogical repetitions. They make no sense to me. Of course in using evolution to create, He created interim animals and eco-niches over the time involved. Of course the bush of life was necessary for the creation of humans which were His goal, since they are God's endpoint. I don't ever intend to explain His reasoning, and it is obvious you can't as you constantly humanize Him, and attempt to distort the history of His works, which tell us exactly what He decided to do and how to do it.

What illogical repetitions? I have repeated YOUR interpretation of his reasoning, but you yourself find it so unreasonable that you tell us that it is only logical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”! I do not distort the history, and indeed you have always acknowledged that my various alternatives fit in with it (“Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level”), but you try to dismiss them as “humanizing”, even though you admit that your God “very well could think like us”. I understand your frustration, but I do not understand your attempts to distance yourself from your own acknowledgement of the problems associated with your theory.

DAVID: You constantly refuse to follow logical reasoning. If God is in charge, history shows us what He did, not why. Guessing why is pure guessing. What does your guessing prove. Nothing!

But it is you who guess that the reason why your God (whose very existence is a guess) created life was to produce H. sapiens, and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder up until 3.X billion years ago was an “interim goal” to cover the time he had decided to take before embarking on fulfilling his one and only purpose. All theories concerning the existence of God, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness etc. are guesses which prove nothing.

dhw: I have always balanced my acceptance of your logical design argument with the argument that we do not solve one mystery by creating another. I find your eternal, sourceless, immaterial conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as the ability of chance to assemble the first living cells.

DAVID: You have a right to this position, and the right to guess, but guessing in worthless, whether you accept God or not.

And yet you have written two brilliant books to support one of your guesses (that God exists), and you continue to delve into all the mysteries, as you provide us with a constant stream of articles detailing the latest attempts to solve them. I remain extremely grateful for these, and do not regard them as worthless, even though they are guesses. And I do not think it is worthless to apply human logic in assessing the possible validity of people’s guesses. That is the nature of all our discussions. If guessing and discussing the guesses is worthless, we may as well close down this website!:-(

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 24, 2019, 18:48 (44 days ago) @ dhw

Again I am telescoping threads to avoid some of the repetition.

DAVID: Humans are God's final goal. He evolved organisms to get there as history tells us.

dhw: Humans may be the last product of evolution (itself a guess), but that does not mean every preceding life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was specially designed to cover the time your God decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal, and it does not alter the fact that you can only accept your own theory by NOT applying human reason to the history.

You always fail to understand that I simply look at history to see what God did.


dhw: Yes, A bush of life in the form of an econiche is essential for humans, just as it is/was for all species that ever lived. That does not mean that THE bush of life throughout life’s history was necessary for humans! You have ignored your own explanation! Once more: all of these non-human organisms and econiches were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” – i.e. before he started to design the only thing he actually wanted to design, namely us. And you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.

DAVID: Stop the illogical repetitions. They make no sense to me. Of course in using evolution to create, He created interim animals and eco-niches over the time involved. Of course the bush of life was necessary for the creation of humans which were His goal, since they are God's endpoint. I don't ever intend to explain His reasoning, and it is obvious you can't as you constantly humanize Him, and attempt to distort the history of His works, which tell us exactly what He decided to do and how to do it.

dhw: What illogical repetitions? I have repeated YOUR interpretation of his reasoning, but you yourself find it so unreasonable that you tell us that it is only logical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”! I do not distort the history, and indeed you have always acknowledged that my various alternatives fit in with it (“Of course I can agree with you that your suggestions are logical at a human level”), but you try to dismiss them as “humanizing”, even though you admit that your God “very well could think like us”. I understand your frustration, but I do not understand your attempts to distance yourself from your own acknowledgement of the problems associated with your theory.

DAVID: You constantly refuse to follow logical reasoning. If God is in charge, history shows us what He did, not why. Guessing why is pure guessing. What does your guessing prove. Nothing!

dhw; But it is you who guess that the reason why your God (whose very existence is a guess) created life was to produce H. sapiens, and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder up until 3.X billion years ago was an “interim goal” to cover the time he had decided to take before embarking on fulfilling his one and only purpose. All theories concerning the existence of God, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness etc. are guesses which prove nothing.

Not a guess. Design requires a designer.


dhw: I have always balanced my acceptance of your logical design argument with the argument that we do not solve one mystery by creating another. I find your eternal, sourceless, immaterial conscious mind just as difficult to believe in as the ability of chance to assemble the first living cells.

DAVID: You have a right to this position, and the right to guess, but guessing in worthless, whether you accept God or not.

dhw: And yet you have written two brilliant books to support one of your guesses (that God exists), and you continue to delve into all the mysteries, as you provide us with a constant stream of articles detailing the latest attempts to solve them. I remain extremely grateful for these, and do not regard them as worthless, even though they are guesses. And I do not think it is worthless to apply human logic in assessing the possible validity of people’s guesses. That is the nature of all our discussions. If guessing and discussing the guesses is worthless, we may as well close down this website!:-(

I don't think we should stop. I constantly can show overwhelming evidence of design which you recognize and keeps you in confusion:-) By the way Amazon just sold a copy of my first book.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 25, 2019, 10:59 (43 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You always fail to understand that I simply look at history to see what God did.

No you don’t. History tells us only that there has been a vast bush of diversified life forms extinct and extant, with humans the latest species to evolve. See our next exchange:

DAVID: You constantly refuse to follow logical reasoning. If God is in charge, history shows us what He did, not why. Guessing why is pure guessing. What does your guessing prove. Nothing!

dhw: But it is you who guess that the reason why your God (whose very existence is a guess) created life was to produce H. sapiens, and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder up until 3.X billion years ago was an “interim goal” to cover the time he had decided to take before embarking on fulfilling his one and only purpose. All theories concerning the existence of God, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness etc. are guesses which prove nothing.

DAVID: Not a guess. Design requires a designer.

Your whole theory of evolution is a guess. The existence of God is a guess too, because although design requires a designer, the designer does not have to be a single, unknown, sourceless, eternal mind! An atheist can guess that all the designs we see around us are the products of a chance combination of materials which by sheer good fortune led to life and intelligence capable of doing its own designing. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less fanciful than an inexplicable, hidden intelligence that was always simply there.

DAVID: […] guessing in worthless, whether you accept God or not.

dhw: And yet you have written two brilliant books to support one of your guesses (that God exists), and you continue to delve into all the mysteries, as you provide us with a constant stream of articles detailing the latest attempts to solve them. I remain extremely grateful for these, and do not regard them as worthless, even though they are guesses. And I do not think it is worthless to apply human logic in assessing the possible validity of people’s guesses. That is the nature of all our discussions. If guessing and discussing the guesses is worthless, we may as well close down this website! :-(

DAVID: I don't think we should stop. I constantly can show overwhelming evidence of design which you recognize and keeps you in confusion :-) By the way Amazon just sold a copy of my first book.

Delighted to hear this piece of news, though I wish they had sold thousands of copies of your second book! I would not say I am confused. I think I have a clear vision of the alternative explanations of life and evolution. My problem is that I find none of them sufficiently convincing to believe in! I would say that there are so many gaps in our knowledge that belief in any one theory demands irrational faith, and I think you would agree since you state categorically that your own theory is not illogical provided “one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”! I would not want us to stop either – but I reserve the right to use my human reasoning when considering all the proposed solutions to all the unsolved mysteries!

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 25, 2019, 23:00 (43 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You always fail to understand that I simply look at history to see what God did.

No you don’t. History tells us only that there has been a vast bush of diversified life forms extinct and extant, with humans the latest species to evolve. See our next exchange:

DAVID: You constantly refuse to follow logical reasoning. If God is in charge, history shows us what He did, not why. Guessing why is pure guessing. What does your guessing prove. Nothing!

dhw: But it is you who guess that the reason why your God (whose very existence is a guess) created life was to produce H. sapiens, and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder up until 3.X billion years ago was an “interim goal” to cover the time he had decided to take before embarking on fulfilling his one and only purpose. All theories concerning the existence of God, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness etc. are guesses which prove nothing.

DAVID: Not a guess. Design requires a designer.

Your whole theory of evolution is a guess. The existence of God is a guess too, because although design requires a designer, the designer does not have to be a single, unknown, sourceless, eternal mind! An atheist can guess that all the designs we see around us are the products of a chance combination of materials which by sheer good fortune led to life and intelligence capable of doing its own designing. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less fanciful than an inexplicable, hidden intelligence that was always simply there.

DAVID: […] guessing in worthless, whether you accept God or not.

dhw: And yet you have written two brilliant books to support one of your guesses (that God exists), and you continue to delve into all the mysteries, as you provide us with a constant stream of articles detailing the latest attempts to solve them. I remain extremely grateful for these, and do not regard them as worthless, even though they are guesses. And I do not think it is worthless to apply human logic in assessing the possible validity of people’s guesses. That is the nature of all our discussions. If guessing and discussing the guesses is worthless, we may as well close down this website! :-(

DAVID: I don't think we should stop. I constantly can show overwhelming evidence of design which you recognize and keeps you in confusion :-) By the way Amazon just sold a copy of my first book.

dhw: Delighted to hear this piece of news, though I wish they had sold thousands of copies of your second book! I would not say I am confused. I think I have a clear vision of the alternative explanations of life and evolution. My problem is that I find none of them sufficiently convincing to believe in! I would say that there are so many gaps in our knowledge that belief in any one theory demands irrational faith, and I think you would agree since you state categorically that your own theory is not illogical provided “one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”! I would not want us to stop either – but I reserve the right to use my human reasoning when considering all the proposed solutions to all the unsolved mysteries!

Yes, lets continue. By the way I get no benefit from the sales at this point, but love that the word is spread.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 26, 2019, 12:51 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] All theories concerning the existence of God, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness etc. are guesses which prove nothing.

DAVID: Not a guess. Design requires a designer.

dhw: Your whole theory of evolution is a guess. The existence of God is a guess too, because although design requires a designer, the designer does not have to be a single, unknown, sourceless, eternal mind! An atheist can guess that all the designs we see around us are the products of a chance combination of materials which by sheer good fortune led to life and intelligence capable of doing its own designing. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less fanciful than an inexplicable, hidden intelligence that was always simply there.

DAVID: […] guessing is worthless, whether you accept God or not.

dhw: [. ..] I do not think it is worthless to apply human logic in assessing the possible validity of people’s guesses. That is the nature of all our discussions. If guessing and discussing the guesses is worthless, we may as well close down this website!

DAVID: I don't think we should stop. I constantly can show overwhelming evidence of design which you recognize and keeps you in confusion By the way Amazon just sold a copy of my first book.

dhw: Delighted to hear this piece of news, though I wish they had sold thousands of copies of your second book! I would not say I am confused. I think I have a clear vision of the alternative explanations of life and evolution. My problem is that I find none of them sufficiently convincing to believe in! I would say that there are so many gaps in our knowledge that belief in any one theory demands irrational faith, and I think you would agree since you state categorically that your own theory is not illogical provided “one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”! I would not want us to stop either – but I reserve the right to use my human reasoning when considering all the proposed solutions to all the unsolved mysteries!

DAVID: Yes, lets continue. By the way I get no benefit from the sales at this point, but love that the word is spread.

It’s always good to know that people read your work! And yes, of course we should continue to consider all aspects of these fascinating subjects – and once more I can only thank you for bringing our attention to all the latest articles and discoveries. But please don’t complain if I apply my human reason in my attempts to understand their explanatory significance.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 26, 2019, 15:26 (42 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] All theories concerning the existence of God, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness etc. are guesses which prove nothing.

DAVID: Not a guess. Design requires a designer.

dhw: Your whole theory of evolution is a guess. The existence of God is a guess too, because although design requires a designer, the designer does not have to be a single, unknown, sourceless, eternal mind! An atheist can guess that all the designs we see around us are the products of a chance combination of materials which by sheer good fortune led to life and intelligence capable of doing its own designing. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less fanciful than an inexplicable, hidden intelligence that was always simply there.

DAVID: […] guessing is worthless, whether you accept God or not.

dhw: [. ..] I do not think it is worthless to apply human logic in assessing the possible validity of people’s guesses. That is the nature of all our discussions. If guessing and discussing the guesses is worthless, we may as well close down this website!

DAVID: I don't think we should stop. I constantly can show overwhelming evidence of design which you recognize and keeps you in confusion By the way Amazon just sold a copy of my first book.

dhw: Delighted to hear this piece of news, though I wish they had sold thousands of copies of your second book! I would not say I am confused. I think I have a clear vision of the alternative explanations of life and evolution. My problem is that I find none of them sufficiently convincing to believe in! I would say that there are so many gaps in our knowledge that belief in any one theory demands irrational faith, and I think you would agree since you state categorically that your own theory is not illogical provided “one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”! I would not want us to stop either – but I reserve the right to use my human reasoning when considering all the proposed solutions to all the unsolved mysteries!

DAVID: Yes, lets continue. By the way I get no benefit from the sales at this point, but love that the word is spread.

dhw: It’s always good to know that people read your work! And yes, of course we should continue to consider all aspects of these fascinating subjects – and once more I can only thank you for bringing our attention to all the latest articles and discoveries. But please don’t complain if I apply my human reason in my attempts to understand their explanatory significance.

Of course apply your reasoning, so I can comment with my reasoning.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 27, 2019, 08:59 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] of course we should continue to consider all aspects of these fascinating subjects – and once more I can only thank you for bringing our attention to all the latest articles and discoveries. But please don’t complain if I apply my human reason in my attempts to understand their explanatory significance.

DAVID: Of course apply your reasoning, so I can comment with my reasoning.

It’s important, however, to note that in order to believe in your own personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, your reasoning is that “nothing illogical is required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and any alternative theory is to be dismissed because in your view it “humanizes” your God, although he “very well could think like us”.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 27, 2019, 17:14 (41 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] of course we should continue to consider all aspects of these fascinating subjects – and once more I can only thank you for bringing our attention to all the latest articles and discoveries. But please don’t complain if I apply my human reason in my attempts to understand their explanatory significance.

DAVID: Of course apply your reasoning, so I can comment with my reasoning.

dhw: It’s important, however, to note that in order to believe in your own personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, your reasoning is that “nothing illogical is required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and any alternative theory is to be dismissed because in your view it “humanizes” your God, although he “very well could think like us”.

Same reply. History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 28, 2019, 10:27 (40 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] of course we should continue to consider all aspects of these fascinating subjects – and once more I can only thank you for bringing our attention to all the latest articles and discoveries. But please don’t complain if I apply my human reason in my attempts to understand their explanatory significance.

DAVID: Of course apply your reasoning, so I can comment with my reasoning.

dhw: It’s important, however, to note that in order to believe in your own personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, your reasoning is that “nothing illogical is required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and any alternative theory is to be dismissed because in your view it “humanizes” your God, although he “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: Same reply. History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

So do you. Just a reminder: Your guess is that your God’s only purpose was to design H.sapiens, but he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design every earlier, non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, but this is logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history.
;-)

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 28, 2019, 13:58 (40 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] of course we should continue to consider all aspects of these fascinating subjects – and once more I can only thank you for bringing our attention to all the latest articles and discoveries. But please don’t complain if I apply my human reason in my attempts to understand their explanatory significance.

DAVID: Of course apply your reasoning, so I can comment with my reasoning.

dhw: It’s important, however, to note that in order to believe in your own personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, your reasoning is that “nothing illogical is required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and any alternative theory is to be dismissed because in your view it “humanizes” your God, although he “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: Same reply. History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

dhw: So do you. Just a reminder: Your guess is that your God’s only purpose was to design H.sapiens, but he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design every earlier, non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, but this is logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the his
;-)

Your usual reply. You recognize our specialness by giving it lip service, and then forget how different we really are. Evolution as a natural event does not explain our arrival. We were designed.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 10:35 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same reply. History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

dhw: So do you. Just a reminder: Your guess is that your God’s only purpose was to design H.sapiens, but he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design every earlier, non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, but this is logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history.

DAVID: Your usual reply. You recognize our specialness by giving it lip service, and then forget how different we really are. Evolution as a natural event does not explain our arrival. We were designed.

Of course I don’t forget it. Nor do I forget the billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, every one of which you tell us had to be specially designed by your God. And I don’t forget that the reason why you think he had to specially design them all was that he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years etc., and you have no idea why, but it’s logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history. I seem to have pointed that out before.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 13:50 (39 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same reply. History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

dhw: So do you. Just a reminder: Your guess is that your God’s only purpose was to design H.sapiens, but he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design every earlier, non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, but this is logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history.

DAVID: Your usual reply. You recognize our specialness by giving it lip service, and then forget how different we really are. Evolution as a natural event does not explain our arrival. We were designed.

dhw: Of course I don’t forget it. Nor do I forget the billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, every one of which you tell us had to be specially designed by your God. And I don’t forget that the reason why you think he had to specially design them all was that he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years etc., and you have no idea why, but it’s logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history. I seem to have pointed that out before.

You have distorted my thinking as usual.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 30, 2019, 11:32 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (under “early mammals”): Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe.

dhw: I gave you alternatives. The first was that he knew exactly what he was doing, and enjoyed experimenting with different life forms, i.e. if he exists, he created the universe and life for his own enjoyment, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings (your very own image). What is wrong with that as a purpose? “Didn’t know what he was doing” is a negative view of my suggestion that if his purpose really was to create a creature that could think like himself, he had to experiment in order to get it. Why is this such anathema to you?

DAVID: How do you definitely know God thinks like we do?

dhw: I don’t even “definitely know” that God exists, let alone how he thinks – and nor do you! That is why I offer alternative explanations, whereas you stick rigidly to the only one that requires the abandonment of human logic.

You did not explain why the above alternatives were anathema to you.

DAVID: History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

dhw: So do you. Just a reminder: Your guess is that your God’s only purpose was to design H.sapiens, but he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design every earlier, non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, but this is logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history.

DAVID: Your usual reply. You recognize our specialness by giving it lip service, and then forget how different we really are. Evolution as a natural event does not explain our arrival. We were designed.

dhw: Of course I don’t forget it. Nor do I forget the billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, every one of which you tell us had to be specially designed by your God. And I don’t forget that the reason why you think he had to specially design them all was that he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years etc., and you have no idea why, but it’s logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history. I seem to have pointed that out before.

DAVID: You have distorted my thinking as usual.

If you think the above is a distortion of your thinking, then please tell us precisely which points you disown, and I will produce the relevant quote in your very own words.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 30, 2019, 14:26 (38 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under “early mammals”): Your theories about God are all reasonable if you assume God didn't really know what He was doing or what purposes He had in mind when He created the universe.

dhw: I gave you alternatives. The first was that he knew exactly what he was doing, and enjoyed experimenting with different life forms, i.e. if he exists, he created the universe and life for his own enjoyment, much as a painter enjoys his own paintings (your very own image). What is wrong with that as a purpose? “Didn’t know what he was doing” is a negative view of my suggestion that if his purpose really was to create a creature that could think like himself, he had to experiment in order to get it. Why is this such anathema to you?

DAVID: How do you definitely know God thinks like we do?

dhw: I don’t even “definitely know” that God exists, let alone how he thinks – and nor do you! That is why I offer alternative explanations, whereas you stick rigidly to the only one that requires the abandonment of human logic.

dhw: You did not explain why the above alternatives were anathema to you.

They are humanized versions of how God might think or express purposes, as I implied.


DAVID: History shows God's work, not His reasons, but I recognize you love to guess.

dhw: So do you. Just a reminder: Your guess is that your God’s only purpose was to design H.sapiens, but he decided not to do so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design every earlier, non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, but this is logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history.

DAVID: Your usual reply. You recognize our specialness by giving it lip service, and then forget how different we really are. Evolution as a natural event does not explain our arrival. We were designed.

dhw: Of course I don’t forget it. Nor do I forget the billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, every one of which you tell us had to be specially designed by your God. And I don’t forget that the reason why you think he had to specially design them all was that he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years etc., and you have no idea why, but it’s logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history. I seem to have pointed that out before.

DAVID: You have distorted my thinking as usual.

dhw: If you think the above is a distortion of your thinking, then please tell us precisely which points you disown, and I will produce the relevant quote in your very own words.

You know full well the bush of life is required to maintain all of life's energy sources, and if God decided to evolve man from bacteria, we know the exact time it took. You continually debate God's choice of method, which implies you wonder why He waited and didn't just do direct creation as in Genesis. I don't do that. i just look at the history of his works. Fully logical, while you conjure up woolly possibilities, while you cannot possibly know how He thinks

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 31, 2019, 11:18 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

I have offered theistic alternatives to David’s anthropocentric theory (summarized below), explaining the higgledy-piggledy non-human bush of life: a) that God (if he exists) designed all the different life forms for his own enjoyment, or (b) he was experimenting in order to create a being like himself.

dhw: You did not explain why the above alternatives were anathema to you.

DAVID: They are humanized versions of how God might think or express purposes, as I implied.

And you have also agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, which means that my alternatives “very well” could be as valid as your own fixed belief, which is only logical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: Your usual reply. You recognize our specialness by giving it lip service, and then forget how different we really are. Evolution as a natural event does not explain our arrival. We were designed.

dhw: Of course I don’t forget it. Nor do I forget the billions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, every one of which you tell us had to be specially designed by your God. And I don’t forget that the reason why you think he had to specially design them all was that he decided not to fulfil his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years etc., and you have no idea why, but it’s logical so long as we do not apply human logic to the history.

DAVID: You have distorted my thinking as usual.

dhw: If you think the above is a distortion of your thinking, then please tell us precisely which points you disown, and I will produce the relevant quote in your very own words.

DAVID: You know full well the bush of life is required to maintain all of life's energy sources, and if God decided to evolve man from bacteria, we know the exact time it took. You continually debate God's choice of method, which implies you wonder why He waited and didn't just do direct creation as in Genesis. I don't do that. i just look at the history of his works. Fully logical, while you conjure up woolly possibilities, while you cannot possibly know how He thinks.

You don’t "just look at the history", you acknowledge that your interpretation of that history defies human logic, and you agree that my very precise alternatives are logical. Nobody can know how he thinks, which is why I offer various alternatives. You have accused me of distorting your thinking. Please tell me which of these points is a distortion:
1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.
5) Your explanation is perfectly logical, so long as we do not apply our human logic to the actual history of life.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 31, 2019, 18:51 (37 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You did not explain why the above alternatives were anathema to you.

DAVID: They are humanized versions of how God might think or express purposes, as I implied.

dhw: And you have also agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, which means that my alternatives “very well” could be as valid as your own fixed belief, which is only logical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

I've agreed human logic cab invent your scenarios.


DAVID: You know full well the bush of life is required to maintain all of life's energy sources, and if God decided to evolve man from bacteria, we know the exact time it took. You continually debate God's choice of method, which implies you wonder why He waited and didn't just do direct creation as in Genesis. I don't do that. i just look at the history of his works. Fully logical, while you conjure up woolly possibilities, while you cannot possibly know how He thinks.

dhw: You don’t "just look at the history", you acknowledge that your interpretation of that history defies human logic, and you agree that my very precise alternatives are logical.

It doesn't defy human logic. I just accept history and don't psychoanalyze God, which you are constantly employed in.

> dhw: Nobody can know how he thinks, which is why I offer various alternatives. You have accused me of distorting your thinking. Please tell me which of these points is a distortion:

1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

Usual distortions. It is obvious He chose to evolve us.

dhw: 5) Your explanation is perfectly logical, so long as we do not apply our human logic to the actual history of life.

Same Distortion. I don't try to apply logic. I simply accept what He did as history shows us.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, November 01, 2019, 10:29 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You did not explain why the above alternatives were anathema to you.

DAVID: They are humanized versions of how God might think or express purposes, as I implied.

dhw: And you have also agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, which means that my alternatives “very well” could be as valid as your own fixed belief, which is only logical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: I've agreed human logic can invent your scenarios.

You have agreed that these particular scenarios provide a “humanly” logical explanation for the history of the bush of life if there is a God who created it, and that your God could well think in this manner. But you prefer your own explanation, which defies human logic.

DAVID: It doesn't defy human logic. […]

You force me to quote you. Referring to your theory: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

dhw: Please tell me which of these points is a distortion:
1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: Usual distortions. It is obvious He chose to evolve us.

Your comment does not tell us which of these points is a distortion. Reminder: according to you, all the preceding life forms, econiches etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” (i.e. before “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose).

dhw: 5) Your explanation is perfectly logical, so long as we do not apply our human logic to the actual history of life.

DAVID: Same Distortion. I don't try to apply logic. I simply accept what He did as history shows us.

See the bolded quote above re logic. History shows us that there has been a a vast bush of life forms extinct and extant. History does not show us any of points 1-3, and you yourself have provided points 4-5.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, November 01, 2019, 17:42 (36 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've agreed human logic can invent your scenarios.

dhw:You have agreed that these particular scenarios provide a “humanly” logical explanation for the history of the bush of life if there is a God who created it, and that your God could well think in this manner. But you prefer your own explanation, which defies human logic.

DAVID: It doesn't defy human logic. […]

dhw: You force me to quote you. Referring to your theory: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

Not a refutation at all. All I've said is that I don't question His works, and don't study it logically, because that is not required if all one does is study the history of His works.


dhw: Please tell me which of these points is a distortion:
1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: Usual distortions. It is obvious He chose to evolve us.

dhw: Your comment does not tell us which of these points is a distortion. Reminder: according to you, all the preceding life forms, econiches etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” (i.e. before “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose).

One, two and three are my beliefs. Number four is your distorted description of his decision to evolve us, which is simply God chose to evolve us over the time it took, with no worry on His part over your so-called delay. You silly distortion implies He should have created us directly, if He could, something we can not know if He can or wanted to do.


dhw: 5) Your explanation is perfectly logical, so long as we do not apply our human logic to the actual history of life.

DAVID: Same Distortion. I don't try to apply logic. I simply accept what He did as history shows us.

dhw: See the bolded quote above re logic. History shows us that there has been a a vast bush of life forms extinct and extant. History does not show us any of points 1-3, and you yourself have provided points 4-5.

My proof of 'one' is the complexity of the designs, which you recognize but cannot explain except by your pipe-dreams of cellular intelligence. "Two" is Adler's book of logical reasons. I've answered 'three' above regarding the issue of direct creation

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, November 02, 2019, 12:12 (35 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:You have agreed that these particular scenarios provide a “humanly” logical explanation for the history of the bush of life if there is a God who created it, and that your God could well think in this manner. But you prefer your own explanation, which defies human logic.

DAVID: It doesn't defy human logic. […]

dhw: You force me to quote you. Referring to your theory: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”

DAVID: Not a refutation at all. All I've said is that I don't question His works, and don't study it logically, because that is not required if all one does is study the history of His works.

If he exists, the history of his works is the great bush of life extinct and extant, with humans the latest and most complex branch. You have studied the history and concluded points 1, 2 and 3. This theory, according to you, is not illogical so long as “one does not apply human reasoning" to it.

dhw: Please tell me which of these points is a distortion:
1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: Usual distortions. It is obvious He chose to evolve us.

dhw: Your comment does not tell us which of these points is a distortion. Reminder: according to you, all the preceding life forms, econiches etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” (i.e. before “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose).

DAVID: One, two and three are my beliefs.

Thank you. No distortion there, then.

DAVID: Number four is your distorted description of his decision to evolve us, which is simply God chose to evolve us over the time it took, with no worry on His part over your so-called delay. You silly distortion implies He should have created us directly, if He could, something we can not know if He can or wanted to do.

You have repeatedly told us that your God is in total control, the bolded quote says that he decided to take (not had to take) 3.X billion years, and you say “I have no idea why God decided to evolve humans over time”. According to you, it was this incomprehensibe decision which meant he “had to” design the whole preceding bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders (“establish the necessary food supply”) to “cover the time”. No distortion.

DAVID: My proof of 'one' is the complexity of the designs, which you recognize but cannot explain except by your pipe-dreams of cellular intelligence.

We are discussing the illogicality of your combination of beliefs, not my alternatives. So far, you have confirmed each of the points above.

DAVID: "Two" is Adler's book of logical reasons.

You have repeatedly told us that Adler does not cover your theory at all, except for the argument that human complexity provides evidence for God’s existence.

DAVID: I've answered 'three' above regarding the issue of direct creation.

I have answered your answer above.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 02, 2019, 18:49 (35 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You force me to quote you. Referring to your theory: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”

DAVID: Not a refutation at all. All I've said is that I don't question His works, and don't study it logically, because that is not required if all one does is study the history of His works.

dhw: If he exists, the history of his works is the great bush of life extinct and extant, with humans the latest and most complex branch. You have studied the history and concluded points 1, 2 and 3. This theory, according to you, is not illogical so long as “one does not apply human reasoning" to it.

There is no need to apply human reasoning if His works are accepted as the known history.


dhw: Please tell me which of these points is a distortion:
1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: Usual distortions. It is obvious He chose to evolve us.

dhw: Your comment does not tell us which of these points is a distortion. Reminder: according to you, all the preceding life forms, econiches etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” (i.e. before “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose).

DAVID: One, two and three are my beliefs.

dhw: Thank you. No distortion there, then.

DAVID: Number four is your distorted description of his decision to evolve us, which is simply God chose to evolve us over the time it took, with no worry on His part over your so-called delay. You silly distortion implies He should have created us directly, if He could, something we can not know if He can or wanted to do.

dhw: You have repeatedly told us that your God is in total control, the bolded quote says that he decided to take (not had to take) 3.X billion years, and you say “I have no idea why God decided to evolve humans over time”. According to you, it was this incomprehensibe decision which meant he “had to” design the whole preceding bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders (“establish the necessary food supply”) to “cover the time”. No distortion.

I've admitted I do not know if He was forced to make that decision, but He decided. It is incomprehensible only to you, with your use of human logic, not God's.


DAVID: My proof of 'one' is the complexity of the designs, which you recognize but cannot explain except by your pipe-dreams of cellular intelligence.

We are discussing the illogicality of your combination of beliefs, not my alternatives. So far, you have confirmed each of the points above.

DAVID: "Two" is Adler's book of logical reasons.

dhw: You have repeatedly told us that Adler does not cover your theory at all, except for the argument that human complexity provides evidence for God’s existence.

Adler does not discuss methods of evolution, only that we are God's purpose. My theory is a distillate of many sources.


DAVID: I've answered 'three' above regarding the issue of direct creation.

dhw: I have answered your answer above.

I know.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, November 03, 2019, 11:20 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

dhw: This theory, according to you, is not illogical so long as “one does not apply human reasoning" to it.

DAVID: There is no need to apply human reasoning if His works are accepted as the known history.

The “known history” which we can all accept is the great bush of life, with H. sapiens as the latest and most complex branch. If we accept that this is God’s work, it is your interpretation of how and why he did this work which constitutes points 1, 2, and 3, and this combination of fixed beliefs – not the history – is what you admit is contrary to human reason.
dhw: You have repeatedly told us that your God is in total control, and that he decided to take (not had to take) 3.X billion years, and you say “I have no idea why God decided to evolve humans over time”. According to you, it was this incomprehensibe decision which meant he “had to” design the whole preceding bush of non-human life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders (“establish the necessary food supply”) to “cover the time”. No distortion.

DAVID: I've admitted I do not know if He was forced to make that decision, but He decided. It is incomprehensible only to you, with your use of human logic, not God's.

According to you, the decision is not illogical provided we do NOT apply human logic, and so unless you claim to be divine, it is incomprehensible to you. (That is why you have “no idea” why he would have made this decision.)

DAVID: Adler does not discuss methods of evolution, only that we are God's purpose. My theory is a distillate of many sources.

So no point in citing Adler as a supporter of your humanly incomprehensible and illogical theory.

I have transferred the next exchanges from “Evolution of Language”, since they have nothing to do with language.

DAVID: You are skipping over my point that the needs of a new species have to be anticipated in planning for the design of the species. The designer had to know in advance ears were necessary for the moth's like style. If moths had arrived without ears and couldn't pick up evidence of predators, they would not have survived. Survival needs have to be planned in advance. Species appear abruptly after gaps, no time given for modifications, remember Gould's point.

dhw: I have repeatedly answered this point on this thread and elsewhere! If you accept common descent, then moths with ears did not appear out of the blue – moths with ears descended from pre-moths without ears, just as whales descended from pre-whales without flippers.

DAVID: And what we are arguing is how did the adaptations happen. Speciation is a black box. You want the nebulous idea of cell committees with the ability to design. I know only minds design.

We are arguing about your insistence (now bolded above) that every innovation had to be planned in advance of the environmental changes it was meant to cope with. The rest of my post is devoted to explaining that moth ears and whale flippers would have evolved IN RESPONSE to new needs and not IN ANTICIPATION of them
.
dhw : No doubt many pre-eared moths did NOT survive either. That was why ears became necessary. Pure common sense, illustrated millions of times over by the history of life. No need for your “magic” - though highly selective (because most species have died out) - crystal ball process which you are so fixated on.

DAVID: Total non sequitur! Of course ears became necessary. The issue between us remains. How did that happen? Moths with ears are a slightly different new species, which requires design. Your answer for speciation is not my answer. As you have kindly noted my 'Atheist Delusion' book is a very strong argument for design.

Once more, you have forgotten that the issue here, as bolded, is your ANTICIPATION theory (as opposed to RESPONSE). As for how speciation happens, nobody knows. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or foresaw every future environmental change and/or problem, and preprogrammed the first cells with every response and/or solution, (though approx. 90% of species would be left to die). I propose (theistic version) that he gave cells the intelligence to work out their own designs. The rest of your post repeats and dismisses my theory, and glosses over the incredible complexities of your own by simply insisting that “only minds design”, which is not the issue between us.

Same point on the thread “Biological complexity: managing oxygen levels”: you insist that ants were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to march and build bridges, and I propose that they worked it out when conditions required them to do so, and then passed their successful strategies on to succeeding generations.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 03, 2019, 15:46 (34 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There is no need to apply human reasoning if His works are accepted as the known history.

The “known history” which we can all accept is the great bush of life, with H. sapiens as the latest and most complex branch. If we accept that this is God’s work, it is your interpretation of how and why he did this work which constitutes points 1, 2, and 3, and this combination of fixed beliefs – not the history – is what you admit is contrary to human reason.

It is not 'contrary to human reason'. I simply accept His works without question.

DAVID: I've admitted I do not know if He was forced to make that decision, but He decided. It is incomprehensible only to you, with your use of human logic, not God's.

dhw: According to you, the decision is not illogical provided we do NOT apply human logic, and so unless you claim to be divine, it is incomprehensible to you. (That is why you have “no idea” why he would have made this decision.)

I'm sorry your object to my reasonable approach, not to question God's thinking.


dhw: I have transferred the next exchanges from “Evolution of Language”, since they have nothing to do with language.


DAVID: And what we are arguing is how did the adaptations happen. Speciation is a black box. You want the nebulous idea of cell committees with the ability to design. I know only minds design.

dhw: We are arguing about your insistence (now bolded above) that every innovation had to be planned in advance of the environmental changes it was meant to cope with. The rest of my post is devoted to explaining that moth ears and whale flippers would have evolved IN RESPONSE to new needs and not IN ANTICIPATION of them

How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

.
dhw : No doubt many pre-eared moths did NOT survive either. That was why ears became necessary. Pure common sense, illustrated millions of times over by the history of life. No need for your “magic” - though highly selective (because most species have died out) - crystal ball process which you are so fixated on.

DAVID: Total non sequitur! Of course ears became necessary. The issue between us remains. How did that happen? Moths with ears are a slightly different new species, which requires design. Your answer for speciation is not my answer. As you have kindly noted my 'Atheist Delusion' book is a very strong argument for design.

dhw: Once more, you have forgotten that the issue here, as bolded, is your ANTICIPATION theory (as opposed to RESPONSE). As for how speciation happens, nobody knows. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or foresaw every future environmental change and/or problem, and preprogrammed the first cells with every response and/or solution, (though approx. 90% of species would be left to die). I propose (theistic version) that he gave cells the intelligence to work out their own designs. The rest of your post repeats and dismisses my theory, and glosses over the incredible complexities of your own by simply insisting that “only minds design”, which is not the issue between us.

That only minds design is exactly the issue. Advance design is required for new species to handle new problems


dhw: Same point on the thread “Biological complexity: managing oxygen levels”: you insist that ants were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to march and build bridges, and I propose that they worked it out when conditions required them to do so, and then passed their successful strategies on to succeeding generations.

Your view is possible. The bridge study said each ant always did the same thing. Hold on the neighbors.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, November 04, 2019, 11:41 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 1) You believe that your God specially designed every single new life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
2) His one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.
3) He decided to delay fulfilling that purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design the whole preceding bush of life in order to cover the time he had decided to take.
4) You have no idea why he decided to delay fulfilling his purpose for 3.X billion years.

This theory, according to you, is not illogical so long as “one does not apply human reasoning" to it.

DAVID: It is not 'contrary to human reason'. I simply accept His works without question.

His works, if he exists, are the bush of life, with humans as the latest species. You have accepted that points 1 – 3 form the basis of your theory concerning his purpose and method. Your own comment on this was: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” What else could that mean if it doesn’t mean “contrary to human reasoning”?

DAVID: I'm sorry you object to my reasonable approach, not to question God's thinking.

It is not God’s thinking but your own which I am questioning, and you have told us that your theory is not illogical so long as we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history. Are you telling us that you are divine? Why don’t you just agree with yourself and acknowledge that even though your theory defies human logic, and is one of several possible explanations of how and why evolution happened, it’s the only one you’re prepared to believe.

xxxxxx

dhw: We are arguing about your insistence […] that every innovation had to be planned in advance of the environmental changes it was meant to cope with. The rest of my post is devoted to explaining that moth ears and whale flippers would have evolved IN RESPONSE to new needs and not IN ANTICIPATION of them

DAVID: How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

The new species is the RESULT of the old species finding solutions to the new problems. Millions of bacteria die when we invent a new killer, but they don’t all die, and the survivors eventually find a solution. (They remain bacteria, but I’m simply describing the process: organisms react to new problems; solutions are not provided in advance.) Pre-whales may have entered the water because food was scarce on land; pre-eared moths may have begun hunting by night because so many were being killed during the day. The environmental change then triggered the anatomical changes which led to speciation: marine life led to flippers replacing legs; hunting in the dark required enhanced sensitivity to sound – hence the ears.

DAVID: […] The issue between us remains. How did that happen? Moths with ears are a slightly different new species, which requires design. Your answer for speciation is not my answer. As you have kindly noted my 'Atheist Delusion' book is a very strong argument for design.

dhw: Once more, you have forgotten that the issue here […] is your ANTICIPATION theory (as opposed to RESPONSE). As for how speciation happens, nobody knows. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or foresaw every future environmental change and/or problem, and preprogrammed the first cells with every response and/or solution, (though approx. 90% of species would be left to die). I propose (theistic version) that he gave cells the intelligence to work out their own designs. The rest of your post repeats and dismisses my theory, and glosses over the incredible complexities of your own by simply insisting that “only minds design”, which is not the issue between us. (Now bolded by dhw – see below.)

DAVID: That only minds design is exactly the issue. Advance design is required for new species to handle new problems.

Yes, design requires minds. You say only God has a mind - apart from humans - and I suggest (theistic version) that he may have created cellular minds (though of course nothing like our own). No, advance design is not required to handle new problems. You say you believe in common descent: this means that each new species is formed from existing species. When existing species are confronted with a new problem, either they solve it or they die. (New conditions may also offer new opportunities to existing organisms.) The RESULT of this interaction – i.e. the interaction only begins when conditions change - between organism and environment may be minor changes (adaptations) or major changes (innovations), though there is no clear borderline between the two. As above, bacteria continue to die until they find a counter to new medicines; pre-whale leg cells are restructured to form flippers BECAUSE they have adopted a marine way of life; pre-eared moth cells (I have no idea which ones) are restructured to form ears BECAUSE they have adopted a nocturnal way of life. And now I can only refer you back to my previous post, with the two theories and my comments bolded.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, November 04, 2019, 15:30 (33 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you object to my reasonable approach, not to question God's thinking.

dhw: It is not God’s thinking but your own which I am questioning, and you have told us that your theory is not illogical so long as we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history. Are you telling us that you are divine? Why don’t you just agree with yourself and acknowledge that even though your theory defies human logic, and is one of several possible explanations of how and why evolution happened, it’s the only one you’re prepared to believe.

Please accept that I view God in change and running the show as He wishes. That is the faith you cannot accept. Remember faith jumps a chasm.


xxxxxx

DAVID: How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

dhw: The new species is the RESULT of the old species finding solutions to the new problems. Millions of bacteria die when we invent a new killer, but they don’t all die, and the survivors eventually find a solution. (They remain bacteria, but I’m simply describing the process: organisms react to new problems; solutions are not provided in advance.) Pre-whales may have entered the water because food was scarce on land; pre-eared moths may have begun hunting by night because so many were being killed during the day. The environmental change then triggered the anatomical changes which led to speciation: marine life led to flippers replacing legs; hunting in the dark required enhanced sensitivity to sound – hence the ears.

To my knowledge, no one describes pre-ear moths. As Gould noted to his consternation, the fossil record shows giant gaps, no itty-bitty changes as Darwin assumed. You want the pipe-dream of minor adaptation morphing into new species. There is n o fossil su[port for your Darwin hope. Darwin gave us a concept of evolution with common descent, nothing more.


DAVID: […] The issue between us remains. How did that happen? Moths with ears are a slightly different new species, which requires design. Your answer for speciation is not my answer. As you have kindly noted my 'Atheist Delusion' book is a very strong argument for design.

dhw: Once more, you have forgotten that the issue here […] is your ANTICIPATION theory (as opposed to RESPONSE). As for how speciation happens, nobody knows. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or foresaw every future environmental change and/or problem, and preprogrammed the first cells with every response and/or solution, (though approx. 90% of species would be left to die). I propose (theistic version) that he gave cells the intelligence to work out their own designs. The rest of your post repeats and dismisses my theory, and glosses over the incredible complexities of your own by simply insisting that “only minds design”, which is not the issue between us. (Now bolded by dhw – see below.)

DAVID: That only minds design is exactly the issue. Advance design is required for new species to handle new problems.

dhw: Yes, design requires minds. You say only God has a mind - apart from humans - and I suggest (theistic version) that he may have created cellular minds (though of course nothing like our own). No, advance design is not required to handle new problems. You say you believe in common descent: this means that each new species is formed from existing species. When existing species are confronted with a new problem, either they solve it or they die. (New conditions may also offer new opportunities to existing organisms.) The RESULT of this interaction – i.e. the interaction only begins when conditions change - between organism and environment may be minor changes (adaptations) or major changes (innovations), though there is no clear borderline between the two.

There is a clear line. New species have clearly unexplained new features. That they fit the new requirements of their lives is not an explanation of how it happened. That is your constant plea, which is totally illogical, as illustrated below:

dhw: As above, bacteria continue to die until they find a counter to new medicines; pre-whale leg cells are restructured to form flippers BECAUSE they have adopted a marine way of life; pre-eared moth cells (I have no idea which ones) are restructured to form ears BECAUSE they have adopted a nocturnal way of life. And now I can only refer you back to my previous post, with the two theories and my comments bolded.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, November 05, 2019, 12:24 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why don’t you just agree with yourself and acknowledge that even though your theory defies human logic, and is one of several possible explanations of how and why evolution happened, it’s the only one you’re prepared to believe.

