Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 10:42 (224 days ago)

This thread replaces “Innovation and speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends”. We can use it to cover different subjects that probably won’t develop into full-scale discussions.

Fine tuning
dhw: Your non-acceptance does not explain why the theory is not feasible.

DAVID: It is feasible with a weak human, as I've told you before.

dhw: Why wanting a free-for-all and creating it should make your God into a weak human I really don’t know. It makes me wonder how you can then go on to champion the idea of free will, if your God is such a control freak.

DAVID: I see God as a control freak only over evolutionary design creations. He doesn't need control over our personal behaviour.

We are not talking of need but of what God wants. If he wants humans to have a free-for-all, why should he not want evolution to develop freely?

Sea turtles
Dealt with under “Theodicy

Egnor’s latest
dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

DAVID: He didn't tell me.

dhw: I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know, but not knowing bothers you, not me.

We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

Introducing the brain
QUOTE: "The scientists discovered that microglia are not extending their branches at random. Instead, microglia reach out primarily to active neurons, one after another, while paying less attention to non-active neurons. Importantly, they noticed that when microglia touch an active neuron, that neuron's activity does not increase further."

DAVID: It is logical that the brain would have its electrical actions under tight controls; such a highly complex system requires design.

Amazing stuff. Thank you. Yet again we have cells performing intelligent actions as they play different parts in the functioning of their community. If we look outside ourselves and see ants doing the same thing, we might grasp the fact that evolution is a history of cells cooperating to form ever more complex communities. Each body is a community of communities, but because they're all contained within us, we don’t make the connection with the communities we can actually see. Yes, designed, but all of this evolved over billions of years. We needn’t repeat the different theories concerning how it was designed.

Brain expansion

QUOTE: “This means every brain has the same essential ingredients but with species-specific mutations to aid survival in different environments. This, argues Ms. Barrett, undermines the idea that the human brain stands apart as the pinnacle of natural selection. Sure, our brain seems impressive, but we are simply one animal among many with a noodle adapted to the task of survival. “Other animals are not inferior to humans,” Ms. Barrett writes. “Your brain is not more evolved than a rat or lizard brain, just differently evolved.”

The idea that the human brain evolved initially through the effort to improve chances of survival seems to me perfectly reasonable, but Ms Barrett’s attempt to downgrade all the amazing technical, intellectual and artistic achievements that have no connection with survival seems to me to be pointless. There are many fields in which animals are superior to us, and many in which we are superior. What does she mean by “more evolved”? Our brain is more complex, and is indeed different. That doesn’t invalidate our achievements that go beyond survival. I understand her dislike of human arrogance, and use of the term “pinnacle”, and especially our appalling disrespect for our fellow animals, but until she discovers a rat or lizard that can fly to the moon, analyse its DNA or compose a symphony, I feel she is replacing one unbalanced view with another.

Who is God?
QUOTES: “Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever.”
"When I say a problem is unsolvable, I don’t mean we should abandon it. Far from it. I love reading, writing and arguing about intractable puzzles. For example, I don’t believe in God, certainly not the God of my Catholic childhood. But I enjoy smart, imaginative theology (defined as the study of God) in the same way that I enjoy good science fiction
."

DAVID: this discussion is exactly on point with Adler's admonition that in thinking about God, realize He is a person like no other person. That is why I reject any sense of humanizing Him in discussions about what He did/does and why He did/does it.

I don’t know why you’ve called this thread “Who is God?” or why you take it as support for your silly attempts to discredit logical theories on grounds of “humanization”. The author’s point is that we probably shan’t ever solve any of the problems he has listed (e.g. God’s existence), but he enjoys discussing them. He would be the perfect man for our website.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 14:21 (223 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Why wanting a free-for-all and creating it should make your God into a weak human I really don’t know. It makes me wonder how you can then go on to champion the idea of free will, if your God is such a control freak.

DAVID: I see God as a control freak only over evolutionary design creations. He doesn't need control over our personal behaviour.

dhw: We are not talking of need but of what God wants. If he wants humans to have a free-for-all, why should he not want evolution to develop freely?

Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all

Egnor’s latest
dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

DAVID: He didn't tell me.

dhw: I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know, but not knowing bothers you, not me.

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.


Introducing the brain
QUOTE: "The scientists discovered that microglia are not extending their branches at random. Instead, microglia reach out primarily to active neurons, one after another, while paying less attention to non-active neurons. Importantly, they noticed that when microglia touch an active neuron, that neuron's activity does not increase further."

DAVID: It is logical that the brain would have its electrical actions under tight controls; such a highly complex system requires design.

dhw: Amazing stuff. Thank you. Yet again we have cells performing intelligent actions as they play different parts in the functioning of their community. If we look outside ourselves and see ants doing the same thing, we might grasp the fact that evolution is a history of cells cooperating to form ever more complex communities. Each body is a community of communities, but because they're all contained within us, we don’t make the connection with the communities we can actually see. Yes, designed, but all of this evolved over billions of years. We needn’t repeat the different theories concerning how it was designed.

Yes, great design.


Brain expansion

QUOTE: “This means every brain has the same essential ingredients but with species-specific mutations to aid survival in different environments. This, argues Ms. Barrett, undermines the idea that the human brain stands apart as the pinnacle of natural selection. Sure, our brain seems impressive, but we are simply one animal among many with a noodle adapted to the task of survival. “Other animals are not inferior to humans,” Ms. Barrett writes. “Your brain is not more evolved than a rat or lizard brain, just differently evolved.”

dhw: The idea that the human brain evolved initially through the effort to improve chances of survival seems to me perfectly reasonable, but Ms Barrett’s attempt to downgrade all the amazing technical, intellectual and artistic achievements that have no connection with survival seems to me to be pointless. There are many fields in which animals are superior to us, and many in which we are superior. What does she mean by “more evolved”? Our brain is more complex, and is indeed different. That doesn’t invalidate our achievements that go beyond survival. I understand her dislike of human arrogance, and use of the term “pinnacle”, and especially our appalling disrespect for our fellow animals, but until she discovers a rat or lizard that can fly to the moon, analyse its DNA or compose a symphony, I feel she is replacing one unbalanced view with another.

I agree.


Who is God?
QUOTES: “Philosophy addresses questions that probably can’t be solved, now or ever.”
"When I say a problem is unsolvable, I don’t mean we should abandon it. Far from it. I love reading, writing and arguing about intractable puzzles. For example, I don’t believe in God, certainly not the God of my Catholic childhood. But I enjoy smart, imaginative theology (defined as the study of God) in the same way that I enjoy good science fiction
."

DAVID: this discussion is exactly on point with Adler's admonition that in thinking about God, realize He is a person like no other person. That is why I reject any sense of humanizing Him in discussions about what He did/does and why He did/does it.

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve called this thread “Who is God?” or why you take it as support for your silly attempts to discredit logical theories on grounds of “humanization”. The author’s point is that we probably shan’t ever solve any of the problems he has listed (e.g. God’s existence), but he enjoys discussing them. He would be the perfect man for our website.

We do not know who God is, or if He has any human characteristics

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, December 17, 2020, 10:38 (223 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
dhw: Why wanting a free-for-all and creating it should make your God into a weak human I really don’t know. It makes me wonder how you can then go on to champion the idea of free will, if your God is such a control freak.

DAVID: I see God as a control freak only over evolutionary design creations. He doesn't need control over our personal behaviour.

dhw: We are not talking of need but of what God wants. If he wants humans to have a free-for-all, why should he not want evolution to develop freely?

DAVID: Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all.

Even if it were true that evolution has ended, that does not invalidate the theory that your God wanted a free-for-all! And the fact that humans are having a free-for-all is a clear indication that your God is perfectly capable of wanting a free-for-all, so there is absolutely no reason to insist that he couldn’t have wanted evolution itself to be a free-for all.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

DAVID: He didn't tell me.

dhw: I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know, but not knowing bothers you, not me.

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

DAVID: You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.

This makes a mockery of all discussion. In any case, you have written two brilliant books, the basis of which is that life’s complexities only make “sense” if we accept the argument for design, i.e. for a designer, i.e. for God. You only want “sense” when you can find it, but thank you for admitting once more that your theory makes no sense to you.

Arctic squirrels
QUOTE: "Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works…”

DAVID: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed.

Maybe Arctic winters were not always as harsh as they are now, and millions of years ago, as winters gradually became harsher, the intelligent cells that run all adaptations introduced and refined these remarkable ways of countering the harshness. Exactly the same process as with all adaptation: the cell communities restructure themselves in order to meet new requirements. Just a theory – and of course one must allow for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. I find this vastly more convincing than the theory of random mutations, and also of God preprogramming the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago with squirrelly methods of countering extreme cold, or stepping in to operate on a batch of shivering squirrels as part of his goal of evolving humans.

Kangaroos
QUOTES: “Kangaroos in zoos and sanctuaries use body language to ask humans for help, much like horses and dogs do, which suggests that even wild animals can learn to engage in interspecies communication just by being around humans."

"McElligott and his colleagues studied 16 kangaroos of three different subspecies living in captivity in Australia. Using methods similar to those used in previous studies on horses, dogs and goats, the scientists first trained the kangaroos to find a tasty treat – bits of carrots, corn or sweet potatoes – in a small box. Then they closed the box in a way that made it impossible for kangaroos to open and observed how the animals responded."

DAVID: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK.

100% agreed. This one made me laugh. Animals are not wild if they have been trained by humans! I suggest the researchers devise a test for a pride of lions in the African jungle, and stand close by to see what will happen. We know that wild animals help their own species, and there are lots of symbiotic relationships in which different species also help one another (e.g. birds picking alligators’ teeth); feral children brought up by animals would be another example, though very rare.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 17, 2020, 15:29 (222 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all.

dhw: Even if it were true that evolution has ended, that does not invalidate the theory that your God wanted a free-for-all! And the fact that humans are having a free-for-all is a clear indication that your God is perfectly capable of wanting a free-for-all, so there is absolutely no reason to insist that he couldn’t have wanted evolution itself to be a free-for all.

Apples and oysters. Designing evolution is serious work to produce proper functioning new forms. Humans fussing is at a totally insignificant level.


Egnor’s latest

dhw: I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know, but not knowing bothers you, not me.

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

DAVID: You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.

dhw: This makes a mockery of all discussion. In any case, you have written two brilliant books, the basis of which is that life’s complexities only make “sense” if we accept the argument for design, i.e. for a designer, i.e. for God. You only want “sense” when you can find it, but thank you for admitting once more that your theory makes no sense to you.

Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???


Arctic squirrels
QUOTE: "Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works…”

DAVID: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed.

dhw: Maybe Arctic winters were not always as harsh as they are now, and millions of years ago, as winters gradually became harsher, the intelligent cells that run all adaptations introduced and refined these remarkable ways of countering the harshness... I find this vastly more convincing than the theory of random mutations, and also of God preprogramming the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago with squirrelly methods of countering extreme cold, or stepping in to operate on a batch of shivering squirrels as part of his goal of evolving humans.

It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.


Kangaroos

DAVID: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK.

dhw: 100% agreed. This one made me laugh. Animals are not wild if they have been trained by humans! I suggest the researchers devise a test for a pride of lions in the African jungle, and stand close by to see what will happen. We know that wild animals help their own species, and there are lots of symbiotic relationships in which different species also help one another (e.g. birds picking alligators’ teeth); feral children brought up by animals would be another example, though very rare.

Roos are not lions by any stretch. I met many in Australia.


Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, December 18, 2020, 10:33 (222 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Remember, I view evolution as ended, and with free will humans are certainly having a free-for-all.

dhw: Even if it were true that evolution has ended, that does not invalidate the theory that your God wanted a free-for-all! And the fact that humans are having a free-for-all is a clear indication that your God is perfectly capable of wanting a free-for-all, so there is absolutely no reason to insist that he couldn’t have wanted evolution itself to be a free-for all.

DAVID: Apples and oysters. Designing evolution is serious work to produce proper functioning new forms. Humans fussing is at a totally insignificant level.

Oops, I thought you thought that humans were your God’s one and only purpose for designing all these functioning new forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And if he deliberately gave his one and only goal a free run, why is it not possible that the 99% of non-human life forms also had a free run, i.e. were the product of his deliberate desire NOT to control every one of his creations.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: [...] not knowing bothers you, not me.

dhw: We cannot “know” anything. We can only theorize. What “bothers” me is a theory which even its proposer can’t make sense of.

DAVID: You want 'sense'. It is of no matter to me.

dhw: This makes a mockery of all discussion. In any case, you have written two brilliant books, the basis of which is that life’s complexities only make “sense” if we accept the argument for design, i.e. for a designer, i.e. for God. You only want “sense” when you can find it, but thank you for admitting once more that your theory makes no sense to you.

DAVID: Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???

My memory of the two books is not as complete as yours. But perhaps you can point me to a passage in which you state explicitly that your God preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, life form, life style, econiche, strategy and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

Arctic squirrels
QUOTE: "Arctic ground squirrels can survive harsh winters with below-freezing temps by holing up for some eight months without eating. These hibernators “live at the most extreme edge of existence, just barely hovering over death, and we don’t fully understand how this works…”

DAVID: I would like a Darwinist tell me how this extreme change was evolved. Not step by step by chance. It was designed.

dhw: Maybe Arctic winters were not always as harsh as they are now, and millions of years ago, as winters gradually became harsher, the intelligent cells that run all adaptations introduced and refined these remarkable ways of countering the harshness... I find this vastly more convincing than the theory of random mutations, and also of God preprogramming the very first cells 3.8 billion years ago with squirrelly methods of countering extreme cold, or stepping in to operate on a batch of shivering squirrels as part of his goal of evolving humans.

DAVID: It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.

So do I, and I have explained how I think the design took place.

Kangaroos
DAVID: this is just domestication. Newborn horses want nothing to do with us, and we have to teach them we are OK.

dhw: 100% agreed. This one made me laugh. Animals are not wild if they have been trained by humans! I suggest the researchers devise a test for a pride of lions in the African jungle, and stand close by to see what will happen. We know that wild animals help their own species, and there are lots of symbiotic relationships in which different species also help one another (e.g. birds picking alligators’ teeth); feral children brought up by animals would be another example, though very rare.

DAVID: Roos are not lions by any stretch. I met many in Australia.

Beside the point. I have agreed with your criticism of the experiment! Of course trained animals have a relationship with the humans who train them.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

DAVID: Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, December 18, 2020, 14:14 (221 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
dhw: Oops, I thought you thought that humans were your God’s one and only purpose for designing all these functioning new forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And if he deliberately gave his one and only goal a free run, why is it not possible that the 99% of non-human life forms also had a free run, i.e. were the product of his deliberate desire NOT to control every one of his creations.

Again a weak God who is runing things second-hand. Depends upon one's view of God.


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???

dhw: My memory of the two books is not as complete as yours. But perhaps you can point me to a passage in which you state explicitly that your God preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, life form, life style, econiche, strategy and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

I specifically said He designed evolution


Arctic squirrels

DAVID: It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.

dhw: So do I, and I have explained how I think the design took place.

And I've answered I don't believe such an extreme adaptation occurred naturally.


Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

DAVID: Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, December 19, 2020, 08:18 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: I see God as a control freak only over evolutionary design creations. He doesn’t need control over our personal behaviour.

dhw: Oops, I thought you thought that humans were your God’s one and only purpose for designing all these functioning new forms, 99% of which had no connection with humans. And if he deliberately gave his one and only goal a free run, why is it not possible that the 99% of non-human life forms also had a free run, i.e. were the product of his deliberate desire NOT to control every one of his creations.

DAVID: Again a weak God who is runing things second-hand. Depends upon one's view of God.

Nothing weak about a God who knows what he wants and gets it. If he chose NOT to run humans, why is it out of the question that he might have chosen NOT to run evolution (apart, perhaps, from occasional dabbles)? An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: Don't you realize I wrote the two books not knowing God's reasons for his choices of methods of creation???

dhw: My memory of the two books is not as complete as yours. But perhaps you can point me to a passage in which you state explicitly that your God preprogrammed every undabbled innovation, life form, life style, econiche, strategy and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving humans, although 99% had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

Arctic squirrels
DAVID: It is true palm trees were at the North Pole, but the hibernation is so extreme I still feel design is the cause.

dhw: So do I, and I have explained how I think the design took place.