DAVID: Please accept that I view God in change and running the show as He wishes. That is the faith you cannot accept. Remember faith jumps a chasm.

Of course if he exists he would run the show as he wishes. No faith required for that reasoning. What I cannot accept is the 3-point combination of your beliefs regarding how and why he runs the show – an explanation which in your own words requires “nothing illogical if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. Yes, your faith in that illogical and unreasonable theory does indeed jump a chasm.
xxxxxx
DAVID: How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

dhw: The new species is the RESULT of the old species finding solutions to the new problems. Millions of bacteria die when we invent a new killer, but they don’t all die, and the survivors eventually find a solution. [..] Pre-whales may have entered the water because food was scarce on land; pre-eared moths may have begun hunting by night because so many were being killed during the day. The environmental change then triggered the anatomical changes which led to speciation: marine life led to flippers replacing legs; hunting in the dark required enhanced sensitivity to sound – hence the ears.

DAVID: To my knowledge, no one describes pre-ear moths. As Gould noted to his consternation, the fossil record shows giant gaps, no itty-bitty changes as Darwin assumed. You want the pipe-dream of minor adaptation morphing into new species. There is no fossil support for your Darwin hope. Darwin gave us a concept of evolution with common descent, nothing more.

Some websites say that “many moths have ears”, so presumably there are some diurnal ones that don’t. In any case, since you believe in common descent, you will agree that eared moths must have descended from some kind of moth. The whale record shows transitional forms, but can we really expect to find fossils of all stages of every new species? And nobody knows the mechanism that enables organisms to speciate. Has anyone found your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes for every undabbled innovation, life style and natural wonder, or sliced open a bacterium and discovered a programme to resist every future as yet undiscovered bacteria-killer?

DAVID: […] The issue between us remains. How did that happen? […]

dhw: Once more, you have forgotten that the issue here […] is your ANTICIPATION theory (as opposed to RESPONSE). […] The rest of your post repeats and dismisses my theory, and glosses over the incredible complexities of your own by simply insisting that “only minds design”, which is not the issue between us.

DAVID: That only minds design is exactly the issue. Advance design is required for new species to handle new problems.

dhw: Yes, design requires minds. You say only God has a mind - apart from humans - and I suggest (theistic version) that he may have created cellular minds (though of course nothing like our own). No, advance design is not required to handle new problems. [..] When existing species are confronted with a new problem, either they solve it or they die. (New conditions may also offer new opportunities to existing organisms.) The RESULT of this interaction – i.e. the interaction only begins when conditions change - between organism and environment may be minor changes (adaptations) or major changes (innovations), though there is no clear borderline between the two.

DAVID: There is a clear line. New species have clearly unexplained new features. That they fit the new requirements of their lives is not an explanation of how it happened. That is your constant plea, which is totally illogical […]

Is the transformation of an existing leg into a flipper an unexplained new feature or an adaptation? That is why I say the borderlines are not clear. And once again: nobody can explain how the changes happened, but why is it “totally illogical” to suggest that organisms change in response to new conditions and not in anticipation of them, when we know for a fact that minor adaptations respond to changes and do not precede them? And why is cellular intelligence (possibly divinely designed) as a theoretical “how” less logical than your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes and/or divine dabbling for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder?

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 05, 2019, 18:25 (32 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please accept that I view God in change and running the show as He wishes. That is the faith you cannot accept. Remember faith jumps a chasm.

dhw: Of course if he exists he would run the show as he wishes. No faith required for that reasoning. What I cannot accept is the 3-point combination of your beliefs regarding how and why he runs the show – an explanation which in your own words requires “nothing illogical if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. Yes, your faith in that illogical and unreasonable theory does indeed jump a chasm.

The bold above shows your illogical thinking. God in charge produced what He wanted to appear.

xxxxxx

DAVID: How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

dhw: The new species is the RESULT of the old species finding solutions to the new problems. Millions of bacteria die when we invent a new killer, but they don’t all die, and the survivors eventually find a solution. [..]

I found an article which said earless moths did exist, but our discussion started with an article that said eared moths predated bats by many years, as if planned:

"Their findings show that flowering plants did drive much of these insects’ diversity. In a surprise twist, however, multiple moth lineages evolved “ears” millions of years before the existence of bats, previously credited with triggering moths’ development of hearing organs."

https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/moths-ears-developed-millions-of-years-before-bat...


dhw: Some websites say that “many moths have ears”, so presumably there are some diurnal ones that don’t. In any case, since you believe in common descent, you will agree that eared moths must have descended from some kind of moth.

This website describes earless moths with different defenses:

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z93-221#.XcG8wXdFyzc


DAVID: […] The issue between us remains. How did that happen? […]

dhw: Once more, you have forgotten that the issue here […] is your ANTICIPATION theory (as opposed to RESPONSE). […] The rest of your post repeats and dismisses my theory, and glosses over the incredible complexities of your own by simply insisting that “only minds design”, which is not the issue between us.

DAVID: That only minds design is exactly the issue. Advance design is required for new species to handle new problems.

dhw: Yes, design requires minds. You say only God has a mind - apart from humans - and I suggest (theistic version) that he may have created cellular minds (though of course nothing like our own). No, advance design is not required to handle new problems. [..] When existing species are confronted with a new problem, either they solve it or they die. (New conditions may also offer new opportunities to existing organisms.) The RESULT of this interaction – i.e. the interaction only begins when conditions change - between organism and environment may be minor changes (adaptations) or major changes (innovations), though there is no clear borderline between the two.

DAVID: There is a clear line. New species have clearly unexplained new features. That they fit the new requirements of their lives is not an explanation of how it happened. That is your constant plea, which is totally illogical […]

dhw: Is the transformation of an existing leg into a flipper an unexplained new feature or an adaptation? That is why I say the borderlines are not clear. And once again: nobody can explain how the changes happened, but why is it “totally illogical” to suggest that organisms change in response to new conditions and not in anticipation of them, when we know for a fact that minor adaptations respond to changes and do not precede them? And why is cellular intelligence (possibly divinely designed) as a theoretical “how” less logical than your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes and/or divine dabbling for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder?

That is no answer as to why moths have ears well before bats appeared or why our huge brains predated much of its latter use. A flipper is distantly related to a leg, both of which have markedly different functions, as both provide different forms of locomotion. That both provide locomotion does not make the changes a simple adaptation.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, November 06, 2019, 08:33 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please accept that I view God in change and running the show as He wishes. That is the faith you cannot accept. Remember faith jumps a chasm.

dhw: Of course if he exists he would run the show as he wishes. No faith required for that reasoning. What I cannot accept is the 3-point combination of your beliefs regarding how and why he runs the show – an explanation which in your own words requires “nothing illogical if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. Yes, your faith in that illogical and unreasonable theory does indeed jump a chasm.

DAVID: The bold above shows your illogical thinking. God in charge produced what He wanted to appear.

Of course he did. What is illogical about my agreement with your statement? The illogicality which you yourself acknowledge is your interpretation of his wishes and how he runs the show! According to you, His wish was to produce H. sapiens, and he ran the show by deciding (you have "no idea why") not to produce H. sapiens for 3.X billion years, which meant he “had to” produce the rest of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he’d decide to take before fulfilling his wish.

DAVID: How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

dhw: The new species is the RESULT of the old species finding solutions to the new problems. Millions of bacteria die when we invent a new killer, but they don’t all die, and the survivors eventually find a solution. [..]

DAVID: I found an article which said earless moths did exist, but our discussion started with an article that said eared moths predated bats by many years, as if planned:

It does not say “as if planned”, by which you mean your God gave some moths ears in preparation for when they would become nocturnal and then have to cope with bats. What makes you think that a sense of hearing would not have been useful for diurnal moths?

dhw: Is the transformation of an existing leg into a flipper an unexplained new feature or an adaptation? That is why I say the borderlines are not clear. And once again: nobody can explain how the changes happened, but why is it “totally illogical” to suggest that organisms change in response to new conditions and not in anticipation of them, when we know for a fact that minor adaptations respond to changes and do not precede them? And why is cellular intelligence (possibly divinely designed) as a theoretical “how” less logical than your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes and/or divine dabbling for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder?

DAVID: That is no answer as to why moths have ears well before bats appeared…

Because maybe a sense of hearing was useful even in daytime, for instance to hear approaching predators. Why do you think your God would have given them ears well before he produced bats? “Wow,” said God, gazing into his crystal ball, “I’ve got them damn bats comin’ in a million years’ time. I’d better give them there moths ears now before...um...before I forget.(?)”

DAVID: ...or why our huge brains predated much of its latter use. A flipper is distantly related to a leg, both of which have markedly different functions, as both provide different forms of locomotion. That both provide locomotion does not make the changes a simple adaptation.

Why do you think early H. sapiens should have known everything we know today? Of course it predated much of its latter use! That does not mean your God gave pre-sapiens a huge brain and the new sapiens sat around for centuries acting just like pre-sapiens. I have suggested that the expanded brain was caused by the pre-sapiens brain cells responding to new concepts and/or conditions that exceeded the capacity of the existing brain.

I did not say the whale leg was a “simple” adaptation. Do you believe or not believe that the whale’s ancestors had legs, and do you believe that in due course those legs became flippers? Such transformations may be complex, which is why I have said it is sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptation and innovation. I note that you have not responded to the rest of my comment.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 00:35 (31 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course if he exists he would run the show as he wishes. No faith required for that reasoning. What I cannot accept is the 3-point combination of your beliefs regarding how and why he runs the show – an explanation which in your own words requires “nothing illogical if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. Yes, your faith in that illogical and unreasonable theory does indeed jump a chasm.

DAVID: The bold above shows your illogical thinking. God in charge produced what He wanted to appear.

dhw: Of course he did. What is illogical about my agreement with your statement? The illogicality which you yourself acknowledge is your interpretation of his wishes and how he runs the show! According to you, His wish was to produce H. sapiens, and he ran the show by deciding (you have "no idea why") not to produce H. sapiens for 3.X billion years, which meant he “had to” produce the rest of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he’d decide to take before fulfilling his wish.

Logically evolution is everything you have described. Of course humans were the main goal per Adler. See my new entry about an early ape whose body foretells the future use.

DAVID: I found an article which said earless moths did exist, but our discussion started with an article that said eared moths predated bats by many years, as if planned:

dhw: It does not say “as if planned”, by which you mean your God gave some moths ears in preparation for when they would become nocturnal and then have to cope with bats. What makes you think that a sense of hearing would not have been useful for diurnal moths?

Earless moths survived, according to the article by not being nocturnal.

DAVID: That is no answer as to why moths have ears well before bats appeared…

dhw: Because maybe a sense of hearing was useful even in daytime, for instance to hear approaching predators. Why do you think your God would have given them ears well before he produced bats? “Wow,” said God, gazing into his crystal ball, “I’ve got them damn bats comin’ in a million years’ time. I’d better give them there moths ears now before...um...before I forget.(?)”

This is only one of many findings of pre-planning I have presented. see the new one. And note George dos not like your cellular intelligence theory.


DAVID: ...or why our huge brains predated much of its latter use. A flipper is distantly related to a leg, both of which have markedly different functions, as both provide different forms of locomotion. That both provide locomotion does not make the changes a simple adaptation.

dhw: Why do you think early H. sapiens should have known everything we know today? Of course it predated much of its latter use!

Just my point!

dhw: That does not mean your God gave pre-sapiens a huge brain and the new sapiens sat around for centuries acting just like pre-sapiens. I have suggested that the expanded brain was caused by the pre-sapiens brain cells responding to new concepts and/or conditions that exceeded the capacity of the existing brain.

So the existing brain grew by 200 cc by no planned design for the connected parts? You think the existing neurons knew what to design. Pipe dream is all I can consider this. Design required.


dhw: I did not say the whale leg was a “simple” adaptation. Do you believe or not believe that the whale’s ancestors had legs, and do you believe that in due course those legs became flippers? Such transformations may be complex, which is why I have said it is sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptation and innovation. I note that you have not responded to the rest of my comment.

God designed teh changes, as design is required.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 11:37 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

GEORGE: I don't think I've heard of this theory that "intelligent cells or cell communities" have "their own special form of consciousness" that guides their evolution before, but it sounds rather like reviving elan vital or a form of pan-psychism. It seems to me that postulating such things without proof is unnecessary, since natural selection is adequate.

DAVID: Again, I agree. It is a vast stretch of what is known.

George has never heard of the theory, whereas David knows all about it and is prepared to dismiss it in favour of a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history.

For George: you only have to google cellular (or bacterial) intelligence to find a whole host of entries. Scientists such as the Nobel prizewinner Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, James A Shapiro, all of whom have spent a lifetime studying cellular behaviour, inform us that cells are sentient, cognitive, communicative, thinking, decision-making beings. When asked why bacterial intelligence was a controversial subject, Shapiro responded: “Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.” A couple more quotes picked up at random:

Brian J. Ford: It is argued here that the essential processes of cognition, response and decision-making inherent in living cells transcend conventional modelling, and microscopic studies of organisms like the shell-building amoebae and the rhodophyte alga Antithamnion reveal a level of cellular intelligence that is unrecognized by science and is not amenable to computer analysis.
(I would suggest that science is becoming increasingly disposed towards recognizing cellular intelligence.)

John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 11:44 (30 days ago) @ dhw

Part two

DAVID: As far as your Shapiro comment is concerned, why do humans have the brain they have with consciousness? You always look to demands from new conditions. Early humans lived just like apes on ground and also in trees (Lucy evidence). Apes are still the same and we are here as sapiens. Explain the evolutionary drive! There is no natural explanation.
And:
DAVID: God in charge produced what He wanted to appear.

dhw: Of course he did. The illogicality which you yourself acknowledge is your interpretation of his wishes and how he runs the show! According to you, His wish was to produce H. sapiens, and he ran the show by deciding (you have "no idea why") not to produce H. sapiens for 3.X billion years, which meant he “had to” produce the rest of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he’d decide to take before fulfilling his wish.

DAVID: Logically evolution is everything you have described. Of course humans were the main goal per Adler. See my new entry about an early ape whose body foretells the future use.

QUOTE (from “New fossil foretells the human future”): “'Given that all living apes use bipedalism to some degree – often in the trees, but also on the ground – it is not unreasonable to suggest that bipedalism evolved much earlier in hominoid evolution than we previously thought."

DAVID: Tell me this is not an advance change well before bipedalism was really needed. Gone is the theory that savanna appearance forced the change.

Sometimes you complain that there are no transitional forms, but the moment you are confronted with transitional forms, you flounder for an explanation. Does it not occur to you that in some areas some of our ancestors would have made a good living staying up in the trees, whereas in different areas others would have found it advantageous to be up in the trees AND to be down on the ground? And eventually some of those ancestors found that ground dwelling was vastly more advantageous, and so just like pre-whales that decided to live entirely in the water, these particular pre-humans decided to live entirely on the ground, and bipedalism took over – while elsewhere, apes stayed the same. You seem to think that all apes were huddled up in one place all under the same unchanging environmental conditions. And do please tell us why your God – who you insist wanted nothing but H. sapiens - would have popped in to fiddle here, fiddle there, half and half, itty-bitty changes, before at long last coming up with the only species he ever really wanted – bipedalling H. sapiens?

DAVID: I found an article which said earless moths did exist, but our discussion started with an article that said eared moths predated bats by many years, as if planned:

dhw: It does not say “as if planned”, by which you mean your God gave some moths ears in preparation for when they would become nocturnal and then have to cope with bats. What makes you think that a sense of hearing would not have been useful for diurnal moths?

DAVID: Earless moths survived, according to the article by not being nocturnal.

So some diurnal moths survived without ears, some diurnal moths survived with ears, and nocturnal moths were jolly glad to have ears.

DAVID: That is no answer as to why moths have ears well before bats appeared…

dhw: Because maybe a sense of hearing was useful even in daytime, for instance to hear approaching predators. Why do you think your God would have given them ears well before he produced bats? “Wow,” said God, gazing into his crystal ball, “I’ve got them damn bats comin’ in a million years’ time. I’d better give them there moths ears now before...um...before I forget.(?)”

DAVID: This is only one of many findings of pre-planning I have presented. see the new one. And note George does not like your cellular intelligence theory.

Thank you for withdrawing the eared moths as an example of your God’s pre-planning. All your many “findings of pre-planning” have been dealt with in the same way, and I have dealt with the new one above. George doesn’t know anything about the (not just “my”) cellular intelligence theory. He still believes in chance and unknown physical laws. Note to George: the interaction between cellular intelligence and changing environmental conditions as the driving force behind evolution is an alternative to random mutations. Natural selection only determines which anatomical changes survive and which do not. The concept itself is neither theistic nor atheistic, as it does not deal with the origin of cellular intelligence.

dhw: I have suggested that the expanded brain was caused by the pre-sapiens brain cells responding to new concepts and/or conditions that exceeded the capacity of the existing brain.

DAVID: So the existing brain grew by 200 cc by no planned design for the connected parts? You think the existing neurons knew what to design. Pipe dream is all I can consider this. Design required.

The parts are always connected, and yes, the neurons are key players in coordinating the brain’s response to new demands, either by expansion or by complexification. (Note the John Lieff quote about neurons.) Yes, design required – as in cellular communities responding intelligently to new conditions – but no to divine dabbling in anticipation of any need for change.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 15:28 (30 days ago) @ dhw

Part two

DAVID: As far as your Shapiro comment is concerned, why do humans have the brain they have with consciousness? You always look to demands from new conditions. Early humans lived just like apes on ground and also in trees (Lucy evidence). Apes are still the same and we are here as sapiens. Explain the evolutionary drive! There is no natural explanation.
And:
DAVID: God in charge produced what He wanted to appear.

dhw: Of course he did. The illogicality which you yourself acknowledge is your interpretation of his wishes and how he runs the show! According to you, His wish was to produce H. sapiens, and he ran the show by deciding (you have "no idea why") not to produce H. sapiens for 3.X billion years, which meant he “had to” produce the rest of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he’d decide to take before fulfilling his wish.

DAVID: Logically evolution is everything you have described. Of course humans were the main goal per Adler. See my new entry about an early ape whose body foretells the future use.

QUOTE (from “New fossil foretells the human future”): “'Given that all living apes use bipedalism to some degree – often in the trees, but also on the ground – it is not unreasonable to suggest that bipedalism evolved much earlier in hominoid evolution than we previously thought."

DAVID: Tell me this is not an advance change well before bipedalism was really needed. Gone is the theory that savanna appearance forced the change.

dhw: Sometimes you complain that there are no transitional forms, but the moment you are confronted with transitional forms, you flounder for an explanation. Does it not occur to you that in some areas some of our ancestors would have made a good living staying up in the trees, whereas in different areas others would have found it advantageous to be up in the trees AND to be down on the ground?

I never flounder. Good just-so Darwinian explanation. These 11.6 myo apes liked the ground so much they just invented bipedal legs. Glad you could read their minds. I though major necessity of environmental change caused major speciation as in the savanna theory.

dhw: And eventually some of those ancestors found that ground dwelling was vastly more advantageous, and so just like pre-whales that decided to live entirely in the water, these particular pre-humans decided to live entirely on the ground, and bipedalism took over – while elsewhere, apes stayed the same. You seem to think that all apes were huddled up in one place all under the same unchanging environmental conditions. And do please tell us why your God – who you insist wanted nothing but H. sapiens - would have popped in to fiddle here, fiddle there, half and half, itty-bitty changes, before at long last coming up with the only species he ever really wanted – bipedalling H. sapiens?

Remember a God in charge does what He wants to and history tells us the real story. You forget my view of God is that He chose to evolve humans.

David's theory of evolution Part Three

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 15:29 (30 days ago) @ David Turell


DAVID: I found an article which said earless moths did exist, but our discussion started with an article that said eared moths predated bats by many years, as if planned:

dhw: It does not say “as if planned”, by which you mean your God gave some moths ears in preparation for when they would become nocturnal and then have to cope with bats. What makes you think that a sense of hearing would not have been useful for diurnal moths?

DAVID: Earless moths survived, according to the article by not being nocturnal.

dhw: So some diurnal moths survived without ears, some diurnal moths survived with ears, and nocturnal moths were jolly glad to have ears.

DAVID: That is no answer as to why moths have ears well before bats appeared…

dhw: Because maybe a sense of hearing was useful even in daytime, for instance to hear approaching predators. Why do you think your God would have given them ears well before he produced bats? “Wow,” said God, gazing into his crystal ball, “I’ve got them damn bats comin’ in a million years’ time. I’d better give them there moths ears now before...um...before I forget.(?)”

DAVID: This is only one of many findings of pre-planning I have presented. see the new one. And note George does not like your cellular intelligence theory.

dhw: Thank you for withdrawing the eared moths as an example of your God’s pre-planning. All your many “findings of pre-planning” have been dealt with in the same way, and I have dealt with the new one above. George doesn’t know anything about the (not just “my”) cellular intelligence theory. He still believes in chance and unknown physical laws. Note to George: the interaction between cellular intelligence and changing environmental conditions as the driving force behind evolution is an alternative to random mutations. Natural selection only determines which anatomical changes survive and which do not. The concept itself is neither theistic nor atheistic, as it does not deal with the origin of cellular intelligence.

dhw: I have suggested that the expanded brain was caused by the pre-sapiens brain cells responding to new concepts and/or conditions that exceeded the capacity of the existing brain.

DAVID: So the existing brain grew by 200 cc by no planned design for the connected parts? You think the existing neurons knew what to design. Pipe dream is all I can consider this. Design required.

dhw: The parts are always connected, and yes, the neurons are key players in coordinating the brain’s response to new demands, either by expansion or by complexification. (Note the John Lieff quote about neurons.) Yes, design required – as in cellular communities responding intelligently to new conditions – but no to divine dabbling in anticipation of any need for change.

I do not interpret Lieff as you do. See my comment

David's theory of evolution Part Two A

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 15:40 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

Another comment on the upright European Apes:

https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/APUcRWw-KweGXcOy8AiTUMWToZI

"Two legs good
An ancient ape may have walked on two legs long before the earliest hominin to do so. In a clay pit in Germany, researchers found 37 bones belonging to four individuals of a species new to science, which has been called Danuvius guggenmosi. Surprisingly, its legs resemble those of humans, suggesting it was able to stand upright with straight legs. Dated to 11.6 million years ago, the fossils are much older than the oldest known hominins that might have been bipedal. That means bipedal walking may have evolved about 5 million years earlier than we thought, and in Europe, not Africa."

Comment: What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes int o early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.

David's theory of evolution Part Two B

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 20:48 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

Another article has turned up describing a 10 million year old possibly upright ape in Europe, after commenting on the new discovery of the 11.6 myo bipedal ape:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03418-2?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

"The latest study comes a few weeks after a separate research team, which Begun was part of, described a 10-million-year-old pelvis belonging to another ancient European ape, Rudapithecus hungaricus. Features of the pelvis implied R. hungaricus also had a long and flexible lower back, indicating it too might have been a tree-dwelling biped6. This raises the possibility that today’s knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas evolved from a bipedal ancestor, and that modern humans might have inherited bipedalism directly from animals such as D. guggenmosi.

"But David Alba, a palaeontologist at the Catalan Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona, Spain, cautions against seeing D. guggenmosi’s way of moving as a precursor to our walking style. That, he thinks, is “too specific and might be an overinterpretation” — particularly given that Böhme and Begun’s team has not yet conducted an evolutionary analysis to determine how, or whether, D. guggenmosi is related to hominins.

"DeSilva says that it would be unwise to assume a direct line of descent, because D. guggenmosi is much older than the earliest known hominin fossils. But the discovery of D. guggenmosi is important even if it turns out not to represent a staging post on the path to hominin bipedalism, he says, because that would suggest apes evolved bipedalism more than once. D. guggenmosi could then provide clues about the kinds of conditions that encourage apes to walk on two feet."

Comment: this fits my thought that evolution demonstrates drives toward goals, and in my view conducted by God. Bipedalism was a driven goal.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Friday, November 08, 2019, 09:24 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Part Two

Dhw: ...do please tell us why your God – who you insist wanted nothing but H. sapiens - would have popped in to fiddle here, fiddle there, half and half, itty-bitty changes, before at long last coming up with the only species he ever really wanted – bipedalling H. sapiens?

DAVID: Remember a God in charge does what He wants to and history tells us the real story. You forget my view of God is that He chose to evolve humans.

Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that your theory that he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take is only logical if we do “not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes into early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.

How would bipedal apes mating with ordinary apes make them into hominins? They would simply be apes with human legs, ape legs, or indescribable legs! Your other comment is dealt with above.

QUOTE: “the discovery of D. guggenmosi is important even if it turns out not to represent a staging post on the path to hominin bipedalism, he says, because that would suggest BBBapes evolved bipedalism more than once. D. guggenmosi could then provide clues about BBBthe kinds of conditions that encourage apes to walk on two feet."

DAVID: this fits my thought that evolution demonstrates drives toward goals, and in my view conducted by God. Bipedalism was a driven goal.

It directly demonstrates my thought that different groups of apes evolved bipedalism according to the different conditions that encouraged them to walk on two legs. Of course evolution is driven by goals: all organisms share the goal of survival, which means coping with or exploiting the conditions as efficiently as possible: hence flippers, moth ears, human legs, and every other adaptation/innovation you can think of. I see absolutely no reference to your theory that your God’s only aim was to produce H. sapiens, or that your God made every change in advance of the environmental changes which either demanded or allowed for new ways of surviving.

QUOTES (from “Complexity of mammalian backbones”: As part of our study, we found that modern mammals with the most complex backbones also usually have the highest activity levels,” says co-author Stephanie Pierce, also from Harvard.
“'And some changes in backbone complexity evolved at about the same time that other features associated with a more active lifestyle evolved, like fur or specialised muscles for breathing.”
“This study helps us answer an age-old question – how did life become so complex?” says Jones.

DAVID: this article certainly shows my theory that there is a drive to increased complexity that controls evolution. The authors are using Darwin-think but there is no evidence in their study as to how it happened or why it happened. They just assumed it naturally happened, and chance nature simply chose to be more complex. The need for design is obvious. As God controlled evolution, these were necessary steps to create humans.

I see no mention of chance. They are simply giving us the facts, and what they say here supports my theory that anatomical changes are linked to activity. The statement “as God controlled evolution” is an assumption (a) that God exists, and (b) that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation etc. not just along the human line of descent but for every single species that ever lived. And of course it begs the still unanswered question asked at the beginning of this post.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Friday, November 08, 2019, 15:03 (29 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Remember a God in charge does what He wants to and history tells us the real story. You forget my view of God is that He chose to evolve humans.


dhw: Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that your theory that he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take is only logical if we do “not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

The bold is the only logical part of your statement. The rest wants a humanized God.


DAVID: What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes into early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.

dhw: How would bipedal apes mating with ordinary apes make them into hominins? They would simply be apes with human legs, ape legs, or indescribable legs! Your other comment is dealt with above.

Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.


QUOTE: “the discovery of D. guggenmosi is important even if it turns out not to represent a staging post on the path to hominin bipedalism, he says, because that would suggest BBBapes evolved bipedalism more than once. D. guggenmosi could then provide clues about BBBthe kinds of conditions that encourage apes to walk on two feet."

DAVID: this fits my thought that evolution demonstrates drives toward goals, and in my view conducted by God. Bipedalism was a driven goal.

dhw: It directly demonstrates my thought that different groups of apes evolved bipedalism according to the different conditions that encouraged them to walk on two legs. Of course evolution is driven by goals: all organisms share the goal of survival, which means coping with or exploiting the conditions as efficiently as possible: hence flippers, moth ears, human legs, and every other adaptation/innovation you can think of.

You still fail to see adaptation is not speciation. Gould's gaps are real.

QUOTES (from “Complexity of mammalian backbones”: As part of our study, we found that modern mammals with the most complex backbones also usually have the highest activity levels,” says co-author Stephanie Pierce, also from Harvard.
“'And some changes in backbone complexity evolved at about the same time that other features associated with a more active lifestyle evolved, like fur or specialised muscles for breathing.”
“This study helps us answer an age-old question – how did life become so complex?” says Jones.

DAVID: this article certainly shows my theory that there is a drive to increased complexity that controls evolution. The authors are using Darwin-think but there is no evidence in their study as to how it happened or why it happened. They just assumed it naturally happened, and chance nature simply chose to be more complex. The need for design is obvious. As God controlled evolution, these were necessary steps to create humans.

dhw: I see no mention of chance. They are simply giving us the facts, and what they say here supports my theory that anatomical changes are linked to activity. The statement “as God controlled evolution” is an assumption (a) that God exists, and (b) that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation etc. not just along the human line of descent but for every single species that ever lived. And of course it begs the still unanswered question asked at the beginning of this post.

Of course new activities are allowed by new body parts. That doesn't explain how the new body abilities and forms appeared. You are still pure Darwin in thought. Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Saturday, November 09, 2019, 10:36 (28 days ago) @ David Turell

Part Two

DAVID: You still fail to see adaptation is not speciation. Gould's gaps are real.

I keep repeating that nobody knows how speciation comes about, but adaptation gives us a clue as to a possible and perfectly logical explanation, as illustrated by the whale. The gaps become less of a problem if you accept the idea that intelligent cells (as opposed to random mutations) are responsible for designing responses to changing conditions. We know that in some (though not all) cases, adaptation has to be swift to ensure survival.

dhw: Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that [..] he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take.[/i]

DAVID: The bold is the only logical part of your statement. The rest wants a humanized God.

The rest is a summary of your theory, which you tell us is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and your flaccid “humanizing” complaint is countered by your own agreement that your God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes into early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.

dhw: How would bipedal apes mating with ordinary apes make them into hominins? They would simply be apes with human legs, ape legs, or indescribable legs! Your other comment is dealt with above.

DAVID: Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.

Of course it is. Only you happened to create a pretty silly form of it: apes with human legs mated with ape-legged apes to produce early hominins! I’d have thought apes with human legs were the hominin ancestors, whereas apes with ape legs would not contribute anything new at all to the human lineage.

QUOTES (from “Complexity of mammalian backbones”: As part of our study, we found that modern mammals with the most complex backbones also usually have the highest activity levels […] “'And some changes in backbone complexity evolved at about the same time that other features associated with a more active lifestyle evolved, like fur or specialised muscles for breathing.”

DAVID: this article certainly shows my theory that there is a drive to increased complexity that controls evolution. […] The need for design is obvious. As God controlled evolution, these were necessary steps to create humans.

dhw: […] They are simply giving us the facts, and what they say here supports my theory that anatomical changes are linked to activity. The statement “as God controlled evolution” is an assumption (a) that God exists, and (b) that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation etc. not just along the human line of descent but for every single species that ever lived.

DAVID: Of course new activities are allowed by new body parts. That doesn't explain how the new body abilities and forms appeared. You are still pure Darwin in thought. Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.

I keep explaining that in my hypothesis, new body abilities and forms appear AS A RESULT of new activities. If that is “pure Darwin”, so be it. The word “Darwin” does not make an argument invalid. And you should have understood by now that in my hypothesis the new body abilities and forms are designed by the cell communities, and I accept the possibility that the ability to do this designing may have been given to them by your God – but for reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have designed the mechanism to give them this ability.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 09, 2019, 19:14 (28 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You still fail to see adaptation is not speciation. Gould's gaps are real.

dhw: bI keep repeating that nobody knows how speciation comes about, but adaptation gives us a clue as to a possible and perfectly logical explanation, as illustrated by the whale. The gaps become less of a problem if you accept the idea that intelligent cells (as opposed to random mutations) are responsible for designing responses to changing conditions. We know that in some (though not all) cases, adaptation has to be swift to ensure survival.

Whale gaps are huge, and swift adaptations are still not speciation. You are grasping at straws.


dhw: Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that [..] he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take.[/i]

DAVID: The bold is the only logical part of your statement. The rest wants a humanized God.

dhw: The rest is a summary of your theory, which you tell us is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and your flaccid “humanizing” complaint is countered by your own agreement that your God “very well could think like us”.

But we do not know if God thinks like you do. All supposition. History presents the facts.


DAVID: What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes into early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.

dhw: How would bipedal apes mating with ordinary apes make them into hominins? They would simply be apes with human legs, ape legs, or indescribable legs! Your other comment is dealt with above.

DAVID: Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.

dhw: Of course it is. Only you happened to create a pretty silly form of it: apes with human legs mated with ape-legged apes to produce early hominins! I’d have thought apes with human legs were the hominin ancestors, whereas apes with ape legs would not contribute anything new at all to the human lineage.

Silly. Remember something has to be the in between model!


QUOTES (from “Complexity of mammalian backbones”: As part of our study, we found that modern mammals with the most complex backbones also usually have the highest activity levels […] “'And some changes in backbone complexity evolved at about the same time that other features associated with a more active lifestyle evolved, like fur or specialised muscles for breathing.”

DAVID: this article certainly shows my theory that there is a drive to increased complexity that controls evolution. […] The need for design is obvious. As God controlled evolution, these were necessary steps to create humans.

dhw: […] They are simply giving us the facts, and what they say here supports my theory that anatomical changes are linked to activity. The statement “as God controlled evolution” is an assumption (a) that God exists, and (b) that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation etc. not just along the human line of descent but for every single species that ever lived.

DAVID: Of course new activities are allowed by new body parts. That doesn't explain how the new body abilities and forms appeared. You are still pure Darwin in thought. Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.

dhw: I keep explaining that in my hypothesis, new body abilities and forms appear AS A RESULT of new activities. If that is “pure Darwin”, so be it. The word “Darwin” does not make an argument invalid. And you should have understood by now that in my hypothesis the new body abilities and forms are designed by the cell communities, and I accept the possibility that the ability to do this designing may have been given to them by your God – but for reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have designed the mechanism to give them this ability.

I've accepted it in the past as an inventive mechanism from God with guidelines. You don't like guidelines as it gives your version of God too much control. Your agnosticism is showing up as usual.

David's theory of evolution: speciation is designed

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 09, 2019, 19:55 (28 days ago) @ David Turell

This is a Darwinian article about primate femurs as adaptation to environment. It is pure supposition which parallels dhw thinking:

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fossil-apes-world-monkeys-ancestor.html

"In terms of their body plan, Old World monkeys—a group that includes primates like baboons and macaques—are generally considered more similar to ancestral species than apes are. But a new study that analyzes the first well-preserved femur of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, a common ancestor of Old World monkeys and apes, suggests that as far as locomotion goes, apes and Old World monkeys each evolved a way of moving that was different from the ancestral species as they adapted to different niches in their environments.

"'Our study shows that Aegyptopithecus preserves an ancient hip morphology not present in living anthropoid primates," said Sergio Almécija, a paleoanthropologist, who is first author on the study. "As far as the hip is concerned, it seems that apes, humans, and Old World monkeys have all parted ways long ago—which would explain why they move around so differently today."

"The fossil analyzed in the study was discovered in 2009 and is the most complete femur of Aegyptopithecus, a 15-lb (7-kg) likely tree-dwelling species that lived in Egypt about 30 million years ago, close to the time when hominoids (the group that includes apes and humans) split from the larger group that includes Old World monkeys. A well-preserved femur allowed researchers to glean details about the hip joint, a major anatomical region for inferring locomotion, using a combination of 3-D morphometric analysis and evolutionary modeling.

***

"The results indicate that the ancestral hip joint is, from an evolutionary perspective, as far from the hip joint of modern Old World monkeys as from those of the great apes—suggesting that each group evolved a distinct way of moving as they specialized for success in different environmental niches.

"In addition, evolutionary modeling suggests that living great apes—including orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas—may have independently developed similar hip joint anatomy that allows wide-ranging, flexible movement through their arboreal habitats.

"'What I find really exciting about the modeling approach is that we can develop better hypotheses about what drove the divergence of apes and monkeys, and the emerging picture is that navigating the environment is one of the key factors," said Ashley Hammond, assistant curator in the Division of Anthropology and an author on the study."

Comment: it all sounds very logical, but it is pure conjecture, since it does not explain how the new species were designed. See next entry re' Stephen L. Talbott on natural selection

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 09, 2019, 20:20 (28 days ago) @ David Turell

It is a long chapter in his new book:

http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bk/ns1.htm

"The idea of natural selection seems so straightforward and conclusive that it forces its way into the receptive mind without much need for evidence. August Weismann, whose importance for nineteenth-century evolutionary theory has been considered second only to Darwin’s, rather famously wrote in 1893 that we must accept natural selection as the explanation for the wondrous adaptation of organisms to their environments “because it is the only possible explanation we can conceive”.

***

"And, indeed, over-estimation of the explanatory power of natural selection may be why Darwin’s contemporary, the geologist Charles Lyell, accused him of “deifying” the theory.1 A century later, in 1971, Lila Gatlin, a biochemist and mathematical biologist who figured centrally in developing the conception of life as an “information processing system”, could summarize contemporary usage by saying, “the words ‘natural selection’ play a role in the vocabulary of the evolutionary biologist similar to the word ‘God’ in ordinary language”. Such is the power of logical constructions over the human mind.

***

" We heard Elliot Sober marvel at the “explanatory power” of a simple proposition: “if the organisms in a population differ in their ability to survive and reproduce, and if the characteristics that affect these abilities are transmitted from parents to offspring, then the population will evolve.”

"This is a strange claim, given that it is flatly false — false in the sense that nothing in the logic of the theory tells us that populations must evolve in a manner that yields new species or fundamental changes of “type”. We know that healthy populations do exhibit plasticity, variation, and adaptability — a spruce tree growing in the lowlands will differ greatly from one growing near the alpine treeline, and one tree will differ from its neighbor — but this variability does not by itself imply the evolutionary origin of the diverse forms of life on earth.

***

"I can think of no fundamental question about evolution whose answer is suggested by the advertised formula for natural selection. Everything depends on what the amazingly diverse sorts of organism actually do as they respond to and shape their environments. Contrary to Susan Blackmore’s exultant insight, nothing in the “algorithmic logic” of natural selection tells us that evolution must have happened — and, given that it has happened, the logic by itself tells us little about what we should expect to find in the fossil record. We may ask then, “What, in truth, is being celebrated as the revolutionary principle of natural selection?”

***

"Every organism’s life and death encompasses and, so to speak, “sums up” a vast range of purposive activities, not only on its own part, but also on the part of many other organisms. One might feel, therefore, that the “theory” of the survival of the fittest can explain just about everything. Certainly the overall pattern of births and deaths must yield the observed evolutionary outcome! Actually, it just is that outcome — it is the pattern we need to explain — which doesn’t yet give us much of a theory.

“'Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” (Lynn Margulis [2011],

***

"the philosopher of biology, Denis Walsh — after noting the indisputable yet ignored truth that “organisms are fundamentally purposive entities” — expressed his perplexity by asking, “Why should the phenomenon [of agency] that demarcates the domain of biology be off-limits to biology?” (my bold)

"And yet, even Walsh, wonderfully insightful as he is, proceeds to characterize the organism’s agency in a strictly materialistic manner, as if it could be understood without accepting at face value the inner dimensions of life — cognition, thinking, intention, volition. We are given agency without agency, life without life. Such is our way today. It is my intention in the following discussion of evolution to articulate a different point of view, taking life in its own terms. And I see no reason to exclude what we know most directly — and in a higher key, so to speak — through our own existence as organisms.

"This higher key offers us many possibilities for an immediate, inner understanding of our experience, which is hardly grounds for excluding ourselves, or our understanding of the meanings of life, from a science of organisms. "

Comment: Talbott is brilliant and beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Sunday, November 10, 2019, 13:33 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This is a Darwinian article about primate femurs as adaptation to environment. It is pure supposition which parallels dhw thinking:
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fossil-apes-world-monkeys-ancestor.html

QUOTES: a new study that analyzes the first well-preserved femur of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, a common ancestor of Old World monkeys and apes, suggests that as far as locomotion goes, bbbapes and Old World monkeys each evolved a way of moving that was different from the ancestral species as they adapted to different niches in their environments.
The results indicate that the ancestral hip joint is, from an evolutionary perspective, as far from the hip joint of modern Old World monkeys as from those of the great apes—suggesting that each group evolved a distinct way of moving as they specialized for success in different environmental niches.
(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: it all sounds very logical, but it is pure conjecture, since it does not explain how the new species were designed. See next entry re' Stephen L. Talbott on natural selection.

I greatly appreciate your willingness to publish articles that support my proposals and directly contradict your own. Thank you. Of course nobody knows what is the mechanism that engineers the changes, but how refreshing to hear you accept the logic of what you always try to dismiss as “Darwinian” thought – your only reason for rejecting it being that it is “Darwinian”.

QUOTE: “'Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” (Lynn Margulis [2011].

The perfect summary by a remarkable scientist who, incidentally, was a champion of cellular intelligence.

TALBOTT: "And yet, even Walsh, wonderfully insightful as he is, proceeds to characterize the organism’s agency in a strictly materialistic manner, as if it could be understood without accepting at face value the inner dimensions of life — cognition, thinking, intention, volition. We are given agency without agency, life without life. Such is our way today. It is my intention in the following discussion of evolution to articulate a different point of view, taking life in its own terms. And I see no reason to exclude what we know most directly — and in a higher key, so to speak — through our own existence as organisms.

DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 10, 2019, 15:30 (27 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This is a Darwinian article about primate femurs as adaptation to environment. It is pure supposition which parallels dhw thinking:
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fossil-apes-world-monkeys-ancestor.html

QUOTES: a new study that analyzes the first well-preserved femur of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, a common ancestor of Old World monkeys and apes, suggests that as far as locomotion goes, bbbapes and Old World monkeys each evolved a way of moving that was different from the ancestral species as they adapted to different niches in their environments.
The results indicate that the ancestral hip joint is, from an evolutionary perspective, as far from the hip joint of modern Old World monkeys as from those of the great apes—suggesting that each group evolved a distinct way of moving as they specialized for success in different environmental niches.
(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: it all sounds very logical, but it is pure conjecture, since it does not explain how the new species were designed. See next entry re' Stephen L. Talbott on natural selection.

dhw: I greatly appreciate your willingness to publish articles that support my proposals and directly contradict your own. Thank you. Of course nobody knows what is the mechanism that engineers the changes, but how refreshing to hear you accept the logic of what you always try to dismiss as “Darwinian” thought – your only reason for rejecting it being that it is “Darwinian”.

Darwinian thought generally presents natural selection as a magical force of creation. Talbott derides That form of thinking.


QUOTE: “'Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” (Lynn Margulis [2011].

dhw: The perfect summary by a remarkable scientist who, incidentally, was a champion of cellular intelligence.

TALBOTT: "And yet, even Walsh, wonderfully insightful as he is, proceeds to characterize the organism’s agency in a strictly materialistic manner, as if it could be understood without accepting at face value the inner dimensions of life — cognition, thinking, intention, volition. We are given agency without agency, life without life. Such is our way today. It is my intention in the following discussion of evolution to articulate a different point of view, taking life in its own terms. And I see no reason to exclude what we know most directly — and in a higher key, so to speak — through our own existence as organisms.

DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

dhw: I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

I don'think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Monday, November 11, 2019, 10:44 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: […] apes and Old World monkeys each evolved a way of moving that was different from the ancestral species as they adapted to different niches in their environments.
[…] suggesting that each group evolved a distinct way of moving as they specialized for success in different environmental niches.

DAVID: it all sounds very logical, but it is pure conjecture, since it does not explain how the new species were designed. See next entry re' Stephen L. Talbott on natural selection.

dhw: I greatly appreciate your willingness to publish articles that support my proposals and directly contradict your own. Thank you. Of course nobody knows what is the mechanism that engineers the changes, but how refreshing to hear you accept the logic of what you always try to dismiss as “Darwinian” thought – your only reason for rejecting it being that it is “Darwinian”.

DAVID: Darwinian thought generally presents natural selection as a magical force of creation. Talbott derides That form of thinking.

You were trying to dismiss the Darwinian idea that evolution was driven by the need to adapt to different environments. You and I have long since agreed that NS is not creative, and you have ignored the Margulis quote, which was no doubt predated by others (including ourselves) who had noticed this obvious fact: “Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” (Lynn Margulis [2011].

DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and is beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

dhw: I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

DAVID: I don't think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.

And I am delighted to hear that the environment might demand new species, as bolded. I keep emphasizing that nobody knows how it happens, and as an agnostic I have always included agency on an equal basis. You try to argue even when I agree with you and Talbott!

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Monday, November 11, 2019, 15:58 (26 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: […] apes and Old World monkeys each evolved a way of moving that was different from the ancestral species as they adapted to different niches in their environments.
[…] suggesting that each group evolved a distinct way of moving as they specialized for success in different environmental niches.

DAVID: it all sounds very logical, but it is pure conjecture, since it does not explain how the new species were designed. See next entry re' Stephen L. Talbott on natural selection.

dhw: I greatly appreciate your willingness to publish articles that support my proposals and directly contradict your own. Thank you. Of course nobody knows what is the mechanism that engineers the changes, but how refreshing to hear you accept the logic of what you always try to dismiss as “Darwinian” thought – your only reason for rejecting it being that it is “Darwinian”.

DAVID: Darwinian thought generally presents natural selection as a magical force of creation. Talbott derides That form of thinking.

dhw: You were trying to dismiss the Darwinian idea that evolution was driven by the need to adapt to different environments. You and I have long since agreed that NS is not creative, and you have ignored the Margulis quote, which was no doubt predated by others (including ourselves) who had noticed this obvious fact: “Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” (Lynn Margulis [2011].

I included her quote in my first entry.


DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and is beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

dhw: I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

DAVID: I don't think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.

dhw: And I am delighted to hear that the environment might demand new species, as bolded. I keep emphasizing that nobody knows how it happens, and as an agnostic I have always included agency on an equal basis. You try to argue even when I agree with you and Talbott!

My contention and Talbott's is the amazing purposefulness that new species show in their new adaptations. And yes we all do not have proof of how it happens.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 08:27 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and is beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

dhw: I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

DAVID: I don't think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.

dhw: And I am delighted to hear that the environment might demand new species, as bolded. I keep emphasizing that nobody knows how it happens, and as an agnostic I have always included agency on an equal basis. You try to argue even when I agree with you and Talbott!

DAVID: My contention and Talbott's is the amazing purposefulness that new species show in their new adaptations. And yes we all do not have proof of how it happens.

Of course new species show purposefulness in their new adaptations, and I’m so pleased that you continue to use the word adaptations (see also my post on Part Two), thereby confirming my argument that we cannot always distinguish between adaptation and innovation, and so the mechanism which produces small adaptations may well be the same mechanism that produces the large adaptations which lead to speciation. And yes again, the obvious purpose is to enable the organism to improve its chances of survival. And yes again, nobody knows how it happens. Hallelujah, we are all in agreement.:-)

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 15:45 (25 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and is beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

dhw: I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species – rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology – as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

DAVID: I don't think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.

dhw: And I am delighted to hear that the environment might demand new species, as bolded. I keep emphasizing that nobody knows how it happens, and as an agnostic I have always included agency on an equal basis. You try to argue even when I agree with you and Talbott!

DAVID: My contention and Talbott's is the amazing purposefulness that new species show in their new adaptations. And yes we all do not have proof of how it happens.

dhw: Of course new species show purposefulness in their new adaptations, and I’m so pleased that you continue to use the word adaptations (see also my post on Part Two), thereby confirming my argument that we cannot always distinguish between adaptation and innovation, and so the mechanism which produces small adaptations may well be the same mechanism that produces the large adaptations which lead to speciation. And yes again, the obvious purpose is to enable the organism to improve its chances of survival. And yes again, nobody knows how it happens. Hallelujah, we are all in agreement.:-)

Not so fast. Purposefulness suggests purposeful design, and you still blur the line between between adaptations within species and designed changed that form new species. You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 11:12 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Of course new species show purposefulness in their new adaptations, and I’m so pleased that you continue to use the word adaptations (see also my post on Part Two), thereby confirming my argument that we cannot always distinguish between adaptation and innovation, and so the mechanism which produces small adaptations may well be the same mechanism that produces the large adaptations which lead to speciation. And yes again, the obvious purpose is to enable the organism to improve its chances of survival. And yes again, nobody knows how it happens. Hallelujah, we are all in agreement. :-)

DAVID: Not so fast. Purposefulness suggests purposeful design, and you still blur the line between between adaptations within species and designed changed that form new species.

I have agreed that purposefulness suggests purposeful design, with cell communities redesigning themselves in order to enhance their chances of survival. And yes, I am the one who pointed out that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between adaptations and species-forming innovations, e.g. from pre-whale leg to whale flipper. You also used the word “adaptations”, as welcomed by me (bolded above).

DAVID: You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

I have always accepted Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, in which long periods of stasis may be broken by “jumps”, presumably triggered by environmental changes. We cannot expect a continuous line of fossils recording every single transition, but my explanation – which for some reason you seem to have forgotten – is that intelligent designers (the cell communities) would be able to design major adaptations/innovations without there being a line of transitional stages.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 19:33 (24 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course new species show purposefulness in their new adaptations, and I’m so pleased that you continue to use the word adaptations (see also my post on Part Two), thereby confirming my argument that we cannot always distinguish between adaptation and innovation, and so the mechanism which produces small adaptations may well be the same mechanism that produces the large adaptations which lead to speciation. And yes again, the obvious purpose is to enable the organism to improve its chances of survival. And yes again, nobody knows how it happens. Hallelujah, we are all in agreement. :-)

DAVID: Not so fast. Purposefulness suggests purposeful design, and you still blur the line between between adaptations within species and designed changed that form new species.

dhw: I have agreed that purposefulness suggests purposeful design, with cell communities redesigning themselves in order to enhance their chances of survival. And yes, I am the one who pointed out that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between adaptations and species-forming innovations, e.g. from pre-whale leg to whale flipper. You also used the word “adaptations”, as welcomed by me (bolded above).

DAVID: You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

dhw: I have always accepted Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, in which long periods of stasis may be broken by “jumps”, presumably triggered by environmental changes. We cannot expect a continuous line of fossils recording every single transition, but my explanation – which for some reason you seem to have forgotten – is that intelligent designers (the cell communities) would be able to design major adaptations/innovations without there being a line of transitional stages.

And I have said the fossils that appear after the gaps have solved the problems of their new existence, which obviously implies the ability to foretell future needs and pre-design for them. You cell committees cannot do that. They simply produce what they are programmed to produce. Your favorite Shapiro simply studied bacteria living on their own, not multicellular cells, which you have used to make a giant illogical extrapolation.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 12:29 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

dhw: I have always accepted Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, in which long periods of stasis may be broken by “jumps”, presumably triggered by environmental changes. We cannot expect a continuous line of fossils recording every single transition, but my explanation – which for some reason you seem to have forgotten – is that intelligent designers (the cell communities) would be able to design major adaptations/innovations without there being a line of transitional stages.

DAVID: And I have said the fossils that appear after the gaps have solved the problems of their new existence, which obviously implies the ability to foretell future needs and pre-design for them. Your cell committees cannot do that.

It implies no such thing. All it tells us is that these organisms solved the problems (or exploited the opportunities) arising from new conditions. I wonder how many biologists would support your contention that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: They [cells] simply produce what they are programmed to produce. Your favorite Shapiro simply studied bacteria living on their own, not multicellular cells, which you have used to make a giant illogical extrapolation.

I do not believe that all cells inherited 3.8-billion-year-old programmes to adapt and innovate in advance of all the environmental conditions that they would encounter for the rest of time. As for Shapiro, I don’t know exactly what he studied, and I haven’t read his book, but according to the reviews I quoted, his theory of natural genetic engineering “replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification”. And Shapiro calls “evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful”’. You are of course at liberty to call his theory a “giant illogical extrapolation”, but do tell me why it is illogical to propose that cells modify themselves, are cognitive, sentient and thoughtful, and may therefore be capable of creating their own designs. The fact that you disagree does not make the proposal illogical.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 15:31 (23 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

dhw: I have always accepted Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, in which long periods of stasis may be broken by “jumps”, presumably triggered by environmental changes. We cannot expect a continuous line of fossils recording every single transition, but my explanation – which for some reason you seem to have forgotten – is that intelligent designers (the cell communities) would be able to design major adaptations/innovations without there being a line of transitional stages.

DAVID: And I have said the fossils that appear after the gaps have solved the problems of their new existence, which obviously implies the ability to foretell future needs and pre-design for them. Your cell committees cannot do that.

dhw: It implies no such thing. All it tells us is that these organisms solved the problems (or exploited the opportunities) arising from new conditions. I wonder how many biologists would support your contention that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

Most scientists are unthinking Darwinists.


DAVID: They [cells] simply produce what they are programmed to produce. Your favorite Shapiro simply studied bacteria living on their own, not multicellular cells, which you have used to make a giant illogical extrapolation.

dhw: I do not believe that all cells inherited 3.8-billion-year-old programmes to adapt and innovate in advance of all the environmental conditions that they would encounter for the rest of time. As for Shapiro, I don’t know exactly what he studied, and I haven’t read his book, but according to the reviews I quoted, his theory of natural genetic engineering “replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification”. And Shapiro calls “evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful”’. You are of course at liberty to call his theory a “giant illogical extrapolation”, but do tell me why it is illogical to propose that cells modify themselves, are cognitive, sentient and thoughtful, and may therefore be capable of creating their own designs. The fact that you disagree does not make the proposal illogical.

Your problem is you unfortunately haven't taken the time to read the books. Shapiro's theory is a wonderful piece of research with which I completely agree. The bold above is your illogical and contorted extension of his work. Your comment misses my point that free-living bacteria are not the same as cells in a multicellular organism and must be able to respond to a different set of changing conditions. Your extrapolation biologically illogically mixes apples and potatoes and what they do and what they are..

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:08 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And I have said the fossils that appear after the gaps have solved the problems of their new existence, which obviously implies the ability to foretell future needs and pre-design for them. Your cell committees cannot do that.

dhw: It implies no such thing. All it tells us is that these organisms solved the problems (or exploited the opportunities) arising from new conditions. I wonder how many biologists would support your contention that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: Most scientists are unthinking Darwinists.

A disgraceful slur, and you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: They [cells] simply produce what they are programmed to produce. Your favorite Shapiro simply studied bacteria living on their own, not multicellular cells, which you have used to make a giant illogical extrapolation.

dhw: […] do tell me why it is illogical to propose that cells modify themselves, are cognitive, sentient and thoughtful, and may therefore be capable of creating their own designs. The fact that you disagree does not make the proposal illogical.

DAVID: Your problem is you unfortunately haven't taken the time to read the books. Shapiro's theory is a wonderful piece of research with which I completely agree.

I’m sure Shapiro would be as delighted as I am that you agree. The theory is encapsulated in the review I quoted earlier: the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

DAVID: The bold above is your illogical and contorted extension of his work.

So please tell us which of these bolded statements is the reviewer’s illogical and contorted extension of Shapiro’s book.

DAVID: Your comment misses my point that free-living bacteria are not the same as cells in a multicellular organism and must be able to respond to a different set of changing conditions. Your extrapolation biologically illogically mixes apples and potatoes and what they do and what they are.

Of course they are different, but both must be able to respond to changing conditions. And of course they will do so in different ways, but all of these different ways demand the ability to process information, communicate, take decisions etc., and all of these abilities denote intelligence. You prefer to believe that they all denote a 3.8-billion-year-old set of computer programmes which deal with every type of problem for the rest of time, and which bacteria and cell communities somehow manage to switch on when required (or in the context of speciation, BEFORE required).

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Friday, November 15, 2019, 19:06 (22 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And I have said the fossils that appear after the gaps have solved the problems of their new existence, which obviously implies the ability to foretell future needs and pre-design for them. Your cell committees cannot do that.

dhw: It implies no such thing. All it tells us is that these organisms solved the problems (or exploited the opportunities) arising from new conditions. I wonder how many biologists would support your contention that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: Most scientists are unthinking Darwinists.

dhw: A disgraceful slur, and you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

If they were clearly thinking, they would all be ID scientists who agree with me.


DAVID: They [cells] simply produce what they are programmed to produce. Your favorite Shapiro simply studied bacteria living on their own, not multicellular cells, which you have used to make a giant illogical extrapolation.

dhw: […] do tell me why it is illogical to propose that cells modify themselves, are cognitive, sentient and thoughtful, and may therefore be capable of creating their own designs. The fact that you disagree does not make the proposal illogical.

DAVID: Your problem is you unfortunately haven't taken the time to read the books. Shapiro's theory is a wonderful piece of research with which I completely agree.

dhw: I’m sure Shapiro would be as delighted as I am that you agree. The theory is encapsulated in the review I quoted earlier: the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

DAVID: The bold above is your illogical and contorted extension of his work.

dhw: So please tell us which of these bolded statements is the reviewer’s illogical and contorted extension of Shapiro’s book.

None of the book is contorted. Your theories taken from Shapiro's conclusions about free-living bacteria are the problem. They cannot be transferred to multicellular organisms, where Shapiro has done no work.


DAVID: Your comment misses my point that free-living bacteria are not the same as cells in a multicellular organism and must be able to respond to a different set of changing conditions. Your extrapolation biologically illogically mixes apples and potatoes and what they do and what they are.

dhw: Of course they are different, but both must be able to respond to changing conditions. And of course they will do so in different ways, but all of these different ways demand the ability to process information, communicate, take decisions etc., and all of these abilities denote intelligence. You prefer to believe that they all denote a 3.8-billion-year-old set of computer programmes which deal with every type of problem for the rest of time, and which bacteria and cell communities somehow manage to switch on when required (or in the context of speciation, BEFORE required).

All I can rely upon is all the automaticity I was taught in medical school and in subsequent experience in practice.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 13:45 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I wonder how many biologists would support your contention that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: Most scientists are unthinking Darwinists.

dhw: A disgraceful slur, and you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: If they were clearly thinking, they would all be ID scientists who agree with me.

I hope you’re joking. Meanwhile, you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

dhw: […] do tell me why it is illogical to propose that cells modify themselves, are cognitive, sentient and thoughtful, and may therefore be capable of creating their own designs. The fact that you disagree does not make the proposal illogical.

DAVID: […] Shapiro's theory is a wonderful piece of research with which I completely agree.

dhw: I’m sure Shapiro would be as delighted as I am that you agree. The theory is encapsulated in the review I quoted earlier: the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS bb an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems”…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

DAVID: The bold above is your illogical and contorted extension of his work.

dhw: So please tell us which of these bolded statements is the reviewer’s illogical and contorted extension of Shapiro’s book.

DAVID: None of the book is contorted. Your theories taken from Shapiro's conclusions about free-living bacteria are the problem. They cannot be transferred to multicellular organisms, where Shapiro has done no work.

What Shapiro has studied is irrelevant to your claim that the above bolds are an illogical contortion of his theory.

DAVID: Your comment misses my point that free-living bacteria are not the same as cells in a multicellular organism and must be able to respond to a different set of changing conditions. Your extrapolation biologically illogically mixes apples and potatoes and what they do and what they are.

dhw: Of course they are different, but both must be able to respond to changing conditions. And of course they will do so in different ways, but all of these different ways demand the ability to process information, communicate, take decisions etc., and all of these abilities denote intelligence. […]

DAVID: All I can rely upon is all the automaticity I was taught in medical school and in subsequent experience in practice.

Perhaps research has advanced since you were in medical school, and a practising physician is certainly no better qualified than a practising microbiologist to tell us whether intelligent behaviour results from a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or from autonomous intelligence.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 15:21 (21 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I wonder how many biologists would support your contention that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: Most scientists are unthinking Darwinists.

dhw: A disgraceful slur, and you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: If they were clearly thinking, they would all be ID scientists who agree with me.

dhw: I hope you’re joking. Meanwhile, you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

All ID folks believe new specie are designed. When I chatted with Behe at a conference, I firmly believed he believed that.


dhw: […] do tell me why it is illogical to propose that cells modify themselves, are cognitive, sentient and thoughtful, and may therefore be capable of creating their own designs. The fact that you disagree does not make the proposal illogical.

DAVID: […] Shapiro's theory is a wonderful piece of research with which I completely agree.

dhw: I’m sure Shapiro would be as delighted as I am that you agree. The theory is encapsulated in the review I quoted earlier: the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS bb an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems”…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

DAVID: The bold above is your illogical and contorted extension of his work.

dhw: So please tell us which of these bolded statements is the reviewer’s illogical and contorted extension of Shapiro’s book.

DAVID: None of the book is contorted. Your theories taken from Shapiro's conclusions about free-living bacteria are the problem. They cannot be transferred to multicellular organisms, where Shapiro has done no work.

What Shapiro has studied is irrelevant to your claim that the above bolds are an illogical contortion of his theory.

DAVID: Your comment misses my point that free-living bacteria are not the same as cells in a multicellular organism and must be able to respond to a different set of changing conditions. Your extrapolation biologically illogically mixes apples and potatoes and what they do and what they are.

dhw: Of course they are different, but both must be able to respond to changing conditions. And of course they will do so in different ways, but all of these different ways demand the ability to process information, communicate, take decisions etc., and all of these abilities denote intelligence. […]

DAVID: All I can rely upon is all the automaticity I was taught in medical school and in subsequent experience in practice.

dhw: Perhaps research has advanced since you were in medical school, and a practising physician is certainly no better qualified than a practising microbiologist to tell us whether intelligent behaviour results from a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or from autonomous intelligence.

But I've read the research since I left medical school, and changed from agnostic to theism.. Remember my books! Acting intelligently never means the actor is intelligent. Try remembering that principle as you watch one of your plays.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Sunday, November 17, 2019, 11:44 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Meanwhile, you still haven’t named a single scientist who tells us that new organisms arrive before the conditions to which they will one day be suited.

DAVID: All ID folks believe new species are designed. When I chatted with Behe at a conference, I firmly believed he believed that.

Of course they do. My question was which of them believes they arrived BEFORE the conditions to which they would one day be suited.

DAVID: […] Shapiro's theory is a wonderful piece of research with which I completely agree.

dhw: I’m sure Shapiro would be as delighted as I am that you agree. The theory is encapsulated in the review I quoted earlier: the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems” …. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

DAVID: The bold above is your illogical and contorted extension of his work.

dhw: So please tell us which of these bolded statements is the reviewer’s illogical and contorted extension of Shapiro’s book.

Once again you refuse to answer.

DAVID: All I can rely upon is all the automaticity I was taught in medical school and in subsequent experience in practice.

dhw: Perhaps research has advanced since you were in medical school, and a practising physician is certainly no better qualified than a practising microbiologist to tell us whether intelligent behaviour results from a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or from autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: But I've read the research since I left medical school, and changed from agnostic to theism. Remember my books!

I know you changed. You can be a theist and still believe in cellular intelligence. I have revisited the section on Shapiro’s theory in your excellent book The Atheist Delusion. On pages 141-144 you have reproduced ALL the quotes concerning the ability of intelligent cells to self-modify to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”, and have showered him with praise (“Shapiro’s book is an amazing documentation of all the work in the epigenetic field”), although you have pointed out that “the ability to respond to the present must have been built in the distant past”. Note that it is the ability to respond to the present (as opposed to speciation taking place BEFORE conditions change), and you are echoing my own theistic version that the ability would have been designed by your God. Your current volte face as regards the content and quality of his research is almost as confusing as quantum theory.

(Under “David’s Theory of Evolution Part One”:)
DAVID: You are the one who is using a singular opinion and contort it into a possible fact. I have a whole bunch of ID folks with me at Uncommondescent.com.

dhw: If theories are not “possible facts”, they will disappear immediately. ID folks are with you on the need for design, but cellular intelligence does not in any way contradict the idea of design: it only contradicts your belief that every undabbled lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder was specially preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, and every innovation took place in anticipation of and not in response to changing conditions. Belief in cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, but you simply refuse to give any credence to the views of some scientists, including the highly praised Shapiro, who have spent a lifetime studying cells.

DAVID: Their odds of being right are 50/50 just like mine. We can only look at the cells and what they do.

Agreed. So even by your standards, cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion” but is a “possible fact”.

DAVID: (under “Biological complexity”): I would note dhw's favorite Albrecht- Buehler thought the Golgi body was the brains of the cell. Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

Is the Golgi body synonymous with the centrosome, then? And yes of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 17, 2019, 19:29 (20 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All ID folks believe new species are designed. When I chatted with Behe at a conference, I firmly believed he believed that.

dhw: Of course they do. My question was which of them believes they arrived BEFORE the conditions to which they would one day be suited.

Their view of design is that the animals are designed for future problems in advance..


DAVID: But I've read the research since I left medical school, and changed from agnostic to theism. Remember my books!

dhw: I know you changed. You can be a theist and still believe in cellular intelligence. I have revisited the section on Shapiro’s theory in your excellent book The Atheist Delusion. On pages 141-144 you have reproduced ALL the quotes concerning the ability of intelligent cells to self-modify to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”, and have showered him with praise (“Shapiro’s book is an amazing documentation of all the work in the epigenetic field”), although you have pointed out that “the ability to respond to the present must have been built in the distant past”. Note that it is the ability to respond to the present (as opposed to speciation taking place BEFORE conditions change), and you are echoing my own theistic version that the ability would have been designed by your God. Your current volte face as regards the content and quality of his research is almost as confusing as quantum theory.

What you are skipping is the point I have made that Shapiro's work is on free-living bacteria, which cannot translate to cells in a multicellular organism.


(Under “David’s Theory of Evolution Part One”:)
DAVID: You are the one who is using a singular opinion and contort it into a possible fact. I have a whole bunch of ID folks with me at Uncommondescent.com.

dhw: If theories are not “possible facts”, they will disappear immediately. ID folks are with you on the need for design, but cellular intelligence does not in any way contradict the idea of design: it only contradicts your belief that every undabbled lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder was specially preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, and every innovation took place in anticipation of and not in response to changing conditions. Belief in cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, but you simply refuse to give any credence to the views of some scientists, including the highly praised Shapiro, who have spent a lifetime studying cells.

DAVID: Their odds of being right are 50/50 just like mine. We can only look at the cells and what they do.

dhw: Agreed. So even by your standards, cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion” but is a “possible fact”.

Possible is not probable.


DAVID: (under “Biological complexity”): I would note dhw's favorite Albrecht- Buehler thought the Golgi body was the brains of the cell. Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

dhw: Is the Golgi body synonymous with the centrosome, then? And yes of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

The Golgi body is not the centrosome. They are closer together and more than likely work together. This means the Golgi is not the sole 'brain',

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Monday, November 18, 2019, 08:18 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All ID folks believe new species are designed. When I chatted with Behe at a conference, I firmly believed he believed that.

dhw: Of course they do. My question was which of them believes they arrived BEFORE the conditions to which they would one day be suited.

DAVID: Their view of design is that the animals are designed for future problems in advance.

Of course if they share your belief that all species were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, everything was planned in advance, so just to clarify: do they believe that as you now claim, evolutionary innovations actually happen before the existence of the future conditions which they are meant to deal with (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before pre-whales entered the water), or do they agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

DAVID: But I've read the research since I left medical school, and changed from agnostic to theism. Remember my books!

dhw: I know you changed. You can be a theist and still believe in cellular intelligence. I have revisited the section on Shapiro’s theory in your excellent book The Atheist Delusion. On pages 141-144 you have reproduced ALL the quotes concerning the ability of intelligent cells to self-modify to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”, and have showered him with praise (“Shapiro’s book is an amazing documentation of all the work in the epigenetic field”), […] Your current volte face as regards the content and quality of his research is almost as confusing as quantum theory.

DAVID: What you are skipping is the point I have made that Shapiro's work is on free-living bacteria, which cannot translate to cells in a multicellular organism.

But you yourself have quoted multiple passages in which he refers to cellular intelligence as being able to “self-modify” to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”. Why don’t you deal with the theory itself instead of trying to withdraw your fulsome praise and now denigrate the theory because you think his research was limited to bacteria. It’s a non-argument. I have no doubt that just like you, he has drawn on the research of other scientists in the field as well as his own.

dhw: Belief in cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, but you simply refuse to give any credence to the views of some scientists, including the highly praised Shapiro, who have spent a lifetime studying cells.

DAVID: Their odds of being right are 50/50 just like mine. We can only look at the cells and what they do.

dhw: Agreed. So even by your standards, cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion” but is a “possible fact”.

DAVID: Possible is not probable.

That becomes a matter of personal judgement. Meanwhile, cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, and I would say 50/50 is evens, so even by your standards it has the same chance of being right as your own theory.

DAVID: (under “Biological complexity”): I would note dhw's favorite Albrecht- Buehler thought the Golgi body was the brains of the cell. Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

dhw: Is the Golgi body synonymous with the centrosome, then? And yes of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

DAVID: The Golgi body is not the centrosome. They are closer together and more than likely work together. This means the Golgi is not the sole 'brain'.

Thank you. Albrecht-Buehler thought the centrosome was the brain equivalent. And please note my response to your emphasis on automaticity.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Monday, November 18, 2019, 15:20 (19 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All ID folks believe new species are designed. When I chatted with Behe at a conference, I firmly believed he believed that.

dhw: Of course they do. My question was which of them believes they arrived BEFORE the conditions to which they would one day be suited.

DAVID: Their view of design is that the animals are designed for future problems in advance.

dhw: Of course if they share your belief that all species were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, everything was planned in advance, so just to clarify: do they believe that as you now claim, evolutionary innovations actually happen before the existence of the future conditions which they are meant to deal with (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before pre-whales entered the water), or do they agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

The bold refers to adaptive ability, not speciation. You continually morph my ideas into your thinking .

DAVID: What you are skipping is the point I have made that Shapiro's work is on free-living bacteria, which cannot translate to cells in a multicellular organism.

dhw: But you yourself have quoted multiple passages in which he refers to cellular intelligence as being able to “self-modify” to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”. Why don’t you deal with the theory itself instead of trying to withdraw your fulsome praise and now denigrate the theory because you think his research was limited to bacteria.

It was limited to bacteria and you have avoided answering my comment that it is not related to DNA adaptive function in multicellular organisms enough to cause speciation.

DAVID: (under “Biological complexity”): I would note dhw's favorite Albrecht- Buehler thought the Golgi body was the brains of the cell. Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

dhw: Is the Golgi body synonymous with the centrosome, then? And yes of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

DAVID: The Golgi body is not the centrosome. They are closer together and more than likely work together. This means the Golgi is not the sole 'brain'.

dhw: Thank you. Albrecht-Buehler thought the centrosome was the brain equivalent. And please note my response to your emphasis on automaticity.

You appear to be saying as usual cells can think and make decisions that look automatic. Of course I disagree.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 12:57 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [ID-ers] view of design is that the animals are designed for future problems in advance.

dhw: […] just to clarify: do they believe that as you now claim, evolutionary innovations actually happen before the existence of the future conditions which they are meant to deal with (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before pre-whales entered the water), or do they agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

DAVID: The bold refers to adaptive ability, not speciation. You continually morph my ideas into your thinking.

You were commenting on Shapiro’s theory, and even quoted his belief that: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You lavished praise on the book, and pointed out that “His emphasis is on systems using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past.” The quotes make it abundantly clear that he is not talking only about adaptations but about the novelties that lead to speciation, and your only caveat is that this ability must have been built in the distant past.
Would you now please answer my question whether ID-ers believe that all evolutionary innovations actually took place before the arrival of the conditions they were meant to deal with (e.g. God turning legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water)?

DAVID: What you are skipping is the point I have made that Shapiro's work is on free-living bacteria, which cannot translate to cells in a multicellular organism.

dhw: But you yourself have quoted multiple passages in which he refers to cellular intelligence as being able to “self-modify” to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”. Why don’t you deal with the theory itself instead of trying to withdraw your fulsome praise and now denigrate the theory because you think his research was limited to bacteria.

DAVID: It was limited to bacteria and you have avoided answering my comment that it is not related to DNA adaptive function in multicellular organisms enough to cause speciation.

It is your opinion that the ability to adapt cannot cause the innovations that lead to speciation, and the above quote proposes the exact opposite. Please reread the other quotes you reproduce on pages 142-143, especially those that mention innovations and inventions. And please focus on Shapiro’s theory and not on what you think he may or may not have studied.

DAVID: Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

dhw: …of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

DAVID: You appear to be saying as usual cells can think and make decisions that look automatic. Of course I disagree.

No, they look intelligent. You insist that they are automatic, although you agree that you have a 50% chance of being wrong.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 14:24 (18 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: [ID-ers] view of design is that the animals are designed for future problems in advance.

dhw: […] just to clarify: do they believe that as you now claim, evolutionary innovations actually happen before the existence of the future conditions which they are meant to deal with (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before pre-whales entered the water), or do they agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

DAVID: The bold refers to adaptive ability, not speciation. You continually morph my ideas into your thinking.

dhw: You were commenting on Shapiro’s theory, and even quoted his belief that: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You lavished praise on the book, and pointed out that “His emphasis is on systems using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past.” The quotes make it abundantly clear that he is not talking only about adaptations but about the novelties that lead to speciation, and your only caveat is that this ability must have been built in the distant past.
Would you now please answer my question whether ID-ers believe that all evolutionary innovations actually took place before the arrival of the conditions they were meant to deal with (e.g. God turning legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water)?

His findings in bacteria are extremely important, but still apply only to bacteria, as no further connection to multicellular cells has been shown. IDr's certainly agree God designed flippers for water use.


DAVID: What you are skipping is the point I have made that Shapiro's work is on free-living bacteria, which cannot translate to cells in a multicellular organism.

dhw: But you yourself have quoted multiple passages in which he refers to cellular intelligence as being able to “self-modify” to the point of creating “evolutionary novelty”. Why don’t you deal with the theory itself instead of trying to withdraw your fulsome praise and now denigrate the theory because you think his research was limited to bacteria.

DAVID: It was limited to bacteria and you have avoided answering my comment that it is not related to DNA adaptive function in multicellular organisms enough to cause speciation.

dhw: It is your opinion that the ability to adapt cannot cause the innovations that lead to speciation, and the above quote proposes the exact opposite. Please reread the other quotes you reproduce on pages 142-143, especially those that mention innovations and inventions. And please focus on Shapiro’s theory and not on what you think he may or may not have studied.

All of Shapiro's work was on bacteria.


DAVID: Seems like there are other parts also at work automatically.

dhw: …of course there are parts that work automatically. The “brain” - whether human, dog, crow, ant or cellular equivalent – absorbs information from the outside world automatically; the processing, communication and decision-making are then done intelligently, and the implementation of decisions again involves automatic obedience.

DAVID: You appear to be saying as usual cells can think and make decisions that look automatic. Of course I disagree.

dhw: No, they look intelligent. You insist that they are automatic, although you agree that you have a 50% chance of being wrong.

That is my view.

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by dhw, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 11:21 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] do they [Id-ers] agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

DAVID: The bold refers to adaptive ability, not speciation. You continually morph my ideas into your thinking.

dhw: You were commenting on Shapiro’s theory, and even quoted his belief that: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You lavished praise on the book, and pointed out that “His emphasis is on systems using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past.” The quotes make it abundantly clear that he is not talking only about adaptations but about the novelties that lead to speciation, and your only caveat is that this ability must have been built in the distant past.

DAVID: His findings in bacteria are extremely important, but still apply only to bacteria, as no further connection to multicellular cells has been shown.

You claimed that your comment about ability to respond to the present only concerned adaptation, but the context is clearly Shapiro’s belief that speciation arises from intelligent cellular responses to current conditions. Your only response to the whole theory, which you praised so highly and unreservedly in your book is that Shapiro specializes in the study of bacteria. Do you really believe he wrote his book without any knowledge of cellular behaviour? Your own book quotes author after author on all kinds of subjects. Are your arguments invalid because you are not an astrophysicist, a microbiologist, a philosopher? Our theories always incorporate the findings of others. It’s called research.

dhw: Would you now please answer my question whether ID-ers believe that all evolutionary innovations actually took place before the arrival of the conditions they were meant to deal with (e.g. God turning legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water)?

DAVID: IDr's certainly agree God designed flippers for water use.

I think even atheists and agnostics would agree that flippers are for water use. Stop being evasive. You claim that your God changes organs and organisms (legs into flippers) before the new environmental conditions which require such changes actually exist. Do you know of anyone who supports this belief?

David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 19:03 (17 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] do they [Id-ers] agree with the view you offered in your admirable book that organisms have “the ability to respond to the present” – though this “must have been built in the distant past”?

DAVID: The bold refers to adaptive ability, not speciation. You continually morph my ideas into your thinking.

dhw: You were commenting on Shapiro’s theory, and even quoted his belief that: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You lavished praise on the book, and pointed out that “His emphasis is on systems using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past.” The quotes make it abundantly clear that he is not talking only about adaptations but about the novelties that lead to speciation, and your only caveat is that this ability must have been built in the distant past.

DAVID: His findings in bacteria are extremely important, but still apply only to bacteria, as no further connection to multicellular cells has been shown.

dhw: You claimed that your comment about ability to respond to the present only concerned adaptation, but the context is clearly Shapiro’s belief that speciation arises from intelligent cellular responses to current conditions.

Shapiro never said that bacterial control of its DNA caused speciation. It modified bacterial responsiveness, nothing more.

dhw: Your only response to the whole theory, which you praised so highly and unreservedly in your book is that Shapiro specializes in the study of bacteria. Do you really believe he wrote his book without any knowledge of cellular behaviour?

Of course Shapiro has a massive, vast knowledge of biological behavior at all levels, but you can't extrapolate his bacterial findings into your pet theories. He never brought his findings to a point to claim they were the source of speciation.


dhw: Would you now please answer my question whether ID-ers believe that all evolutionary innovations actually took place before the arrival of the conditions they were meant to deal with (e.g. God turning legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water)?

DAVID: IDr's certainly agree God designed flippers for water use.

dhw: I think even atheists and agnostics would agree that flippers are for water use. Stop being evasive. You claim that your God changes organs and organisms (legs into flippers) before the new environmental conditions which require such changes actually exist. Do you know of anyone who supports this belief?

Why do I have to repeat all IDER's think everything is designed in advance? That is the whole point of their philosophy, and I agree with them.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Thursday, November 21, 2019, 10:27 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Shapiro never said that bacterial control of its DNA caused speciation. It modified bacterial responsiveness, nothing more.
And:
DAVID: Of course Shapiro has a massive, vast knowledge of biological behavior at all levels, but you can't extrapolate his bacterial findings into your pet theories. He never brought his findings to a point to claim they were the source of speciation.

We are not discussing what Shapiro did NOT say! In your book you quoted passage after passage in which he specifically argues that CELLS are cognitive, sentient beings with “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities”, and “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You praised his theory in your book with no reservations at all, but pointed out that “the ability to respond to the present [my bold] must have been built in the distant past.” Yet now all you can say is that Shapiro studied bacteria.

You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.

DAVID: Why do I have to repeat all IDER's think everything is designed in advance? That is the whole point of their philosophy, and I agree with them.

So do they believe that their God designed organisms to speciate BEFORE conditions changed (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before the pre-whale entered the water) or do they believe that speciation took place in RESPONSE to changes in the environment?

DAVID (under “speciation through hybridization”): […] When we discuss speciation, what I am really referring to is a real advance to a new level with a different sort of organism. In our short time on Earth we really cannot see it and have no idea how the Cambrian Explosion can occur, which ended with 30 final phyla,shrunk from about 56 originals.

I agree with you completely. All too often, minor variations are equated with speciation, which I’m sure is why Shapiro is careful to emphasize “evolutionary novelty” which arises from processes which "respond to stimuli", as opposed to anticipating stimuli.

QUOTE (from"early snakes had hind legs"): "These primitive snakes with little legs weren't just a transient evolutionary stage on the way to something better. Rather, they had a highly successful body plan that persisted across many millions of years, and diversified into a range of terrestrial, burrowing and aquatic niches," says Professor Lee."

This important observation would apply equally to whales. Each “transient” form is a species in itself, and it’s only with hindsight and the discovery of new fossils that we can see how common descent actually proceeds. Evolution is clearly a mixture of jumps and gradual refinements, both of which must respond to and be suited to the environmental conditions in which organisms find themselves.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 21, 2019, 19:45 (16 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Shapiro never said that bacterial control of its DNA caused speciation. It modified bacterial responsiveness, nothing more.
And:
DAVID: Of course Shapiro has a massive, vast knowledge of biological behavior at all levels, but you can't extrapolate his bacterial findings into your pet theories. He never brought his findings to a point to claim they were the source of speciation.

dhw: We are not discussing what Shapiro did NOT say! In your book you quoted passage after passage in which he specifically argues that CELLS are cognitive, sentient beings with “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities”, and “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You praised his theory in your book with no reservations at all, but pointed out that “the ability to respond to the present [my bold] must have been built in the distant past.” Yet now all you can say is that Shapiro studied bacteria.

But that is what happened. Bacteria who are out on their own and must handle their own affairs. Yet I think his work is fabulous because it offers hints as to how speciation might happen. Remember I also raised the issue that Shapiro was president of his Temple, and I wonder about his beliefs in God and God's role in all of this. And, yes, since bacteria are at the start of life, the mechanism must be from the distant past. I've not changed in my views. Your assumptions are all eschew.


dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.

DAVID: Why do I have to repeat all IDER's think everything is designed in advance? That is the whole point of their philosophy, and I agree with them.

dhw: So do they believe that their God designed organisms to speciate BEFORE conditions changed (e.g. pre-whale legs turned into flippers before the pre-whale entered the water) or do they believe that speciation took place in RESPONSE to changes in the environment?

From my reading I believe they accept design before hand.


DAVID (under “speciation through hybridization”): […] When we discuss speciation, what I am really referring to is a real advance to a new level with a different sort of organism. In our short time on Earth we really cannot see it and have no idea how the Cambrian Explosion can occur, which ended with 30 final phyla,shrunk from about 56 originals.

dhw: I agree with you completely. All too often, minor variations are equated with speciation, which I’m sure is why Shapiro is careful to emphasize “evolutionary novelty” which arises from processes which "respond to stimuli", as opposed to anticipating stimuli.

Shapiro is certainly looking for answers, but doesn't have a solid one s yet.


QUOTE (from"early snakes had hind legs"): "These primitive snakes with little legs weren't just a transient evolutionary stage on the way to something better. Rather, they had a highly successful body plan that persisted across many millions of years, and diversified into a range of terrestrial, burrowing and aquatic niches," says Professor Lee."

dhw: This important observation would apply equally to whales. Each “transient” form is a species in itself, and it’s only with hindsight and the discovery of new fossils that we can see how common descent actually proceeds. Evolution is clearly a mixture of jumps and gradual refinements, both of which must respond to and be suited to the environmental conditions in which organisms find themselves.

Yes, the new organisms are obviously suited to environment conditions. Our debate is when changes occur, either before or after.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Friday, November 22, 2019, 09:48 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are not discussing what Shapiro did NOT say! In your book you quoted passage after passage in which he specifically argues that CELLS are cognitive, sentient beings with “sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities”, and “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You praised his theory in your book with no reservations at all, but pointed out that “the ability to respond to the present [my bold] must have been built in the distant past.” Yet now all you can say is that Shapiro studied bacteria.

DAVID: But that is what happened. Bacteria who are out on their own and must handle their own affairs. Yet I think his work is fabulous because it offers hints as to how speciation might happen. Remember I also raised the issue that Shapiro was president of his Temple, and I wonder about his beliefs in God and God's role in all of this. And, yes, since bacteria are at the start of life, the mechanism must be from the distant past. I've not changed in my views. Your assumptions are all eschew.

What assumptions are you talking about? Shapiro’s theory is quite explicit: that cells are cognitive beings and are capable of creating the “novelties” of evolution. This is not a “hint”, it is a clearly expressed theory, which you have consistently opposed (as is your right) when I have put it to you. We all know that bacteria are “out on their own”. So what? His theory concerns cells in general. You wonder about his religious beliefs. So what? And of course the mechanism must have been there in the distant past, since evolution began in the distant past. You consider his work on a full-blown theory “as to how speciation might happen” is fabulous. Either your current fierce opposition to that theory is “all eschew”, or your praise of it was “all eschew”.

dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.

DAVID: From my reading I believe they accept design before hand.

Of course design must precede implementation! But as you say later: "Yes, the new organisms are obviously suited to environment conditions. Our debate is when changes occur, either before or after." So do you know of any ID-ers who argue that evolutionary innovations take place before the environmental changes they have to cope with?

dhw:. All too often, minor variations are equated with speciation, which I’m sure is why Shapiro is careful to emphasize “evolutionary novelty” which arises from processes which "respond to stimuli", as opposed to anticipating stimuli.

DAVID: Shapiro is certainly looking for answers, but doesn't have a solid one s yet.

Nobody has a “solid one”. Otherwise there would be no discussion.

dhw (under “Evolution: earliest mammals”): The article could support the experimenting designer, but you have a fixed belief in a designer who knows everything in advance. The article also fits in with the hypothesis of cellular design, but you have a fixed belief that cells are incapable of “evolutionary novelty” (Shapiro). But it is pleasing to note your acknowledgement that we cannot know. All the more reason why we should keep an open mind.

DAVID: And I have interpreted Shapiro for you, so you can realize he has only studied free-living bacteria looking for possible speciation mechanisms. Bacteria have reasonable change options so they can survive.

You have attempted to ignore the whole of Shapiro’s argument as quoted at the beginning of this post, on the grounds that he specializes in bacteria. That is not an interpretation!

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Friday, November 22, 2019, 22:45 (15 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are not discussing what Shapiro did NOT say!

DAVID: But that is what happened. Bacteria who are out on their own and must handle their own affairs. Yet I think his work is fabulous because it offers hints as to how speciation might happen. Remember I also raised the issue that Shapiro was president of his Temple, and I wonder about his beliefs in God and God's role in all of this. And, yes, since bacteria are at the start of life, the mechanism must be from the distant past. I've not changed in my views. Your assumptions are all eschew.

dhw: What assumptions are you talking about? Shapiro’s theory is quite explicit: that cells are cognitive beings and are capable of creating the “novelties” of evolution. This is not a “hint”, it is a clearly expressed theory, which you have consistently opposed (as is your right) when I have put it to you. We all know that bacteria are “out on their own”. So what? His theory concerns cells in general. o what? And of course the mechanism must have been there in the distant past, since evolution began in the distant past. You consider his work on a full-blown theory “as to how speciation might happen” is fabulous. Either your current fierce opposition to that theory is “all eschew”, or your praise of it was “all eschew”.