AVID: And I've answered I don't believe such an extreme adaptation occurred naturally.

By “naturally” you usually mean without God’s direct participation (preprogramming or dabbling). If God gave animals the intelligence to design their own defences against changing conditions, the adaptations would indeed be “natural”, but the term should not be equated with Darwinian randomness or with atheism. Just clarifying.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
QUOTE: "This is exciting, because we now have a way to identify genomic regions that might have contributed to the evolution of our cognitive abilities!"

dhw: Perhaps we should note in passing that the researchers take it for granted that our “cognitive abilities” depend on our material selves.

DAVID: Ourselves are immaterial but must use the available brain to form abstract thoughts.

dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: We don't understand why quarks are quarks, and the designer isn't talking, but with our brains we can figure out lots of the mysteries. And the moral is survival is not needed to have a brain like this. This clearly means survivability is not an issue which causes any sort of any evolutionary advance. It is an unproven Darwinistic proposal. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology, and doesn't tell us how speciation happens.

How you can twist the subject of strange stars to yet another silly moan about Darwin is beyond me. In any case, “survival of the fittest” is not meant to tell us what mechanism enables organisms to turn into new species. Darwin’s theory about that was random mutations, with the beneficial ones surviving. We both reject that. The urge to survive, or to improve chances of survival, is what spurs the changes that lead to speciation. Even you will have to admit that that is the obvious reason for known adaptations. And it is perfectly possible that our brains began to change as a result of our ancestors developing or having to develop new means of surviving/improving their chances of survival. Nothing to do with strange quark stars.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 19, 2020, 15:25 (220 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Again a weak God who is running things second-hand. Depends upon one's view of God.

dhw: Nothing weak about a God who knows what he wants and gets it. If he chose NOT to run humans, why is it out of the question that he might have chosen NOT to run evolution (apart, perhaps, from occasional dabbles)? An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.


Chimps ‘r’ not us

dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

dhw: That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

I believe they exist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it reaches insects in Jewish thought.


Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: We don't understand why quarks are quarks, and the designer isn't talking, but with our brains we can figure out lots of the mysteries. And the moral is survival is not needed to have a brain like this. This clearly means survivability is not an issue which causes any sort of any evolutionary advance. It is an unproven Darwinistic proposal. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology, and doesn't tell us how speciation happens.

dhw: How you can twist the subject of strange stars to yet another silly moan about Darwin is beyond me. In any case, “survival of the fittest” is not meant to tell us what mechanism enables organisms to turn into new species. Darwin’s theory about that was random mutations, with the beneficial ones surviving. We both reject that. The urge to survive, or to improve chances of survival, is what spurs the changes that lead to speciation. Even you will have to admit that that is the obvious reason for known adaptations. And it is perfectly possible that our brains began to change as a result of our ancestors developing or having to develop new means of surviving/improving their chances of survival. Nothing to do with strange quark stars.

As I see it, animals and plants definitely sense danger, but it is said we are the only species that recognizes eventual death. I don't see us wildly changing to avoid death. Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, December 20, 2020, 09:30 (220 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them. You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: Chimps and other animals all have to use their brains in order to process information, take decisions and give material expression to those decisions. Even bacteria have to do the same, though they haven’t got brains. Do they all have souls?

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

dhw: That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

DAVID: I believe they exist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it reaches insects in Jewish thought.

I’m not asking about Jewish thought. I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: And the moral is survival is not needed to have a brain like this. This clearly means survivability is not an issue which causes any sort of any evolutionary advance. It is an unproven Darwinistic proposal. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology, and doesn't tell us how speciation happens.

dhw: […] it is perfectly possible that our brains began to change as a result of our ancestors developing or having to develop new means of surviving/improving their chances of survival.

DAVID: As I see it, animals and plants definitely sense danger, but it is said we are the only species that recognizes eventual death. I don't see us wildly changing to avoid death. Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me. I have no idea why you would have strong doubts about its influence on evolution, other than your built-in hostility towards Darwinism.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: Note the age of the Milky Way at 12 billion years, which is just 1.78 billion years from the estimated Big Bang. As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 20, 2020, 17:59 (219 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

dhw: You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them.

Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

dhw: And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.


Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

dhw: It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes


Chimps ‘r’ not us

DAVID: In the Jewish religion they have animal souls.

dhw: That would make sense for dualists. I wonder where the boundary lies. Do ants have souls, then? What is your own view about animal souls?

DAVID: I believe they exist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it reaches insects in Jewish thought.

dhw: I’m not asking about Jewish thought. I asked if YOU thought ants had souls. I follow Hewish thought. I f they accept ants, I do.

Strange quark stars may exist

DAVID: As I see it, animals and plants definitely sense danger, but it is said we are the only species that recognizes eventual death. I don't see us wildly changing to avoid death. Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

dhw: Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me.

Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: Note the age of the Milky Way at 12 billion years, which is just 1.78 billion years from the estimated Big Bang. As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

dhw: They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, December 21, 2020, 12:04 (218 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
dhw: An unpredictable free-for-all would be so much more interesting for him than a dull Garden of Eden.

DAVID: Now you propose a God who is so bored He needs an exciting free-for-all, and then you complain about my accusation about humanizing!!!

dhw: You are sure that he is interested in his creations, likes them, and is satisfied with them.

DAVID: Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.”

dhw: And you can’t explain why – if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans - there has been a vast variety of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Put all of this together, and then tell me why it is illogical for your God to have wanted to create something he could be interested in, could like, and could be satisfied by.

DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you have still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: I specifically said He designed evolution.

dhw: You certainly did, and created a strong and logical case. Fortunately, you never said anything remotely like the theory I have just summarized above. Very wise of you.

DAVID: Again, God's choice to evolve from bacteria is obvious to theists.

dhw: It is obvious even to atheist evolutionists that ALL life forms evolved from simple life forms. You have forgotten that what is not obvious is the theory bolded above, which very wisely you did not include in your books.

DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

dhw: Your doubts about a “real drive” for survival run against all experience of life at all levels, including human. Its influence is observable even now in the way life forms adapt to new conditions or die. But nobody knows the cause of speciation, and so all we can do is look for logical explanations (a) for the driving force, and (b) for the kind of mechanism that might enable organisms to change their structures. Your acknowledgement that it is “reasonable” to propose that (a) might be the urge to survive is fine with me.

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

“Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: […] As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

DAVID (wrongly attributed to dhw): They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer, and the age of the Milky Way and the fact that it took time is not the most illuminating of comments.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, December 21, 2020, 15:23 (218 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Not so. I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably


dhw: Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.”

My comment is a nebulous guess. We cannot know, so theory support is very thin


DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

dhw: Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you have still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

dhw: Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

Only logical with an imagined humanized God.


Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

dhw: A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

I accepted animal souls long ago. One of the few points.


Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

The only drive is a resulting adaptation within species. No proof it drives evolution


Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: […] As I see God in charge of evolving the universe, I see Him here starting early to set up the proper galaxy to contain a special planet for life.

dhw: And your explanation for the billions of other galaxies that have been and in some cases gone?

DAVID (wrongly attributed to dhw): They are not gone. This is a discussion about ancient clusters!!! I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. But the Milky Way is ancient and took time to grow to this size

dhw: Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer, and the age of the Milky Way and the fact that it took time is not the most illuminating of comments.

No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, December 22, 2020, 10:48 (218 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: I'm not sure He is interested. Just probably

dhw: Here are some quotes: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” “I certainly think he is interested in His creations, but not as entertainment.” “I’m sure He likes what He creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.” But it makes no difference. Even “probably” supports the feasibility of the theory, as it does with your next false accusation.

dhw: You also believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: Again, only the use of logic. Stop the distortions

QUOTE: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.

DAVID: My comment is a nebulous guess. We cannot know, so theory support is very thin

I have not distorted anything, and your comments are not nebulous – they are explicit. But of course nobody even knows whether God exists, let alone what he is like. What unites you and me is our interest in the various possibilities.