The problem is your assumption about Shapiro' theory. My point is that all he did was study mainly E. coli molecular genetics. That he described and it is exquisite work. The rest of his book is an attempt to say that somehow this points to a way that the genome might cause speciation. He mentions lots of other studies that give some support. His theory is applied to whole organisms and there lies the problem. A whole multicellular organism is organized like a corporation. Most of it functions day by day automatically and smoothly. But it is run by a president, his board. At some point this group makes a change because it is better for the corporation. The genome is the president and the board. My view of speciation is that it must be decided by some currently unknown layer of the central genome, layers of organization we are still discovering. Since all cells have the same DNA but modified for individual function, we still have no idea where the central command post is. Cells do not control the genome. It is the other way around. Perhaps the genome can't do it either and it requires God. thus my thinking. There is no room for your imagined committees.


dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.

DAVID: From my reading I believe they accept design before hand.

dhw: Of course design must precede implementation! But as you say later: "Yes, the new organisms are obviously suited to environment conditions. Our debate is when changes occur, either before or after." So do you know of any ID-ers who argue that evolutionary innovations take place before the environmental changes they have to cope with?

They all do. Design always comes first.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Saturday, November 23, 2019, 10:03 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your assumptions are all eschew.

dhw: What assumptions are you talking about? Shapiro’s theory is quite explicit: that cells are cognitive beings and are capable of creating the “novelties” of evolution. This is not a “hint”, it is a clearly expressed theory, which you have consistently opposed (as is your right) when I have put it to you. We all know that bacteria are “out on their own”. So what? His theory concerns cells in general. And of course the mechanism must have been there in the distant past, since evolution began in the distant past. You consider his work on a full-blown theory “as to how speciation might happen” is fabulous. Either your current fierce opposition to that theory is “all eschew”, or your praise of it was “all eschew”.

DAVID: The problem is your assumption about Shapiro' theory. My point is that all he did was study mainly E. coli molecular genetics. That he described and it is exquisite work. The rest of his book is an attempt to say that somehow this points to a way that the genome might cause speciation. He mentions lots of other studies that give some support. His theory is applied to whole organisms and there lies the problem. A whole multicellular organism is organized like a corporation. Most of it functions day by day automatically and smoothly. But it is run by a president, his board. At some point this group makes a change because it is better for the corporation. The genome is the president and the board. My view of speciation is that it must be decided by some currently unknown layer of the central genome, layers of organization we are still discovering. Since all cells have the same DNA but modified for individual function, we still have no idea where the central command post is. Cells do not control the genome. It is the other way around. Perhaps the genome can't do it either and it requires God. thus my thinking. There is no room for your imagined committees.

You started out by trying to discredit Shapiro’s theory because his speciality is bacteria. Now you are repeating the theory, but instead of my terminology – the whole organism is a community of cell communities– you say it’s organized like a corporation, which means “a group of companies acting together as a single organization”. What’s the difference? And how does your “board” differ from your own would-be mocking term “committee”? Is there such a thing as the “central genome”? The genome is the total genetic complement of a cell or an organism. We don’t know where the central command post of individual cells or of the total genome is, but Shapiro’s theory (and mine) is that cells are intelligent beings and cooperate to create the evolutionary novelties which lead to speciation. Your “perhaps the genome (i.e. the cell communities) can’t do it” is a very welcome concession, since it means that perhaps it/they can. Thank you for now agreeing that perhaps Shapiro is right (and me too). “It requires God” is presumably a reference to your theory that hidden in the unknown layers of the genome are the billions of computer programmes which your God planted in the very first cells for every single undabbled “novelty”, lifestyle, econiche, strategy, bacterial response and natural wonder for the rest of life’s history. I’m so glad that you have now relegated this previously fixed belief to the level of “perhaps”.
Please see “making new evolutionary innovations” for an important addition to this discussion.

dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.[…]

DAVID: They all do. Design always comes first.

Yes of course, design has to come before the implementation of design. But do your ID-ers believe as you do that the designs become physical reality before the environmental changes which the innovations are designed to cope with (e.g. pre-whale legs turn into fins before the pre-whale enters the water)?

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 23, 2019, 18:41 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The problem is your assumption about Shapiro' theory. My point is that all he did was study mainly E. coli molecular genetics. That he described and it is exquisite work. The rest of his book is an attempt to say that somehow this points to a way that the genome might cause speciation. He mentions lots of other studies that give some support. His theory is applied to whole organisms and there lies the problem. A whole multicellular organism is organized like a corporation. Most of it functions day by day automatically and smoothly. But it is run by a president, his board. At some point this group makes a change because it is better for the corporation. The genome is the president and the board. My view of speciation is that it must be decided by some currently unknown layer of the central genome, layers of organization we are still discovering. Since all cells have the same DNA but modified for individual function, we still have no idea where the central command post is. Cells do not control the genome. It is the other way around. Perhaps the genome can't do it either and it requires God. thus my thinking. There is no room for your imagined committees.

dhw: You started out by trying to discredit Shapiro’s theory because his speciality is bacteria. Now you are repeating the theory, but instead of my terminology – the whole organism is a community of cell communities– you say it’s organized like a corporation, which means “a group of companies acting together as a single organization”. What’s the difference? And how does your “board” differ from your own would-be mocking term “committee”? Is there such a thing as the “central genome”? The genome is the total genetic complement of a cell or an organism. We don’t know where the central command post of individual cells or of the total genome is, but Shapiro’s theory (and mine) is that cells are intelligent beings and cooperate to create the evolutionary novelties which lead to speciation.

The problem for you and Shapiro is that all the cells in a multicellular organism have jobs to do, and their individual DNA's are altered/adjusted for that and produce automatic productive jobs. No one has ever discovered a 'central command post' which is why research is now looking at different obvious patterns in DNA organization and storage mechanisms (isochores, for example). It is that command post which must do the speciation, or as my 'perhaps' really means God must do the alterations.

> dhw: Your “perhaps the genome (i.e. the cell communities) can’t do it” is a very welcome concession, since it means that perhaps it/they can. Thank you for now agreeing that perhaps Shapiro is right (and me too). “It requires God” is presumably a reference to your theory that hidden in the unknown layers of the genome are the billions of computer programmes which your God planted in the very first cells for every single undabbled “novelty”, lifestyle, econiche, strategy, bacterial response and natural wonder for the rest of life’s history. I’m so glad that you have now relegated this previously fixed belief to the level of “perhaps”.

Again going to huge lengths to find me backing off my point. The 'perhaps was just a lead in comment to get back to my theory which is that God speciates. Until we prove that the genome can do it on its own, God stays my choice since complex design anticipating the future is required

Please see “making new evolutionary innovations” for an important addition to this discussion.

dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.[…]

DAVID: They all do. Design always comes first.

dhw: Yes of course, design has to come before the implementation of design. But do your ID-ers believe as you do that the designs become physical reality before the environmental changes which the innovations are designed to cope with (e.g. pre-whale legs turn into fins before the pre-whale enters the water)?

ID folks believe God designs all advances in evolution. Behe actually thinks the original DNA contained all the information needed from the beginning and God operates by deletion of genes.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Sunday, November 24, 2019, 13:24 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You started out by trying to discredit Shapiro’s theory because his speciality is bacteria. Now you are repeating the theory, but instead of my terminology – the whole organism is a community of cell communities– you say it’s organized like a corporation, which means “a group of companies acting together as a single organization”. What’s the difference? And how does your “board” differ from your own would-be mocking term “committee”? Is there such a thing as the “central genome”? The genome is the total genetic complement of a cell or an organism. We don’t know where the central command post of individual cells or of the total genome is, but Shapiro’s theory (and mine) is that cells are intelligent beings and cooperate to create the evolutionary novelties which lead to speciation.

DAVID: The problem for you and Shapiro is that all the cells in a multicellular organism have jobs to do, and their individual DNA's are altered/adjusted for that and produce automatic productive jobs. No one has ever discovered a 'central command post' which is why research is now looking at different obvious patterns in DNA organization and storage mechanisms (isochores, for example). It is that command post which must do the speciation, or as my 'perhaps' really means God must do the alterations.

You have completely ignored my response to your comment concerning board/committees/ communities and have then repeated my own statement that we don’t know where the central command post is, though I include individual cells as well as all the communities. Of course all the cells are now in place, since the speciation has already happened!

dhw: Your “perhaps the genome (i.e. the cell communities) can’t do it” is a very welcome concession, since it means that perhaps it/they can. Thank you for now agreeing that perhaps Shapiro is right (and me too). […]

DAVID: Again going to huge lengths to find me backing off my point. The 'perhaps was just a lead in comment to get back to my theory which is that God speciates. Until we prove that the genome can do it on its own, God stays my choice since complex design anticipating the future is required.

Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”. God speciates is presumably your shorthand for your God providing the first cells with detailed programmes for all undabbled innovations (not to mention lifestyles, strategies, econiches and natural wonders) for the rest of time.

dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.[…]

DAVID: They all do. Design always comes first.

dhw: Yes of course, design has to come before the implementation of design. But do your ID-ers believe as you do that the designs become physical reality before the environmental changes which the innovations are designed to cope with (e.g. pre-whale legs turn into fins before the pre-whale enters the water)?

DAVID: ID folks believe God designs all advances in evolution. Behe actually thinks the original DNA contained all the information needed from the beginning and God operates by deletion of genes.

And you still refuse to say whether any ID-ers share your belief that the physical implementation of their God’s designs takes place before or after the arrival of the conditions which the innovations are designed to cope with. May I presume that none of them do?

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 24, 2019, 21:00 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The problem for you and Shapiro is that all the cells in a multicellular organism have jobs to do, and their individual DNA's are altered/adjusted for that and produce automatic productive jobs. No one has ever discovered a 'central command post' which is why research is now looking at different obvious patterns in DNA organization and storage mechanisms (isochores, for example). It is that command post which must do the speciation, or as my 'perhaps' really means God must do the alterations.

dhw: You have completely ignored my response to your comment concerning board/committees/ communities and have then repeated my own statement that we don’t know where the central command post is, though I include individual cells as well as all the communities. Of course all the cells are now in place, since the speciation has already happened!

And that is the point. After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.


dhw: Your “perhaps the genome (i.e. the cell communities) can’t do it” is a very welcome concession, since it means that perhaps it/they can. Thank you for now agreeing that perhaps Shapiro is right (and me too). […]

DAVID: Again going to huge lengths to find me backing off my point. The 'perhaps was just a lead in comment to get back to my theory which is that God speciates. Until we prove that the genome can do it on its own, God stays my choice since complex design anticipating the future is required.

dhw: Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”. God speciates is presumably your shorthand for your God providing the first cells with detailed programmes for all undabbled innovations (not to mention lifestyles, strategies, econiches and natural wonders) for the rest of time.

All you have described from my book is the ability to adapt, within the same species.


dhw: You also claim that ID-ers share your belief that your God implemented the novelties IN ANTICIPATION of environmental change, as opposed to IN RESPONSE to it.[…]

DAVID: They all do. Design always comes first.

dhw: Yes of course, design has to come before the implementation of design. But do your ID-ers believe as you do that the designs become physical reality before the environmental changes which the innovations are designed to cope with (e.g. pre-whale legs turn into fins before the pre-whale enters the water)?

DAVID: ID folks believe God designs all advances in evolution. Behe actually thinks the original DNA contained all the information needed from the beginning and God operates by deletion of genes.

dhw: And you still refuse to say whether any ID-ers share your belief that the physical implementation of their God’s designs takes place before or after the arrival of the conditions which the innovations are designed to cope with. May I presume that none of them do?

How many times do I have to write it? Before!!! Or as Behe believes, God deletes genes at the time of change, design already built in. IDer's believe God designs all new species. And it is obvious many new species arrive without environmental changes. Think if Gould's gaps. You persist in looking for way to have new species appear only by adaptation to new challenges. That is your Darwinist training coming out again. I thought I'd cured you of that.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Monday, November 25, 2019, 13:38 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have completely ignored my response to your comment concerning board/committees/ communities and have then repeated my own statement that we don’t know where the central command post is […] Of course all the cells are now in place, since the speciation has already happened!

DAVID: And that is the point. After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.

Of course it is. If it doesn’t function under new circumstances, the organism will become extinct! But I suggest that speciation takes place as a result of organisms enabling themselves to function adequately.

DAVID: […] complex design anticipating the future is required.

dhw: Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”.

DAVID: All you have described from my book is the ability to adapt, within the same species.

You persist in ignoring the fact that you were commenting on your own quotes from Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification and cell fusions” and: “Natural genetic engineering and other evolutionary innovative processes respond to stimuli [… ] primarily at times of ecological disruption.” Novelty and innovation go beyond adaptation (though see my comments elsewhere on the difficulty of identifying a borderline between the two processes).

dhw: And you still refuse to say whether any ID-ers share your belief that the physical implementation of their God’s designs takes place before or after the arrival of the conditions which the innovations are designed to cope with. […]

DAVID: How many times do I have to write it? Before!!! Or as Behe believes, God deletes genes at the time of change, design already built in. IDer's believe God designs all new species.

You have only told us that ID-ers believe God designs all new species, and of course design precedes implementation of design. This does not mean that physical implementation precedes the environmental changes it is meant to cope with (e.g. the pre-whale’s legs turning into flippers BEFORE it entered the water). Same problem with Behe’s theory: are new species physically completed in anticipation of new conditions or in response to them?

DAVID: And it is obvious many new species arrive without environmental changes. Think if Gould's gaps. You persist in looking for way to have new species appear only by adaptation to new challenges. That is your Darwinist training coming out again. I thought I'd cured you of that.

“I thought I’d cured you” of forever moaning about Darwin. Look at your first statement in this post: “After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.” Look at the Shapiro quote: his natural genetic engineers “respond to stimuli”. How the heck do you know that new species arrived without environmental changes? Gould’s gaps relate to long periods of stasis, with sudden bursts of innovation, usually caused by environmental change.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Monday, November 25, 2019, 14:32 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And that is the point. After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.

dhw: Of course it is. If it doesn’t function under new circumstances, the organism will become extinct! But I suggest that speciation takes place as a result of organisms enabling themselves to function adequately.

That can be simple adaptation, not speciation.


DAVID: […] complex design anticipating the future is required.

dhw: Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”.

DAVID: All you have described from my book is the ability to adapt, within the same species.

dhw: You persist in ignoring the fact that you were commenting on your own quotes from Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification and cell fusions” and: “Natural genetic engineering and other evolutionary innovative processes respond to stimuli [… ] primarily at times of ecological disruption.” Novelty and innovation go beyond adaptation (though see my comments elsewhere on the difficulty of identifying a borderline between the two processes).

True.You are ignoring my point that Shapiro's extrapolation to multicellular organisms is not anywhere near proof.


dhw: And you still refuse to say whether any ID-ers share your belief that the physical implementation of their God’s designs takes place before or after the arrival of the conditions which the innovations are designed to cope with. […]

DAVID: How many times do I have to write it? Before!!! Or as Behe believes, God deletes genes at the time of change, design already built in. IDer's believe God designs all new species.

dhw: You have only told us that ID-ers believe God designs all new species, and of course design precedes implementation of design. This does not mean that physical implementation precedes the environmental changes it is meant to cope with (e.g. the pre-whale’s legs turning into flippers BEFORE it entered the water). Same problem with Behe’s theory: are new species physically completed in anticipation of new conditions or in response to them?

My interpretation is the designs are meant to fit the future needs. Behe's deletion theory fits that way of thinking.


DAVID: And it is obvious many new species arrive without environmental changes. Think if Gould's gaps. You persist in looking for way to have new species appear only by adaptation to new challenges. That is your Darwinist training coming out again. I thought I'd cured you of that.

dhw: “I thought I’d cured you” of forever moaning about Darwin. Look at your first statement in this post: “After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.” Look at the Shapiro quote: his natural genetic engineers “respond to stimuli”. How the heck do you know that new species arrived without environmental changes? Gould’s gaps relate to long periods of stasis, with sudden bursts of innovation, usually caused by environmental change.\\

You've forgotten Gould also recognized the large gaps in the fossil record, without itty-bitty steps demanded an explanation, so he invented punc-inc hiding animals away in a limited area where they would be suddenly forced to change. A neat human just-so story. Those gaps means or fits directed speciation.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 10:58 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And that is the point. After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.

dhw: Of course it is. If it doesn’t function under new circumstances, the organism will become extinct! But I suggest that speciation takes place as a result of organisms enabling themselves to function adequately.

DAVID: That can be simple adaptation, not speciation.

Yes, it “can be” adaptation, but the point at issue is whether the same process can also lead to speciation.

DAVID: […] complex design anticipating the future is required.

dhw: Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”.

DAVID: All you have described from my book is the ability to adapt, within the same species.

dhw: You persist in ignoring the fact that you were commenting on your own quotes from Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification and cell fusions” and: “Natural genetic engineering and other evolutionary innovative processes respond to stimuli [… ] primarily at times of ecological disruption […]

DAVID: True.You are ignoring my point that Shapiro's extrapolation to multicellular organisms is not anywhere near proof.

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. I’m sure Shapiro’s evidence for cellular intelligence in multicellular organisms is not confined to his own research on bacteria, and in any case, if the theory were proven, it would no longer be a theory but a fact.

dhw: You have only told us that ID-ers believe God designs all new species, and of course design precedes implementation of design. This does not mean that physical implementation precedes the environmental changes it is meant to cope with (e.g. the pre-whale’s legs turning into flippers BEFORE it entered the water). Same problem with Behe’s theory: are new species physically completed in anticipation of new conditions or in response to them?

DAVID: My interpretation is the designs are meant to fit the future needs. Behe's deletion theory fits that way of thinking.

But you simply refuse to tell us whether any ID-ers believe as you do that the physical implementation of the design takes place before the environmental changes which the design is meant to cope with. I can only interpret your repeated avoidance of this question as meaning that you have no support for this particular belief.

DAVID: And it is obvious many new species arrive without environmental changes. Think if Gould's gaps. You persist in looking for way to have new species appear only by adaptation to new challenges. That is your Darwinist training coming out again. I thought I'd cured you of that.

dhw: “I thought I’d cured you” of forever moaning about Darwin. Look at your first statement in this post: “After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.” Look at the Shapiro quote: his natural genetic engineers “respond to stimuli”. How the heck do you know that new species arrived without environmental changes? Gould’s gaps relate to long periods of stasis, with sudden bursts of innovation, usually caused by environmental change.

DAVID: You've forgotten Gould also recognized the large gaps in the fossil record, without itty-bitty steps demanded an explanation, so he invented punc-inc hiding animals away in a limited area where they would be suddenly forced to change. A neat human just-so story. Those gaps means or fits directed speciation.

Everyone recognizes the gaps in the fossil record. I see nothing wrong with the theory that speciation may have happened in localized areas – environmental change is not always global. And yes, environmental change may well force evolutionary change, or organisms would not survive, and it may also offer new opportunities which again will stimulate change. How can gaps mean “directed speciation”? They mean either that no fossils have been found, or that innovations happened very quickly – whether through a divine dabble/programme or through the responses of intelligent cell communities “using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past”, as you wrote so approvingly in your book.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 15:41 (11 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And that is the point. After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.

dhw: Of course it is. If it doesn’t function under new circumstances, the organism will become extinct! But I suggest that speciation takes place as a result of organisms enabling themselves to function adequately.

DAVID: That can be simple adaptation, not speciation.

Yes, it “can be” adaptation, but the point at issue is whether the same process can also lead to speciation.

DAVID: […] complex design anticipating the future is required.

dhw: Complex design anticipating the future is NOT required if, as you yourself wrote in your book, the cognitive cellular networks have the ability to “respond to the present”, “using information as it appears”.

DAVID: All you have described from my book is the ability to adapt, within the same species.

dhw: You persist in ignoring the fact that you were commenting on your own quotes from Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification and cell fusions” and: “Natural genetic engineering and other evolutionary innovative processes respond to stimuli [… ] primarily at times of ecological disruption […]

DAVID: True.You are ignoring my point that Shapiro's extrapolation to multicellular organisms is not anywhere near proof.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. I’m sure Shapiro’s evidence for cellular intelligence in multicellular organisms is not confined to his own research on bacteria, and in any case, if the theory were proven, it would no longer be a theory but a fact.

dhw: You have only told us that ID-ers believe God designs all new species, and of course design precedes implementation of design. This does not mean that physical implementation precedes the environmental changes it is meant to cope with (e.g. the pre-whale’s legs turning into flippers BEFORE it entered the water). Same problem with Behe’s theory: are new species physically completed in anticipation of new conditions or in response to them?

DAVID: My interpretation is the designs are meant to fit the future needs. Behe's deletion theory fits that way of thinking.

dhw: But you simply refuse to tell us whether any ID-ers believe as you do that the physical implementation of the design takes place before the environmental changes which the design is meant to cope with. I can only interpret your repeated avoidance of this question as meaning that you have no support for this particular belief.

I've avoided nothing. As above IDer's believe animals are designed as new species appear before the appear. They think just as I do, based on what they write.


DAVID: And it is obvious many new species arrive without environmental changes. Think if Gould's gaps. You persist in looking for way to have new species appear only by adaptation to new challenges. That is your Darwinist training coming out again. I thought I'd cured you of that.

dhw: “I thought I’d cured you” of forever moaning about Darwin. Look at your first statement in this post: “After speciation, which we do not understand, everything is designed to be in the proper place for adequate function under new circumstances.” Look at the Shapiro quote: his natural genetic engineers “respond to stimuli”. How the heck do you know that new species arrived without environmental changes? Gould’s gaps relate to long periods of stasis, with sudden bursts of innovation, usually caused by environmental change.

DAVID: You've forgotten Gould also recognized the large gaps in the fossil record, without itty-bitty steps demanded an explanation, so he invented punc-inc hiding animals away in a limited area where they would be suddenly forced to change. A neat human just-so story. Those gaps means or fits directed speciation.

dhw: Everyone recognizes the gaps in the fossil record. I see nothing wrong with the theory that speciation may have happened in localized areas – environmental change is not always global. And yes, environmental change may well force evolutionary change, or organisms would not survive, and it may also offer new opportunities which again will stimulate change. How can gaps mean “directed speciation”? They mean either that no fossils have been found, or that innovations happened very quickly – whether through a divine dabble/programme or through the responses of intelligent cell communities “using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past”, as you wrote so approvingly in your book.

Our disagreement continues.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Wednesday, November 27, 2019, 08:58 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But you simply refuse to tell us whether any ID-ers believe as you do that the physical implementation of the design takes place before the environmental changes which the design is meant to cope with. I can only interpret your repeated avoidance of this question as meaning that you have no support for this particular belief.

DAVID: I've avoided nothing. As above IDer's believe animals are designed as new species appear before the appear. They think just as I do, based on what they write.

As this sentence makes no sense at all, perhaps you can try again?

DAVID: You've forgotten Gould also recognized the large gaps in the fossil record, without itty-bitty steps demanded an explanation, so he invented punc-inc hiding animals away in a limited area where they would be suddenly forced to change. A neat human just-so story. Those gaps means or fits directed speciation.

dhw: Everyone recognizes the gaps in the fossil record. I see nothing wrong with the theory that speciation may have happened in localized areas – environmental change is not always global. And yes, environmental change may well force evolutionary change, or organisms would not survive, and it may also offer new opportunities which again will stimulate change. How can gaps mean “directed speciation”? They mean either that no fossils have been found, or that innovations happened very quickly – whether through a divine dabble/programme or through the responses of intelligent cell communities “using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past”, as you wrote so approvingly in your book.

DAVID: Our disagreement continues.

Does it? Please tell me what you disagree with in the above.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 27, 2019, 15:34 (10 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you simply refuse to tell us whether any ID-ers believe as you do that the physical implementation of the design takes place before the environmental changes which the design is meant to cope with. I can only interpret your repeated avoidance of this question as meaning that you have no support for this particular belief.

DAVID: I've avoided nothing. As above IDer's believe animals are designed as new species appear before the appear. They think just as I do, based on what they write.

As this sentence makes no sense at all, perhaps you can try again?

DAVID: You've forgotten Gould also recognized the large gaps in the fossil record, without itty-bitty steps demanded an explanation, so he invented punc-inc hiding animals away in a limited area where they would be suddenly forced to change. A neat human just-so story. Those gaps means or fits directed speciation.

dhw: Everyone recognizes the gaps in the fossil record. I see nothing wrong with the theory that speciation may have happened in localized areas – environmental change is not always global. And yes, environmental change may well force evolutionary change, or organisms would not survive, and it may also offer new opportunities which again will stimulate change. How can gaps mean “directed speciation”? They mean either that no fossils have been found, or that innovations happened very quickly – whether through a divine dabble/programme or through the responses of intelligent cell communities “using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past”, as you wrote so approvingly in your book.

DAVID: Our disagreement continues.

dhw: Does it? Please tell me what you disagree with in the above.

I can agree that environmental change can cause extinction (Raup) as with the dinosaurs allowing other existing species to slowly evolve. We appeared 64 million years later. Lack of intermediate fossils? The Cambrian gap gets bigger. Gould's gaps haven't gone away. All we see is adaptation of existing species, so we cannot easily explain speciation

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Thursday, November 28, 2019, 12:05 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You've forgotten Gould also recognized the large gaps in the fossil record, without itty-bitty steps demanded an explanation, so he invented punc-inc hiding animals away in a limited area where they would be suddenly forced to change. A neat human just-so story. Those gaps means or fits directed speciation.

dhw: Everyone recognizes the gaps in the fossil record. I see nothing wrong with the theory that speciation may have happened in localized areas – environmental change is not always global. And yes, environmental change may well force evolutionary change, or organisms would not survive, and it may also offer new opportunities which again will stimulate change. How can gaps mean “directed speciation”? They mean either that no fossils have been found, or that innovations happened very quickly – whether through a divine dabble/programme or through the responses of intelligent cell communities “using information as it appears, not rigid ancient instructions laid down in the past”, as you wrote so approvingly in your book.

DAVID: Our disagreement continues.

dhw: Does it? Please tell me what you disagree with in the above.

DAVID: I can agree that environmental change can cause extinction (Raup) as with the dinosaurs allowing other existing species to slowly evolve. We appeared 64 million years later. Lack of intermediate fossils? The Cambrian gap gets bigger. Gould's gaps haven't gone away. All we see is adaptation of existing species, so we cannot easily explain speciation.

Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

Transferred from “David’s theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro’s view”:

dhw: Thank you for confirming that Shapiro’s theory is just as I have presented it, and that he must have done a lot of research outside his own specialist field. So please stop harping on about the fact that his own research was confined to bacteria. That is irrelevant.

DAVID: It is not irrelevant since he tries to plug it into major evolution processes as you do and it is just a theory that has not received any support I can find.

dhw: He obviously plugs it into major evolution processes using the research of others (“references to current research”) who are as convinced as he is that cells are cognitive, sentient, intelligent beings. The rest of his theory (and mine) grows from this one basic premise, and the fact that his personal research is confined to bacteria does not invalidate the argument. Of course it is “just a theory”, as is the existence of your God, and your belief in a 3.8-billion-year-old set of programmes for all undabbled innovations. We can only test the feasibility of each theory that is proposed. I do not regard the theorist’s main field of research as relevant to the reasonableness of his theory.

DAVID: The reason I explained his field is to show how he developed his theory, and I do not know if it can be applied to multicellular evolution. However his research is an important addition to all the research. Note it also helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory.

He obviously developed his theory from his own research into bacterial behaviour and other people’s research into cellular intelligence, but yes, it is a theory and not a fact. I would say it is an important addition to all the other theories. It doesn’t “destroy” common descent or natural selection (though we all agree this is not a creative force), which constitute “most of Darwin’s theory”, so why yet another silly and irrelevant snipe at poor old Charles?

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 28, 2019, 18:21 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I can agree that environmental change can cause extinction (Raup) as with the dinosaurs allowing other existing species to slowly evolve. We appeared 64 million years later. Lack of intermediate fossils? The Cambrian gap gets bigger. Gould's gaps haven't gone away. All we see is adaptation of existing species, so we cannot easily explain speciation.

dhw: Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

Intelligence is immaterial. Tell me where the cells got it.


Transferred from “David’s theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro’s view”:

dhw: Thank you for confirming that Shapiro’s theory is just as I have presented it, and that he must have done a lot of research outside his own specialist field. So please stop harping on about the fact that his own research was confined to bacteria. That is irrelevant.

DAVID: It is not irrelevant since he tries to plug it into major evolution processes as you do and it is just a theory that has not received any support I can find.

dhw: He obviously plugs it into major evolution processes using the research of others (“references to current research”) who are as convinced as he is that cells are cognitive, sentient, intelligent beings. The rest of his theory (and mine) grows from this one basic premise, and the fact that his personal research is confined to bacteria does not invalidate the argument. Of course it is “just a theory”, as is the existence of your God, and your belief in a 3.8-billion-year-old set of programmes for all undabbled innovations. We can only test the feasibility of each theory that is proposed. I do not regard the theorist’s main field of research as relevant to the reasonableness of his theory.

DAVID: The reason I explained his field is to show how he developed his theory, and I do not know if it can be applied to multicellular evolution. However his research is an important addition to all the research. Note it also helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory.

dhw: He obviously developed his theory from his own research into bacterial behaviour and other people’s research into cellular intelligence, but yes, it is a theory and not a fact. I would say it is an important addition to all the other theories. It doesn’t “destroy” common descent or natural selection (though we all agree this is not a creative force), which constitute “most of Darwin’s theory”, so why yet another silly and irrelevant snipe at poor old Charles?

I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Friday, November 29, 2019, 10:26 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I can agree that environmental change can cause extinction (Raup) as with the dinosaurs allowing other existing species to slowly evolve. We appeared 64 million years later. Lack of intermediate fossils? The Cambrian gap gets bigger. Gould's gaps haven't gone away. All we see is adaptation of existing species, so we cannot easily explain speciation.

dhw: Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Intelligence is immaterial. Tell me where the cells got it.

You are asking me to solve one of the many mysteries that no human has yet managed to solve: the source of life, of consciousness, of speciation [...] Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial intelligence. Not very helpful, is it?

DAVID: The reason I explained his field is to show how he developed his theory, and I do not know if it can be applied to multicellular evolution. However his research is an important addition to all the research. Note it also helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory.

dhw: He obviously developed his theory from his own research into bacterial behaviour and other people’s research into cellular intelligence, but yes, it is a theory and not a fact. I would say it is an important addition to all the other theories. It doesn’t “destroy” common descent or natural selection (though we all agree this is not a creative force), which constitute “most of Darwin’s theory”, so why yet another silly and irrelevant snipe at poor old Charles?

DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. There are major parts of Darwin’s theory that you think are obviously right, and I really hate to see you making such general statements, as they put you on the same blinkered level as the dumb folks who believe those parts you think are obviously wrong.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Friday, November 29, 2019, 19:55 (8 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I can agree that environmental change can cause extinction (Raup) as with the dinosaurs allowing other existing species to slowly evolve. We appeared 64 million years later. Lack of intermediate fossils? The Cambrian gap gets bigger. Gould's gaps haven't gone away. All we see is adaptation of existing species, so we cannot easily explain speciation.

dhw: Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Intelligence is immaterial. Tell me where the cells got it.

dhw: You are asking me to solve one of the many mysteries that no human has yet managed to solve: the source of life, of consciousness, of speciation [...] Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial intelligence. Not very helpful, is it?

My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.


DAVID: The reason I explained his field is to show how he developed his theory, and I do not know if it can be applied to multicellular evolution. However his research is an important addition to all the research. Note it also helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory.

dhw: He obviously developed his theory from his own research into bacterial behaviour and other people’s research into cellular intelligence, but yes, it is a theory and not a fact. I would say it is an important addition to all the other theories. It doesn’t “destroy” common descent or natural selection (though we all agree this is not a creative force), which constitute “most of Darwin’s theory”, so why yet another silly and irrelevant snipe at poor old Charles?

DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

dhw: Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. There are major parts of Darwin’s theory that you think are obviously right, and I really hate to see you making such general statements, as they put you on the same blinkered level as the dumb folks who believe those parts you think are obviously wrong.

The only part of Darwin's theory that is left is common descent. None of his supposed methodology is supported.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Saturday, November 30, 2019, 13:01 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Intelligence is immaterial. Tell me where the cells got it.

dhw: You are asking me to solve one of the many mysteries that no human has yet managed to solve: the source of life, of consciousness, of speciation [...] Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial intelligence. Not very helpful, is it?

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

dhw: Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. There are major parts of Darwin’s theory that you think are obviously right, and I really hate to see you making such general statements, as they put you on the same blinkered level as the dumb folks who believe those parts you think are obviously wrong.

DAVID: The only part of Darwin's theory that is left is common descent. None of his supposed methodology is supported.

I thought you were really sniping at the dumb followers. Now you want to argue about Darwin himself. Common descent is the basis of the theory, with natural selection explaining why organisms do or don't survive, and random mutations plus gradual refinements are the methodology. The methodology is not “most of the theory”. And so your perpetual sniping at Darwin leads us way off the subject, which started out as Shapiro’s theory of natural genetic engineering as the methodology.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 30, 2019, 16:16 (7 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Nobody can explain speciation, and that is why we have different theories. Do you disagree that speciation may have been local, and that environmental change may have triggered not only adaptation for survival but also innovation to exploit new opportunities? As for the gaps, either we haven’t found fossils, or the structures of cell communities changed relatively quickly. You believe the changes came through your God’s dabbling/preprogramming, and Shapiro proposes (as do I) that it was through cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Intelligence is immaterial. Tell me where the cells got it.

dhw: You are asking me to solve one of the many mysteries that no human has yet managed to solve: the source of life, of consciousness, of speciation [...] Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial intelligence. Not very helpful, is it?

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

dhw: I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

I believe 'chance' which is the basis of your theory as absolutely impossible, based on the biological design I find:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13252-9

Just glance at this article describing a universal joint in flagella made up from specialized proteins. There are universal joints in autos, we design. I can't condense it because the diagrams make the point.


DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

dhw: Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. There are major parts of Darwin’s theory that you think are obviously right, and I really hate to see you making such general statements, as they put you on the same blinkered level as the dumb folks who believe those parts you think are obviously wrong.

DAVID: The only part of Darwin's theory that is left is common descent. None of his supposed methodology is supported.

dhw: I thought you were really sniping at the dumb followers. Now you want to argue about Darwin himself. Common descent is the basis of the theory, with natural selection explaining why organisms do or don't survive, and random mutations plus gradual refinements are the methodology. The methodology is not “most of the theory”. And so your perpetual sniping at Darwin leads us way off the subject, which started out as Shapiro’s theory of natural genetic engineering as the methodology.

From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Sunday, December 01, 2019, 08:42 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

dhw: I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

DAVID: I believe 'chance' which is the basis of your theory as absolutely impossible, based on the biological design I find:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13252-9
Just glance at this article describing a universal joint in flagella made up from specialized proteins. There are universal joints in autos, we design. I can't condense it because the diagrams make the point.

I don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge the case for design, but you simply do not understand agnosticism. Chance is NOT the basis of my theory. I do not have a theory! I do not believe in chance any more than you do. But for me, chance is on the same level of “impossibility” as an unknown, eternal first-cause immaterial intelligence that can create a material universe out of itself, and as the “rudimentary consciousness” of first-cause materials. Once more: I cannot believe in any of these three explanations, and so I remain agnostic.

DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

dhw: Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. […]

DAVID: The only part of Darwin's theory that is left is common descent. None of his supposed methodology is supported.

dhw: I thought you were really sniping at the dumb followers. Now you want to argue about Darwin himself. Common descent is the basis of the theory, with natural selection explaining why organisms do or don't survive, and random mutations plus gradual refinements are the methodology. The methodology is not “most of the theory”. […]

DAVID: From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.

Natural selection is simple common sense: nature will see to it that whatever is useful is
likely to survive, and if something is not useful, it is likely to die out. You accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and common descent, and you reject his methodology of chance mutations and gradual refinement. So do I. You propose divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling as the methodology, and Shapiro proposes “natural genetic engineering”, which is the theory we have been discussing. I like it. You don’t. Your hatred of Darwin is a red herring.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 01, 2019, 15:18 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

dhw: I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

DAVID: I believe 'chance' which is the basis of your theory as absolutely impossible, based on the biological design I find:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13252-9
Just glance at this article describing a universal joint in flagella made up from specialized proteins. There are universal joints in autos, we design. I can't condense it because the diagrams make the point.

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge the case for design, but you simply do not understand agnosticism. Chance is NOT the basis of my theory. I do not have a theory! I do not believe in chance any more than you do. But for me, chance is on the same level of “impossibility” as an unknown, eternal first-cause immaterial intelligence that can create a material universe out of itself, and as the “rudimentary consciousness” of first-cause materials. Once more: I cannot believe in any of these three explanations, and so I remain agnostic.

I guess I need to find reasonable answers, and you just wonder.


DAVID: I've admitted poor old Charles didn't know what he didn't know. I'm really sniping at the dumb folks who still believe parts of his theories that are obviously wrong.

dhw: Then do please say so rather than pretend that one particular argument has “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory”. […]

DAVID: The only part of Darwin's theory that is left is common descent. None of his supposed methodology is supported.

dhw: I thought you were really sniping at the dumb followers. Now you want to argue about Darwin himself. Common descent is the basis of the theory, with natural selection explaining why organisms do or don't survive, and random mutations plus gradual refinements are the methodology. The methodology is not “most of the theory”. […]

DAVID: From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.

dhw: Natural selection is simple common sense: nature will see to it that whatever is useful is
likely to survive, and if something is not useful, it is likely to die out. You accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and common descent, and you reject his methodology of chance mutations and gradual refinement. So do I. You propose divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling as the methodology, and Shapiro proposes “natural genetic engineering”, which is the theory we have been discussing. I like it. You don’t. Your hatred of Darwin is a red herring.

Common sense natural selection is a tautology called survival of the fittest. I have never hated Darwin, besides his racism, which I wonder if your recognize it.. I only hate his unreasoning current followers And their stupid persistence.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Monday, December 02, 2019, 13:49 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

dhw: I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

DAVID: I believe 'chance' which is the basis of your theory as absolutely impossible, based on the biological design I find:

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge the case for design, but you simply do not understand agnosticism. Chance is NOT the basis of my theory. I do not have a theory! I do not believe in chance any more than you do. But for me, chance is on the same level of “impossibility” as an unknown, eternal first-cause immaterial intelligence that can create a material universe out of itself, and as the “rudimentary consciousness” of first-cause materials. Once more: I cannot believe in any of these three explanations, and so I remain agnostic.

DAVID: I guess I need to find reasonable answers, and you just wonder.

You have admitted time and again that your particular answer requires a leap of faith (not reason). The same applies to all the answers, although many atheists fail to admit it. In my view, none of the answers are any more or any less reasonable than the others.

DAVID: From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.

dhw: Natural selection is simple common sense: nature will see to it that whatever is useful is likely to survive, and if something is not useful, it is likely to die out. You accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and common descent, and you reject his methodology of chance mutations and gradual refinement. So do I. You propose divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling as the methodology, and Shapiro proposes “natural genetic engineering”, which is the theory we have been discussing. I like it. You don’t. Your hatred of Darwin is a red herring.

DAVID: Common sense natural selection is a tautology called survival of the fittest.

That does not invalidate it as an explanation of part of the process of speciation.

DAVID: I have never hated Darwin, besides his racism, which I wonder if your recognize it. I only hate his unreasoning current followers And their stupid persistence.

I don’t know why you insist on constantly changing the subject to Darwin. Look at the heading of this thread. You brought him in on the pretence that Shapiro’s research “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory” – and I pointed out that it didn’t. If you wish to start another thread on the subject of Darwin (and the accusation that he was “racist”, which was demolished to your satisfaction some years ago under “Darwinism and atheism”), feel free.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 00:48 (5 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I guess I need to find reasonable answers, and you just wonder.


dhw: You have admitted time and again that your particular answer requires a leap of faith (not reason). The same applies to all the answers, although many atheists fail to admit it. In my view, none of the answers are any more or any less reasonable than the others.

I know.


DAVID: From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.

dhw: Natural selection is simple common sense: nature will see to it that whatever is useful is likely to survive, and if something is not useful, it is likely to die out. You accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and common descent, and you reject his methodology of chance mutations and gradual refinement. So do I. You propose divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling as the methodology, and Shapiro proposes “natural genetic engineering”, which is the theory we have been discussing. I like it. You don’t. Your hatred of Darwin is a red herring.

DAVID: Common sense natural selection is a tautology called survival of the fittest.

That does not invalidate it as an explanation of part of the process of speciation.

DAVID: I have never hated Darwin, besides his racism, which I wonder if your recognize it. I only hate his unreasoning current followers And their stupid persistence.

dhw: I don’t know why you insist on constantly changing the subject to Darwin. Look at the heading of this thread. You brought him in on the pretence that Shapiro’s research “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory” – and I pointed out that it didn’t. If you wish to start another thread on the subject of Darwin (and the accusation that he was “racist”, which was demolished to your satisfaction some years ago under “Darwinism and atheism”), feel free.

My fight is with unthinking Darwinists. During Darwin's time many of his contemporaries fully disagreed with him with arguments I use.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 10:51 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have never hated Darwin, besides his racism, which I wonder if your recognize it. I only hate his unreasoning current followers And their stupid persistence.

dhw: I don’t know why you insist on constantly changing the subject to Darwin. Look at the heading of this thread. You brought him in on the pretence that Shapiro’s research “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory” – and I pointed out that it didn’t. If you wish to start another thread on the subject of Darwin (and the accusation that he was “racist”, which was demolished to your satisfaction some years ago under “Darwinism and atheism”), feel free.

DAVID: My fight is with unthinking Darwinists. During Darwin's time many of his contemporaries fully disagreed with him with arguments I use.

I have pointed that out many times. This website arose out of my own critique of what I consider to be Dawkins’ “unthinking Darwinism”. However, there is no need to bring that into every thread, and it is no excuse for repeating personal attacks on Darwin himself, as you have done with your racist slur.

Transferred from “Evolutionary Innovations”:
DAVID: Shapiro did fabulous work. He is a wonderful scientist. You have made him 'poor' by what I think is misusing his theories, and you haven't read the book, only reviews.

dhw: You have quoted him abundantly in your own book, and his theory is that “living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…”, they “have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics”, and “evolutionary novelty arises from the prosecution of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”. That IS his theory. How am I misusing it?

DAVID: As I have over the years my concepts have altered. I should have emphasized that his work on bacteria was something he tried to extrapolate to further understanding of the genetic role in further evolution/speciation. He was not discussing the everyday function of multicellular cells.

He was formulating the above theory which I have repeated, and I have asked you how I have misused his theory.

DAVID: you have grabbed and run with his theories when I don't think from my readings of his articles that he would agree with your conclusions.

I have quoted his conclusions, which you reproduced in your book, and they exactly express my own theory. Since I agree with him, please tell me which of my conclusions he would disagree with.

DAVID: We do know that in multicellular organisms, stem cells adjust DNA to make many different functioning styles of cells with different jobs. This is an exact replica of what bacteria do and therefore they are a forerunner of that stem cell ability! And that may be all that Shapiro has shown. That is not in any way the solution to the problem of speciation.

dhw: It is a theory concerning how speciation may have occurred. If it’s true, it solves the problem. […]

DAVID: I'll continue: the chemical signals represent information/instructions, not thought in design or planning design. Cell A might ask cell B to produce something which B knows how to do from the instructions it carries.

Yes, that is your prejudiced conclusion, though you agree that cellular intelligence has a 50/50 chance of being correct.

DAVID: You made no comment about my idea that stem cells might represent Shapiro's bacterial work as part of how evolution produced complexity in organisms.

This is a brand new topic, and I am all ears (see “Mammalian pregnancy”).

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 01:02 (4 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My fight is with unthinking Darwinists. During Darwin's time many of his contemporaries fully disagreed with him with arguments I use.

dhw: I have pointed that out many times. This website arose out of my own critique of what I consider to be Dawkins’ “unthinking Darwinism”. However, there is no need to bring that into every thread, and it is no excuse for repeating personal attacks on Darwin himself, as you have done with your racist slur.

Darwin thought Africans were inferior. Perhaps that was OK in his time. It is claimed that Nazi racial cleansing was based in his works, which isn't his fault.


Transferred from “Evolutionary Innovations”:
DAVID: Shapiro did fabulous work. He is a wonderful scientist. You have made him 'poor' by what I think is misusing his theories, and you haven't read the book, only reviews.

dhw: You have quoted him abundantly in your own book, and his theory is that “living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…”, they “have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics”, and “evolutionary novelty arises from the prosecution of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”. That IS his theory. How am I misusing it?

DAVID: As I have over the years my concepts have altered. I should have emphasized that his work on bacteria was something he tried to extrapolate to further understanding of the genetic role in further evolution/speciation. He was not discussing the everyday function of multicellular cells.

dhw: He was formulating the above theory which I have repeated, and I have asked you how I have misused his theory.

DAVID: you have grabbed and run with his theories when I don't think from my readings of his articles that he would agree with your conclusions.

dhw: I have quoted his conclusions, which you reproduced in your book, and they exactly express my own theory. Since I agree with him, please tell me which of my conclusions he would disagree with.

You have applied it to multicellular organisms and claim cells in those organisms can design future advanced forms. Shapiro never went that far, so you have bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution.


DAVID: We do know that in multicellular organisms, stem cells adjust DNA to make many different functioning styles of cells with different jobs. This is an exact replica of what bacteria do and therefore they are a forerunner of that stem cell ability! And that may be all that Shapiro has shown. That is not in any way the solution to the problem of speciation.

dhw: It is a theory concerning how speciation may have occurred. If it’s true, it solves the problem. […]

DAVID: I'll continue: the chemical signals represent information/instructions, not thought in design or planning design. Cell A might ask cell B to produce something which B knows how to do from the instructions it carries.

dhw: Yes, that is your prejudiced conclusion, though you agree that cellular intelligence has a 50/50 chance of being correct.

50/50 is the probability I have presented, which is what the evidence allows so far. Thus it is open to interpretation using other points in living biochemistry, since all we ever see is exchanging info through a series of expressed proteins with the desired results to keep life going.


DAVID: You made no comment about my idea that stem cells might represent Shapiro's bacterial work as part of how evolution produced complexity in organisms.

dhw: This is a brand new topic, and I am all ears (see “Mammalian pregnancy”).

I'll look around. It is a promising subject.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 12:29 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My fight is with unthinking Darwinists. During Darwin's time many of his contemporaries fully disagreed with him with arguments I use.

dhw: I have pointed that out many times. This website arose out of my own critique of what I consider to be Dawkins’ “unthinking Darwinism”. However, there is no need to bring that into every thread, and it is no excuse for repeating personal attacks on Darwin himself, as you have done with your racist slur.

DAVID: Darwin thought Africans were inferior. Perhaps that was OK in his time. It is claimed that Nazi racial cleansing was based in his works, which isn't his fault.

I have found the thread on which this vicious slur was demolished: November 10 2012, under “Darwin and atheism”. It ended with your comment: “Thank you for this interpretation. I am educated.” You have forgotten your education. Here is another more recent demolition drawing on the same material. But I do wish you wouldn’t allow your obsessive antipathy towards Darwin and Darwinism to keep sidetracking us. (You have done the same on the thread concerning dark energy, which again has nothing to do with Darwinism.)

Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism ...
https://www.skeptical-science.com/people/darwin-racist-evolution-promote-racism-darwin...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Shapiro did fabulous work. He is a wonderful scientist. You have made him 'poor' by what I think is misusing his theories, and you haven't read the book, only reviews.

dhw: You have quoted him abundantly in your own book, and his theory is that “living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…”, they “have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics”, and “evolutionary novelty arises from the prosecution of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”. That IS his theory. How am I misusing it?

DAVID: you have grabbed and run with his theories when I don't think from my readings of his articles that he would agree with your conclusions.

dhw: I have quoted his conclusions, which you reproduced in your book, and they exactly express my own theory. Since I agree with him, please tell me which of my conclusions he would disagree with.

DAVID: You have applied it to multicellular organisms and claim cells in those organisms can design future advanced forms. Shapiro never went that far, so you have bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution.

I have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms”, and I see nothing in the above quotes about such forms. Over and over again I have stressed that the designs are IN RESPONSE to environmental changes, not in anticipation of them. The crystal ball is part of your own theory. Please note that Shapiro includes “multicellular structures”, and please tell me which of my conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: I'll continue: the chemical signals represent information/instructions, not thought in design or planning design. Cell A might ask cell B to produce something which B knows how to do from the instructions it carries.

dhw: Yes, that is your prejudiced conclusion, though you agree that cellular intelligence has a 50/50 chance of being correct.

DAVID: 50/50 is the probability I have presented, which is what the evidence allows so far. Thus it is open to interpretation using other points in living biochemistry, since all we ever see is exchanging info through a series of expressed proteins with the desired results to keep life going.

In other words, the intelligent behaviour of cells may be caused by your God’s instructions or by their own intelligence.

DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 16:02 (3 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My fight is with unthinking Darwinists. During Darwin's time many of his contemporaries fully disagreed with him with arguments I use.

dhw: I have pointed that out many times. This website arose out of my own critique of what I consider to be Dawkins’ “unthinking Darwinism”. However, there is no need to bring that into every thread, and it is no excuse for repeating personal attacks on Darwin himself, as you have done with your racist slur.

DAVID: Darwin thought Africans were inferior. Perhaps that was OK in his time. It is claimed that Nazi racial cleansing was based in his works, which isn't his fault.

dhw:I have found the thread on which this vicious slur was demolished: November 10 2012, under “Darwin and atheism”. It ended with your comment: “Thank you for this interpretation. I am educated.” You have forgotten your education. Here is another more recent demolition drawing on the same material. But I do wish you wouldn’t allow your obsessive antipathy towards Darwin and Darwinism to keep sidetracking us. (You have done the same on the thread concerning dark energy, which again has nothing to do with Darwinism.)

Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism ...
https://www.skeptical-science.com/people/darwin-racist-evolution-promote-racism-darwin...

I am denied access to that site. From my memory I remember my comment about being educated but cannot remember the context. Obviously evolution does not promote racism, but Darwin's views were used to promote racism, but then Darwin is misused by his ardent followers.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Shapiro did fabulous work. He is a wonderful scientist. You have made him 'poor' by what I think is misusing his theories, and you haven't read the book, only reviews.

dhw: You have quoted him abundantly in your own book, and his theory is that “living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…”, they “have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics”, and “evolutionary novelty arises from the prosecution of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”. That IS his theory. How am I misusing it?

DAVID: you have grabbed and run with his theories when I don't think from my readings of his articles that he would agree with your conclusions.

dhw: I have quoted his conclusions, which you reproduced in your book, and they exactly express my own theory. Since I agree with him, please tell me which of my conclusions he would disagree with.

DAVID: You have applied it to multicellular organisms and claim cells in those organisms can design future advanced forms. Shapiro never went that far, so you have bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution.

dhw: I have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms”, and I see nothing in the above quotes about such forms. Over and over again I have stressed that the designs are IN RESPONSE to environmental changes, not in anticipation of them. The crystal ball is part of your own theory. Please note that Shapiro includes “multicellular structures”, and please tell me which of my conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

If designs are in response to 'environmental changes' and some may be, it is you who keep implying that cells communicate and create those responses, which are new designs, which is speciation. So if you "have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms"" the designs must appear by magic or by a different process, and all we know of currently is minor adaptability within species. So your have no theory, and 'environment drives it' does not in any way tell us anything about how it might have happened. Only a driver. As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.


DAVID: I'll continue: the chemical signals represent information/instructions, not thought in design or planning design. Cell A might ask cell B to produce something which B knows how to do from the instructions it carries.

dhw: Yes, that is your prejudiced conclusion, though you agree that cellular intelligence has a 50/50 chance of being correct.

DAVID: 50/50 is the probability I have presented, which is what the evidence allows so far. Thus it is open to interpretation using other points in living biochemistry, since all we ever see is exchanging info through a series of expressed proteins with the desired results to keep life going.

dhw: In other words, the intelligent behaviour of cells may be caused by your God’s instructions or by their own intelligence.

Exactly. Take your choice.


DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

d hw: Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

Multicellular organisms can adapt.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Thursday, December 05, 2019, 10:26 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Shapiro did fabulous work. He is a wonderful scientist. You have made him 'poor' by what I think is misusing his theories, and you haven't read the book, only reviews.

dhw: You have quoted him abundantly in your own book, and his theory is that “living cells are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…”, they “have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics”, and “evolutionary novelty arises from the prosecution of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”. That IS his theory. How am I misusing it?
[...]
DAVID: You have applied it to multicellular organisms and claim cells in those organisms can design future advanced forms. Shapiro never went that far, so you have bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution.

dhw: I have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms”, and I see nothing in the above quotes about such forms. Over and over again I have stressed that the designs are IN RESPONSE to environmental changes, not in anticipation of them. The crystal ball is part of your own theory. Please note that Shapiro includes “multicellular structures”, and please tell me which of my conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: If designs are in response to 'environmental changes' and some may be, it is you who keep implying that cells communicate and create those responses, which are new designs, which is speciation.

That is precisely Shapiro’s theory as summarized in the bolded quotes above, and it exactly mirrors my own proposal. He also specifies that the innovative processes “respond to stimuli that place the core organism objectives of survival, growth and proliferation in peril…primarily at times of major ecological disruption.” (That = environmental changes.)

DAVID: So if you "have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms"" the designs must appear by magic or by a different process, and all we know of currently is minor adaptability within species. So your have no theory, and 'environment drives it' does not in any way tell us anything about how it might have happened. Only a driver.

There is no magic, and there is no different process. When conditions change, we know some organisms die and others adapt. Adaptation means making changes to the structure of the cells. Innovation also means making changes to the structure of the cells. We do not know how these changes occur: your theory is that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single one; Shapiro argues that the cells are intelligent enough to make the changes themselves, and this is also my proposal. Environmental change is the stimulus or trigger, and adaptation and innovation are the response, only we do not have proof that the process extends as far as innovation, which is why the proposal is a theory and not a fact. Now please tell me which of these conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.

Thank you. That at last puts paid to your claim that his theory is based only on his research into bacteria.

DAVID: 50/50 is the probability I have presented, which is what the evidence allows so far. Thus it is open to interpretation using other points in living biochemistry, since all we ever see is exchanging info through a series of expressed proteins with the desired results to keep life going.

dhw: In other words, the intelligent behaviour of cells may be caused by your God’s instructions or by their own intelligence.

DAVID: Exactly. Take your choice.

Or keep an open mind.

DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

dhw: Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

DAVID: Multicellular organisms can adapt.

I know. But my friend David has generously agreed that bacteria (single cells) can be inventive, and so it is perfectly logical to argue that when single cells combine with other single cells into multicellularity, they may continue to be inventive. Hallelujah!

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 05, 2019, 16:02 (2 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms”, and I see nothing in the above quotes about such forms. Over and over again I have stressed that the designs are IN RESPONSE to environmental changes, not in anticipation of them. The crystal ball is part of your own theory. Please note that Shapiro includes “multicellular structures”, and please tell me which of my conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: If designs are in response to 'environmental changes' and some may be, it is you who keep implying that cells communicate and create those responses, which are new designs, which is speciation.

dhw: That is precisely Shapiro’s theory as summarized in the bolded quotes above, and it exactly mirrors my own proposal. He also specifies that the innovative processes “respond to stimuli that place the core organism objectives of survival, growth and proliferation in peril…primarily at times of major ecological disruption.” (That = environmental changes.)

I understand that you and he agree upon the influence of environmental changes in causing innovative processes. I also agree at the level of species adaptation, bot that does not tell us how species appear.


DAVID: So if you "have repeatedly denied that cells design “future advanced forms"" the designs must appear by magic or by a different process, and all we know of currently is minor adaptability within species. So your have no theory, and 'environment drives it' does not in any way tell us anything about how it might have happened. Only a driver.

There is no magic, and there is no different process. When conditions change, we know some organisms die and others adapt. Adaptation means making changes to the structure of the cells. Innovation also means making changes to the structure of the cells. We do not know how these changes occur: your theory is that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single one; Shapiro argues that the cells are intelligent enough to make the changes themselves, and this is also my proposal. Environmental change is the stimulus or trigger, and adaptation and innovation are the response, only we do not have proof that the process extends as far as innovation, which is why the proposal is a theory and not a fact. Now please tell me which of these conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

I've disagreed with one of it. We simply do not know how species appear, and I think God does it and aa a designer, because of the complexity of changes required.


DAVID: As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.

dhw: Thank you. That at last puts paid to your claim that his theory is based only on his research into bacteria.

Wrong. The book tries to fit his theory in to current research by referencing supporting findings in current research.


DAVID: 50/50 is the probability I have presented, which is what the evidence allows so far. Thus it is open to interpretation using other points in living biochemistry, since all we ever see is exchanging info through a series of expressed proteins with the desired results to keep life going.

dhw: In other words, the intelligent behaviour of cells may be caused by your God’s instructions or by their own intelligence.

DAVID: Exactly. Take your choice.

dhw: Or keep an open mind.

DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

dhw: Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

DAVID: Multicellular organisms can adapt.

dhw: I know. But my friend David has generously agreed that bacteria (single cells) can be inventive, and so it is perfectly logical to argue that when single cells combine with other single cells into multicellularity, they may continue to be inventive. Hallelujah!

But no proof they can actually design a new species. Designer required.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Friday, December 06, 2019, 13:00 (1 day, 5 hours, 40 min. ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If designs are in response to 'environmental changes' and some may be, it is you who keep implying that cells communicate and create those responses, which are new designs, which is speciation.

dhw: That is precisely Shapiro’s theory as summarized in the bolded quotes above, and it exactly mirrors my own proposal. He also specifies that the innovative processes “respond to stimuli that place the core organism objectives of survival, growth and proliferation in peril…primarily at times of major ecological disruption.” (That = environmental changes.)

DAVID: I understand that you and he agree upon the influence of environmental changes in causing innovative processes. I also agree at the level of species adaptation, but that does not tell us how species appear.

This is his (and my) THEORY about how new species appear, just as divine preprogramming and or dabbling is your THEORY about how new species appear.

dhw: Now please tell me which of these conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: I've disagreed with one of it. We simply do not know how species appear, and I think God does it and aa a designer, because of the complexity of changes required.

That is you disagreeing with Shapiro and me. You had accused me of “misusing his theories”, said I had “bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution” and you did not think “he would agree with your conclusions”. May I take it you have now withdrawn these remarks?

DAVID: As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.

dhw: Thank you. That at last puts paid to your claim that his theory is based only on his research into bacteria.

DAVID: Wrong. The book tries to fit his theory in to current research by referencing supporting findings in current research.

In other words, he refers to findings in current research that support his theory, and his theory is NOT based only on his research into bacteria. You are arguing for the sake of arguing!

DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

dhw: Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

DAVID: Multicellular organisms can adapt.

dhw: I know. But my friend David has generously agreed that bacteria (single cells) can be
inventive, and so it is perfectly logical to argue that when single cells combine with other single cells into multicellularity, they may continue to be inventive. Hallelujah!

DAVID: But no proof they can actually design a new species. Designer required.

Back you go to “no proof”. Once more: if a theory was proven, it would become a fact. Your observation that single cells can be inventive supports the THEORY that multiple cells may also be inventive.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Friday, December 06, 2019, 14:16 (1 day, 4 hours, 24 min. ago) @ dhw

dhw: Now please tell me which of these conclusions Shapiro would disagree with.

DAVID: I've disagreed with one of it. We simply do not know how species appear, and I think God does it and aa a designer, because of the complexity of changes required.

dhw: That is you disagreeing with Shapiro and me. You had accused me of “misusing his theories”, said I had “bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution” and you did not think “he would agree with your conclusions”. May I take it you have now withdrawn these remarks?

I'll stick with this:


DAVID: As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.

dhw: Thank you. That at last puts paid to your claim that his theory is based only on his research into bacteria.

DAVID: Wrong. The book tries to fit his theory in to current research by referencing supporting findings in current research.

dhw: In other words, he refers to findings in current research that support his theory, and his theory is NOT based only on his research into bacteria. You are arguing for the sake of arguing!

OF course his theory is based on his bacterial work. The other references try to show how his theory might fit into evotionaary studis in how speciation works. All theories do that.


DAVID (under “pathogenic bacteria”): S protein is a great tool for Strep on the attack. That bacteria can be this inventive supports Shapiro's findings.

dhw: Thank you for this article and your comment. The inventiveness of single-celled organisms ties in very neatly with the proposal that multicellular organisms may also be inventive.

DAVID: Multicellular organisms can adapt.

dhw: I know. But my friend David has generously agreed that bacteria (single cells) can be
inventive, and so it is perfectly logical to argue that when single cells combine with other single cells into multicellularity, they may continue to be inventive. Hallelujah!

DAVID: But no proof they can actually design a new species. Designer required.

dhw: Back you go to “no proof”. Once more: if a theory was proven, it would become a fact. Your observation that single cells can be inventive supports the THEORY that multiple cells may also be inventive.

I'm as clear as you and Shapiro are that multicellular organisms can adapt to current changes. All I'm pointing out is that doesn't seem to lead to speciation, which was Darwin's idea. I repeat it obviously requires design for the new complexity. Since you cannot accept a designer, you look hopefully to magic cells to do it without Him. Or you give a sop to theism by offering that God made intelligent cells doing it on their own. All a game on your part. Either way God is in charge.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by dhw, Saturday, December 07, 2019, 10:32 (8 hours, 8 minutes ago) @ David Turell

dhw (re Shapiro): You had accused me of “misusing his theories”, said I had “bastardized his contribution to research in the process of evolution” and you did not think “he would agree with your conclusions”. May I take it you have now withdrawn these remarks?

DAVID: I'll stick with this:
DAVID: As for Shapiro I have noted he used a large portion of his book to bring up multicellular research that fit his theory.

dhw: Thank you. That at last puts paid to your claim that his theory is based only on his research into bacteria.

DAVID: Wrong. The book tries to fit his theory in to current research by referencing supporting findings in current research.

dhw: In other words, he refers to findings in current research that support his theory, and his theory is NOT based only on his research into bacteria. You are arguing for the sake of arguing!

DAVID: OF course his theory is based on his bacterial work. The other references try to show how his theory might fit into evotionaary studis in how speciation works. All theories do that.

So (a) I have not misused or bastardized his theories, and you can’t think of any of my conclusions that he would disagree with, and b) since he uses current research on multicellularity to support his theory of speciation, it is not true to say that his theory of speciation is based solely on his research into bacteria.

dhw: …my friend David has generously agreed that bacteria (single cells) can be inventive, and so it is perfectly logical to argue that when single cells combine with other single cells into multicellularity, they may continue to be inventive. Hallelujah!

DAVID: But no proof they can actually design a new species. Designer required.

dhw: Back you go to “no proof”. Once more: if a theory was proven, it would become a fact. Your observation that single cells can be inventive supports the THEORY that multiple cells may also be inventive.

DAVID: I'm as clear as you and Shapiro are that multicellular organisms can adapt to current changes. All I'm pointing out is that doesn't seem to lead to speciation, which was Darwin's idea.

I do not recall Darwin ever mentioning cellular intelligence as the mechanism for evolutionary innovation. Yes, we know that cells and cell communities adapt, and you are merely pointing out that you don’t believe they can innovate, whereas Shapiro’s theory is that they can.

DAVID: I repeat it obviously requires design for the new complexity. Since you cannot accept a designer, you look hopefully to magic cells to do it without Him. Or you give a sop to theism by offering that God made intelligent cells doing it on their own. All a game on your part. Either way God is in charge.

And now you scoot back to your own beliefs, refusing to accept the possibility that your God might have had a different purpose and method from those that you believe in. No, cellular intelligence designed by God is not a “sop” to theism. (You have told us that Shapiro is a practising Jew. As an agnostic, I never exclude the possibility of a God.) Nor is it a game. But yes, either way, if God exists he is in charge. My theistic proposal is that his decision was to design autonomous cellular intelligence in order to give evolution free rein (with the freedom to dabble). Your decision is that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation throughout life’s history for the sole purpose of creating us. See “David’s theory of evolution” for your own verdict on the illogicality of your theory.

David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 07, 2019, 17:17 (1 hours, 23 minutes ago) @ dhw

DAVID: OF course his theory is based on his bacterial work. The other references try to show how his theory might fit into evotionaary studis in how speciation works. All theories do that.

dhw: So (a) I have not misused or bastardized his theories, and you can’t think of any of my conclusions that he would disagree with, and b) since he uses current research on multicellularity to support his theory of speciation, it is not true to say that his theory of speciation is based solely on his research into bacteria.

If Shapiro tries to use his findings on bacteria to look for some way for speciation to occur, he is attaching his findings to current research he has not done. Of course you have bastardized his theories by deciding cells are so intelligent they can invent new species.


DAVID: I'm as clear as you and Shapiro are that multicellular organisms can adapt to current changes. All I'm pointing out is that doesn't seem to lead to speciation, which was Darwin's idea.

dhw: I do not recall Darwin ever mentioning cellular intelligence as the mechanism for evolutionary innovation. Yes, we know that cells and cell communities adapt, and you are merely pointing out that you don’t believe they can innovate, whereas Shapiro’s theory is that they can.

Darwin said itty-bitty adaptations would lead to new species. Why do you persist in reinterpreting what I plainly write? Shapiro's theory says he MIGHT be showing a way to understand speciation in a more completely understandable way. Cells' ability to manipulate DNA is merely a clue as to the process. Stem cells do act like he describes, but the change has to happen in germ cells for a difference in future forms to happen.


DAVID: I repeat it obviously requires design for the new complexity. Since you cannot accept a designer, you look hopefully to magic cells to do it without Him. Or you give a sop to theism by offering that God made intelligent cells doing it on their own. All a game on your part. Either way God is in charge.

dhw: And now you scoot back to your own beliefs, refusing to accept the possibility that your God might have had a different purpose and method from those that you believe in. No, cellular intelligence designed by God is not a “sop” to theism. (You have told us that Shapiro is a practising Jew. As an agnostic, I never exclude the possibility of a God.) Nor is it a game. But yes, either way, if God exists he is in charge. My theistic proposal is that his decision was to design autonomous cellular intelligence in order to give evolution free rein (with the freedom to dabble). Your decision is that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation throughout life’s history for the sole purpose of creating us. See “David’s theory of evolution” for your own verdict on the illogicality of your theory.

I've commented on my view of God in the other thread.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Sunday, November 10, 2019, 13:28 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You still fail to see adaptation is not speciation. Gould's gaps are real.

dhw: I keep repeating that nobody knows how speciation comes about, but adaptation gives us a clue as to a possible and perfectly logical explanation, as illustrated by the whale. The gaps become less of a problem if you accept the idea that intelligent cells (as opposed to random mutations) are responsible for designing responses to changing conditions. We know that in some (though not all) cases, adaptation has to be swift to ensure survival.

DAVID: Whale gaps are huge, and swift adaptations are still not speciation. You are grasping at straws.

You keep ignoring the point that adaptation, whether fast or slow (whale adaptations/innovations were in slow stages) illustrates the fact that organisms change by RESPONDING to changing conditions, not in advance of them, and my proposal is that the same mechanism may be responsible for major changes as well as minor. I regard this as a more solid straw than your millions of 3.8-billion-year-old, divine computer programmes for speciation, plus lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders.

dhw: Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that [..] he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take.

DAVID: The bold is the only logical part of your statement. The rest wants a humanized God.

dhw: The rest is a summary of your theory, which you tell us is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, and your flaccid “humanizing” complaint is countered by your own agreement that your God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: But we do not know if God thinks like you do. All supposition. History presents the facts.

Not supposition, but one of several possibilities, all of which are humanly logical, whereas your own fixed belief, in your words, is only logical “if we do not apply human logic to the facts of history”!


DAVID: Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.
dhw: Of course it is. Only you happened to create a pretty silly form of it: apes with human legs mated with ape-legged apes to produce early hominins! I’d have thought apes with human legs were the hominin ancestors, whereas apes with ape legs would not contribute anything new at all to the human lineage.

DAVID: Silly. Remember something has to be the in between model!

Of course it does. So how can the offspring of human-legged apes and ordinary apes provide anything more “in between” than apes with human legs?

DAVID: Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.

dhw: […] you should have understood by now that in my hypothesis the new body abilities and forms are designed by the cell communities, and I accept the possibility that the ability to do this designing may have been given to them by your God – but for reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have designed the mechanism to give them this ability.

DAVID: I've accepted it in the past as an inventive mechanism from God with guidelines. You don't like guidelines as it gives your version of God too much control. Your agnosticism is showing up as usual.

Your guidelines are either 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or private lessons in how to do whatever is to be done. My proposal (theistic version) is that your God gave cells the autonomous ability to do their own designing. Nothing whatsoever to do with my agnosticism, but everything to do with a logical explanation for the great higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, which suggests anything but the single purpose and method you impose on your God, which you admit requires jettisoning all human reasoning.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 10, 2019, 20:08 (27 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Whale gaps are huge, and swift adaptations are still not speciation. You are grasping at straws.

dhw: You keep ignoring the point that adaptation, whether fast or slow (whale adaptations/innovations were in slow stages) illustrates the fact that organisms change by RESPONDING to changing conditions, not in advance of them, and my proposal is that the same mechanism may be responsible for major changes as well as minor.

Whale adaptations were huge. You cannot downsize them. Look at the series of major changes to refresh your memory. Gould's concept of gaps cannot be ignored. He was a semi-honest Darwinist, shown by the invention of punc-inc, never proven.

dhw: Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that [..] he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take.

DAVID: But we do not know if God thinks like you do. All supposition. History presents the facts.

dhw: Not supposition, but one of several possibilities, all of which are humanly logical, whereas your own fixed belief, in your words, is only logical “if we do not apply human logic to the facts of history”!

History supplies the facts, which can be logically analyzed. You and I differ, since I say that the history is the result of God's actions. You agree that can be true if God is in change and then you deny it, which is your right because you won't accept as God is charge. It is your problem, not mine.


DAVID: Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.
dhw: Of course it is. Only you happened to create a pretty silly form of it: apes with human legs mated with ape-legged apes to produce early hominins! I’d have thought apes with human legs were the hominin ancestors, whereas apes with ape legs would not contribute anything new at all to the human lineage.

DAVID: Silly. Remember something has to be the in between model!

Of course it does. So how can the offspring of human-legged apes and ordinary apes provide anything more “in between” than apes with human legs?

DAVID: Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.

dhw: […] you should have understood by now that in my hypothesis the new body abilities and forms are designed by the cell communities, and I accept the possibility that the ability to do this designing may have been given to them by your God – but for reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have designed the mechanism to give them this ability.

DAVID: I've accepted it in the past as an inventive mechanism from God with guidelines. You don't like guidelines as it gives your version of God too much control. Your agnosticism is showing up as usual.

dhw: Your guidelines are either 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or private lessons in how to do whatever is to be done. My proposal (theistic version) is that your God gave cells the autonomous ability to do their own designing. Nothing whatsoever to do with my agnosticism, but everything to do with a logical explanation for the great higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, which suggests anything but the single purpose and method you impose on your God, which you admit requires jettisoning all human reasoning.

Your usual mantra. The bush is required to supply energy for life to evolve over 3.8 billion years as history shows. Have you forgotten everyone has to eat regularly? No you haven't. You choose to ignore it. God in charge got to his purpose by creating the evolution of life over the time history says it took. Again you humanize God whom you think shouldn't have been so patient. Real history is not illogical.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Monday, November 11, 2019, 10:59 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Whale gaps are huge, and swift adaptations are still not speciation. You are grasping at straws.

dhw: You keep ignoring the point that adaptation, whether fast or slow (whale adaptations/innovations were in slow stages) illustrates the fact that organisms change by RESPONDING to changing conditions, not in advance of them, and my proposal is that the same mechanism may be responsible for major changes as well as minor.

DAVID: Whale adaptations were huge. You cannot downsize them. Look at the series of major changes to refresh your memory. Gould's concept of gaps cannot be ignored. He was a semi-honest Darwinist, shown by the invention of punc-inc, never proven.

Thank you for calling them adaptations. Yes, they are huge, which is why they led to new species. And this is why I keep telling you that it is difficult to draw a borderline between adaptation and innovation, but since we know that minor adaptations occur as responses to new conditions, it is not unreasonable to suppose that major adaptations will follow the same process (as opposed to your God changing legs into flippers before the pre-whale enters the water). Yet again: nobody knows how speciation occurs, and your theory remains just as unproven as any other, so why do you keep trotting that out instead of considering how reasonable each theory might be. Your own unproven theory demands that we jettison humans reasoning altogether!

DAVID: History supplies the facts, which can be logically analyzed. You and I differ, since I say that the history is the result of God's actions.

If God exists, I have no doubt that the history (= the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms) is the result of his actions.

DAVID: You agree that can be true if God is in charge and then you deny it….

I deny that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of his sole purpose being to design H. sapiens, his inexplicable decision (you have "no idea" why he made it) to wait 3.X billion years before fulfilling his sole purpose, and the resultant necessity to design every preceding non-human life form etc, to cover the time he had decided to take – a theory which by your own admission is only logical if “we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history” - your very own words.

DAVID: Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.

dhw: […] you should have understood by now that in my hypothesis the new body abilities and forms are designed by the cell communities […] – but for reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have designed the mechanism to give them this ability.

DAVID: I've accepted it in the past as an inventive mechanism from God with guidelines. You don't like guidelines as it gives your version of God too much control. Your agnosticism is showing up as usual.

dhw: Your guidelines are either 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or private lessons in how to do whatever is to be done. My proposal (theistic version) is that your God gave cells the AUTONOMOUS ability to do their own designing. Nothing whatsoever to do with my agnosticism, but everything to do with a logical explanation for the great higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, which suggests anything but the illogical combination of single purpose and method you impose on your God.

DAVID: Your usual mantra. The bush is required to supply energy for life to evolve over 3.8 billion years as history shows. Have you forgotten everyone has to eat regularly? No you haven't. You choose to ignore it. God in charge got to his purpose by creating the evolution of life over the time history says it took. Again you humanize God whom you think shouldn't have been so patient. Real history is not illogical.

Yes, yes, all life forms require food, and history says it took 3.X billion years for humans to appear, and you know perfectly well that this is not the issue, which yet again I have summarized above in bold (see "I deny…”). You agree that your God “very well could think like us”, and that your theory is illogical by human standards, and of course history (the higgledy-piggledy bush of life) is not illogical – it is your interpretation of it that is illogical by your own (human) admission.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Monday, November 11, 2019, 17:23 (26 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep ignoring the point that adaptation, whether fast or slow (whale adaptations/innovations were in slow stages) illustrates the fact that organisms change by RESPONDING to changing conditions, not in advance of them, and my proposal is that the same mechanism may be responsible for major changes as well as minor.

DAVID: Whale adaptations were huge. You cannot downsize them. Look at the series of major changes to refresh your memory. Gould's concept of gaps cannot be ignored. He was a semi-honest Darwinist, shown by the invention of punc-inc, never proven.

dhw: Thank you for calling them adaptations. Yes, they are huge, which is why they led to new species. And this is why I keep telling you that it is difficult to draw a borderline between adaptation and innovation, but since we know that minor adaptations occur as responses to new conditions, it is not unreasonable to suppose that major adaptations will follow the same process (as opposed to your God changing legs into flippers before the pre-whale enters the water).

The difference is obvious. Species have adaptations and stay the same species. New species imply much larger changes in form and function, requiring design.

dhw: Yet again: nobody knows how speciation occurs, and your theory remains just as unproven as any other, so why do you keep trotting that out instead of considering how reasonable each theory might be. Your own unproven theory demands that we jettison humans reasoning altogether!

Not so. My theories are the result of reasoning from many facts and points of view.


DAVID: History supplies the facts, which can be logically analyzed. You and I differ, since I say that the history is the result of God's actions.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that the history (= the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms) is the result of his actions.

DAVID: You agree that can be true if God is in charge and then you deny it….

dhw: I deny that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of his sole purpose being to design H. sapiens, his inexplicable decision (you have "no idea" why he made it) to wait 3.X billion years before fulfilling his sole purpose, and the resultant necessity to design every preceding non-human life form etc, to cover the time he had decided to take – a theory which by your own admission is only logical if “we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history” - your very own words.

Usual distortion. The bush provides food supply for the time it took. God produced the history.

dhw: Your guidelines are either 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or private lessons in how to do whatever is to be done. My proposal (theistic version) is that your God gave cells the AUTONOMOUS ability to do their own designing. Nothing whatsoever to do with my agnosticism, but everything to do with a logical explanation for the great higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution, which suggests anything but the illogical combination of single purpose and method you impose on your God.

DAVID: Your usual mantra. The bush is required to supply energy for life to evolve over 3.8 billion years as history shows. Have you forgotten everyone has to eat regularly? No you haven't. You choose to ignore it. God in charge got to his purpose by creating the evolution of life over the time history says it took. Again you humanize God whom you think shouldn't have been so patient. Real history is not illogical.

dhw: Yes, yes, all life forms require food, and history says it took 3.X billion years for humans to appear, and you know perfectly well that this is not the issue, which yet again I have summarized above in bold (see "I deny…”). You agree that your God “very well could think like us”, and that your theory is illogical by human standards, and of course history (the higgledy-piggledy bush of life) is not illogical – it is your interpretation of it that is illogical by your own (human) admission.

Distortion as usual. My theory is logical using a logical human brain. I don't humanly analyze God's reasons for His actions. I simply accept the actions. You constantly wonder why He did what He did. That simply leads to your confusion about God.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 08:49 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] since we know that minor adaptations occur as responses to new conditions, it is not unreasonable to suppose that major adaptations will follow the same process (as opposed to your God changing legs into flippers before the pre-whale enters the water).

DAVID: The difference is obvious. Species have adaptations and stay the same species. New species imply much larger changes in form and function, requiring design.

You have also called the larger changes adaptations, which implies your agreement that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between adaptation and innovation (see Talbott post). And I don’t know how often you want me to agree that they require design (design by cellular intelligence is design). Where we disagree is over your theory that your God designed every one in order to keep life going etc. as below in bold:

DAVID: History supplies the facts, which can be logically analyzed. You and I differ, since I say that the history is the result of God's actions.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that the history (= the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms) is the result of his actions.

DAVID: You agree that can be true if God is in charge and then you deny it….

dhw: I deny that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of his sole purpose being to design H. sapiens, his inexplicable decision (you have "no idea" why he made it) to wait 3.X billion years before fulfilling his sole purpose, and the resultant necessity to design every preceding non-human life form etc, to cover the time he had decided to take – a theory which by your own admission is only logical if “we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history” - your very own words.

DAVID: Usual distortion. The bush provides food supply for the time it took. God produced the history.

No distortion. I have reproduced your own theory and have quoted your own words. Why do you now reject your own statements?

dhw: Yes, yes, all life forms require food, and history says it took 3.X billion years for humans to appear, and you know perfectly well that this is not the issue, which yet again I have summarized above in bold (see "I deny…”). You agree that your God “very well could think like us”, and that your theory is illogical by human standards, and of course history (the higgledy-piggledy bush of life) is not illogical – it is your interpretation of it that is illogical by your own (human) admission.

DAVID: Distortion as usual. My theory is logical using a logical human brain.

So why did you say it was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: I don't humanly analyze God's reasons for His actions. I simply accept the actions.

It is you who have claimed that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle etc. That is not “accepting”, it is theorizing. You have also categorically stated that the reason why he specially designed them all was to cover the time he had decided to take over what you claim to be his sole reason for creating life. Theory, not acceptance.

DAVID: You constantly wonder why He did what He did. That simply leads to your confusion about God.

I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history. Why don’t you just agree with your own comment and leave it at that?

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 16:04 (25 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] since we know that minor adaptations occur as responses to new conditions, it is not unreasonable to suppose that major adaptations will follow the same process (as opposed to your God changing legs into flippers before the pre-whale enters the water).

DAVID: History supplies the facts, which can be logically analyzed. You and I differ, since I say that the history is the result of God's actions.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that the history (= the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms) is the result of his actions.

DAVID: You agree that can be true if God is in charge and then you deny it….

dhw: I deny that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of his sole purpose being to design H. sapiens, his inexplicable decision (you have "no idea" why he made it) to wait 3.X billion years before fulfilling his sole purpose, and the resultant necessity to design every preceding non-human life form etc, to cover the time he had decided to take – a theory which by your own admission is only logical if “we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history” - your very own words.

DAVID: Usual distortion. The bush provides food supply for the time it took. God produced the history.

dhw: No distortion. I have reproduced your own theory and have quoted your own words. Why do you now reject your own statements?

You are simply distorting the meanings of my statements taken out of context.


dhw: Yes, yes, all life forms require food, and history says it took 3.X billion years for humans to appear, and you know perfectly well that this is not the issue, which yet again I have summarized above in bold (see "I deny…”). You agree that your God “very well could think like us”, and that your theory is illogical by human standards, and of course history (the higgledy-piggledy bush of life) is not illogical – it is your interpretation of it that is illogical by your own (human) admission.

DAVID: Distortion as usual. My theory is logical using a logical human brain.

dhw: So why did you say it was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

I have applied my own reasoning while not questioning God's, as you constantly attempt to do, with no way to know if your objections to God's methods are true.


DAVID: I don't humanly analyze God's reasons for His actions. I simply accept the actions.

dhw: It is you who have claimed that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle etc. That is not “accepting”, it is theorizing. You have also categorically stated that the reason why he specially designed them all was to cover the time he had decided to take over what you claim to be his sole reason for creating life. Theory, not acceptance.

I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.


DAVID: You constantly wonder why He did what He did. That simply leads to your confusion about God.

dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history. Why don’t you just agree with your own comment and leave it at that?

Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 11:45 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I deny that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of his sole purpose being to design H. sapiens, his inexplicable decision (you have "no idea" why he made it) to wait 3.X billion years before fulfilling his sole purpose, and the resultant necessity to design every preceding non-human life form etc, to cover the time he had decided to take – a theory which by your own admission is only logical if “we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history” - your very own words.

DAVID: Usual distortion. The bush provides food supply for the time it took. God produced the history.

dhw: No distortion. I have reproduced your own theory and have quoted your own words. Why do you now reject your own statements?

DAVID: You are simply distorting the meanings of my statements taken out of context.

Then please explain which of the above bolded statements is a distortion, and tell us what you really meant.

DAVID: My theory is logical using a logical human brain.

dhw: So why did you say it was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: I have applied my own reasoning while not questioning God's, as you constantly attempt to do, with no way to know if your objections to God's methods are true.

I do not question God’s reasoning because even if he exists, none of us can possibly know it. I question YOUR reasoning and your interpretation of his methods, and it is you who admit that your theory is not illogical so long as we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.

As you know perfectly well, I accept the logic of design and a designer, but…as follows:
dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

If your God exists, what he did (the history) was produce the higgledy-piggledy bush. What is illogical is your version of “how” (designing billions of non-human innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc.), combined with your version of “why” (in order to cover the time which, despite being in total charge, he had inexplicably – you have “no idea” why – decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens). You are absolutely right to say that such a theory defies human logic. So once more, do please agree with yourself and let’s move on.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 19:58 (24 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So why did you say it was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: I have applied my own reasoning while not questioning God's, as you constantly attempt to do, with no way to know if your objections to God's methods are true.

I do not question God’s reasoning because even if he exists, none of us can possibly know it. I question YOUR reasoning and your interpretation of his methods, and it is you who admit that your theory is not illogical so long as we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.

As you know perfectly well, I accept the logic of design and a designer, but…as follows:
dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

dhw: If your God exists, what he did (the history) was produce the higgledy-piggledy bush. What is illogical is your version of “how” (designing billions of non-human innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc.), combined with your version of “why” (in order to cover the time which, despite being in total charge, he had inexplicably – you have “no idea” why – decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens). You are absolutely right to say that such a theory defies human logic.

It is you who say my thoughts are illogical and defy human logic. I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 12:39 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.

As you know perfectly well, I accept the logic of design and a designer, but…as follows:
dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

dhw: If your God exists, what he did (the history) was produce the higgledy-piggledy bush. What is illogical is your version of “how” (designing billions of non-human innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc.), combined with your version of “why” (in order to cover the time which, despite being in total charge, he had inexplicably – you have “no idea” why – decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens). You are absolutely right to say that such a theory defies human logic.

DAVID: It is you who say my thoughts are illogical and defy human logic.

Once more, please explain what you meant when, in relation to your theory, you said it was “not illogical if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

DAVID: I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

If God exists, what he did was somehow produce the bush of life. Perfectly logical. No need to quit if that is the extent of your theory. Just forget about the other bits (now bolded) which you have tagged on regarding his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose!

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 19:52 (23 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.

dhw: As you know perfectly well, I accept the logic of design and a designer, but…as follows:
dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

dhw: If your God exists, what he did (the history) was produce the higgledy-piggledy bush. What is illogical is your version of “how” (designing billions of non-human innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc.), combined with your version of “why” (in order to cover the time which, despite being in total charge, he had inexplicably – you have “no idea” why – decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens). You are absolutely right to say that such a theory defies human logic.

DAVID: It is you who say my thoughts are illogical and defy human logic.

dhw: Once more, please explain what you meant when, in relation to your theory, you said it was “not illogical if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

I have been absolutely clear. I do not try to judge God's choices of method. He chose to evolve life on Earth and that was His choice. That can not be debated. What we have debated is the final issue of that evolution which is the importance of the arrival of humans. To Adler and I the arrival of our degree of consciousness is so unusual a result, it demands to be considered as God's work and goal. You chose not to accept that conclusion. That is your prerogative. We cannot remove the divide in our discussion. We simply differ.


DAVID: I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

dhw: If God exists, what he did was somehow produce the bush of life. Perfectly logical. No need to quit if that is the extent of your theory. Just forget about the other bits (now bolded) which you have tagged on regarding his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose!