DAVID: Same silly complaint, with you thinking God shouldn't have done it the way He did.

dhw: Same silly distortion, when you know perfectly well that I’m questioning your version of the way he did it, and you have no idea why he would have done it the way you think he did it. And you still haven’t told me why my proposal is illogical.

DAVID: My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical.

Yes, that is logical. For the thousandth time, what is not logical is your belief that your God individually designed every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder extant and extinct as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have admitted that you have no idea why he would have used such a method, you reject all alternative methods, and we agreed to leave it at that. So please stop all this backpedalling.

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: Same silly complaint. God chooses to do as He wishes

dhw: Of course he does – and you have no idea why he would have chosen to do it your way, but you reject all my theistic alternatives on silly grounds of “humanizing”, although you agree that they are perfectly logical.

DAVID: Only logical with an imagined humanized God.

And there is nothing wrong with that according to your own belief that he probably has thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

Chimps ‘r’ not us
dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

dhw: A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

DAVID: I accepted animal souls long ago. One of the few points.

Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

Strange quark stars may exist
DAVID: Again you are clinging to pure Darwinism that there is a real drive for survival. I accept it as a reasonable but unproven theory, and doubt strongly it is a factor in speciation.

And:

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

DAVID: The only drive is a resulting adaptation within species. No proof it drives evolution.

For the umpteenth time, it is a theory. Nobody has proof. But since we know for a fact that organisms change themselves in order to improve their chances of survival in new conditions, the logic of the theory cannot be faulted.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. […]

dhw: Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer […]

DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 22, 2020, 15:21 (217 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical.

dhw: Yes, that is logical. For the thousandth time, what is not logical is your belief that your God individually designed every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder extant and extinct as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have admitted that you have no idea why he would have used such a method, you reject all alternative methods, and we agreed to leave it at that. So please stop all this backpedalling.

It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?


Egnor’s latest

dhw: I asked if YOU thought ants had souls.

DAVID: I follow Jewish thought. If they accept ants, I do.

dhw: A most unusual approach: You believe what you’re told, although you don’t know what you’ve been told. Anyway, I always thought you preferred to think for yourself rather than accept the teachings of the established religions.

DAVID: I accepted animal souls long ago. One of the few points.

dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.


Strange quark stars may exist

DAVID: Survival of the fittest is just an observation, proving nothing.

dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.

DAVID: The only drive is a resulting adaptation within species. No proof it drives evolution.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, it is a theory. Nobody has proof. But since we know for a fact that organisms change themselves in order to improve their chances of survival in new conditions, the logic of the theory cannot be faulted.

Flat Earth is also a logical theory, but proves nothing, as is the issue of everything revolves around the Earth. What appears logical doesn't have to be.


Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID I can't answer your weird inference as to why the universe is so big. God has His reasons. […]

dhw: Not an inference but a question, and why “weird” since you believe your God’s sole purpose in designing the whole universe was to create us humans? You can’t answer […]

DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

dhw: There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

Some of your questions are obviously seeking answers in areas where we are not advanced enough to have answers, providing an implication God doesn't exist or he doesn't know what He is doing. The appendix is one of the best examples I know of this spurious approach. You see appendices in every direction.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 11:12 (216 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: My view of God is He creates history, therefore He evolved us from initial bacteria. Logical.

dhw: Yes, that is logical. For the thousandth time, what is not logical is your belief that your God individually designed every life form, econiche, strategy and natural wonder extant and extinct as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have admitted that you have no idea why he would have used such a method, you reject all alternative methods, and we agreed to leave it at that. So please stop all this backpedalling.

DAVID: It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?

Why do you keep playing the same silly trick as above? In itself, the premise that your God directly designed every organism is not illogical. What is illogical is the premise that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. You have no idea why he would have directly designed the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, and you agreed to leave it at that.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

Strange quark stars may exist
dhw: “Survival of the fittest” is the result of the process (natural selection), and that is not the point of the argument, which is that trying to improve chances of survival in ever changing conditions is the CAUSE that drives evolutionary change. Thank you again for agreeing that this theory is reasonable.[…]

DAVID: Flat Earth is also a logical theory, but proves nothing, as is the issue of everything revolves around the Earth. What appears logical doesn't have to be.

You have agreed that the quest for improved chances of survival in changing conditions provides a reasonable explanation for changes which might lead to speciation. I have agreed that the existence of a designer is a reasonable explanation for the complexities of life. Neither theory proves anything, so should we stop proposing theories until they have been proved? The whole point of all our discussions is to test how feasible the different theories are. You and I will never know which ones are true, unless the theory of an afterlife proves to be true, and then we might learn more.

Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

dhw: There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

DAVID: Some of your questions are obviously seeking answers in areas where we are not advanced enough to have answers, providing an implication God doesn't exist or he doesn't know what He is doing. The appendix is one of the best examples I know of this spurious approach. You see appendices in every direction.

Of course we don’t have answers – that is why we have theism, atheism and agnosticism! You are the one with fixed beliefs, none of which are proven, and I’m sorry, but telling me that the appendix is useful does not help me to understand why I should accept your fixed belief that there is a God whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, and who in order to fulfil that purpose designed billions of galaxies and millions of life forms and natural wonders, 99% of which appear to have had no connection whatsoever with humans.

Thank you for the other articles you have posted. I have nothing to add.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 13:12 (216 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?

dhw: Why do you keep playing the same silly trick as above? In itself, the premise that your God directly designed every organism is not illogical. What is illogical is the premise that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. You have no idea why he would have directly designed the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, and you agreed to leave it at that.

Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.


Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

dhw: I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

some Jewish theology sneaks into my belief system


Our galaxy has ancient clusters:
DAVID: No need to know an answer. God creates and evolves as He sees necessary to reach His goal, us. We eventually discover the answer to most questions.

dhw: There is no “need” to know the answer to any of the fundamental questions we discuss on this forum. But if someone proposes a theory, we discuss it. Your non-answer reminds me of Dawkins, who adopts the same attitude: “If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” Elsewhere, he says atheists not have faith! Only the much maligned agnostic (Darwin was one of us) seems able to view both sides of the argument!

DAVID: Some of your questions are obviously seeking answers in areas where we are not advanced enough to have answers, providing an implication God doesn't exist or he doesn't know what He is doing. The appendix is one of the best examples I know of this spurious approach. You see appendices in every direction.

dhw: Of course we don’t have answers – that is why we have theism, atheism and agnosticism! You are the one with fixed beliefs, none of which are proven, and I’m sorry, but telling me that the appendix is useful does not help me to understand why I should accept your fixed belief that there is a God whose sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, and who in order to fulfil that purpose designed billions of galaxies and millions of life forms and natural wonders, 99% of which appear to have had no connection whatsoever with humans.

Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.


Thank you for the other articles you have posted. I have nothing to add.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, December 24, 2020, 09:50 (216 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning and also Our galaxy has ancient clusters

DAVID: It is my firm belief God designed all stages of evolution, because the complexity of the organisms and the complexity of the changes requires it. If this issue is illogical why does it keep you agnostic?

dhw: Why do you keep playing the same silly trick as above? In itself, the premise that your God directly designed every organism is not illogical. What is illogical is the premise that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. You have no idea why he would have directly designed the 99% of organisms and food supplies that had no connection with humans, and you agreed to leave it at that.

DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, and so I have proposed that there is something wrong with at least one of your basic premises. I have offered theistic alternatives, every one of which fits in logically with the history of evolution, as you have agreed time and time again. Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

dhw: I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

DAVID: some Jewish theology sneaks into my belief system.

That still doesn’t explain why you believe in human and animal souls but have to rely on someone else’s beliefs before you can decide whether you believe in ant souls.

Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolv ev all his creations.

If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 24, 2020, 21:40 (215 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning and also Our galaxy has ancient clusters

DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, and so I have proposed that there is something wrong with at least one of your basic premises. I have offered theistic alternatives, every one of which fits in logically with the history of evolution, as you have agreed time and time again. Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

It is not my way. It is God's way as history tells us. The theory makes perfect sense to me. Please don't tell me how to logically think as you do in the bolded above. Since God is in change of creation how He did it is sheer undeniable history. What you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal. Since we are here against all chance ideas, Adler's thought and mine are entirely logical.


Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls?