I have not quit on this point of difference as you can see. I've simply analyzed our difference. As I see it, if you accepted Adler's point, it would make your persistent Agnosticism very untenable. What would also make it untenable would be if you really understood the complexity of living biochemistry as James Tour does. I truly feel the proof, as best as it can be established, lies in an understanding of the physics and biochemistry of living beings, and the inordinate complexity. It absolutely requires a designing mind.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:18 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once more, please explain what you meant when, in relation to your theory, you said it was “not illogical if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

DAVID: I have been absolutely clear. I do not try to judge God's choices of method. He chose to evolve life on Earth and that was His choice. That can not be debated. What we have debated is the final issue of that evolution which is the importance of the arrival of humans. To Adler and I the arrival of our degree of consciousness is so unusual a result, it demands to be considered as God's work and goal. You chose not to accept that conclusion. That is your prerogative. We cannot remove the divide in our discussion. We simply differ.

As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal, he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

DAVID: I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

dhw: If God exists, what he did was somehow produce the bush of life. Perfectly logical. No need to quit if that is the extent of your theory. Just forget about the other bits (now bolded) which you have tagged on regarding his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose!

DAVID: I have not quit on this point of difference as you can see. I've simply analyzed our difference. As I see it, if you accepted Adler's point, it would make your persistent Agnosticism very untenable. What would also make it untenable would be if you really understood the complexity of living biochemistry as James Tour does. I truly feel the proof, as best as it can be established, lies in an understanding of the physics and biochemistry of living beings, and the inordinate complexity. It absolutely requires a designing mind.

And that, as you know perfectly well, is not the subject of our disagreement, which I have now repeated above for the umpteenth time.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Friday, November 15, 2019, 19:22 (22 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Once more, please explain what you meant when, in relation to your theory, you said it was “not illogical if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

DAVID: I have been absolutely clear. I do not try to judge God's choices of method. He chose to evolve life on Earth and that was His choice. That can not be debated. What we have debated is the final issue of that evolution which is the importance of the arrival of humans. To Adler and I the arrival of our degree of consciousness is so unusual a result, it demands to be considered as God's work and goal. You chose not to accept that conclusion. That is your prerogative. We cannot remove the divide in our discussion. We simply differ.

dhw: As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal, he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

Same continuing distortion. I've explained my logic over and over. You accept bits and pieces of my arguments but you pick up quotes taken out of context, and then to you it is not logical. The bold is typical of the distortion. God chose to evolve humans and what you deride is what history tells us is what happened. Simply accept the history as God's choice and it all makes sense. But no, God's choice does not fit your humanized view of God. As a result you persist in refusing to see the logic of my opinion.


DAVID: I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

dhw: If God exists, what he did was somehow produce the bush of life. Perfectly logical. No need to quit if that is the extent of your theory. Just forget about the other bits (now bolded) which you have tagged on regarding his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose!

DAVID: I have not quit on this point of difference as you can see. I've simply analyzed our difference. As I see it, if you accepted Adler's point, it would make your persistent Agnosticism very untenable. What would also make it untenable would be if you really understood the complexity of living biochemistry as James Tour does. I truly feel the proof, as best as it can be established, lies in an understanding of the physics and biochemistry of living beings, and the inordinate complexity. It absolutely requires a designing mind.

dhw: And that, as you know perfectly well, is not the subject of our disagreement, which I have now repeated above for the umpteenth time.

I'm sorry your view of God so illogically humanized. It clouds all of your thinking about God's actions.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 13:55 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal, he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

DAVID: Same continuing distortion. I've explained my logic over and over. You accept bits and pieces of my arguments but you pick up quotes taken out of context, and then to you it is not logical. The bold is typical of the distortion. God chose to evolve humans and what you deride is what history tells us is what happened. Simply accept the history as God's choice and it all makes sense. But no, God's choice does not fit your humanized view of God. As a result you persist in refusing to see the logic of my opinion.

The bold is not taken out of context – the bold IS your theory, and I keep asking you which of these beliefs is a distortion. You never answer. I keep asking you what you were referring to when you told us your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You never answer. History tells us that there has been a vast bush of life and humans are the latest of species to evolve. The bold is your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, and that is what I dispute. Even if you reject the alternatives which I offer and which you have repeatedly accepted as logical, that does not make your theory logical, as you have readily admitted but now deny.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 20:06 (21 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal, he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take[/b]. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

DAVID: Same continuing distortion. I've explained my logic over and over. You accept bits and pieces of my arguments but you pick up quotes taken out of context, and then to you it is not logical. The bold is typical of the distortion. God chose to evolve humans and what you deride is what history tells us is what happened. Simply accept the history as God's choice and it all makes sense. But no, God's choice does not fit your humanized view of God. As a result you persist in refusing to see the logic of my opinion.

dhw: The bold is not taken out of context – the bold IS your theory, and I keep asking you which of these beliefs is a distortion. You never answer. I keep asking you what you were referring to when you told us your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You never answer. History tells us that there has been a vast bush of life and humans are the latest of species to evolve. The bold is your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, and that is what I dispute. Even if you reject the alternatives which I offer and which you have repeatedly accepted as logical, that does not make your theory logical, as you have readily admitted but now deny.

Why I never answer is that the distortions are quite obvious to anyone who would review our discussion .Taken out of context and twisted by inference. The red is Adler's concept theology which I accept fully. Read the book and then complain. The blue covers the point that in my view God chose to use evolution to reach humans with consciousness, the only animals that have it to our degree. Of course I could 'fathom' God's possible reasoning and have done that at your insistence, but I prefer to simply accept his reasoning as to what history tells us. Of course evolution through the bush of life takes time, and of course God would know that in advance, so as you try to imply that He simply filled time, He did not wile away time to help the time pass. He had work to do such as setting up food supply in econiches of the bush of life to cover the time that was necessary to finally reach humans. Start with my premise that God wanted humans to appear and it all makes perfect sense. I'm sorry you cannot see that. But of course, you are insisting we are not His goal, for reasons I do not understand especially in view of this sentence of yours above:

"Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal."

So I deny nothing and am surprised at how your mind works and twists interpretations to fit your own purposes.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Sunday, November 17, 2019, 11:57 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take[/b]. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

DAVID: Why I never answer is that the distortions are quite obvious to anyone who would review our discussion. Taken out of context and twisted by inference. The red is Adler's concept theology which I accept fully. Read the book and then complain.

You are using the same device again. I keep pointing out that your individual beliefs are logical, and it is the COMBINATION of beliefs that doesn’t make sense. I do not dismiss the “goal theory” on its own, and have proposed hypotheses to fit that goal to the historical fact of the higgledy-piggledy bush (experimentation; or possibly a late arrival on his list of purposes).

DAVID: The blue covers the point that in my view God chose to use evolution to reach humans with consciousness, the only animals that have it to our degree. Of course I could 'fathom' God's possible reasoning and have done that at your insistence, but I prefer to simply accept his reasoning as to what history tells us. Of course evolution through the bush of life takes time, and of course God would know that in advance, so as you try to imply that He simply filled time, He did not wile away time to help the time pass. He had work to do such as setting up food supply in econiches of the bush of life to cover the time that was necessary to finally reach humans.

If God exists, then of course he chose to use evolution, but if his one and only purpose was to produce humans, and if as you claim he is always in total charge, you have a problem of logic: why spend 3.X billion years specially designing the higgledy-piggledy non-human bush? Here is your answer: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take." Why did he DECIDE to take all that time? Your answer:"I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.”

DAVID: Start with my premise that God wanted humans to appear and it all makes perfect sense. I'm sorry you cannot see that. But of course, you are insisting we are not His goal…

I am not. I offer various alternatives to fit various goals to the history. When I pointed out that your explanation did not fit the history and was therefore illogical, you replied that it was not illogical “if we not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”. Once more, please explain your comment if you truly believe that the combination of your individual beliefs “makes perfect sense”.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 17, 2019, 19:36 (20 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take[/b]. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

DAVID: Why I never answer is that the distortions are quite obvious to anyone who would review our discussion. Taken out of context and twisted by inference. The red is Adler's concept theology which I accept fully. Read the book and then complain.

dhw: You are using the same device again. I keep pointing out that your individual beliefs are logical, and it is the COMBINATION of beliefs that doesn’t make sense. I do not dismiss the “goal theory” on its own, and have proposed hypotheses to fit that goal to the historical fact of the higgledy-piggledy bush (experimentation; or possibly a late arrival on his list of purposes).

The combination makes sense to me, but not you, for a reason I do not understand. Can you explain why is is clearly illogical, instead of simply declaring it so?


DAVID: The blue covers the point that in my view God chose to use evolution to reach humans with consciousness, the only animals that have it to our degree. Of course I could 'fathom' God's possible reasoning and have done that at your insistence, but I prefer to simply accept his reasoning as to what history tells us. Of course evolution through the bush of life takes time, and of course God would know that in advance, so as you try to imply that He simply filled time, He did not wile away time to help the time pass. He had work to do such as setting up food supply in econiches of the bush of life to cover the time that was necessary to finally reach humans.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he chose to use evolution, but if his one and only purpose was to produce humans, and if as you claim he is always in total charge, you have a problem of logic: why spend 3.X billion years specially designing the higgledy-piggledy non-human bush? Here is your answer: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take." Why did he DECIDE to take all that time? Your answer:"I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.”

It is simple and logical. He chose to evolve humans over the time it took. Accept His choice and there is no logic problem.


DAVID: Start with my premise that God wanted humans to appear and it all makes perfect sense. I'm sorry you cannot see that. But of course, you are insisting we are not His goal…

dhw: I am not. I offer various alternatives to fit various goals to the history. When I pointed out that your explanation did not fit the history and was therefore illogical, you replied that it was not illogical “if we not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”. Once more, please explain your comment if you truly believe that the combination of your individual beliefs “makes perfect sense”.

As above, and please remember I do not questions God's choices of action. then of course God took his time as history of evolution shows.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Monday, November 18, 2019, 08:22 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I keep pointing out that your individual beliefs are logical, and it is the COMBINATION of beliefs that doesn’t make sense. I do not dismiss the “goal theory” on its own, and have proposed hypotheses to fit that goal to the historical fact of the higgledy-piggledy bush (experimentation; or possibly a late arrival on his list of purposes).

DAVID: The combination makes sense to me, but not you, for a reason I do not understand. Can you explain why is is clearly illogical, instead of simply declaring it so?

I have done so many times. If, as you claim, your God is in total charge, and if he has only one purpose (H. sapiens), it is illogical that he should decide NOT to fulfil his sole purpose, and instead design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. in order to “cover the time” (your expression) until he begins to fulfil his sole purpose. You recognized the illogicality when you wrote that this was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

DAVID: It is simple and logical. He chose to evolve humans over the time it took. Accept His choice and there is no logic problem.

In your theory he chose to specially design every single species, lifestyle etc. “over the time it took”. But if his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, it is not logical that he should spend 3.X billion years deliberately not designing H. sapiens (according to you that was his “choice”) – hence your agreement that we mustn’t apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Monday, November 18, 2019, 15:25 (19 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I keep pointing out that your individual beliefs are logical, and it is the COMBINATION of beliefs that doesn’t make sense. I do not dismiss the “goal theory” on its own, and have proposed hypotheses to fit that goal to the historical fact of the higgledy-piggledy bush (experimentation; or possibly a late arrival on his list of purposes).

DAVID: The combination makes sense to me, but not you, for a reason I do not understand. Can you explain why is is clearly illogical, instead of simply declaring it so?

I have done so many times. If, as you claim, your God is in total charge, and if he has only one purpose (H. sapiens), it is illogical that he should decide NOT to fulfil his sole purpose, and instead design billions of non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. in order to “cover the time” (your expression) until he begins to fulfil his sole purpose. You recognized the illogicality when you wrote that this was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

DAVID: It is simple and logical. He chose to evolve humans over the time it took. Accept His choice and there is no logic problem.

dhw: In your theory he chose to specially design every single species, lifestyle etc. “over the time it took”. But if his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, it is not logical that he should spend 3.X billion years deliberately not designing H. sapiens (according to you that was his “choice”) – hence your agreement that we mustn’t apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

Once again you refuse to accept the premise God chose to evolve human over the time it took. You refuse to accept that human reasoning about God. I never consider questioning His choices of action. You do that and it makes the issue your sole problem

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 13:00 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In your theory he chose to specially design every single species, lifestyle etc. “over the time it took”. But if his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, it is not logical that he should spend 3.X billion years deliberately not designing H. sapiens (according to you that was his “choice”) – hence your agreement that we mustn’t apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

DAVID: Once again you refuse to accept the premise God chose to evolve human over the time it took. You refuse to accept that human reasoning about God. I never consider questioning His choices of action. You do that and it makes the issue your sole problem.

If God exists, I accept the premise that he chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever existed, including humans. According to you, he specially designed every one of them. What I refuse to accept is the premise that he did so because although H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, he decided not to fulfil his purpose for a period of 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design all the other species to cover the time which, for no reason you can think of, he had decided to take before turning his attention to humans. And what you never consider questioning is not your God’s “choices of action” but your interpretation of his choices, and you refuse to acknowledge that since your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”, that means your theory IS illogical if we apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 14:29 (18 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In your theory he chose to specially design every single species, lifestyle etc. “over the time it took”. But if his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, it is not logical that he should spend 3.X billion years deliberately not designing H. sapiens (according to you that was his “choice”) – hence your agreement that we mustn’t apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

DAVID: Once again you refuse to accept the premise God chose to evolve human over the time it took. You refuse to accept that human reasoning about God. I never consider questioning His choices of action. You do that and it makes the issue your sole problem.

dhw: If God exists, I accept the premise that he chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever existed, including humans. According to you, he specially designed every one of them. What I refuse to accept is the premise that he did so because although H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, he decided not to fulfil his purpose for a period of 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design all the other species to cover the time which, for no reason you can think of, he had decided to take before turning his attention to humans. And what you never consider questioning is not your God’s “choices of action” but your interpretation of his choices, and you refuse to acknowledge that since your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”, that means your theory IS illogical if we apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

The bolded above is an illogical twist of my conclusion of not trying to judge God's thinking and actions that history presents. I simply accept what God does. And what is wrong with God having humans as an eventual goal of His creation by evolution?

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 11:25 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you refuse to accept the premise God chose to evolve human over the time it took. You refuse to accept that human reasoning about God. I never consider questioning His choices of action. You do that and it makes the issue your sole problem.

dhw: If God exists, I accept the premise that he chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever existed, including humans. According to you, he specially designed every one of them. What I refuse to accept is the premise that he did so because although H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, he decided not to fulfil his purpose for a period of 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design all the other species to cover the time which, for no reason you can think of, he had decided to take before turning his attention to humans. And what you never consider questioning is not your God’s “choices of action” but your interpretation of his choices, and you refuse to acknowledge that since your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”, that means your theory IS illogical if we apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

DAVID: The bolded above is an illogical twist of my conclusion of not trying to judge God's thinking and actions that history presents. I simply accept what God does.

There is no “judgement” – only your insistence on your belief that you know God’s thinking (“All I wanner do is design H. Sapiens”) and his actions (“I’m gonna wait 3.X billion years before I start doin’ it, and so I’m gonna design a few billion non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles an’ natural wonders just to cover the time till I do the only thing I wanner do.”) I will once again provide your exact words if you want me to. The bolded statement above means precisely what it says: this theory is not illogical so long as you do not apply human reason.

DAVID: And what is wrong with God having humans as an eventual goal of His creation by evolution?

Nothing is wrong with it. It is the combination of this one belief with the rest of your beliefs that creates the illogicality you have recognized in the bolded statement.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 19:16 (17 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you refuse to accept the premise God chose to evolve human over the time it took. You refuse to accept that human reasoning about God. I never consider questioning His choices of action. You do that and it makes the issue your sole problem.

dhw: If God exists, I accept the premise that he chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever existed, including humans. According to you, he specially designed every one of them. What I refuse to accept is the premise that he did so because although H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, he decided not to fulfil his purpose for a period of 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design all the other species to cover the time which, for no reason you can think of, he had decided to take before turning his attention to humans. And what you never consider questioning is not your God’s “choices of action” but your interpretation of his choices, and you refuse to acknowledge that since your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”, that means your theory IS illogical if we apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

DAVID: The bolded above is an illogical twist of my conclusion of not trying to judge God's thinking and actions that history presents. I simply accept what God does.

dhw: There is no “judgement” – only your insistence on your belief that you know God’s thinking (“All I wanner do is design H. Sapiens”) and his actions (“I’m gonna wait 3.X billion years before I start doin’ it, and so I’m gonna design a few billion non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles an’ natural wonders just to cover the time till I do the only thing I wanner do.”) I will once again provide your exact words if you want me to. The bolded statement above means precisely what it says: this theory is not illogical so long as you do not apply human reason.

We will never solve the illogical conclusions you reach about my thinking. The entire statement in your parentheses is a distortion of my thinking about God. These are your thoughts about how God might think. I don't do that. I've simply assumed with God is charge, He chose to evolve humans over time, exactly as history states. My only positive statements about God's thoughts are He chose to evolve them over time, and they were His end goal. And there are strong positive philosophical points supporting the concept of a goal of humans (ADLER).


DAVID: And what is wrong with God having humans as an eventual goal of His creation by evolution?

dhw: Nothing is wrong with it. It is the combination of this one belief with the rest of your beliefs that creates the illogicality you have recognized in the bolded statement.

You are the sole 'recognizer' of what you think is my illogicality.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Thursday, November 21, 2019, 10:30 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […]you refuse to acknowledge that since your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”, that means your theory IS illogical if we apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

DAVID: The bolded above is an illogical twist of my conclusion of not trying to judge God's thinking and actions that history presents. I simply accept what God does.

dhw: There is no “judgement” – only your insistence on your belief that you know God’s thinking (“All I wanner do is design H. Sapiens”) and his actions (“I’m gonna wait 3.X billion years before I start doin’ it, and so I’m gonna design a few billion non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles an’ natural wonders just to cover the time till I do the only thing I wanner do.”) I will once again provide your exact words if you want me to. The bolded statement above means precisely what it says: this theory is not illogical so long as you do not apply human reason.

DAVID: We will never solve the illogical conclusions you reach about my thinking. The entire statement in your parentheses is a distortion of my thinking about God. These are your thoughts about how God might think. I don't do that. I've simply assumed with God is charge, He chose to evolve humans over time, exactly as history states. My only positive statements about God's thoughts are He chose to evolve them over time, and they were His end goal. And there are strong positive philosophical points supporting the concept of a goal of humans (ADLER).

As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogicalif one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 21, 2019, 19:51 (16 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […]you refuse to acknowledge that since your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history”, that means your theory IS illogical if we apply human reasoning to the facts of history.

DAVID: The bolded above is an illogical twist of my conclusion of not trying to judge God's thinking and actions that history presents. I simply accept what God does.

dhw: There is no “judgement” – only your insistence on your belief that you know God’s thinking (“All I wanner do is design H. Sapiens”) and his actions (“I’m gonna wait 3.X billion years before I start doin’ it, and so I’m gonna design a few billion non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles an’ natural wonders just to cover the time till I do the only thing I wanner do.”) I will once again provide your exact words if you want me to. The bolded statement above means precisely what it says: this theory is not illogical so long as you do not apply human reason.

DAVID: We will never solve the illogical conclusions you reach about my thinking. The entire statement in your parentheses is a distortion of my thinking about God. These are your thoughts about how God might think. I don't do that. I've simply assumed with God is charge, He chose to evolve humans over time, exactly as history states. My only positive statements about God's thoughts are He chose to evolve them over time, and they were His end goal. And there are strong positive philosophical points supporting the concept of a goal of humans (ADLER).

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogicalif one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

Because you chop it up into bits and pieces it becomes illogical to you. God chose the WHOLE process of evolution to do His work. I don't ever try to apply human reason to what I see as God's works. He did what He did. You do not recognize this approach to my faith. Quote what I have written all you want. The above is my thought process.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Friday, November 22, 2019, 09:57 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Because you chop it up into bits and pieces it becomes illogical to you.

It is the combination of the bits and pieces which you agree is illogical when you try to apply it to the actual history.

DAVID: God chose the WHOLE process of evolution to do His work.

If he exists, of course he chose the WHOLE process, which suggests that the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. were not all specially designed as an interim goal to cover the time he had inexplicably chosen to wait before starting to specially design the only thing he wanted to design. I have offered you several alternative theistic explanations for the WHOLE process, and you have agreed they are all logical.

DAVID: I don't ever try to apply human reason to what I see as God's works. He did what He did. You do not recognize this approach to my faith. Quote what I have written all you want. The above is my thought process.

If he exists, of course he did what he did. And you apply human reason to the fact that humans are intellectually superior to other animals and therefore you believe we were his one and only purpose. Not illogical. The problem arises when you try to apply this reasoning to what your God actually did. And then you have no idea why he did it that way, but you have faith in your own fixed beliefs, and attempt to blame me for pointing out the illogicality of what you yourself consider to be illogical by all human standards of logic.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Friday, November 22, 2019, 22:50 (15 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Because you chop it up into bits and pieces it becomes illogical to you.

It is the combination of the bits and pieces which you agree is illogical when you try to apply it to the actual history.

DAVID: God chose the WHOLE process of evolution to do His work.

If he exists, of course he chose the WHOLE process, which suggests that the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. were not all specially designed as an interim goal to cover the time he had inexplicably chosen to wait before starting to specially design the only thing he wanted to design. I have offered you several alternative theistic explanations for the WHOLE process, and you have agreed they are all logical.

DAVID: I don't ever try to apply human reason to what I see as God's works. He did what He did. You do not recognize this approach to my faith. Quote what I have written all you want. The above is my thought process.

dhw: If he exists, of course he did what he did. And you apply human reason to the fact that humans are intellectually superior to other animals and therefore you believe we were his one and only purpose. Not illogical. The problem arises when you try to apply this reasoning to what your God actually did. And then you have no idea why he did it that way, but you have faith in your own fixed beliefs, and attempt to blame me for pointing out the illogicality of what you yourself consider to be illogical by all human standards of logic.

There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical. God did what He did. I don't question His choice of using an evolution method. Our only real dispute, as I view it, is that you do not accept Adler's view and mine that humans were a final goal.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Saturday, November 23, 2019, 10:27 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Because you chop it up into bits and pieces it becomes illogical to you.

dhw: It is the combination of the bits and pieces which you agree is illogical when you try to apply it to the actual history.
[…]
DAVID: I don't ever try to apply human reason to what I see as God's works. He did what He did. […]

dhw: If he exists, of course he did what he did. And you apply human reason to the fact that humans are intellectually superior to other animals and therefore you believe we were his one and only purpose. Not illogical. The problem arises when you try to apply this reasoning to what your God actually did. And then you have no idea why he did it that way, but you […] attempt to blame me for pointing out the illogicality of what you yourself consider to be illogical by all human standards of logic.

DAVID: There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical.

So why do you say that the above theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: God did what He did. I don't question His choice of using an evolution method.

If he exists, nor do I, because I believe evolution happened – the whole higgledy-piggledy bush of it!

DAVID: Our only real dispute, as I view it, is that you do not accept Adler's view and mine that humans were a final goal.

Why do you again say “a” final goal? What other final goals do you envisage? In any case I have bolded my acceptance that the idea of humans being his one and only purpose is NOT illogical (hence the experimentation hypothesis), but it does not make sense when combined with the rest of your fixed beliefs concerning life’s history, as confirmed by your agreement that one cannot apply human reasoning to your theory as a whole.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 23, 2019, 19:18 (14 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Because you chop it up into bits and pieces it becomes illogical to you.

dhw: It is the combination of the bits and pieces which you agree is illogical when you try to apply it to the actual history.
[…]
DAVID: I don't ever try to apply human reason to what I see as God's works. He did what He did. […]

dhw: If he exists, of course he did what he did. And you apply human reason to the fact that humans are intellectually superior to other animals and therefore you believe we were his one and only purpose. Not illogical. The problem arises when you try to apply this reasoning to what your God actually did. And then you have no idea why he did it that way, but you […] attempt to blame me for pointing out the illogicality of what you yourself consider to be illogical by all human standards of logic.

DAVID: There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical.

dhw: So why do you say that the above theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

I don't try 'reasoning' what God might have thought in making His choice to evolve human over the time we know it took. You are the one who tries to look into His thought process. The only true reasoning I have done is conclude, with Adler, humans were His goal.


DAVID: God did what He did. I don't question His choice of using an evolution method.

dhw: If he exists, nor do I, because I believe evolution happened – the whole higgledy-piggledy bush of it!

DAVID: Our only real dispute, as I view it, is that you do not accept Adler's view and mine that humans were a final goal.

dhw: Why do you again say “a” final goal? What other final goals do you envisage? In any case I have bolded my acceptance that the idea of humans being his one and only purpose is NOT illogical (hence the experimentation hypothesis), but it does not make sense when combined with the rest of your fixed beliefs concerning life’s history, as confirmed by your agreement that one cannot apply human reasoning to your theory as a whole.

Once again we cannot apply human reasoning to what God has done. My reasoning has lead me to accept God as the prime mover and humans were His goal, without delving into His reasoning. Of course there were intermediate goals like using the bush of life to set up necessary econiches. As I apply my reasoning to the process of evolution, I have concluded reasonably that God must be in charge. The designs in the biochemistry of life require the mind of a designer.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Sunday, November 24, 2019, 13:36 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As usual, you have left out all the bits of your theory that make it illogical. The missing bits are that your God is always in control, and for 3.X billion years he specially designed billions of non-human life forms as “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take” before starting to “evolve humans over time” – although they were his one and only goal and you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. These are the “positive thoughts” you impose on your God, exactly as I have reproduced them in my parentheses, and you admit that all these beliefs in combination are not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, which can only mean that they ARE illogical if one tries to apply human reasoning to the actual history.[…]

DAVID: There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical.

dhw: So why do you say that the above theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: I don't try 'reasoning' what God might have thought in making His choice to evolve human over the time we know it took. You are the one who tries to look into His thought process. The only true reasoning I have done is conclude, with Adler, humans were His goal.

So your message is that if your theory cannot be applied to the actual history of life, we mustn’t try to understand it. And if anyone offers an alternative theory which can be applied to the actual history, presumably we should ignore it because it's humanly logical. Not the most edifying approach to any issue!

DAVID: Once again we cannot apply human reasoning to what God has done. My reasoning has lead me to accept God as the prime mover and humans were His goal, without delving into His reasoning.

Perfectly acceptable premises until you combine them with the following comment:
DAVID: Of course there were intermediate goals like using the bush of life to set up necessary econiches.

Necessary for what? If he was in total charge and his one and only goal was to design humans, why did he need to specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches? You have no idea, you agree that this theory is illogical by human standards, and so I mustn’t ask such questions.

DAVID: As I apply my reasoning to the process of evolution, I have concluded reasonably that God must be in charge. The designs in the biochemistry of life require the mind of a designer.

No problem with the logic of either statement. Once again, it is the combination of your fixed beliefs which defies all human reason.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 24, 2019, 21:34 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical.

dhw: So why do you say that the above theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: I don't try 'reasoning' what God might have thought in making His choice to evolve human over the time we know it took. You are the one who tries to look into His thought process. The only true reasoning I have done is conclude, with Adler, humans were His goal.

dhw: So your message is that if your theory cannot be applied to the actual history of life, we mustn’t try to understand it. And if anyone offers an alternative theory which can be applied to the actual history, presumably we should ignore it because it's humanly logical. Not the most edifying approach to any issue!

Again a total twist. You try to read God's mind. You and I can't. I fully accept history as God's work. That does not require a theory. I don't buy your theories about God's thoughts, and you do not buy Adler's and my tenor about humans as a goal, because of our most unusual specialness, which you admit and then try to ignore. I guess we are even if not further ahead.


DAVID: Once again we cannot apply human reasoning to what God has done. My reasoning has lead me to accept God as the prime mover and humans were His goal, without delving into His reasoning.

dhw: Perfectly acceptable premises until you combine them with the following comment:
DAVID: Of course there were intermediate goals like using the bush of life to set up necessary econiches.

dhw: Necessary for what? If he was in total charge and his one and only goal was to design humans, why did he need to specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches? You have no idea, you agree that this theory is illogical by human standards, and so I mustn’t ask such questions.

God fully understands the necessity for econiches. You can ask all the questions you want, but your inquires are all illogical. All you have to accept is God chose to evolve humans as history tells us. All aspects of God's work are in full view.


DAVID: As I apply my reasoning to the process of evolution, I have concluded reasonably that God must be in charge. The designs in the biochemistry of life require the mind of a designer.

dhw: No problem with the logic of either statement. Once again, it is the combination of your fixed beliefs which defies all human reason.

Sadly, only your reasoning. You do not understand a belief in God. It accepts the history of what He has done.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Monday, November 25, 2019, 14:06 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There again is your weird twist of my thoughts. I view nothing I think about God as illogical.

dhw: So why do you say that the above theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

DAVID: I don't try 'reasoning' what God might have thought in making His choice to evolve human over the time we know it took. You are the one who tries to look into His thought process. The only true reasoning I have done is conclude, with Adler, humans were His goal.

dhw: So your message is that if your theory cannot be applied to the actual history of life, we mustn’t try to understand it. And if anyone offers an alternative theory which can be applied to the actual history, presumably we should ignore it because it's humanly logical. Not the most edifying approach to any issue!

DAVID: Again a total twist. You try to read God's mind. You and I can't. I fully accept history as God's work. That does not require a theory.

If he exists, of course history is his work! And it is your reading of his purpose and method that constitutes your theory (see below) which now you do not even recognize as a theory!

DAVID: I don't buy your theories about God's thoughts, and you do not buy Adler's and my tenor about humans as a goal, because of our most unusual specialness, which you admit and then try to ignore.

I keep accepting the logic of humans as a goal. I do not accept the logic of your composite theory that God is in total charge and has a single goal (H. sapiens) and yet for some inexplicable reason decided to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling his goal and so had to specially design billions of non-human life forms, econiches etc. to cover the time before he started to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God fully understands the necessity for econiches. You can ask all the questions you want, but your inquires are all illogical. All you have to accept is God chose to evolve humans as history tells us. All aspects of God's work are in full view.

We all understand that balanced econiches are necessary for the survival of organisms. The question is why 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches were necessary for him to fulfil his one and only purpose etc. etc. Yes, the current bush of life is in full view, but according to you, the preceding non-human bush of 3.X billion years is not an illogical result of God’s pursuit of his one and only purpose so long as we do not try to find a logical reason for it.

DAVID: As I apply my reasoning to the process of evolution, I have concluded reasonably that God must be in charge. The designs in the biochemistry of life require the mind of a designer.

dhw: No problem with the logic of either statement. Once again, it is the combination of your fixed beliefs which defies all human reason.

DAVID: Sadly, only your reasoning. You do not understand a belief in God. It accepts the history of what He has done.

I have no problem understanding a belief in God or acceptance of the history (the bush of life), but I can find no logic in a theory which you yourself agree is illogical by human standards if we try to apply it to the history. And I cannot understand why, even though you acknowledge that different alternative theories do fit in logically with the history, these must be ignored because we must accept your illogical interpretation of your God’s thoughts and actions.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 00:53 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again a total twist. You try to read God's mind. You and I can't. I fully accept history as God's work. That does not require a theory.

dhw: If he exists, of course history is his work! And it is your reading of his purpose and method that constitutes your theory (see below) which now you do not even recognize as a theory!

DAVID: I don't buy your theories about God's thoughts, and you do not buy Adler's and my tenor about humans as a goal, because of our most unusual specialness, which you admit and then try to ignore.

dhw: I keep accepting the logic of humans as a goal. I do not accept the logic of your composite theory that God is in total charge and has a single goal (H. sapiens) and yet for some inexplicable reason decided to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling his goal and so had to specially design billions of non-human life forms, econiches etc. to cover the time before he started to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God fully understands the necessity for econiches. You can ask all the questions you want, but your inquires are all illogical. All you have to accept is God chose to evolve humans as history tells us. All aspects of God's work are in full view.

dhw: We all understand that balanced econiches are necessary for the survival of organisms. The question is why 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches were necessary for him to fulfil his one and only purpose etc. etc. Yes, the current bush of life is in full view, but according to you, the preceding non-human bush of 3.X billion years is not an illogical result of God’s pursuit of his one and only purpose so long as we do not try to find a logical reason for it.

Don't you make choices that take time? Your plays and books take lots of time before they appear, played and read. All I've said, it is my belief God chose to evolve humans and took the time to do it that history shows. Why are you so hung up on a delay. Is your version of God supposed to be so impatient, He shouldn't have waited. I interpret you as demanding that God get to humans immediately if not sooner. Does this mean no one but humans are on Earth? How would that work? Talk about illogicality.


DAVID: As I apply my reasoning to the process of evolution, I have concluded reasonably that God must be in charge. The designs in the biochemistry of life require the mind of a designer.

dhw: No problem with the logic of either statement. Once again, it is the combination of your fixed beliefs which defies all human reason.

DAVID: Sadly, only your reasoning. You do not understand a belief in God. It accepts the history of what He has done.

dhw: I have no problem understanding a belief in God or acceptance of the history (the bush of life), but I can find no logic in a theory which you yourself agree is illogical by human standards if we try to apply it to the history. And I cannot understand why, even though you acknowledge that different alternative theories do fit in logically with the history, these must be ignored because we must accept your illogical interpretation of your God’s thoughts and actions.

The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 11:08 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We all understand that balanced econiches are necessary for the survival of organisms. The question is why 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches were necessary for him to fulfil his one and only purpose etc. etc. Yes, the current bush of life is in full view, but according to you, the preceding non-human bush of 3.X billion years is not an illogical result of God’s pursuit of his one and only purpose so long as we do not try to find a logical reason for it.

DAVID: Don't you make choices that take time? Your plays and books take lots of time before they appear, played and read. All I've said, it is my belief God chose to evolve humans and took the time to do it that history shows. Why are you so hung up on a delay. Is your version of God supposed to be so impatient, He shouldn't have waited. I interpret you as demanding that God get to humans immediately if not sooner. Does this mean no one but humans are on Earth? How would that work? Talk about illogicality.

It is perfectly logical to argue that just like us humans, your God would have needed time to fulfil his purpose, which according to you was to create humans and all the conditions that would enable humans to exist. Thank you for “humanizing” him in this way. But no, I am not saying he shouldn’t have waited. I am saying that if he had one purpose and was fully in charge, he WOULDN’T have waited, as you have neatly illustrated by your analogy below.

DAVID: Sadly, only your reasoning. You do not understand a belief in God. It accepts the history of what He has done.

dhw: I have no problem understanding a belief in God or acceptance of the history (the bush of life), but I can find no logic in a theory which you yourself agree is illogical by human standards if we try to apply it to the history. And I cannot understand why, even though you acknowledge that different alternative theories do fit in logically with the history, these must be ignored because we must accept your illogical interpretation of your God’s thoughts and actions.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

If my sole purpose is to write Hamlet, why would I write A Midsummer Night’s Dream plus the rest of the canon? Yes, Hamlet takes time, and I may need to do some research and preparatory work and to fiddle around with my text before I’m satisfied with it, but I am not going to write lots of other plays just to fill in the time until I write the only play I want to write. Thank you for this clear analogy. And still you refuse to tell us why you regard your theory as logical, although it is only logical if you do not apply your human reason to the actual history.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 15:58 (11 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We all understand that balanced econiches are necessary for the survival of organisms. The question is why 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human econiches were necessary for him to fulfil his one and only purpose etc. etc. Yes, the current bush of life is in full view, but according to you, the preceding non-human bush of 3.X billion years is not an illogical result of God’s pursuit of his one and only purpose so long as we do not try to find a logical reason for it.

DAVID: Don't you make choices that take time? Your plays and books take lots of time before they appear, played and read. All I've said, it is my belief God chose to evolve humans and took the time to do it that history shows. Why are you so hung up on a delay. Is your version of God supposed to be so impatient, He shouldn't have waited. I interpret you as demanding that God get to humans immediately if not sooner. Does this mean no one but humans are on Earth? How would that work? Talk about illogicality.

dhw: It is perfectly logical to argue that just like us humans, your God would have needed time to fulfil his purpose, which according to you was to create humans and all the conditions that would enable humans to exist. Thank you for “humanizing” him in this way. But no, I am not saying he shouldn’t have waited. I am saying that if he had one purpose and was fully in charge, he WOULDN’T have waited, as you have neatly illustrated by your analogy below.

You are describing a purpose, that so nagged Him, it was unreasonable to wait. Talk about humanizing! He had every right to take the time He took if He made the choice to evolve us, which history tells us He did.


DAVID: Sadly, only your reasoning. You do not understand a belief in God. It accepts the history of what He has done.

dhw: I have no problem understanding a belief in God or acceptance of the history (the bush of life), but I can find no logic in a theory which you yourself agree is illogical by human standards if we try to apply it to the history. And I cannot understand why, even though you acknowledge that different alternative theories do fit in logically with the history, these must be ignored because we must accept your illogical interpretation of your God’s thoughts and actions.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

dhw: If my sole purpose is to write Hamlet, why would I write A Midsummer Night’s Dream plus the rest of the canon? Yes, Hamlet takes time, and I may need to do some research and preparatory work and to fiddle around with my text before I’m satisfied with it, but I am not going to write lots of other plays just to fill in the time until I write the only play I want to write. Thank you for this clear analogy. And still you refuse to tell us why you regard your theory as logical, although it is only logical if you do not apply your human reason to the actual history.

See above. You are describing an extremely humanized God. Your plays are solo events not related to each other. One play did not evolve from others. They only relate through your brain.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Wednesday, November 27, 2019, 09:04 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It is perfectly logical to argue that just like us humans, your God would have needed time to fulfil his purpose, which according to you was to create humans and all the conditions that would enable humans to exist. Thank you for “humanizing” him in this way. But no, I am not saying he shouldn’t have waited. I am saying that if he had one purpose and was fully in charge, he WOULDN’T have waited, as you have neatly illustrated by your analogy below.

DAVID: You are describing a purpose, that so nagged Him, it was unreasonable to wait. Talk about humanizing! He had every right to take the time He took if He made the choice to evolve us, which history tells us He did.

It is you who emphasize that he had only the one purpose and that his special design of every pre-human innovation, econiche etc. was an “interim goal” just to keep life going before he fulfilled that goal. We are not discussing rights! We are discussing the feasibility of your theory, which by your own admission defies human logic.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

dhw: If my sole purpose is to write Hamlet, why would I write A Midsummer Night’s Dream plus the rest of the canon? Yes, Hamlet takes time, and I may need to do some research and preparatory work and to fiddle around with my text before I’m satisfied with it, but I am not going to write lots of other plays just to fill in the time until I write the only play I want to write. Thank you for this clear analogy.

DAVID: See above. You are describing an extremely humanized God. Your plays are solo events not related to each other. One play did not evolve from others. They only relate through your brain.

Your extremely humanized analogy continues to illustrate the illogicality of your evolutionary theory. Of course the plays are not related to each other – just as 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. are not related to H. sapiens. So if the master playwright’s one purpose was to write Hamlet, why did he write the other unrelated plays? Maybe Hamlet was not his one and only purpose, maybe they were experiments, or maybe the idea for Hamlet only came late on in his career. But no, you reject all such explanations because the master playwright doesn’t experiment and knows what he wants and how to get it, right from the beginning. So why did the playwright write all these other unrelated plays, and why did God design all these unrelated non-humans? Your answer: the theory makes sense so long as we do not apply human logic to the actual history.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 27, 2019, 15:48 (10 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It is perfectly logical to argue that just like us humans, your God would have needed time to fulfil his purpose, which according to you was to create humans and all the conditions that would enable humans to exist. Thank you for “humanizing” him in this way. But no, I am not saying he shouldn’t have waited. I am saying that if he had one purpose and was fully in charge, he WOULDN’T have waited, as you have neatly illustrated by your analogy below.

DAVID: You are describing a purpose, that so nagged Him, it was unreasonable to wait. Talk about humanizing! He had every right to take the time He took if He made the choice to evolve us, which history tells us He did.

It is you who emphasize that he had only the one purpose and that his special design of every pre-human innovation, econiche etc. was an “interim goal” just to keep life going before he fulfilled that goal. We are not discussing rights! We are discussing the feasibility of your theory, which by your own admission defies human logic.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

dhw: If my sole purpose is to write Hamlet, why would I write A Midsummer Night’s Dream plus the rest of the canon? Yes, Hamlet takes time, and I may need to do some research and preparatory work and to fiddle around with my text before I’m satisfied with it, but I am not going to write lots of other plays just to fill in the time until I write the only play I want to write. Thank you for this clear analogy.

DAVID: See above. You are describing an extremely humanized God. Your plays are solo events not related to each other. One play did not evolve from others. They only relate through your brain.

dhw: Your extremely humanized analogy continues to illustrate the illogicality of your evolutionary theory. Of course the plays are not related to each other – just as 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. are not related to H. sapiens. So if the master playwright’s one purpose was to write Hamlet, why did he write the other unrelated plays? Maybe Hamlet was not his one and only purpose, maybe they were experiments, or maybe the idea for Hamlet only came late on in his career. But no, you reject all such explanations because the master playwright doesn’t experiment and knows what he wants and how to get it, right from the beginning. So why did the playwright write all these other unrelated plays, and why did God design all these unrelated non-humans? Your answer: the theory makes sense so long as we do not apply human logic to the actual history.

Human thoughts attempting to reason about God's thoughts remain reasonable guesses. No proof of anything. Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further? I've fully covered my reasoning and it is reasonable as it uses actual history. I've bolded my complaint about your issue of why wait. What is your point. I see no answer.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Thursday, November 28, 2019, 12:11 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are describing an extremely humanized God. Your plays are solo events not related to each other. One play did not evolve from others. They only relate through your brain.

dhw: Your extremely humanized analogy continues to illustrate the illogicality of your evolutionary theory. Of course the plays are not related to each other – just as 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. are not related to H. sapiens. So if the master playwright’s one purpose was to write Hamlet, why did he write the other unrelated plays? Maybe Hamlet was not his one and only purpose, maybe they were experiments, or maybe the idea for Hamlet only came late on in his career. But no, you reject all such explanations because the master playwright doesn’t experiment and knows what he wants and how to get it, right from the beginning. So why did the playwright write all these other unrelated plays, and why did God design all these unrelated non-humans? Your answer: the theory makes sense so long as we do not apply human logic to the actual history.

DAVID: Human thoughts attempting to reason about God's thoughts remain reasonable guesses. No proof of anything.

None of the theories, theistic or atheistic, provide proof of anything. Thank you for again acknowledging the reasonableness of the above theories, in stark contrast to your own, which according to you is not illogical only “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” I understand why you persistently ignore your own judgement, but I’m afraid it won’t go away.

DAVID: Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”

DAVID: I've fully covered my reasoning and it is reasonable as it uses actual history.

According to you, the above theory is only reasonable if it is NOT applied to the actual history.

DAVID: I've bolded my complaint about your issue of why wait. What is your point. I see no answer.

My point is that you reject all the reasonable alternatives to your own theory, although you acknowledge that the latter is unreasonable by human standards.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 28, 2019, 18:47 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Human thoughts attempting to reason about God's thoughts remain reasonable guesses. No proof of anything.

None of the theories, theistic or atheistic, provide proof of anything. Thank you for again acknowledging the reasonableness of the above theories, in stark contrast to your own, which according to you is not illogical only “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” I understand why you persistently ignore your own judgement, but I’m afraid it won’t go away.

DAVID: Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”

The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.


DAVID: I've fully covered my reasoning and it is reasonable as it uses actual history.

dhw: According to you, the above theory is only reasonable if it is NOT applied to the actual history.

Of course it is related exactly to the historical record. Where and how did you conjure up that comment, or is it your usual twisting of the meaning of words in the discussion?


DAVID: I've bolded my complaint about your issue of why wait. What is your point. I see no answer.

dhw: My point is that you reject all the reasonable alternatives to your own theory, although you acknowledge that the latter is unreasonable by human standards.

It is unreasonable to you as you constantly humanize God with your human thinking. That is what I avoid. I take God at His works. You cannot think like God does when He thinks about His purposes.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Friday, November 29, 2019, 10:32 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”

DAVID: The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.

I know what you have “accepted” and “agreed”, and they all go much further than the belief that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us”. Of course your theory fits your decisions, which ARE your theory! But your decisions/theory include a delay which you yourself find inexplicable, and so you tell us that we mustn’t apply human logic to the delay which you have created with your theory. I offer you various alternatives which dispense with the delay altogether or explain it, but although you accept the logic of all those alternatives, you insist that you know how God thinks, so your theory is right.

dhw: According to you, the above theory is only reasonable if it is NOT applied to the actual history.

DAVID: Of course it is related exactly to the historical record. Where and how did you conjure up that comment, or is it your usual twisting of the meaning of words in the discussion?

Yet again: you wrote that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You actually keep telling me to stop thinking like a human being (see below) and although you acknowledge that your God “very well could think like us”, you refuse to accept the possibility that he does. If you believe I have misinterpreted the bold, please tell us exactly what you meant.

DAVID: It is unreasonable to you as you constantly humanize God with your human thinking. That is what I avoid. I take God at His works. You cannot think like God does when He thinks about His purposes.

So what makes you so sure, when you tell us your subjective idea of your God's purpose (only one) and his method of fulfilling it, that you can think like him?

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Friday, November 29, 2019, 20:55 (8 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”

DAVID: The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.

dhw: I know what you have “accepted” and “agreed”, and they all go much further than the belief that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us”. Of course your theory fits your decisions, which ARE your theory! But your decisions/theory include a delay which you yourself find inexplicable, and so you tell us that we mustn’t apply human logic to the delay which you have created with your theory.

Total distortion of what I write as my thinking. I don't 'know' any of God's thoughts, nor why He decided to create humans. I don't try to analyze God's thoughts. I've simply concluded He chose to do things the way history tells us it all happened. I've explained over and over why the delay was necessary to provide food energy. I did not create a delay. We know it happened. Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. The only logic I used involved agreeing with Adler humans were the obvious final goal in which He gifted us with a consciousness that no other organism has. That we arrived is pure fact. Can you explain why it happened?


dhw: According to you, the above theory is only reasonable if it is NOT applied to the actual history.

DAVID: Of course it is related exactly to the historical record. Where and how did you conjure up that comment, or is it your usual twisting of the meaning of words in the discussion?

dhw: Yet again: you wrote that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You actually keep telling me to stop thinking like a human being (see below) and although you acknowledge that your God “very well could think like us”, you refuse to accept the possibility that he does. If you believe I have misinterpreted the bold, please tell us exactly what you meant.

See above. There must be reasoning related to the amazing appearance of us. Read Adler and see it. I feel you give our appearance lip service. I'm sure God thinks as logically as we do, but I cannot know his actual thinking. From what we know I can perceive His purposes, but cannot question His results shown in His works.


DAVID: It is unreasonable to you as you constantly humanize God with your human thinking. That is what I avoid. I take God at His works. You cannot think like God does when He thinks about His purposes.

dhw: So what makes you so sure, when you tell us your subjective idea of your God's purpose (only one) and his method of fulfilling it, that you can think like him?

I don't question His works as evidence of what He did. The 'why' is His reasoning for purposes. I am not privy to those thoughts of His. Tell me why you think God made humans?

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Saturday, November 30, 2019, 13:21 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.

dhw: I know what you have “accepted” and “agreed”, and they all go much further than the belief that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us”. Of course your theory fits your decisions, which ARE your theory! But your decisions/theory include a delay which you yourself find inexplicable, and so you tell us that we mustn’t apply human logic to the delay which you have created with your theory.

DAVID: Total distortion of what I write as my thinking. […] I've explained over and over why the delay was necessary to provide food energy. I did not create a delay.

Of course you created a delay. You argued that his one and only purpose was to create humans, but he decided (your word, not mine) not to fulfil this sole purpose for 3.X billion years. If he had had a different purpose or purposes, or had not been in total charge, the 3.X billion years would not have been a delay!

DAVID: We know it happened. Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason.

But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

dhw: Yet again: you wrote that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You actually keep telling me to stop thinking like a human being (see below) and although you acknowledge that your God “very well could think like us”, you refuse to accept the possibility that he does. If you believe I have misinterpreted the bold, please tell us exactly what you meant.

DAVID: […] I'm sure God thinks as logically as we do, but I cannot know his actual thinking. From what we know I can perceive His purposes, but cannot question His results shown in His works.

You can guess at his purpose (you only allow for one), and neither of us is questioning the results (the bush of all species, including humans as the latest). But you cannot understand what you interpret as his method (summarized above in bold) and reject possible and logical explanations on the grounds that although he may very well think like us, you know he doesn’t. And so you admit that your theory remains inapplicable to the actual history. […]

DAVID: Tell me why you think God made humans?

I asked you the same question some time ago. If he exists, and if he specially designed humans, I could accept your own “humanized” proposals: to admire his works, to have a relationship with him. I would add the equally “humanized” proposal that the whole of life is a spectacle to satisfy his desire to create, thereby filling what would otherwise be an endless and eternal void, and the most fascinating form of creation would be a being that would mirror himself in its ability to think and feel as he does. Of course This has nothing to do with the illogicality of your theory.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 30, 2019, 21:20 (7 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.

dhw: I know what you have “accepted” and “agreed”, ... But your decisions/theory include a delay which you yourself find inexplicable, and so you tell us that we mustn’t apply human logic to the delay which you have created with your theory.

DAVID: I did not create a delay. The time taken is what God chose to do.[/i]

dhw: Of course you created a delay. You argued that his one and only purpose was to create humans, but he decided (your word, not mine) not to fulfil this sole purpose for 3.X billion years. If he had had a different purpose or purposes, or had not been in total charge, the 3.X billion years would not have been a delay!

DAVID: We know it happened. Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. Don't you realize if God chose to create human through a process of evolution it required the time it took. You are totally irrational in your analysis. A purpose does not ever require immediacy, but that is what you are demanding.

dhw: But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

Pure humanizing again. God knows exactly what He is doing.


dhw: Yet again: you wrote that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You actually keep telling me to stop thinking like a human being (see below) and although you acknowledge that your God “very well could think like us”, you refuse to accept the possibility that he does. If you believe I have misinterpreted the bold, please tell us exactly what you meant.

DAVID: […] I'm sure God thinks as logically as we do, but I cannot know his actual thinking. From what we know I can perceive His purposes, but cannot question His results shown in His works.

dhw: You can guess at his purpose (you only allow for one), and neither of us is questioning the results (the bush of all species, including humans as the latest). But you cannot understand what you interpret as his method (summarized above in bold) and reject possible and logical explanations on the grounds that although he may very well think like us, you know he doesn’t. And so you admit that your theory remains inapplicable to the actual history. […]

Actual history tells me What God decided to do, because He is in charge of the history of evolution. You are using your human logic to humanize your view of God.


DAVID: Tell me why you think God made humans?

dhw: I asked you the same question some time ago. If he exists, and if he specially designed humans, I could accept your own “humanized” proposals: to admire his works, to have a relationship with him. I would add the equally “humanized” proposal that the whole of life is a spectacle to satisfy his desire to create, thereby filling what would otherwise be an endless and eternal void, and the most fascinating form of creation would be a being that would mirror himself in its ability to think and feel as he does. Of course This has nothing to do with the illogicality of your theory.

All of those 'purposes' are humanizing, just as you admit my polite responses to your requests from me are humanized reasons. All you and I have done is guess, which does not advance our understanding of His reason and purpose. We both know any of our answers are colored by religious ideas from the past, which I staunchly try to avoid..

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Sunday, December 01, 2019, 08:49 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. […]

dhw: But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

DAVID: Pure humanizing again. God knows exactly what He is doing.

How do you know what God knows? Your God “very well could think like us”, and yet you “know” that he already knows how to create H. sapiens, you “know” his one aim is to create H, sapiens, you “know” he has “good reason” to delay creating H. sapiens – though you have no idea what that reason might be – and so you “know” he has to create billions of non-human lifeforms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, econiches before he starts creating the only thing he wants to create! All of this is pure guesswork, and you admit that it defies human reasoning.

DAVID: Actual history tells me What God decided to do, because He is in charge of the history of evolution. You are using your human logic to humanize your view of God.

Actual history tells you that there has been a hugely diversified bush of life, and H. sapiens is the last species so far. The rest of your theory defies human logic, and although you are sure that “God thinks as logically as we do”, you can’t understand his logic.

DAVID: Tell me why you think God made humans?

dhw: I asked you the same question some time ago. If he exists, and if he specially designed humans, I could accept your own “humanized” proposals: to admire his works, to have a relationship with him. I would add the equally “humanized” proposal that the whole of life is a spectacle to satisfy his desire to create, thereby filling what would otherwise be an endless and eternal void, and the most fascinating form of creation would be a being that would mirror himself in its ability to think and feel as he does. Of course This has nothing to do with the illogicality of your theory.

DAVID: All of those 'purposes' are humanizing, just as you admit my polite responses to your requests from me are humanized reasons. All you and I have done is guess, which does not advance our understanding of His reason and purpose. We both know any of our answers are colored by religious ideas from the past, which I staunchly try to avoid.

You asked me to tell you why I thought God made humans, and now you complain that I have given you an answer! Of course it’s all a guess, as is the whole of your theory, the illogicality of which you acknowledge but “staunchly try to avoid”.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 01, 2019, 15:55 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. […]

dhw: But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

DAVID: Pure humanizing again. God knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: how do you know what God knows? Your God “very well could think like us”, and yet you “know” that he already knows how to create H. sapiens, you “know” his one aim is to create H, sapiens, you “know” he has “good reason” to delay creating H. sapiens – though you have no idea what that reason might be – and so you “know” he has to create billions of non-human lifeforms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, econiches before he starts creating the only thing he wants to create! All of this is pure guesswork, and you admit that it defies human reasoning.

Your thinking and mine is totally contaminated by religious teaching. God is another name for the designer. This is the ID approach. The designer must be able to create evolution with all its complex intricate forms. And the evident design proves how brilliant he is. This is why Dawkins says don't fall for the trap of accepting a designer behind the design. I've accepted and try to ignore my childhood teachings. This means I have to accept evolution as the designer's work. That is my human reasoning. You are hung up in your thinking because you have admitted you can see the design, but reject the possibility of a designer. That is our only difference .


DAVID: Actual history tells me What God decided to do, because He is in charge of the history of evolution. You are using your human logic to humanize your view of God.

dhw: Actual history tells you that there has been a hugely diversified bush of life, and H. sapiens is the last species so far. The rest of your theory defies human logic, and although you are sure that “God thinks as logically as we do”, you can’t understand his logic.

Total distortion of what I have explained is my reasoning.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Monday, December 02, 2019, 13:59 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. […]

dhw: But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

DAVID: Pure humanizing again. God knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: how do you know what God knows? Your God “very well could think like us”, and yet you “know” that he already knows how to create H. sapiens, you “know” his one aim is to create H, sapiens, you “know” he has “good reason” to delay creating H. sapiens – though you have no idea what that reason might be – and so you “know” he has to create billions of non-human lifeforms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, econiches before he starts creating the only thing he wants to create! All of this is pure guesswork, and you admit that it defies human reasoning.

DAVID: Your thinking and mine is totally contaminated by religious teaching. God is another name for the designer. This is the ID approach. The designer must be able to create evolution with all its complex intricate forms. And the evident design proves how brilliant he is. This is why Dawkins says don't fall for the trap of accepting a designer behind the design. I've accepted and try to ignore my childhood teachings. This means I have to accept evolution as the designer's work. That is my human reasoning.

Neither your theory nor my alternative theistic theories have anything to do with religious teaching, and once more you are trying to evade the illogicalities of your own theory through generalizations which are perfectly reasonable: if God exists, yes he is a brilliant designer, and yes he chose evolution, which is his work. What is not reasonable is the list of combined bolded theories above, which according to you is not illogical so long as you do not try to apply human reasoning to the actual history (which means the bush of life, with H.sapiens the latest arrival).

DAVID: You are hung up in your thinking because you have admitted you can see the design, but reject the possibility of a designer. That is our only difference.

Our difference here is in your attempt to kid yourself and us that you know your God’s purpose and methodology, as summarized above in bold.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 01:40 (5 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Goals can always be delayed if there is good reason. […]

dhw: But you can’t find one! I have offered you two good theistic reasons that allow for your goal and your methodology: he didn’t know how to create an organism with all our god-like powers, and so he kept experimenting. Or life was one gigantic experiment, and humans only came into his mind late on in the process.

DAVID: Pure humanizing again. God knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: how do you know what God knows? Your God “very well could think like us”, and yet you “know” that he already knows how to create H. sapiens, you “know” his one aim is to create H, sapiens, you “know” he has “good reason” to delay creating H. sapiens – though you have no idea what that reason might be – and so you “know” he has to create billions of non-human lifeforms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, econiches before he starts creating the only thing he wants to create! All of this is pure guesswork, and you admit that it defies human reasoning.

DAVID: Your thinking and mine is totally contaminated by religious teaching. God is another name for the designer. This is the ID approach. The designer must be able to create evolution with all its complex intricate forms. And the evident design proves how brilliant he is. This is why Dawkins says don't fall for the trap of accepting a designer behind the design. I've accepted and try to ignore my childhood teachings. This means I have to accept evolution as the designer's work. That is my human reasoning.

dhw: Neither your theory nor my alternative theistic theories have anything to do with religious teaching, and once more you are trying to evade the illogicalities of your own theory through generalizations which are perfectly reasonable: if God exists, yes he is a brilliant designer, and yes he chose evolution, which is his work. What is not reasonable is the list of combined bolded theories above, which according to you is not illogical so long as you do not try to apply human reasoning to the actual history (which means the bush of life, with H.sapiens the latest arrival).

The bold agrees with me. Our difference is Adler's theory that humans were God's purpose. I think my reasoning about the necessity of the bush before human is absolutely logical. It is the actual history. I have applied human reasoning to my conclusions about God'choices, but I refuse to try and guess or ascertain His reason for creating us. That approach has nothing to do with illogicality of the simple conclusion God chose to evolve humans as his final goal.


DAVID: You are hung up in your thinking because you have admitted you can see the design, but reject the possibility of a designer. That is our only difference.

dhw: Our difference here is in your attempt to kid yourself and us that you know your God’s purpose and methodology, as summarized above in bold.

IF I chose to believe in God as the prime mover of all that happens, my thoughts are perfectly logical. I don't constantly spin theories about what God might or might not have thought to do. All your suppositions are humanizing thoughts, because you can think only as a human and God might well have same reasoning as we but also has purposes we may not understand. For example, I think He is very strongly purposeful in His actions, but I don't attempt to find His underlying purposes that may well exist. Note the ideas you conjure up I've put in bold above. He has to experiment to get to us, or He thought of us late on. Fine, you can picture him as bumbling around, not sure of Himself. As a 'prime mover' none of the thoughts fit. Our concepts of God will always be far apart. But only I accept Him.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Tuesday, December 03, 2019, 10:58 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Neither your theory nor my alternative theistic theories have anything to do with religious teaching, and once more you are trying to evade the illogicalities of your own theory through generalizations which are perfectly reasonable: if God exists, yes he is a brilliant designer, and yes he chose evolution, which is his work. What is not reasonable is the list of combined bolded theories above, which according to you is not illogical so long as you do not try to apply human reasoning to the actual history (which means the bush of life, with H.sapiens the latest arrival). (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold agrees with me. Our difference is Adler's theory that humans were God's purpose. I think my reasoning about the necessity of the bush before human is absolutely logical. It is the actual history.

It is not “actual history” that your God had only one purpose, that he is in total charge, and that he decided not to pursue his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, or that the specially designed pre-human bushes were “interim goals to establish the food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”.

DAVID: I have applied human reasoning to my conclusions about God'choices, but I refuse to try and guess or ascertain His reason for creating us.

I didn’t ask you to. It was you who asked me to do that.

DAVID: IF I chose to believe in God as the prime mover of all that happens, my thoughts are perfectly logical.

I have bolded the illogical combination of thoughts above, which you admit is only logical (or “not illogical") "if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”

DAVID: I don't constantly spin theories about what God might or might not have thought to do.

No, you simply stick rigidly to your one illogical theory bolded above, about what he thought to do.

DAVID: All your suppositions are humanizing thoughts, because you can think only as a human…[dhw: can you think like a God?] and God might well have same reasoning as we but also has purposes we may not understand. For example, I think He is very strongly purposeful in His actions, but I don't attempt to find His underlying purposes that may well exist.

I also think that if he exists he must have had a purpose for creating the universe and life. I’m not arguing here about underlying purposes, although I see no harm in theorizing about them. What bothers me is the illogicality of the theory bolded above.

DAVID: Note the ideas you conjure up I've put in bold above. He has to experiment to get to us, or He thought of us late on. Fine, you can picture him as bumbling around, not sure of Himself. As a 'prime mover' none of the thoughts fit. Our concepts of God will always be far apart. But only I accept Him.

Only you accept the above theory which requires abandoning human reason. Of course the thoughts fit. Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable? Why is an experimenting God “bumbling around”? Whether he set out to create something unpredictable or something he had never created before, his actions will still have been purposeful, and I would suggest that setting out to learn or create something new is an admirable purpose, not a sign of “bumbling”.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 01:30 (4 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold agrees with me. Our difference is Adler's theory that humans were God's purpose. I think my reasoning about the necessity of the bush before human is absolutely logical. It is the actual history.

dhw: It is not “actual history” that your God had only one purpose, that he is in total charge, and that he decided not to pursue his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, or that the specially designed pre-human bushes were “interim goals to establish the food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”.

If God is the prime mover as I believe, He creates history. You view of my thoughts is again an entire distortion of what I have said and believe in a combination of thoughts, which I am not going to repeat again.


DAVID: IF I chose to believe in God as the prime mover of all that happens, my thoughts are perfectly logical.

dhw: I have bolded the illogical combination of thoughts above, which you admit is only logical (or “not illogical") "if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.”

Again distortion. My reasoning is quite cl ear to me.


DAVID: I don't constantly spin theories about what God might or might not have thought to do.

dhw: No, you simply stick rigidly to your one illogical theory bolded above, about what he thought to do.

And you invent all sorts of humanized theories about God's possible thoughts, while I chose to look at His works, not why He might have decided to do what it is obvious He did.


DAVID: All your suppositions are humanizing thoughts, because you can think only as a human…[dhw: can you think like a God?] and God might well have same reasoning as we but also has purposes we may not understand. For example, I think He is very strongly purposeful in His actions, but I don't attempt to find His underlying purposes that may well exist.

dhw: I also think that if he exists he must have had a purpose for creating the universe and life. I’m not arguing here about underlying purposes, although I see no harm in theorizing about them. What bothers me is the illogicality of the theory bolded above.

Only you see it as illogical, but your distortions constantly twist the meanings of my previous statements.


DAVID: Note the ideas you conjure up I've put in bold above. He has to experiment to get to us, or He thought of us late on. Fine, you can picture him as bumbling around, not sure of Himself. As a 'prime mover' none of the thoughts fit. Our concepts of God will always be far apart. But only I accept Him.

dhw: Only you accept the above theory which requires abandoning human reason.

Adler's thought about the appearance of humans is finely reasoned.

dhw: Of course the thoughts fit. Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable?

I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

dhw: Why is an experimenting God “bumbling around”? Whether he set out to create something unpredictable or something he had never created before, his actions will still have been purposeful, and I would suggest that setting out to learn or create something new is an admirable purpose, not a sign of “bumbling”.

The bold is an exact example of your concept of a very human God. You can analyze all you like as it is your privilege, But I will analyze events and the appearance of our consciousness definitely tells med we are/were God's prime goal.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 12:37 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken over from the “Mammalian", as it covers many points raised on this thread.

DAVID: Your complaint is just a denial that evolution happened under the control of God. My plain belief is God started life with bacteria and eventually evolved humans as He increased the complexity of living beings.

I am not denying that evolution happened, and if God exists I have no doubt that it would have happened the way he wanted it to happen. And yes it began with bacteria, complexified, and eventually led to humans. That is the extent of the history. The dispute is over your fixed belief that although he was in full control and had only one goal (us), he spent 3.X billion years controlling/designing every non-human innovation, lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder before fiddling his way itty-bitty to designing us, and you have no idea why but refuse to consider explanations such as experimentation or new ideas as evolution progressed (to fit in with your anthropocentrism), or him wanting to give evolution free rein, though with the option of dabbling.

DAVID: Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history. Your 'no idea' jib is a twisted version of my intention not to question God's thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god ( small 'g' intentional) you do not believe in from you humanistic view.

Your exact words were: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now suddenly you have perfect ideas. You have manufactured a theory, and your intention therefore seems to be not to question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s thinking and choice because you can’t explain it. I do not question a god, I question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s purpose and method. Process theologians believe in God and argue that he is always in a process of “becoming” (very different from your view that he is always in control and knows everything in advance), deists believe in God and argue that he initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course, Hindus believe God manifests himself in different forms. You do not have a monopoly on God, and since your theory bolded above, by your own admission, is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, I’m afraid my agnosticism does not provide you with any defence of its logic or with any grounds for rejecting alternative theories which you yourself find perfectly logical.
I will try to shorten the rest of the post, as it is very repetitive:

DAVID: If God is the prime mover as I believe, He creates history.

Yes, but your theory concerning his purpose and method is not history.

DAVID:… you invent all sorts of humanized theories about God's possible thoughts, while I chose to look at His works, not why He might have decided to do what it is obvious He did.

You wrote that your God “very well could think like us”, so why exclude theories that provide logical links between his works and his intentions?

DAVID: ….your distortions constantly twist the meanings of my previous statements.

This is a regular complaint. There is only one context here, which is your theory of evolution - which I have even reproduced in your own words - and all the comments I have reproduced can only relate to your theory. I do not know what other meanings could be derived from “I have no idea…”, and “if one does not apply human reasoning…”

dhw: Only you accept the above theory which requires abandoning human reason.

DAVID: Adler's thought about the appearance of humans is finely reasoned.

Agreed. It is your coupling of his thoughts with the rest of the theory that defies human reason.

dhw: Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable?

DAVID: I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

You do NOT reject it! That is my point: if you agree that your God desires unpredictability in humans, why should he not desire unpredictability in the higgledy-piggledy bush of life by giving organisms the means to design their own innovations, lifestyles etc.? He is not opposed to creating unpredictability.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 16:20 (3 days ago) @ dhw

Taken over from the “Mammalian", as it covers many points raised on this thread.

DAVID: Your complaint is just a denial that evolution happened under the control of God. My plain belief is God started life with bacteria and eventually evolved humans as He increased the complexity of living beings.

dhw: I am not denying that evolution happened, and if God exists I have no doubt that it would have happened the way he wanted it to happen. And yes it began with bacteria, complexified, and eventually led to humans. That is the extent of the history. The dispute is over your fixed belief that although he was in full control and had only one goal (us), he spent 3.X billion years controlling/designing every non-human innovation, lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder before fiddling his way itty-bitty to designing us, and you have no idea why but refuse to consider explanations such as experimentation or new ideas as evolution progressed (to fit in with your anthropocentrism), or him wanting to give evolution free rein, though with the option of dabbling.

Your main complaint is evolution takes time. That is a given. Of course He spent the time. Your objection is incomprehensible to me.


DAVID: Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history. Your 'no idea' jib is a twisted version of my intention not to question God's thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god ( small 'g' intentional) you do not believe in from you humanistic view.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now suddenly you have perfect ideas.

I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation. I don't have ideas about God's thoughts becausue I don't question his thinking about His choices of action.

dhw:You have manufactured a theory, and your intention therefore seems to be not to question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s thinking and choice because you can’t explain it. I do not question a god, I question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s purpose and method. Process theologians believe in God and argue that he is always in a process of “becoming” (very different from your view that he is always in control and knows everything in advance), deists believe in God and argue that he initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course, Hindus believe God manifests himself in different forms.

You have listed current theories, none of which can be proven. Everyone, including you, have a right to a specific view of God. No vote can be taken.

dhw: You do not have a monopoly on God, and since your theory bolded above, by your own admission, is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, I’m afraid my agnosticism does not provide you with any defence of its logic or with any grounds for rejecting alternative theories which you yourself find perfectly logical.

Once again history tells us what God did, not his reasoning, which can be found only as theories, if one tries.

dhw: I will try to shorten the rest of the post, as it is very repetitive:


DAVID: Adler's thought about the appearance of humans is finely reasoned.

dhw: Agreed. It is your coupling of his thoughts with the rest of the theory that defies human reason.

Beyond accepting Adler's approach, I do not try to find God's thinking. My theory is perfectly reasonable.


dhw: Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable?

DAVID: I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

dhw: You do NOT reject it! That is my point: if you agree that your God desires unpredictability in humans, why should he not desire unpredictability in the higgledy-piggledy bush of life by giving organisms the means to design their own innovations, lifestyles etc.? He is not opposed to creating unpredictability.

Weird reasoning. Immaterial consciousness makes us unpredictable. You are comparing it to material evolution as an equal comparison to development of the immaterial. Not really logical.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Thursday, December 05, 2019, 10:34 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your main complaint is evolution takes time. That is a given. Of course He spent the time. Your objection is incomprehensible to me.

Only an idiot would complain about evolution taking time! My complaint, as you very well know, is that you say your always-in-control God only had one purpose (us), but he decided for no reason you can think of to spend 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his one and only purpose but specially designing billions of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.

DAVID: Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now suddenly you have perfect ideas.

DAVID: I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation.

What do you mean by “I have perfect ideas” (bolded) if you now say “I don’t have ‘perfect ideas’”?

DAVID: Your ‘no idea’ jibe is a twisted version of my intention not to question God’s thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god […] you do not believe in from your humanistic view.

dhw: You have manufactured a theory, and your intention therefore seems to be not to question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s thinking and choice because you can’t explain it. I do not question a god, I question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s purpose and method. Process theologians believe in God and argue that he is always in a process of “becoming” (very different from your view that he is always in control and knows everything in advance), deists believe in God and argue that he initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course, Hindus believe God manifests himself in different forms.[…]

DAVID: You have listed current theories, none of which can be proven. Everyone, including you, have a right to a specific view of God. No vote can be taken.

I have pointed out that I am not questioning God’s choices, purposes and methods, as you constantly complain, but am questioning your theory about them. None of the theories can be proven, and everyone has a right to his own, but that does not mean that when I challenge yours, I am challenging God.

dhw: You do not have a monopoly on God, and since your theory bolded above, by your own admission, is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, I’m afraid my agnosticism does not provide you with any defence of its logic or with any grounds for rejecting alternative theories which you yourself find perfectly logical.

DAVID: Once again history tells us what God did, not his reasoning, which can be found only as theories, if one tries.

And you have agreed that your own theory requires the abandonment of human reason.

dhw: Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable?

DAVID: I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

dhw: You do NOT reject it! That is my point: if you agree that your God desires unpredictability in humans, why should he not desire unpredictability in the higgledy-piggledy bush of life by giving organisms the means to design their own innovations, lifestyles etc.? He is not opposed to creating unpredictability.

DAVID: Weird reasoning. Immaterial consciousness makes us unpredictable. You are comparing it to material evolution as an equal comparison to development of the immaterial. Not really logical.

I am not making any comparisons whatsoever. You have objected to the idea that your God might create an evolutionary process that would produce unpredictable results (what I have called the higgledy-piggledy bush of life). I have given you an example of your God creating something unpredictable (human free will), which shows that he is not averse to producing something unpredictable.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 05, 2019, 16:19 (2 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation.

dhw: What do you mean by “I have perfect ideas” (bolded) if you now say “I don’t have ‘perfect ideas’”?

DAVID: Your ‘no idea’ jibe is a twisted version of my intention not to question God’s thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god […] you do not believe in from your humanistic view.

The actual full quote: DAVID: "Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history". The history is a perfect background for knowing what God did as I view Him in charge.


dhw: I have pointed out that I am not questioning God’s choices, purposes and methods, as you constantly complain, but am questioning your theory about them. None of the theories can be proven, and everyone has a right to his own, but that does not mean that when I challenge yours, I am challenging God.

dhw: You do not have a monopoly on God, and since your theory bolded above, by your own admission, is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, I’m afraid my agnosticism does not provide you with any defence of its logic or with any grounds for rejecting alternative theories which you yourself find perfectly logical.

DAVID: Once again history tells us what God did, not his reasoning, which can be found only as theories, if one tries.

dhw: And you have agreed that your own theory requires the abandonment of human reason.

I have arrived at my thoughts by logically putting together the evidence I see. But I see no reason to delve into God's thinking about His choice of method. No 'abandonment', your distortion.


dhw: Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable?

DAVID: I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

dhw: You do NOT reject it! That is my point: if you agree that your God desires unpredictability in humans, why should he not desire unpredictability in the higgledy-piggledy bush of life by giving organisms the means to design their own innovations, lifestyles etc.? He is not opposed to creating unpredictability.

DAVID: Weird reasoning. Immaterial consciousness makes us unpredictable. You are comparing it to material evolution as an equal comparison to development of the immaterial. Not really logical.

dhw: I am not making any comparisons whatsoever. You have objected to the idea that your God might create an evolutionary process that would produce unpredictable results (what I have called the higgledy-piggledy bush of life). I have given you an example of your God creating something unpredictable (human free will), which shows that he is not averse to producing something unpredictable.

The process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved. I consider God as very purposeful. You don't. Consciousness with free will is only a human attribute. You are still at apples and oranges.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Friday, December 06, 2019, 13:07 (1 day, 5 hours, 33 min. ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (Tuesday): I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took.

dhw: (Wednesday) Your exact words were: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now suddenly you have perfect ideas.

DAVID: (Wednesday) I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation.

dhw: (Thursday) What do you mean by “I have perfect ideas”...if you now say “I don’t have ‘perfect ideas’”?

DAVID: The actual full quote: DAVID: "Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history". The history is a perfect background for knowing what God did as I view Him in charge.

We are not arguing about the history, but about what God did to produce the history (e.g. “preprogrammed or dabbled” versus “gave free rein”) and why (e.g. solely “in order to produce humans” – which engenders theories as to why he delayed, or alternatively that he had other purposes, e.g. to create an unpredictable bush). You have no idea why he would have delayed, so what is the subject of the perfect ideas you have but do not have?

dhw: … you have agreed that your own theory requires the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: I have arrived at my thoughts by logically putting together the evidence I see. But I see no reason to delve into God's thinking about His choice of method. No 'abandonment', your distortion.

Please explain what you meant when you said that your THEORY about your God’s choice of method (please don’t pretend you know that your choice was his choice) was not illogical “if one does apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

dhw: You have objected to the idea that your God might create an evolutionary process that would produce unpredictable results (what I have called the higgledy-piggledy bush of life). I have given you an example of your God creating something unpredictable (human free will), which shows that he is not averse to producing something unpredictable.

DAVID: The process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved. I consider God as very purposeful. You don't. Consciousness with free will is only a human attribute. You are still at apples and oranges.

If humans were the purpose of evolution, you are absolutely right: the process should have proceeded in a specific direction. But for 3.X billion years, it did not! Hence the illogicality of your theory. I have no doubt that your God would be very purposeful. I am challenging your interpretation of his purpose precisely because of your first sentence. I have proposed an alternative purpose: the unpredictable spectacle of evolution given free rein. You did not think your God would want this (you like to ”humanize” him as a control freak), so I simply gave you an example of his willingness to give up control.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Friday, December 06, 2019, 20:48 (21 hours, 52 minutes ago) @ dhw

DAVID: (Wednesday) I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation.

dhw: (Thursday) What do you mean by “I have perfect ideas”...if you now say “I don’t have ‘perfect ideas’”?

DAVID: The actual full quote: DAVID: "Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history". The history is a perfect background for knowing what God did as I view Him in charge.

dhw: We are not arguing about the history, but about what God did to produce the history (e.g. “preprogrammed or dabbled” versus “gave free rein”) and why (e.g. solely “in order to produce humans” – which engenders theories as to why he delayed, or alternatively that he had other purposes, e.g. to create an unpredictable bush). You have no idea why he would have delayed, so what is the subject of the perfect ideas you have but do not have?

I directly believe God is the engineer of evolution and designed all species. I don't need to know why God delayed, because that is exactly what He did as his decision. Your problem is you cannot accept how I believe in God. Of course my patterns of belief are incomprehensible to you and illogical by your reasoning. I consider Him as much more than just humanly thinking as we do. You are approaching God with your human logic. I've said all along it is your problem you create for yourself, certainly not mine.


dhw: … you have agreed that your own theory requires the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: I have arrived at my thoughts by logically putting together the evidence I see. But I see no reason to delve into God's thinking about His choice of method. No 'abandonment', your distortion.

dhw: Please explain what you meant when you said that your THEORY about your God’s choice of method (please don’t pretend you know that your choice was his choice) was not illogical “if one does apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

Please reread the above statement of mine:

I directly believe God is the engineer of evolution and designed all species. I don't need to know why God delayed, because that is exactly what He did as his decision. Your problem is you cannot accept how I believe in God. Of course my patterns of belief are incomprehensible to you and illogical by your reasoning. I consider Him as much more than just humanly thinking as we do. You are approaching God with your human logic. I've said all along it is your problem you create for yourself, certainly not mine.


dhw: You have objected to the idea that your God might create an evolutionary process that would produce unpredictable results (what I have called the higgledy-piggledy bush of life). I have given you an example of your God creating something unpredictable (human free will), which shows that he is not averse to producing something unpredictable.

DAVID: The process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved. I consider God as very purposeful. You don't. Consciousness with free will is only a human attribute. You are still at apples and oranges.

dhw: If humans were the purpose of evolution, you are absolutely right: the process should have proceeded in a specific direction. But for 3.X billion years, it did not! Hence the illogicality of your theory. I have no doubt that your God would be very purposeful. I am challenging your interpretation of his purpose precisely because of your first sentence. I have proposed an alternative purpose: the unpredictable spectacle of evolution given free rein. You did not think your God would want this (you like to ”humanize” him as a control freak), so I simply gave you an example of his willingness to give up control.

[/b]

Totally illogicality. The definition of evolution is that it evolves OVER TIME. I cannot accept hour humanized God in the above bold. All your examples are human logic imaginations at work but that doesn't mean He develops His purposes as you might imagine. I view Him as entirely purposeful.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by dhw, Saturday, December 07, 2019, 10:40 (8 hours, 0 minutes ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: (Wednesday) I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation.

dhw: (Thursday) What do you mean by “I have perfect ideas”...if you now say “I don’t have ‘perfect ideas’”?

DAVID: The actual full quote: DAVID: "Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history". The history is a perfect background for knowing what God did as I view Him in charge.

dhw: We are not arguing about the history, but about what God did to produce the history (e.g. “preprogrammed or dabbled” versus “gave free rein”) and why (e.g. solely “in order to produce humans” – which engenders theories as to why he delayed, or alternatively that he had other purposes, e.g. to create an unpredictable bush). You have no idea why he would have delayed, so what is the subject of the perfect ideas you have but do not have?

DAVID: I directly believe God is the engineer of evolution and designed all species. I don't need to know why God delayed, because that is exactly what He did as his decision.

It is your interpretation of his purpose and method that has created the delay. If either of these was different from your fixed beliefs, the idea of a “delay” would disappear!

DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept how I believe in God. Of course my patterns of belief are incomprehensible to you and illogical by your reasoning. I consider Him as much more than just humanly thinking as we do. You are approaching God with your human logic. I've said all along it is your problem you create for yourself, certainly not mine.

I cannot accept your theory of God’s combined purpose and method (not “how you believe in God”), and the fact that you have to abandon human logic in order to believe it is unlikely to win you many human supporters!

dhw: Please explain what you meant when you said that your THEORY about your God’s choice of method (please don’t pretend you know that your choice was his choice) was not illogical “if one does apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: Please reread the above statement of mine.

I have, and it confirms that you reject my human logic, and you cling to your theory on the grounds that your God doesn’t think like us humans, although elsewhere you have agreed that he “very well could think like us”.

DAVID:The process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved. I consider God as very purposeful. You don't. Consciousness with free will is only a human attribute. You are still at apples and oranges. [/i](dhw’s bold)

dhw:If humans were the purpose of evolution, you are absolutely right: the process should have proceeded in a specific direction. But for 3.X billion years, it did not! Hence the illogicality of your theory. I have no doubt that your God would be very purposeful. I am challenging your interpretation of his purpose precisely because of your first sentence. One of the alternative purposes I have proposed is the unpredictable spectacle of evolution given free rein. You did not think your God would want this (you like to ”humanize” him as a control freak), so I simply gave you an example of his willingness to give up control.[/i] (David’s bold)

DAVID: Totally illogicality. The definition of evolution is that it evolves OVER TIME.

Of course it does. But evolution is not confined to the evolution of humans! If your God had only one purpose (humans), in your own words, “the process…should proceed into a specific direction”, but for 3.X billion years it did not!

DAVID: I cannot accept your humanized God in the above bold. All your examples are human logic imaginations at work but that doesn't mean He develops His purposes as you might imagine. I view Him as entirely purposeful.

If he exists, of course he would be entirely purposeful. That does not mean his entire purpose was to create humans, and so he spent 3.X billion years not creating humans. You totally reject the possibility that he might have given up control over evolution (you “humanize” him as a control freak), and yet you believe he gave up control by creating free will. I only wish you would apply the same human logic to your theory of evolution as you do to the case for design as argued so cogently in your excellent books.

David's theory of evolution Part Two

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 07, 2019, 17:40 (1 hours, 0 minutes ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I directly believe God is the engineer of evolution and designed all species. I don't need to know why God delayed, because that is exactly what He did as his decision.

dhw: It is your interpretation of his purpose and method that has created the delay. If either of these was different from your fixed beliefs, the idea of a “delay” would disappear!

'Delay' is entirely your concept. God in charge desired to produce humans and chose to do it by evolving them from bacteria. Evolution takes time, so it is obvious He accepted the delay as a natural consequence.


DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept how I believe in God. Of course my patterns of belief are incomprehensible to you and illogical by your reasoning. I consider Him as much more than just humanly thinking as we do. You are approaching God with your human logic. I've said all along it is your problem you create for yourself, certainly not mine.

dhw: I cannot accept your theory of God’s combined purpose and method (not “how you believe in God”), and the fact that you have to abandon human logic in order to believe it is unlikely to win you many human supporters!

Faith is arrived at by seeing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. I used plenty of reason to get where I am. Your most unreasonable thinking is that obvious design, which requires a designer leads you the fence.


dhw: Please explain what you meant when you said that your THEORY about your God’s choice of method (please don’t pretend you know that your choice was his choice) was not illogical “if one does apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: Please reread the above statement of mine.

dhw: I have, and it confirms that you reject my human logic, and you cling to your theory on the grounds that your God doesn’t think like us humans, although elsewhere you have agreed that he “very well could think like us”.

Note I've said God thinks logically just as we do. His decisions on purposes are unknown and guessed at.


DAVID:The process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved. I consider God as very purposeful. You don't. Consciousness with free will is only a human attribute. You are still at apples and oranges. [/i](dhw’s bold)

dhw:If humans were the purpose of evolution, you are absolutely right: the process should have proceeded in a specific direction. But for 3.X billion years, it did not! Hence the illogicality of your theory. I have no doubt that your God would be very purposeful. I am challenging your interpretation of his purpose precisely because of your first sentence. One of the alternative purposes I have proposed is the unpredictable spectacle of evolution given free rein. You did not think your God would want this (you like to ”humanize” him as a control freak), so I simply gave you an example of his willingness to give up control.[/i] (David’s bold)

DAVID: Totally illogicality. The definition of evolution is that it evolves OVER TIME.

dhw: Of course it does. But evolution is not confined to the evolution of humans! If your God had only one purpose (humans), in your own words, “the process…should proceed into a specific direction”, but for 3.X billion years it did not!

What!!! Of course there was a specific direction to arrive at us, constant steps to more complexity. You're ignoring the bush is required for all to eat. "Balance of nature", econiches you accept and then forget.


DAVID: I cannot accept your humanized God in the above bold. All your examples are human logic imaginations at work but that doesn't mean He develops His purposes as you might imagine. I view Him as entirely purposeful.

dhw: If he exists, of course he would be entirely purposeful. That does not mean his entire purpose was to create humans, and so he spent 3.X billion years not creating humans. You totally reject the possibility that he might have given up control over evolution (you “humanize” him as a control freak), and yet you believe he gave up control by creating free will. I only wish you would apply the same human logic to your theory of evolution as you do to the case for design as argued so cogently in your excellent books.

Thank you, but you won't accept a designer from my books. Your argument that free will in humans indicates He would give up control over the direction of evolution is a strain in credulity. God controlled the new physical forms as evolution was directed to produce humans who would have consciousness and free will. You will note free will is not a physical form.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 07, 2019, 15:14 (30 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

GEORGE: I don't think I've heard of this theory that "intelligent cells or cell communities" have "their own special form of consciousness" that guides their evolution before, but it sounds rather like reviving elan vital or a form of pan-psychism. It seems to me that postulating such things without proof is unnecessary, since natural selection is adequate.

DAVID: Again, I agree. It is a vast stretch of what is known.

dhw: George has never heard of the theory, whereas David knows all about it and is prepared to dismiss it in favour of a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history.

I'm not surprised George is ignorant. Who supports your cell theory causing speciation?


For George: you only have to google cellular (or bacterial) intelligence to find a whole host of entries. Scientists such as the Nobel prizewinner Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, James A Shapiro, all of whom have spent a lifetime studying cellular behaviour, inform us that cells are sentient, cognitive, communicative, thinking, decision-making beings. When asked why bacterial intelligence was a controversial subject, Shapiro responded: “Large organisms chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.” A couple more quotes picked up at random:

Brian J. Ford: It is argued here that the essential processes of cognition, response and decision-making inherent in living cells transcend conventional modelling, and microscopic studies of organisms like the shell-building amoebae and the rhodophyte alga Antithamnion reveal a level of cellular intelligence that is unrecognized by science and is not amenable to computer analysis.
(I would suggest that science is becoming increasingly disposed towards recognizing cellular intelligence.)

John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.
[/b]

The bold comment makes sense.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Friday, November 08, 2019, 09:08 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Part one

GEORGE: I don't think I've heard of this theory that "intelligent cells or cell communities" have "their own special form of consciousness" that guides their evolution before, but it sounds rather like reviving elan vital or a form of pan-psychism. It seems to me that postulating such things without proof is unnecessary, since natural selection is adequate.