DAVID: Over six thousand years of theology offers some points to consider.

dhw: I don’t think your belief in the human soul (dualism) is the result of your studying six thousand years of Jewish theology. All of a sudden, though, you can’t decide whether ants have souls until you are told by Jewish theologians what you should or shouldn’t believe!

DAVID: some Jewish theology sneaks into my belief system.

dhw: That still doesn’t explain why you believe in human and animal souls but have to rely on someone else’s beliefs before you can decide whether you believe in ant souls.

I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls


Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, December 26, 2020, 10:56 (214 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Your theory as bolded makes no sense even to you, […] Once more: the criticism is of your theory about God’s way. You should not assume that your way was God’s way.

DAVID: It is not my way. It is God's way as history tells us. […] What you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal. Since we are here against all chance ideas, Adler's thought and mine are entirely logical.

Yet again you omit fifty per cent of the premises that make your theory illogical. We ended this discussion under “Fish to land animals” with an amicable agreement two weeks ago, and yet you still continue to edit your theory and protest that it is logical. I listed and acknowledged the logical premises, including Adler’s, and pinpointed the two that were not:

dhw: So far so good. But now we come to the illogical parts of your theory: 1) if God’s ONLY PURPOSE was to create H. sapiens and his food supply, why would he have chosen to directly design millions of life forms and food supplies which died out long before the first humans came on the scene and which had no connection with humans? 2) How could millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans have been “part of the goal of evolving humans?

[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw: :-)

Please stop backpedalling.

Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls? […]

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

As above, I see nothing illogical in your individual basic premises. It is their combination which leads to you having no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method to fulfil your version of his purpose.

The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 26, 2020, 17:01 (213 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw: :-)

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.


Egnor’s latest
dhw: Why do you have to study Jewish doctrines before you decide what you believe about ant souls? […]

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

They don't think, but reqact.


Privileged planet
DAVID:: There are so many cycles on our Earth, and they all relate to the fact that life is here. Our evolved over 4.5 billion years which is part of the evidence aht God prefers to evolve all his creations.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course God decided to evolve all his creations. As above, that does not mean he directly designed every one of them, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [directly designing] humans” plus their food supply, bearing in mind that 99% of them had no connection with humans. > [/b]

DAVID: In my study I've come to fully believe God is the designer of everything. You can stick to non-belief and we will continue to disagree.

dhw: As above, I see nothing illogical in your individual basic premises. It is their combination which leads to you having no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method to fulfil your version of his purpose.

Final repeat: He chose the mechanism and that is fine with me.


The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

dhw: A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

Please accept that chemicals do modify basic brain functioning which will modify what thoughts the soul can create using the brain networks as its only means of creating thought.


Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

dhw: It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!

I'll grant you common descent which is simply obvious. I'm happy which Arthur Russel Wallace.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, December 27, 2020, 11:14 (212 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
DAVID: Your usual complaint, God shouldn't have done it that way.

dhw:[…] I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.[…]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine

dhw: :-)

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

I will only stop if you stop repeating the logical parts of your theory - as if somehow they justified the illogical parts - and misrepresenting my objections. You have reiterated that “God designed all stages of evolution” and “God prefers to evolve all his creations” (though you equate evolution with direct design), the logic of which by itself I do NOT dispute if we accept God’s existence. But then you wrongly say my complaint is “God shouldn’t have done it this way”, and “what you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal”. I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

The gut
DAVID: The vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve, directly connected to the brain keeps tabs on what is going on but the system really is autonomous and runs the show. This is not new knowledge. I learned this in medical school. The details are new, especially the new findings that the gut biome can affect our emotions. The design is not by chance.

dhw: A wonderful example of how all the different cell communities are linked together in the one community we call the body. The very fact that these material organisms can change our emotions – and with them, our thoughts – once again implies materialism.

DAVID: Please accept that chemicals do modify basic brain functioning which will modify what thoughts the soul can create using the brain networks as its only means of creating thought.

I am the one who asks you to accept that chemicals which affect our brains also affect our thoughts, and this suggests that our brains are the source of our thoughts. We needn’t pursue the argument here, though, as it is dealt with in detail on the Egnor thread.

Sticky cells
DAVID: this is all under tight instructions from an intelligent design. Developmental embryology is a complete refutation of Darwin's theory. A chance development of this process is impossible.

dhw: It is a refutation of the theory that evolution depends on random mutations. We have long since agreed that this aspect of Darwin’s theory is, to say the least, highly suspect. It is not, however, a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, and I do wish you would stop taking the part for the whole!

DAVID: I'll grant you common descent which is simply obvious. I'm happy which Arthur Russel Wallace.

Once more, developmental embryology is not a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory, regardless of what you think is obvious, and regardless of Wallace.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 27, 2020, 14:46 (212 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

I will only stop if you stop repeating the logical parts of your theory - as if somehow they justified the illogical parts - and misrepresenting my objections. You have reiterated that “God designed all stages of evolution” and “God prefers to evolve all his creations” (though you equate evolution with direct design), the logic of which by itself I do NOT dispute if we accept God’s existence. But then you wrongly say my complaint is “God shouldn’t have done it this way”, and “what you object to is my statement that humans were His eventual goal”. I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussions.


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

dhw: So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

Automatic reactions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, December 28, 2020, 08:21 (212 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

How can you find my objection unreasonable when you admit that you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method to fulfil your idea of his purpose? I bring it up whenever you emphasize that every life form, innovation, strategy, natural wonder etc. must have been directly designed by God. This website is a forum for discussion, and if you make such statements, and elsewhere you insist that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, I have every right to challenge your logic. I also have every right to propose alternative theories, and you have every right to challenge them. Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

dhw: So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

DAVID: Automatic reactions.

So their souls don’t think? Not much point in having them, is there?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, December 28, 2020, 13:25 (211 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedaling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

dhw: How can you find my objection unreasonable when you admit that you have no idea why your God would have chosen your idea of his method to fulfil your idea of his purpose? I bring it up whenever you emphasize that every life form, innovation, strategy, natural wonder etc. must have been directly designed by God. This website is a forum for discussion, and if you make such statements, and elsewhere you insist that your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, I have every right to challenge your logic. I also have every right to propose alternative theories, and you have every right to challenge them. Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.


Egnor’s latest

DAVID: I have always believed dogs have animal souls. Since ants communicate, they can be said to have souls.

dhw: Thank you. It would be fascinating to know what they think about when they haven’t got to worry about food and self-defence!

DAVID: They don't think, but react.

dhw: So what function do you think is performed by their souls?

DAVID: Automatic reactions.

dhw: So their souls don’t think? Not much point in having them, is there?

In Judaism an animal soul is different from a human soul. One of the observations I accept.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, 09:11 (211 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)

There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 02:06 (210 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: I'll stop when you drop the ridiculous commenting about God using evolution to produce us every chance you get. It pops up everywhere. Note the bold below. You can't resist the urge.

dhw: […] I keep repeating my objection in bold, which is to the illogical COMBINATION of your premises: that if your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, why would he have directly designed millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans? What reply do you expect from me, when you misrepresent my objections and continue to leave out the illogicalities that have been the subject of this discussion right from the start?

DAVID: If you will realize I find your objection totally unreasonable, I will stop complaining about your illogical objection. Digs about it constantly appear in unrelated discussion.

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for can unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.


dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)

dhw: There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

Your theories are all coherent for a humanized God, using your consistent primacies.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 11:54 (209 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above: [dhw: now bolded below]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

DAVID: And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for an unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.

To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

dhw: There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

DAVID: Your theories are all coherent for a humanized God, using your consistent primacies.

I do not have “consistent primacies”. I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 18:41 (209 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

dhw: […] Your posts on all the scientific developments and life forms and natural wonders are a continuous education, but if you use them as “evidence” for your theory, you cannot expect me to leave unchallenged what I consider to be flawed conclusions.

DAVID: Then don't tell me to stop backpedaling. I don't accept your lack of logic about my beliefs.

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above: [dhw: now bolded below]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

DAVID: And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for an unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.

dhw: To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

And I've told you ad nauseum, God obviously uses evolution to evolve the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life until He reaches His goal of humans with consciousness. and He does all by design of every stage. This is my firm unshakeable belief, based on all the evidence I have studied, starting as an agnostic.


dhw: There is no need for us to continue arguing about this, but if you continue to push isolated premises of your own theory as bolded above, at the expense of all my coherent (theistic) alternatives – the logic of which you acknowledge – you cannot expect me to remain silent!

DAVID: Your theories are all coherent for a humanized God, using your consistent primacies.

dhw: I do not have “consistent primacies”. I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, December 31, 2020, 08:53 (209 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Written indelibly on December 9 2020 at 15.14, under “Evolution: fish to land animals in transition”, in relation to the theory bolded above: [dhw: now bolded below]

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

DAVID: And it doesn't matter to me. I accept He made a choice to do it by evolution. So why look for an unknown reason? Perfectly logical for an theist.

dhw: To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

DAVID: And I've told you ad nauseum, God obviously uses evolution to evolve the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life until He reaches His goal of humans with consciousness. and He does all by design of every stage. This is my firm unshakeable belief, based on all the evidence I have studied, starting as an agnostic.

It makes no difference where you started from or how firm and unshakeable your belief may be: both of us accept evolution as a fact, but you have no idea why, if your God’s goal was H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans or with their food supply. If you cannot find a logical reason why he would have done so, the inference has to be that this particular part of your theory may be wrong.

dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Torpor

QUOTES: "Life is hard for small animals in the wild, but they have many solutions to the challenges of their environment.

While it is technically possible to induce torpor in humans chemically, torpor is a very complex physiological process, and there are many aspects of it scientists still don't fully understand."

DAVID: The final comment above suggests that this process would be hard to evolve naturally. It is such an integrated and convoluted physiological process involving multiple alterations in metabolism, it must have been designed by God to have this degree of convergence in evolution.

The first quote explains the convergence, as all life forms must adapt to existing conditions or die. Similar conditions will give rise to similar solutions. In my view, the complexities involved in the different processes of adaptation definitely require design, and this can be explained by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all life forms are composed. The complexities of this mechanism itself may well be regarded as evidence for the existence of God. However – just to clarify – your comment seems to indicate that he directly designed the process of torpor itself (as opposed to the mechanism by which animals design “many solutions to the challenges of their environment”). I find this difficult to believe, especially if one applies your anthropocentric theory (as bolded above) to every survival strategy in the history of life on Earth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 31, 2020, 23:19 (208 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: To do WHAT by evolution? Any theist who believes in evolution will agree that God chose evolution to fulfil his purpose. That is NOT the point at issue, and that is why you force me to repeat ad nauseam your insistence that the “unknown reason” for God’s creation of life was to design H. sapiens, but that evolution means the direct design of every life form and natural wonder, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens. And you agree that you have no idea why he would have chosen this method to fulfil this purpose.

DAVID: And I've told you ad nauseum, God obviously uses evolution to evolve the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life until He reaches His goal of humans with consciousness. and He does all by design of every stage. This is my firm unshakeable belief, based on all the evidence I have studied, starting as an agnostic.

It makes no difference where you started from or how firm and unshakeable your belief may be: both of us accept evolution as a fact, but you have no idea why, if your God’s goal was H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans or with their food supply. If you cannot find a logical reason why he would have done so, the inference has to be that this particular part of your theory may be wrong.

There is no inference on my part, that I am wrong. it is perfectly logical for God to chose to evolve humans by designing every stage. It is all your problem. For God create4s all of history.


dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

dhw: I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions with some similarity to ours.

And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.


Torpor

QUOTES: "Life is hard for small animals in the wild, but they have many solutions to the challenges of their environment.

While it is technically possible to induce torpor in humans chemically, torpor is a very complex physiological process, and there are many aspects of it scientists still don't fully understand."

DAVID: The final comment above suggests that this process would be hard to evolve naturally. It is such an integrated and convoluted physiological process involving multiple alterations in metabolism, it must have been designed by God to have this degree of convergence in evolution.

dhw: The first quote explains the convergence, as all life forms must adapt to existing conditions or die. Similar conditions will give rise to similar solutions. In my view, the complexities involved in the different processes of adaptation definitely require design, and this can be explained by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all life forms are composed. The complexities of this mechanism itself may well be regarded as evidence for the existence of God. However – just to clarify – your comment seems to indicate that he directly designed the process of torpor itself (as opposed to the mechanism by which animals design “many solutions to the challenges of their environment”). I find this difficult to believe, especially if one applies your anthropocentric theory (as bolded above) to every survival strategy in the history of life on Earth.

Torpor aids survival in adverse circumstances. The survivors are needed in the ecosystems to which they contribute.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 01, 2021, 11:07 (208 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It makes no difference where you started from or how firm and unshakeable your belief may be: both of us accept evolution as a fact, but you have no idea why, if your God’s goal was H. sapiens, he directly designed millions of life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans or with their food supply. If you cannot find a logical reason why he would have done so, the inference has to be that this particular part of your theory may be wrong.

DAVID: There is no inference on my part, that I am wrong. it is perfectly logical for God to chose to evolve humans by designing every stage. It is all your problem. For God creates all of history.

As usual, you focus on one part of your theory (God designing every stage of human evolution), omitting the rest of it: if his sole purpose was to design every stage of human evolution, why did he directly design millions of life forms, strategies etc. that had no connection with humans? You have no idea. Please stop backpedalling.

dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

dhw: I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions with some similarity to ours.

DAVID: And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.

No it doesn’t. That is why I offer different theories concerning what might have been his purpose and method (if he exists). You can see the logic behind every single one. The only theory on offer which leaves you with no idea why he would have chosen a particular method to achieve a particular purpose is yours.

Every Life Is on Fire (entered on the Egnor thread)

DAVID: Whatever life is it requires a constant source of energy: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6524/38?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2020-12-31

Nobody can possibly deny this obvious truth!

QUOTE: "It is rare for modern science to engage ancient religious texts; these traditions are more often nonoverlapping magisteria (2), if not fundamentally incompatible. Every Life Is on Fire shows that scripture can enrich our scientific interest in living systems, providing an ethical, moral, and even spiritual context. For the reader willing to brave metaphorical land mines, there is much to be learned by exploring the border regions, whether between physics and biology, between science and religion, or between life and lifeless matter.

DAVID: There is more to life than just matter. The metaphysical and the source of energy to be absorbed are equally important. Just matter is one portion of the considerations. Teh materialists view is half baked.

Of course there is more to life than matter, and more ways to approach it than through science. Materialists don’t have to deny the existence, importance or teaching qualities of ethics, morals, culture, art, music, religion, philosophy etc! How does this prove that we have free will, or that consciousness is not an emergent product of the brain, as you claim in your materialist role?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 01, 2021, 15:47 (207 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There is no inference on my part, that I am wrong. it is perfectly logical for God to chose to evolve humans by designing every stage. It is all your problem. For God creates all of history.

dhw: As usual, you focus on one part of your theory (God designing every stage of human evolution), omitting the rest of it: if his sole purpose was to design every stage of human evolution, why did he directly design millions of life forms, strategies etc. that had no connection with humans? You have no idea. Please stop backpedalling.

No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.


dhw: I offer different theories to show how different methods can fit in with different “primacies”. Two of my theories (experimentation and getting new ideas as he goes along) allow for H. sapiens as your unknown “primacy”.

DAVID: You're just back to defending a humanized sort of God you envision.

dhw: I am back to offering different theories, the logic of which even you acknowledge, and although you desperately wish you had never said it, you have underlined their logic by agreeing (and why would you not agree?) that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions with some similarity to ours.

DAVID: And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.

dhw: No it doesn’t. That is why I offer different theories concerning what might have been his purpose and method (if he exists). You can see the logic behind every single one. The only theory on offer which leaves you with no idea why he would have chosen a particular method to achieve a particular purpose is yours.

The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.


Every Life Is on Fire (entered on the Egnor thread)

DAVID: Whatever life is it requires a constant source of energy: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6524/38?utm_campaign=toc_sci-mag_2020-12-31

Nobody can possibly deny this obvious truth!

QUOTE: "It is rare for modern science to engage ancient religious texts; these traditions are more often nonoverlapping magisteria (2), if not fundamentally incompatible. Every Life Is on Fire shows that scripture can enrich our scientific interest in living systems, providing an ethical, moral, and even spiritual context. For the reader willing to brave metaphorical land mines, there is much to be learned by exploring the border regions, whether between physics and biology, between science and religion, or between life and lifeless matter.

DAVID: There is more to life than just matter. The metaphysical and the source of energy to be absorbed are equally important. Just matter is one portion of the considerations. Teh materialists view is half baked.

dhw: Of course there is more to life than matter, and more ways to approach it than through science. Materialists don’t have to deny the existence, importance or teaching qualities of ethics, morals, culture, art, music, religion, philosophy etc! How does this prove that we have free will, or that consciousness is not an emergent product of the brain, as you claim in your materialist role?

My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 02, 2021, 09:22 (207 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

dhw: As usual, you focus on one part of your theory (God designing every stage of human evolution), omitting the rest of it: if his sole purpose was to design every stage of human evolution, why did he directly design millions of life forms, strategies etc. that had no connection with humans? You have no idea. Please stop backpedalling.

DAVID: No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.

All stages of what? Your staunch position is that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and food supply, but first of all he designed millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens, and you have no idea why he did so. But still you continue to present sections of your theory in isolation as if they somehow justified your staunch faith in the inexplicable and illogical COMBINATION of your different beliefs.

DAVID: And I'll stick to obviously God uses logic we we do. As for His own emotions and other thought patterns, they are unknown to us and we both can guess that they have some similarity to ours. It still does not tell either of us why He chose to create history the way He did.

dhw: No it doesn’t. That is why I offer different theories concerning what might have been his purpose and method (if he exists). You can see the logic behind every single one. The only theory on offer which leaves you with no idea why he would have chosen a particular method to achieve a particular purpose is yours.

DAVID: The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.

Firstly, that does not alter the fact that your own theory presents you with a problem of logic, and you have no idea how to solve it. Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: There is more to life than just matter. The metaphysical and the source of energy to be absorbed are equally important. Just matter is one portion of the considerations. Teh materialists view is half baked.

dhw: Of course there is more to life than matter, and more ways to approach it than through science. Materialists don’t have to deny the existence, importance or teaching qualities of ethics, morals, culture, art, music, religion, philosophy etc! How does this prove that we have free will, or that consciousness is not an emergent product of the brain, as you claim in your materialist role?

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

Cambrian Explosion

QUOTE: “We hence extend the roots of the Cambrian Explosion itself into the Ediacaran, where total group lophotrochozoans such as Namacalathus show a combination of features that became typical of both later lophophorates and representatives of the entoproctan-molluscan-annelidan branch."

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 02, 2021, 15:15 (206 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.

dhw: All stages of what? Your staunch position is that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and food supply, but first of all he designed millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens, and you have no idea why he did so. But still you continue to present sections of your theory in isolation as if they somehow justified your staunch faith in the inexplicable and illogical COMBINATION of your different beliefs.

Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

DAVID: The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.

dhw: Firstly, that does not alter the fact that your own theory presents you with a problem of logic, and you have no idea how to solve it.

It is your logic problem, not mine

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.


Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

dhw: Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

A dead brain has no consciousness, but the same material as a live brain with consciousness. That difference materialism cannot explain. God created the mechanism to absorb energy and use it to be alive.


Cambrian Explosion

QUOTE: “We hence extend the roots of the Cambrian Explosion itself into the Ediacaran, where total group lophotrochozoans such as Namacalathus show a combination of features that became typical of both later lophophorates and representatives of the entoproctan-molluscan-annelidan branch."

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

Later Cambrians are enormously different from the organisms of this article. You are right to compare it to the rapid appearance of humans from apes, as life is probably 3.8 byo, and six million years of advance to humans is a drop in the bucket.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 03, 2021, 10:59 (206 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning

DAVID: No backpedal. My staunch position: God chose to evolve all stages by designing each one.

dhw: All stages of what? Your staunch position is that his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens and food supply, but first of all he designed millions of life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with H. sapiens, and you have no idea why he did so. But still you continue to present sections of your theory in isolation as if they somehow justified your staunch faith in the inexplicable and illogical COMBINATION of your different beliefs.

DAVID: Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

However, you have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he would have directly designed every individual life form, econiche etc. that preceded humans, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You agreed to leave it at that. I will stick to the agreement if you will.

DAVID: The personality of God is where we always differ. Yours is humanized.

dhw: Firstly, that does not alter the fact that your own theory presents you with a problem of logic, and you have no idea how to solve it.

DAVID:
It is your logic problem, not mine.

If you have no idea how to explain the above, you can hardly claim that it is logical.

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

dhw: Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

DAVID: A dead brain has no consciousness, but the same material as a live brain with consciousness. That difference materialism cannot explain. God created the mechanism to absorb energy and use it to be alive.

Nobody can explain the difference. Life and consciousness are a complete mystery to everyone on this planet. The mystery is not solved by claiming that some mysterious unknown conscious being created life and consciousness – but see the Egnor thread for a compromise.

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

DAVID: Later Cambrians are enormously different from the organisms of this article. You are right to compare it to the rapid appearance of humans from apes, as life is probably 3.8 byo, and six million years of advance to humans is a drop in the bucket.

I thought it was 4 million years from first hominids to H. sapiens, and 55 million years is approximately 14 times longer, so the unexplained Cambrian leap to new species is not such a big deal as was previously thought.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 03, 2021, 14:40 (205 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

dhw: However, you have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he would have directly designed every individual life form, econiche etc. that preceded humans, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You agreed to leave it at that. I will stick to the agreement if you will.

I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

I never try to se any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.


Every Life Is on Fire

DAVID: My non-materialist approach requires that any emergence requires an extra spark of energy from God.

dhw: Your explicit, materialist statement that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain” does not exclude the possibility that your God designed the living cell to produce the consciousness which emerges from the vast community of cells that make up all brains and bodies. See the Egnor thread.

DAVID: A dead brain has no consciousness, but the same material as a live brain with consciousness. That difference materialism cannot explain. God created the mechanism to absorb energy and use it to be alive.

Nobody can explain the difference. Life and consciousness are a complete mystery to everyone on this planet. The mystery is not solved by claiming that some mysterious unknown conscious being created life and consciousness – but see the Egnor thread for a compromise.

OK


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. It doesn't solve the major gap posed by the full blown Cambrians of a little later time. This is a finding that is fully expected, at the boundary of the two periods. There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution.

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. Peanuts in geological terms, but it “only” took at most four million years for the earliest hominids to evolve into H. sapiens, so I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.

DAVID: Later Cambrians are enormously different from the organisms of this article. You are right to compare it to the rapid appearance of humans from apes, as life is probably 3.8 byo, and six million years of advance to humans is a drop in the bucket.

dhw: I thought it was 4 million years from first hominids to H. sapiens, and 55 million years is approximately 14 times longer, so the unexplained Cambrian leap to new species is not such a big deal as was previously thought.

We broke off from the unknown common ancestor about six million years ago. My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 04, 2021, 08:46 (205 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution proceeds in stages, of which God was the designer of everyone.

dhw: However, you have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply, he would have directly designed every individual life form, econiche etc. that preceded humans, 99% of which had no connection with humans. You agreed to leave it at that. I will stick to the agreement if you will.

DAVID: I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

I do not disagree. As recently as yesterday on the Egnor thread , I repeated my agreement with your logic: “The only part of your theory which I would agree is based on science is the claim that the complexities of life are so immense that design is a logical conclusion. This is why, in all our discussions, and in all my own alternative explanations of evolution and of life and consciousness, I allow for a designer.” There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern. I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

dhw: Secondly, it is no more “humanizing” to propose that God experiments, or has new ideas as he goes along, or wanted a free-for-all, than it is to claim that he had one fixed purpose right from the start (H. sapiens), knew how to get it, and wanted total control of everything. Thirdly, there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss your own firmly stated belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: I never try to see any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.

Then you should stop telling us that he had only one purpose (to create H. sapiens), that he wants total control, that he knows exactly how to get what he wants, that he plans everything in advance. And after having told us that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and thinks logically like us, why should you assume that he does NOT have thought patterns, emotions and logical ideas similar to ours? You rightly tell us the only way we can get to know him is through his works. So why shouldn't we try? And frankly, if people believe he exists, I’d have thought they would really want to know the nature of a being who can do whatever he likes with them. I don’t know why you think “any human purpose” should be avoided. Is there an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not try to understand what thy Maker might like or not like, or why he hath created thee, or why he hath created millions of extinct creatures that have no connection with thee? We cannot know if he exists or what he is like, but that shouldn’t stop us from discussing the possibilities! The whole purpose of this website is to discuss all the unsolved mysteries and their possible solutions!

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. […] I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.[…]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 04, 2021, 15:28 (204 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

dhw: I do not disagree. As recently as yesterday on the Egnor thread , I repeated my agreement with your logic: “The only part of your theory which I would agree is based on science is the claim that the complexities of life are so immense that design is a logical conclusion. This is why, in all our discussions, and in all my own alternative explanations of evolution and of life and consciousness, I allow for a designer.” There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern.

The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns,.


DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: I never try to see any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.

dhw: Then you should stop telling us that he had only one purpose (to create H. sapiens), that he wants total control, that he knows exactly how to get what he wants, that he plans everything in advance. And after having told us that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and thinks logically like us, why should you assume that he does NOT have thought patterns, emotions and logical ideas similar to ours? You rightly tell us the only way we can get to know him is through his works. So why shouldn't we try? And frankly, if people believe he exists, I’d have thought they would really want to know the nature of a being who can do whatever he likes with them. I don’t know why you think “any human purpose” should be avoided. Is there an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not try to understand what thy Maker might like or not like, or why he hath created thee, or why he hath created millions of extinct creatures that have no connection with thee? We cannot know if he exists or what he is like, but that shouldn’t stop us from discussing the possibilities! The whole purpose of this website is to discuss all the unsolved mysteries and their possible solutions!

As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. […] I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.[…]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 05, 2021, 11:32 (203 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern.

DAVID: The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

You have accepted my complaint, but you absolutely refuse to accept that you have accepted it. You do not have “one singular belief”. You believe that we were God’s sole purpose, and you believe that he directly designed every single life form, food supply, natural wonder etc., and you agree that 99% of these life forms had no connection with humans. On Thursday, 10 December, under “fish to land animals transition”, I quoted the following exchange three times, in answer to three more of your attempts to dodge the issue. How many more times do you want me to quote it?

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)


dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns.

And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.
[…]
DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. […]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

DAVID: After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

And I have pointed out that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years (you say six), the 55 million years of the Cambrian period gives plenty of time for other species to evolve from their ancestors – especially if we discount Darwin’s random mutations and substitute Shapiro’s intelligent cells as the driving force behind speciation.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 05, 2021, 13:43 (203 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

dhw: You have accepted my complaint, but you absolutely refuse to accept that you have accepted it. You do not have “one singular belief”. You believe that we were God’s sole purpose, and you believe that he directly designed every single life form, food supply, natural wonder etc., and you agree that 99% of these life forms had no connection with humans. On Thursday, 10 December, under “fish to land animals transition”, I quoted the following exchange three times, in answer to three more of your attempts to dodge the issue. How many more times do you want me to quote it?

I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.


DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)


dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns.

dhw: And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.

Your God is way more humanized than my approach to Him.

[…]
DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

dhw: I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

I know what you oppose. We can't change each other.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. […]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

DAVID: After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

dhw: And I have pointed out that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years (you say six), the 55 million years of the Cambrian period gives plenty of time for other species to evolve from their ancestors – especially if we discount Darwin’s random mutations and substitute Shapiro’s intelligent cells as the driving force behind speciation.

You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 06, 2021, 08:56 (203 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.

Of course it’s simple and logical on its own. But you have again left out your belief that although designing H. sapiens and his food supply was your God’s one and only purpose, he directly designed every life form, food supply, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, and 99% of these had no connection with humans. Once again I quote:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)


dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns.

dhw: And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.

DAVID: Your God is way more humanized than my approach to Him.

How do you know the extent to which God has humanized thought patterns?
[…]

DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

dhw: I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

DAVID: I know what you oppose. We can't change each other.

You acknowledged that you had no idea how to explain the COMBINATION of your beliefs, and we agreed to leave it at that. But since you go on insisting that your God designed every non-human and unconnected life form etc., and did so to fulfil his purpose of designing H. sapiens, I have no choice but to go on reminding you that the COMBINATION of your beliefs makes no sense even to you.

Cambrian Explosion
DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. […]

DAVID:[…] You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

The article is based on the recent discovery of “exceptional fossils” proving that there were transitional forms from Ediacarans to Cambrians. It is astonishing that there are still fossils dating from 500 million years ago! We really can’t expect a continuous line of fossilized transitional forms. I am not denying the complexity. I am simply pointing out that 55 million years is a helluva long time, and the latest discoveries confirm that the process of evolution is a slope and not a cliff, and that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution” (your own words, bolded above). So I don’t find it impossible to believe that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years, other complex forms can evolve from simpler forms in 55 million years – especially if we substitute cellular intelligence for Darwin’s random mutations.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 06, 2021, 14:36 (202 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.

dhw: Of course it’s simple and logical on its own. But you have again left out your belief that although designing H. sapiens and his food supply was your God’s one and only purpose, he directly designed every life form, food supply, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.

Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages


dhw: :-)

I left your Cheshire cat smile.

DAVID: I know what you oppose. We can't change each other.

dhw: You acknowledged that you had no idea how to explain the COMBINATION of your beliefs, and we agreed to leave it at that. But since you go on insisting that your God designed every non-human and unconnected life form etc., and did so to fulfil his purpose of designing H. sapiens, I have no choice but to go on reminding you that the COMBINATION of your beliefs makes no sense even to you.

More contortion. You are the confused one. My beliefs make perfect sense to me since I believe in God and what He does. I can't know why He made the choices of creation methods He used.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID:[…] You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

dhw: The article is based on the recent discovery of “exceptional fossils” proving that there were transitional forms from Ediacarans to Cambrians. It is astonishing that there are still fossils dating from 500 million years ago! We really can’t expect a continuous line of fossilized transitional forms. I am not denying the complexity. I am simply pointing out that 55 million years is a helluva long time, and the latest discoveries confirm that the process of evolution is a slope and not a cliff, and that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution” (your own words, bolded above). So I don’t find it impossible to believe that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years, other complex forms can evolve from simpler forms in 55 million years – especially if we substitute cellular intelligence for Darwin’s random mutations.

You can't explain the mysterious source of cellular intelligence on a chance basis, so the theory is quite hollow. It didn't just appear our of nowhere. And the human breakaway from apes is estimated by science as over six million years. Are you purposely sticking to four million out of some sort of defiance against me?

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, January 07, 2021, 09:11 (202 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't dodge your series of complaints. I have a singular belief, not chopped up into your parts: God started life and chose to evolve us from bacteria. Simple. Logical.

dhw: Of course it’s simple and logical on its own. But you have again left out your belief that although designing H. sapiens and his food supply was your God’s one and only purpose, he directly designed every life form, food supply, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, and 99% of these had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages.

You have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he first directly designed millions of life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

dhw::-)

DAVID: I left your Cheshire cat smile.

Then let me restore your agreement to the above, since you continue to ignore what you agreed to:

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: :-)

But still you refuse to leave it at that, and you continue to ignore the COMBINATION of your beliefs that makes no sense even to you. If you stick to the above agreement, we can end this discussion.

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID:[…] You can't escape the enormous complexity that developed with no transitional forms, as very simple Edicarans became simple Cambrian forms and then very complex Cambrians.

dhw: The article is based on the recent discovery of “exceptional fossils” proving that there were transitional forms from Ediacarans to Cambrians. It is astonishing that there are still fossils dating from 500 million years ago! We really can’t expect a continuous line of fossilized transitional forms. I am not denying the complexity. I am simply pointing out that 55 million years is a helluva long time, and the latest discoveries confirm that the process of evolution is a slope and not a cliff, and that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution” [...] So I don’t find it impossible to believe that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years, other complex forms can evolve from simpler forms in 55 million