DAVID: Again, I agree. It is a vast stretch of what is known.

dhw: George has never heard of the theory, whereas David knows all about it and is prepared to dismiss it in favour of a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history.

DAVID: I'm not surprised George is ignorant. Who supports your cell theory causing speciation?

James A. Shapiro, with his theory of “natural genetic engineering” and his firm advocacy of cellular intelligence, which is advocated by large numbers of scientists. Who supports your theory that your God supplied the first cells with a computer programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder, ant strategy, bacterial response to all future problems, and the weaverbird’s nest for the purpose of filling in time till he designed the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens?

dhw: The parts are always connected, and yes, the neurons are key players in coordinating the brain’s response to new demands, either by expansion or by complexification. (Note the John Lieff quote about neurons.) Yes, design required – as in cellular communities responding intelligently to new conditions – but no to divine dabbling in anticipation of any need for change.

DAVID: I do not interpret Lieff as you do. See my comment

John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.

Your comment was: "The bold comment makes sense."
Lieff believes that cells are intelligent, and neurons are vastly more intelligent than microbes. How does this mean anything other than that cells are intelligent, and some are more intelligent than others?

dhw: Sometimes you complain that there are no transitional forms, but the moment you are confronted with transitional forms, you flounder for an explanation. Does it not occur to you that in some areas some of our ancestors would have made a good living staying up in the trees, whereas in different areas others would have found it advantageous to be up in the trees AND to be down on the ground?

DAVID: I never flounder. Good just-so Darwinian explanation. These 11.6 myo apes liked the ground so much they just invented bipedal legs. Glad you could read their minds. I though major necessity of environmental change caused major speciation as in the savanna theory.

You seem to think that the very mention of Darwin automatically disqualifies a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Environmental change may well result in major necessity, but opportunity may also be a factor that leads organisms to a new form of behaviour. More food on the ground (pre-humans) or in the water (pre-whales). No, the apes wouldn’t have “invented” bipedal legs. It would have been their effort to maximize their exploitation of the new environment that would have resulted in the physical changes involved in bipedalism, and that means adjustments have to be made by the cell communities of which the body is composed. Even now, certain activities can change both the body and the brain – obviously not to the extent involved in speciation (which nobody can explain), but the principle is the same. God does not come down and expand the body-builder’s muscles or change the brain of the pre-taxi-driver, the pre-musician, the illiterate learner before they can drive, play or read. It is activity that causes the changes.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Friday, November 08, 2019, 11:06 (29 days ago) @ dhw

I looked up what Shapiro is saying about Evolution. The Amazon advert for his book says:

"Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring."

This all fits in perfectly with my own understanding of the present state of Evolutionary theory, taking into account all the new discoveries since Darwin's time.

There is nothing here that talks about "intelligent cells or cell communities" that have "their own special form of consciousness". This is an interpretation or overlay put on his work by proponents of Intelligent Design or Universal Consciousness ideas.

What's with the "Part One", "Part B" etc subheadings that have suddenly appeared?

--
GPJ

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Friday, November 08, 2019, 15:07 (29 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: I looked up what Shapiro is saying about Evolution. The Amazon advert for his book says:

"Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring."

This all fits in perfectly with my own understanding of the present state of Evolutionary theory, taking into account all the new discoveries since Darwin's time.

His work is purely on bacteria,


George: There is nothing here that talks about "intelligent cells or cell communities" that have "their own special form of consciousness". This is an interpretation or overlay put on his work by proponents of Intelligent Design or Universal Consciousness ideas.

Hear, hear!


George: What's with the "Part One", "Part B" etc subheadings that have suddenly appeared?

Limitations of space in reply .

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Saturday, November 09, 2019, 10:25 (28 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: I looked up what Shapiro is saying about Evolution. The Amazon advert for his book says:
"Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring."

GEORGE: This all fits in perfectly with my own understanding of the present state of Evolutionary theory, taking into account all the new discoveries since Darwin's time.
There is nothing here that talks about "intelligent cells or cell communities" that have "their own special form of consciousness". This is an interpretation or overlay put on his work by proponents of Intelligent Design or Universal Consciousness ideas.

Like David, you are ignoring Shapiro’s own words – that opposition to his theory of cellular intelligence is due to “large organisms chauvinism”? (And I must emphasize that my interpretation of this theory is strictly neutral in relation to the existence of a God or a Universal Consciousness.) Why don’t you look beyond Amazon? Here are extracts from a detailed review of Shapiro’s book (my bold), to be taken in the context of the reviewer’s criticism:
James A. Shapiro: Evolution: a view from the twenty-first ...
europepmc.org/articles/PMC3425741

QUOTES: …the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

The reviewer, however. doesn’t like Shapiro’s emphasis on cellular intelligence:
However, unfortunately, Shapiro tends to grossly oversell his case, which I find irritating. Calling evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful’,is in my opinion not very illuminating, nor does it set a clear research agenda.

The reviewer is a Darwinist who apparently believes in random mutations which are not random: “…:long term evolution leads to random mutations which are non-random in occurrence and/or effect and biased to advantageous mutations.” Perhaps George, you would tell us if you too believe that random mutations have led to all of life’s complexities. (Natural selection only serves to choose which mutations survive – it has no creative powers.)

DAVID: I do not interpret Lieff as you do. See my comment
John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.

dhw: Your comment was: "The bold comment makes sense."

DAVID: Lieff's point is that neurons are vastly different, a difference you are trying to smudge.

Lieff’s point is that microbes are intelligent but neurons are vastly more intelligent – a difference in intelligence which you are trying to smudge.

dhw: Environmental change may well result in major necessity, but opportunity may also be a factor that leads organisms to a new form of behaviour.

DAVID: Go on dreaming that a change in behavior creates new species. That is your implication and it comes from pure Darwin.

A change in environmental conditions will inevitably lead to a change in behaviour (entailing adaptation and/or innovation or death), which in turn will lead to anatomical changes to enable the organism to function in the new environment (e.g. flippers, bipedalling legs). Pure Darwin or not, why do you find this illogical? And why do you find it more logical to assume that an unknown power preprogrammed or dabbled every anatomical change in advance of any need for it?

dhw: Even now, certain activities can change both the body and the brain – obviously not to the extent involved in speciation (which nobody can explain), but the principle is the same. God does not come down and expand the body-builder’s muscles or change the brain of the pre-taxi-driver, the pre-musician, the illiterate learner before they can drive, play or read. It is activity that causes the changes.

DAVID: These minor changes are built in to life's abilities to adapt, and as you say a a theist, perhaps a mechanism given by God.

Nobody knows how speciation comes about, but adaptation provides us with a clear example of a mechanism for change which works IN RESPONSE to new demands and not in advance of them. If you now concede that these minor changes are NOT preprogrammed or divinely dabbled, but are produced by an autonomous mechanism “perhaps given by your God”, you are halfway to conceding that the mechanism for innovation (often hard to distinguish from adaptation) may also be autonomous and “given by your God”.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 09, 2019, 19:02 (28 days ago) @ dhw

GEORGE: I looked up what Shapiro is saying about Evolution. The Amazon advert for his book says:
"Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring."

GEORGE: This all fits in perfectly with my own understanding of the present state of Evolutionary theory, taking into account all the new discoveries since Darwin's time.
There is nothing here that talks about "intelligent cells or cell communities" that have "their own special form of consciousness". This is an interpretation or overlay put on his work by proponents of Intelligent Design or Universal Consciousness ideas.

dhw: Like David, you are ignoring Shapiro’s own words – that opposition to his theory of cellular intelligence is due to “large organisms chauvinism”? (And I must emphasize that my interpretation of this theory is strictly neutral in relation to the existence of a God or a Universal Consciousness.) Why don’t you look beyond Amazon? Here are extracts from a detailed review of Shapiro’s book (my bold), to be taken in the context of the reviewer’s criticism:
James A. Shapiro: Evolution: a view from the twenty-first ...
europepmc.org/articles/PMC3425741

QUOTES: …the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

The reviewer, however. doesn’t like Shapiro’s emphasis on cellular intelligence:
However, unfortunately, Shapiro tends to grossly oversell his case, which I find irritating. Calling evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful’,is in my opinion not very illuminating, nor does it set a clear research agenda.

I certainly agree with the reviewer, and I've read the book! He only studies bacteria which as freely living, must make responses, that obviously could be built-in automatic.

DAVID: I do not interpret Lieff as you do. See my comment
John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.

dhw: Your comment was: "The bold comment makes sense."

DAVID: Lieff's point is that neurons are vastly different, a difference you are trying to smudge.

dhw: Lieff’s point is that microbes are intelligent but neurons are vastly more intelligent – a difference in intelligence which you are trying to smudge.

No smudge. Of course neurons are vastly superior. Remember cell responses may be automatic.


dhw: Environmental change may well result in major necessity, but opportunity may also be a factor that leads organisms to a new form of behaviour.

DAVID: Go on dreaming that a change in behavior creates new species. That is your implication and it comes from pure Darwin.

dhw: A change in environmental conditions will inevitably lead to a change in behaviour (entailing adaptation and/or innovation or death), which in turn will lead to anatomical changes to enable the organism to function in the new environment (e.g. flippers, bipedalling legs). Pure Darwin or not, why do you find this illogical?

There is no proof changes in behavior cause speciation, which is your Darwinian point.


dhw: Even now, certain activities can change both the body and the brain – obviously not to the extent involved in speciation (which nobody can explain), but the principle is the same. God does not come down and expand the body-builder’s muscles or change the brain of the pre-taxi-driver, the pre-musician, the illiterate learner before they can drive, play or read. It is activity that causes the changes.

DAVID: These minor changes are built in to life's abilities to adapt, and as you say as a theist, perhaps a mechanism given by God.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation comes about, but adaptation provides us with a clear example of a mechanism for change which works IN RESPONSE to new demands and not in advance of them. If you now concede that these minor changes are NOT preprogrammed or divinely dabbled, but are produced by an autonomous mechanism “perhaps given by your God”, you are halfway to conceding that the mechanism for innovation (often hard to distinguish from adaptation) may also be autonomous and “given by your God”.

Remember the adaptations we see are minor and don't lead to speciation. Note the bold above.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Sunday, November 10, 2019, 13:18 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

GEORGE: There is nothing here that talks about "intelligent cells or cell communities" that have "their own special form of consciousness". This is an interpretation or overlay put on his [Shapiro’s] work by proponents of Intelligent Design or Universal Consciousness ideas.

dhw: […] Why don’t you look beyond Amazon? Here are extracts from a detailed review of Shapiro’s book (my bold), to be taken in the context of the reviewer’s criticism:
James A. Shapiro: Evolution: a view from the twenty-first ...
europepmc.org/articles/PMC3425741

QUOTES: …the bottom line of Shapiro’s book is (biological) evolution itself IS an ‘intelligent’ (‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’, ‘thoughtful’ are the words he uses) process. In the words of the first paragraph “life requires cognition at all levels” and in the concluding paragraphs: [21st view of evolution implies] “a shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome structuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems…. It replaces the ‘invisible hands’ of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions of self modification.

The reviewer, however. doesn’t like Shapiro’s emphasis on cellular intelligence:

However, unfortunately, Shapiro tends to grossly oversell his case, which I find irritating. Calling evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful’,is in my opinion not very illuminating, nor does it set a clear research agenda.

DAVID: I certainly agree with the reviewer, and I've read the book! He only studies bacteria which as freely living, must make responses, that obviously could be built-in automatic.

George and you both dispute that Shapiro is advocating cellular intelligence as the engineering force behind speciation. I am merely pointing out that this is precisely his theory. I know you disagree with him, and prefer your speciation theory of divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes for speciation.

DAVID: I do not interpret Lieff as you do. See my comment

John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
"Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.
"

DAVID: Lieff's point is that neurons are vastly different, a difference you are trying to smudge.

dhw: Lieff’s point is that microbes are intelligent but neurons are vastly more intelligent – a difference in intelligence which you are trying to smudge.

DAVID: No smudge. Of course neurons are vastly superior. Remember cell responses may be automatic.

You keep claiming that scientists pooh-pooh the idea that cells are intelligent. Now you are trying to gloss over yet another scientist’s championship of the theory by saying neurons are different and superior, while deliberately leaving out his own word “intelligent”!

dhw: Environmental change may well result in major necessity, but opportunity may also be a factor that leads organisms to a new form of behaviour.

DAVID: Go on dreaming that a change in behavior creates new species. That is your implication and it comes from pure Darwin.

dhw: A change in environmental conditions will inevitably lead to a change in behaviour (entailing adaptation and/or innovation or death), which in turn will lead to anatomical changes to enable the organism to function in the new environment (e.g. flippers, bipedalling legs). Pure Darwin or not, why do you find this illogical?

DAVID: There is no proof changes in behavior cause speciation, which is your Darwinian point.

You simply refuse to recognize that NOBODY can prove the cause of speciation, which is why we have theories like mine and yours. And you still refuse to say why you find my proposal illogical.

From “Introducing the brain”: "The researchers found that even though the animals couldn’t see anything, the activity in their visual cortex was both extensive and shockingly multidimensional, meaning that it was encoding a great deal of information. Not only were the neurons chatting, but “there were many conversations going on at the same time,” wrote Marius Pachitariu, a neuroscientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute."

Sounds to me like a community of cells constantly communicating with one another, passing on information, but always ready to focus on single issues when necessary and to pool their information and take communal decisions. All signs of intelligence.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 10, 2019, 19:37 (27 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The reviewer, however. doesn’t like Shapiro’s emphasis on cellular intelligence:

However, unfortunately, Shapiro tends to grossly oversell his case, which I find irritating. Calling evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful’,is in my opinion not very illuminating, nor does it set a clear research agenda.

DAVID: I certainly agree with the reviewer, and I've read the book! He only studies bacteria which as freely living, must make responses, that obviously could be built-in automatic.

dhw: George and you both dispute that Shapiro is advocating cellular intelligence as the engineering force behind speciation. I am merely pointing out that this is precisely his theory. I know you disagree with him, and prefer your speciation theory of divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes for speciation.

You haven't answered my point. Free-living bacteria are a different breed of cat than cells in multicellular organisms. Shapiro cannot infer that they are the same and I am not sure he really does. All he has studied is DNA in single cells.

DAVID: Lieff's point is that neurons are vastly different, a difference you are trying to smudge.

dhw: Lieff’s point is that microbes are intelligent but neurons are vastly more intelligent – a difference in intelligence which you are trying to smudge.

DAVID: No smudge. Of course neurons are vastly superior. Remember cell responses may be automatic.

dhw: You keep claiming that scientists pooh-pooh the idea that cells are intelligent. Now you are trying to gloss over yet another scientist’s championship of the theory by saying neurons are different and superior, while deliberately leaving out his own word “intelligent”!

Of course neurons are great contributors to intelligence. They are totally different than the cells you want to tout as intelligent, which could be totally automatic.


dhw: A change in environmental conditions will inevitably lead to a change in behaviour (entailing adaptation and/or innovation or death), which in turn will lead to anatomical changes to enable the organism to function in the new environment (e.g. flippers, bipedalling legs). Pure Darwin or not, why do you find this illogical?

DAVID: There is no proof changes in behavior cause speciation, which is your Darwinian point.

dhw: You simply refuse to recognize that NOBODY can prove the cause of speciation, which is why we have theories like mine and yours. And you still refuse to say why you find my proposal illogical.

Look at Talbott's essay for an answer. That new species have attributes that handle new environmental problems only tells us some agency developed the design preparation for a new species.


dhw: From “Introducing the brain”: "The researchers found that even though the animals couldn’t see anything, the activity in their visual cortex was both extensive and shockingly multidimensional, meaning that it was encoding a great deal of information. Not only were the neurons chatting, but “there were many conversations going on at the same time,” wrote Marius Pachitariu, a neuroscientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute."

Sounds to me like a community of cells constantly communicating with one another, passing on information, but always ready to focus on single issues when necessary and to pool their information and take communal decisions. All signs of intelligence.

What the researchers were seeing in the visual area activity was the fact that the brain is programmed to understand what the body is doing and rapid running can be dangerous, so it must be alert for dangers. Clever program that. Where did it come from, which agency? The answer can only be God or nature, and do you think nature designs? Not! Which you explain is why you are agnostic without an answer you can believe.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Monday, November 11, 2019, 10:51 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: “However, unfortunately, Shapiro tends to grossly oversell his case, which I find irritating. Calling evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful’,is in my opinion not very illuminating, nor does it set a clear research agenda.

DAVID: I certainly agree with the reviewer, and I've read the book! He only studies bacteria which as freely living, must make responses, that obviously could be built-in automatic.

dhw: George and you both dispute that Shapiro is advocating cellular intelligence as the engineering force behind speciation. I am merely pointing out that this is precisely his theory. I know you disagree with him, and prefer your speciation theory of divine 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes for speciation.

DAVID: You haven't answered my point. Free-living bacteria are a different breed of cat than cells in multicellular organisms. Shapiro cannot infer that they are the same and I am not sure he really does. All he has studied is DNA in single cells.

I reproduced the quote because George had failed to find any reference to Shapiro’s belief in cellular intelligence. I know you oppose this idea, and yes, there are different types of cells, but there are scientists who believe that they all have varying degrees of intelligence, as illustrated by the Lieff quotation.

dhw: You keep claiming that scientists pooh-pooh the idea that cells are intelligent. Now you are trying to gloss over yet another scientist’s championship of the theory by saying neurons are different and superior, while deliberately leaving out his own word “intelligent”!

DAVID: Of course neurons are great contributors to intelligence. They are totally different than the cells you want to tout as intelligent, which could be totally automatic.

Yes I know. But many scientists believe that all cells have varying degrees of intelligence, and frankly I don’t know of any who claim that a God provided the first cells with computer programmes to be passed on for every cellular process, strategy, innovation, natural wonder, lifestyle etc. in the history of life. Do you?

dhw: A change in environmental conditions will inevitably lead to a change in behaviour (entailing adaptation and/or innovation or death), which in turn will lead to anatomical changes to enable the organism to function in the new environment (e.g. flippers, bipedalling legs). Pure Darwin or not, why do you find this illogical?

DAVID: There is no proof changes in behavior cause speciation, which is your Darwinian point.

dhw: You simply refuse to recognize that NOBODY can prove the cause of speciation, which is why we have theories like mine and yours. And you still refuse to say why you find my proposal illogical.

DAVID: Look at Talbott's essay for an answer. That new species have attributes that handle new environmental problems only tells us some agency developed the design preparation for a new species.

Talbott does not know the definitive answer any more than you or I do, but I cannot see how his view contradicts my proposal that “some agency” (let’s call it God) may have designed the mechanism which enabled organisms to work out their own responses to the demands of the environment.

QUOTE from “Introducing the brain”: The researchers found that even though the animals couldn’t see anything, the activity in their visual cortex was both extensive and shockingly multidimensional, meaning that it was encoding a great deal of information. Not only were the neurons chatting, but “there were many conversations going on at the same time,” wrote Marius Pachitariu, a neuroscientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

dhw: Sounds to me like a community of cells constantly communicating with one another, passing on information, but always ready to focus on single issues when necessary and to pool their information and take communal decisions. All signs of intelligence.

DAVID: What the researchers were seeing in the visual area activity was the fact that the brain is programmed to understand what the body is doing and rapid running can be dangerous, so it must be alert for dangers. Clever program that. Where did it come from, which agency? The answer can only be God or nature, and do you think nature designs? Not! Which you explain is why you are agnostic without an answer you can believe.

The above quote says nothing about a 3.8-billion-year-old programme. It says the cells were encoding information and chatting about it. Maybe their ability to encode information and chat about it and take decisions about individual courses of action is the result of an autonomous mechanism for thought. “Where did it come from, which agency?” Maybe your God? Who knows?

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Monday, November 11, 2019, 17:12 (26 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You haven't answered my point. Free-living bacteria are a different breed of cat than cells in multicellular organisms. Shapiro cannot infer that they are the same and I am not sure he really does. All he has studied is DNA in single cells.

dhw; I reproduced the quote because George had failed to find any reference to Shapiro’s belief in cellular intelligence. I know you oppose this idea, and yes, there are different types of cells, but there are scientists who believe that they all have varying degrees of intelligence, as illustrated by the Lieff quotation.

It doesn't get around the problem that cells are observed from the outside. You are simply quoting impressions, not proof.


dhw: You keep claiming that scientists pooh-pooh the idea that cells are intelligent. Now you are trying to gloss over yet another scientist’s championship of the theory by saying neurons are different and superior, while deliberately leaving out his own word “intelligent”!

DAVID: Of course neurons are great contributors to intelligence. They are totally different than the cells you want to tout as intelligent, which could be totally automatic.

dhw: Yes I know. But many scientists believe that all cells have varying degrees of intelligence, and frankly I don’t know of any who claim that a God provided the first cells with computer programmes to be passed on for every cellular process, strategy, innovation, natural wonder, lifestyle etc. in the history of life. Do you?

ID folks agree with me in that God is the designer..


dhw: A change in environmental conditions will inevitably lead to a change in behaviour (entailing adaptation and/or innovation or death), which in turn will lead to anatomical changes to enable the organism to function in the new environment (e.g. flippers, bipedalling legs). Pure Darwin or not, why do you find this illogical?

DAVID: There is no proof changes in behavior cause speciation, which is your Darwinian point.

dhw: You simply refuse to recognize that NOBODY can prove the cause of speciation, which is why we have theories like mine and yours. And you still refuse to say why you find my proposal illogical.

DAVID: Look at Talbott's essay for an answer. That new species have attributes that handle new environmental problems only tells us some agency developed the design preparation for a new species.

dhw: Talbott does not know the definitive answer any more than you or I do, but I cannot see how his view contradicts my proposal that “some agency” (let’s call it God) may have designed the mechanism which enabled organisms to work out their own responses to the demands of the environment.

Thank you. There must be an agent.


QUOTE from “Introducing the brain”: The researchers found that even though the animals couldn’t see anything, the activity in their visual cortex was both extensive and shockingly multidimensional, meaning that it was encoding a great deal of information. Not only were the neurons chatting, but “there were many conversations going on at the same time,” wrote Marius Pachitariu, a neuroscientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

dhw: Sounds to me like a community of cells constantly communicating with one another, passing on information, but always ready to focus on single issues when necessary and to pool their information and take communal decisions. All signs of intelligence.

DAVID: What the researchers were seeing in the visual area activity was the fact that the brain is programmed to understand what the body is doing and rapid running can be dangerous, so it must be alert for dangers. Clever program that. Where did it come from, which agency? The answer can only be God or nature, and do you think nature designs? Not! Which you explain is why you are agnostic without an answer you can believe.

dhw: The above quote says nothing about a 3.8-billion-year-old programme. It says the cells were encoding information and chatting about it. Maybe their ability to encode information and chat about it and take decisions about individual courses of action is the result of an autonomous mechanism for thought. “Where did it come from, which agency?” Maybe your God? Who knows?

The 3.8 byo program is your hangup. My comment above is that the brain is programmed for plasticity and to know what the body is doing at all times.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 08:35 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I reproduced the quote because George had failed to find any reference to Shapiro’s belief in cellular intelligence. I know you oppose this idea, and yes, there are different types of cells, but there are scientists who believe that they all have varying degrees of intelligence, as illustrated by the Lieff quotation.

DAVID:It doesn't get around the problem that cells are observed from the outside. You are simply quoting impressions, not proof.

Nobody can observe other organisms from the inside. We draw conclusions from their behaviour, and you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that “my” scientists are right.

QUOTE from Nature’s Wonders: “It's a very charismatic, conspicuous behavior,” McCreery adds. […] Scientists use similar traps to capture wild specimens.

DAVID: certainly a learned behavior which is now an instinct.

Learned from what? Your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old trap-building programme, or your God popping in to give the ants a few lessons so that they could keep life going until he fulfilled his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens? Do you not consider it possible that just as scientists use their intelligence to build similar traps, the ants might have done the same, and then passed the technique on to subsequent generations? Ditto with cell communities and their strategies for survival.

dhw: But many scientists believe that all cells have varying degrees of intelligence, and frankly I don’t know of any who claim that a God provided the first cells with computer programmes to be passed on for every cellular process, strategy, innovation, natural wonder, lifestyle etc. in the history of life. Do you?

DAVID: ID folks agree with me in that God is the designer.

Of course. Our dispute is not over arguments for God the designer, but over your illogical theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose.

dhw: Talbott does not know the definitive answer any more than you or I do, but I cannot see how his view contradicts my proposal that “some agency” (let’s call it God) may have designed the mechanism which enabled organisms to work out their own responses to the demands of the environment.

DAVID: Thank you. There must be an agent.

Agreed. You call it God, George calls it chance and natural laws, and I don’t know what the agency might have been and so I sit on the fence.

dhw (re “Introducing the brain”): The above quote says nothing about a 3.8-billion-year-old programme. It says the cells were encoding information and chatting about it. Maybe their ability to encode information and chat about it and take decisions about individual courses of action is the result of an autonomous mechanism for thought. “Where did it come from, which agency?” Maybe your God? Who knows?

DAVID: The 3.8 byo program is your hangup. My comment above is that the brain is programmed for plasticity and to know what the body is doing at all times.

Yes, it’s a hang-up. If your God did not plant his programmes in the first cells for every strategy, innovation, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc, then your only alternative is that he kept popping in to dabble. The brain is indeed plastic, and it communicates with the body. Even you believe that the plastic human brain makes its own decisions autonomously, so why can’t you accept the possibility that the mouse brain and the ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might also make their own decisions autonomously?

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 15:53 (25 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:It doesn't get around the problem that cells are observed from the outside. You are simply quoting impressions, not proof.

dhw: Nobody can observe other organisms from the inside. We draw conclusions from their behaviour, and you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that “my” scientists are right.

Thanks for agreeing it is all impressions, not a real proof basis for theory.


QUOTE from Nature’s Wonders: “It's a very charismatic, conspicuous behavior,” McCreery adds. […] Scientists use similar traps to capture wild specimens.

DAVID: certainly a learned behavior which is now an instinct.

dhw: Learned from what? Your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old trap-building programme, or your God popping in to give the ants a few lessons so that they could keep life going until he fulfilled his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens? Do you not consider it possible that just as scientists use their intelligence to build similar traps, the ants might have done the same, and then passed the technique on to subsequent generations? Ditto with cell communities and their strategies for survival.

Cell committees are not ants who have brains and could have noted molted feathers on the forest floor trapped insects in dips in the ground. Not the same as autonomous ants all doing the same thing as in bridges.

dhw (re “Introducing the brain”): The above quote says nothing about a 3.8-billion-year-old programme. It says the cells were encoding information and chatting about it. Maybe their ability to encode information and chat about it and take decisions about individual courses of action is the result of an autonomous mechanism for thought. “Where did it come from, which agency?” Maybe your God? Who knows?

DAVID: The 3.8 byo program is your hangup. My comment above is that the brain is programmed for plasticity and to know what the body is doing at all times.

dhw: Yes, it’s a hang-up. If your God did not plant his programmes in the first cells for every strategy, innovation, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc, then your only alternative is that he kept popping in to dabble. The brain is indeed plastic, and it communicates with the body. Even you believe that the plastic human brain makes its own decisions autonomously, so why can’t you accept the possibility that the mouse brain and the ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might also make their own decisions autonomously?

See above. I think they do.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 11:19 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It doesn't get around the problem that cells are observed from the outside. You are simply quoting impressions, not proof.

dhw: Nobody can observe other organisms from the inside. We draw conclusions from their behaviour, and you have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance that “my” scientists are right.

DAVID: Thanks for agreeing it is all impressions, not a real proof basis for theory.

And there is no “real proof evidence” for your theory that cells were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, so why don’t you just consider the comparative likelihood of the two theories?

QUOTE from "Nature’s Wonders": “It's a very charismatic, conspicuous behavior,” McCreery adds. […] Scientists use similar traps to capture wild specimens.

DAVID: certainly a learned behavior which is now an instinct.

dhw: Learned from what? Your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old trap-building programme, or your God popping in to give the ants a few lessons so that they could keep life going until he fulfilled his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens? Do you not consider it possible that just as scientists use their intelligence to build similar traps, the ants might have done the same, and then passed the technique on to subsequent generations? Ditto with cell communities and their strategies for survival.

DAVID: Cell committees are not ants who have brains and could have noted molted feathers on the forest floor trapped insects in dips in the ground. Not the same as autonomous ants all doing the same thing as in bridges.

I had misunderstood you! All these years I thought you believed that ant strategies and all the other natural wonders you have presented to us had been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God, but now you agree that all of these natural wonders have been designed by the autonomous intelligence of the organisms themselves. A red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.:-)
I often use ants as an analogy for cell communities, but it’s true that cells do not have brains. The fact that their behaviour displays the same sort of intelligence displayed by ants (they process information, communicate, take decisions etc.) suggests to me – as it must to the many pro-cellular-intelligence scientists who specialize in the field – that they have their own equivalent of a brain.

dhw: Even you believe that the plastic human brain makes its own decisions autonomously, so why can’t you accept the possibility that the mouse brain and the ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might also make their own decisions autonomously?

DAVID: See above. I think they do.

Hallelujah! Except that a few minutes later you posted an article about ants, and drew this conclusion:

DAVID: No question. Ants are genetically programmed for their individual caste tasks. With God in charge of evolution, He well can be the designer/programmer.

The interplay between environment and organism determines behaviour, and the authors have uncovered the chemical processes that take place when the behaviour changes - “similar to humans”. All forms of behaviour are either determined by or give rise to chemical processes. However, genetic programming – applicable to all organisms including ourselves – does not explain the origin of strategies such as ant farming, mechanical engineering, insect traps, bridge-building etc., which I am happy to say you have now attributed to the autonomous intelligence of the ants themselves. Thank you again.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 19:53 (24 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE from "Nature’s Wonders": “It's a very charismatic, conspicuous behavior,” McCreery adds. […] Scientists use similar traps to capture wild specimens.

DAVID: certainly a learned behavior which is now an instinct.

dhw: Learned from what? Your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old trap-building programme, or your God popping in to give the ants a few lessons so that they could keep life going until he fulfilled his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens? Do you not consider it possible that just as scientists use their intelligence to build similar traps, the ants might have done the same, and then passed the technique on to subsequent generations? Ditto with cell communities and their strategies for survival.

DAVID: Cell committees are not ants who have brains and could have noted molted feathers on the forest floor trapped insects in dips in the ground. Not the same as autonomous ants all doing the same thing as in bridges.

dhw: I had misunderstood you! All these years I thought you believed that ant strategies and all the other natural wonders you have presented to us had been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God, but now you agree that all of these natural wonders have been designed by the autonomous intelligence of the organisms themselves. A red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.:-)

Wow! What a misinterpretation. I simply said brains in ants can reach some simple conclusions, which cell committees are incapable of doing from your illogical extrapolations:

dhw: I often use ants as an analogy for cell communities, but it’s true that cells do not have brains. The fact that their behaviour displays the same sort of intelligence displayed by ants (they process information, communicate, take decisions etc.) suggests to me – as it must to the many pro-cellular-intelligence scientists who specialize in the field – that they have their own equivalent of a brain.

Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.


dhw: Even you believe that the plastic human brain makes its own decisions autonomously, so why can’t you accept the possibility that the mouse brain and the ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might also make their own decisions autonomously?

DAVID: See above. I think they do.

dhw: Hallelujah! Except that a few minutes later you posted an article about ants, and drew this conclusion:

DAVID: No question. Ants are genetically programmed for their individual caste tasks. With God in charge of evolution, He well can be the designer/programmer.

I don't know what the hallelujah is. Our brain can do some plastic changes in responses to new use. Bacteria live on their own and are programmed for automatic responses to their needs, which are very simple. Avoid trouble, find food, quorum sense and fight if necessary.


dhw: The interplay between environment and organism determines behaviour, and the authors have uncovered the chemical processes that take place when the behaviour changes - “similar to humans”. All forms of behaviour are either determined by or give rise to chemical processes. However, genetic programming – applicable to all organisms including ourselves – does not explain the origin of strategies such as ant farming, mechanical engineering, insect traps, bridge-building etc., which I am happy to say you have now attributed to the autonomous intelligence of the ants themselves. Thank you again.

I've agreed ants can learn some things because they have brains unlike single cells which do not. That learning can lead to instincts in which individual ants are each programmed to do their individual tasks.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 12:34 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Cell committees are not ants who have brains and could have noted molted feathers on the forest floor trapped insects in dips in the ground. Not the same as autonomous ants all doing the same thing as in bridges.

dhw: I had misunderstood you! All these years I thought you believed that ant strategies and all the other natural wonders you have presented to us had been preprogrammed or dabbled by your God, but now you agree that all of these natural wonders have been designed by the autonomous intelligence of the organisms themselves. A red letter day in the history of the AgnosticWeb.

DAVID: Wow! What a misinterpretation. I simply said brains in ants can reach some simple conclusions, which cell committees are incapable of doing from your illogical extrapolations.

What a shame! When you said that cell “committees” are not autonomous ants with brains and therefore could not create traps and bridges, I thought you meant that autonomous ants autonomously created traps and bridges. My mistake.

dhw: I often use ants as an analogy for cell communities, but it’s true that cells do not have brains. The fact that their behaviour displays the same sort of intelligence displayed by ants (they process information, communicate, take decisions etc.) suggests to me – as it must to the many pro-cellular-intelligence scientists who specialize in the field – that they have their own equivalent of a brain.

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

dhw: Even you believe that the plastic human brain makes its own decisions autonomously, so why can’t you accept the possibility that the mouse brain and the ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might also make their own decisions autonomously?

DAVID: See above. I think they do.

dhw: Hallelujah! Except that a few minutes later you posted an article about ants, and drew this conclusion:

DAVID: I don't know what the hallelujah is. Our brain can do some plastic changes in responses to new use. Bacteria live on their own and are programmed for automatic responses to their needs, which are very simple. Avoid trouble, find food, quorum sense and fight if necessary.

Sorry again, but when I wrote that mouse brain and ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might make their own decisions autonomously, you said “I think they do”, which I took to mean they do make their own decisions autonomously. I didn’t think “autonomously” meant programmed for automatic responses. And I’m sorry again, but the list of bacterial needs should also contain solving new problems (e.g. new medications designed to kill them), and although these needs apply to most organisms on earth, the means of fulfilling those needs are often far from simple but require actions which from the outside would seem to denote the use of intelligence – and of course nobody can possibly prove that they do or do not denote the use of intelligence.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 19:36 (23 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Wow! What a misinterpretation. I simply said brains in ants can reach some simple conclusions, which cell committees are incapable of doing from your illogical extrapolations.

dhw: What a shame! When you said that cell “committees” are not autonomous ants with brains and therefore could not create traps and bridges, I thought you meant that autonomous ants autonomously created traps and bridges. My mistake.

dhw: I often use ants as an analogy for cell communities, but it’s true that cells do not have brains. The fact that their behaviour displays the same sort of intelligence displayed by ants (they process information, communicate, take decisions etc.) suggests to me – as it must to the many pro-cellular-intelligence scientists who specialize in the field – that they have their own equivalent of a brain.

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

dhw: We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

I don't care what one hyperbolic scientist thinks. He has no consensus.


dhw: Even you believe that the plastic human brain makes its own decisions autonomously, so why can’t you accept the possibility that the mouse brain and the ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might also make their own decisions autonomously?

DAVID: See above. I think they do.

dhw: Hallelujah! Except that a few minutes later you posted an article about ants, and drew this conclusion:

DAVID: I don't know what the hallelujah is. Our brain can do some plastic changes in responses to new use. Bacteria live on their own and are programmed for automatic responses to their needs, which are very simple. Avoid trouble, find food, quorum sense and fight if necessary.

dhw: Sorry again, but when I wrote that mouse brain and ant brain and the bacterium’s equivalent of a brain might make their own decisions autonomously, you said “I think they do”, which I took to mean they do make their own decisions autonomously. I didn’t think “autonomously” meant programmed for automatic responses. And I’m sorry again, but the list of bacterial needs should also contain solving new problems (e.g. new medications designed to kill them), and although these needs apply to most organisms on earth, the means of fulfilling those needs are often far from simple but require actions which from the outside would seem to denote the use of intelligence – and of course nobody can possibly prove that they do or do not denote the use of intelligence.

Thank you.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:11 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

dhw: We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

DAVID: I don't care what one hyperbolic scientist thinks. He has no consensus.

You said none of “my scientists” talks about the equivalent. I have named one. There is no theory that has a consensus – otherwise there would be no discussion. But your dismissal of “most scientists” as unthinking Darwinists, and of scientists who disagree with you over cellular intelligence as “hyperbolic”, casts a much darker shadow over yourself than over them. I hope these statements were merely the product of a bad day on the ranch.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Friday, November 15, 2019, 19:10 (22 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

dhw: We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

DAVID: I don't care what one hyperbolic scientist thinks. He has no consensus.

dhw: You said none of “my scientists” talks about the equivalent. I have named one. There is no theory that has a consensus – otherwise there would be no discussion. But your dismissal of “most scientists” as unthinking Darwinists, and of scientists who disagree with you over cellular intelligence as “hyperbolic”, casts a much darker shadow over yourself than over them. I hope these statements were merely the product of a bad day on the ranch.

You are the one who is using a singular opinion and contort it into a possible fact. I have a whole bunch of ID folks with me at Uncommondescent.com.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by dhw, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 13:51 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

dhw: We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

DAVID: I don't care what one hyperbolic scientist thinks. He has no consensus.

dhw: You said none of “my scientists” talks about the equivalent. I have named one. There is no theory that has a consensus – otherwise there would be no discussion. But your dismissal of “most scientists” as unthinking Darwinists, and of scientists who disagree with you over cellular intelligence as “hyperbolic”, casts a much darker shadow over yourself than over them. I hope these statements were merely the product of a bad day on the ranch.

DAVID: You are the one who is using a singular opinion and contort it into a possible fact. I have a whole bunch of ID folks with me at Uncommondescent.com.

Of course it’s a possible fact. You yourself have said that we cannot judge from the outside whether organisms are intelligent or not, and the chances are 50/50. If theories are not “possible facts”, they will disappear immediately. ID folks are with you on the need for design, but cellular intelligence does not in any way contradict the idea of design: it only contradicts your belief that every undabbled lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder was specially preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, and every innovation took place in anticipation of and not in response to changing conditions. Belief in cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, but you simply refuse to give any credence to the views of some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying cells.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 19:24 (21 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Wow! None of your scientists talk about the equivalent of a cellular brain. They simply note the cells show reactions that appear to be intelligent, an impression which is never proof.

dhw: We know the theory can’t be proved, any more than you can prove that they are NOT intelligent, but if one believes that cells are intelligent and intelligence is linked to a brain, it is only logical to assume that cells have the equivalent of a brain. Albrecht-Bühler thinks the centrosome is the cell’s equivalent of the brain.

DAVID: I don't care what one hyperbolic scientist thinks. He has no consensus.

dhw: You said none of “my scientists” talks about the equivalent. I have named one. There is no theory that has a consensus – otherwise there would be no discussion. But your dismissal of “most scientists” as unthinking Darwinists, and of scientists who disagree with you over cellular intelligence as “hyperbolic”, casts a much darker shadow over yourself than over them. I hope these statements were merely the product of a bad day on the ranch.

DAVID: You are the one who is using a singular opinion and contort it into a possible fact. I have a whole bunch of ID folks with me at Uncommondescent.com.

dhw: Of course it’s a possible fact. You yourself have said that we cannot judge from the outside whether organisms are intelligent or not, and the chances are 50/50. If theories are not “possible facts”, they will disappear immediately. ID folks are with you on the need for design, but cellular intelligence does not in any way contradict the idea of design: it only contradicts your belief that every undabbled lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder was specially preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago, and every innovation took place in anticipation of and not in response to changing conditions. Belief in cellular intelligence is not a “singular opinion”, but you simply refuse to give any credence to the views of some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying cells.

Their odds of being right are 50/50 just like mine. We can only look at the cells and what they do.

David's theory of evolution Part One

by David Turell @, Friday, November 08, 2019, 14:52 (29 days ago) @ dhw

GEORGE: I don't think I've heard of this theory that "intelligent cells or cell communities" have "their own special form of consciousness" that guides their evolution before, but it sounds rather like reviving elan vital or a form of pan-psychism. It seems to me that postulating such things without proof is unnecessary, since natural selection is adequate.

DAVID: Again, I agree. It is a vast stretch of what is known.

dhw: George has never heard of the theory, whereas David knows all about it and is prepared to dismiss it in favour of a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in life’s history.

DAVID: I'm not surprised George is ignorant. Who supports your cell theory causing speciation?

dhw: James A. Shapiro, with his theory of “natural genetic engineering” and his firm advocacy of cellular intelligence, which is advocated by large numbers of scientists.

I don't see a large number. Shapiro's bacterial work does not say cells make a new speciation. Only that they can modify in intelligent ways to satisfy their local new conditions.

DAVID: I do not interpret Lieff as you do. See my comment

John Lieff: The Emperor of Cells – How intelligent are Cancer Cells?
Microbes have abilities to make decisions, communicate, and solve problems.
While microbes appear to have a type of cognition, the neuron has been observed to be vastly more complex with its own intelligent activity, an entire civilization by comparison to a microbe.

dhw: Your comment was: "The bold comment makes sense."
Lieff believes that cells are intelligent, and neurons are vastly more intelligent than microbes. How does this mean anything other than that cells are intelligent, and some are more intelligent than others?

Lieff's point is that neurons are vastly different, a difference you are trying to smudge.


dhw: Sometimes you complain that there are no transitional forms, but the moment you are confronted with transitional forms, you flounder for an explanation. Does it not occur to you that in some areas some of our ancestors would have made a good living staying up in the trees, whereas in different areas others would have found it advantageous to be up in the trees AND to be down on the ground?

DAVID: I never flounder. Good just-so Darwinian explanation. These 11.6 myo apes liked the ground so much they just invented bipedal legs. Glad you could read their minds. I though major necessity of environmental change caused major speciation as in the savanna theory.

dhw: You seem to think that the very mention of Darwin automatically disqualifies a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Environmental change may well result in major necessity, but opportunity may also be a factor that leads organisms to a new form of behaviour.

Go on dreaming that a change in behavior creates new species. That is your implication and it comes from pure Darwin.

dhw: More food on the ground (pre-humans) or in the water (pre-whales). No, the apes wouldn’t have “invented” bipedal legs. It would have been their effort to maximize their exploitation of the new environment that would have resulted in the physical changes involved in bipedalism, and that means adjustments have to be made by the cell communities of which the body is composed.

More of the same unproven minor adaption/modification leads to speciation . Mind Gould's gaps!

dhw: Even now, certain activities can change both the body and the brain – obviously not to the extent involved in speciation (which nobody can explain), but the principle is the same. God does not come down and expand the body-builder’s muscles or change the brain of the pre-taxi-driver, the pre-musician, the illiterate learner before they can drive, play or read. It is activity that causes the changes.

These minor changes are built in to life's abilities to adapt, and as you say a a theist, perhaps a mechanism given by God

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum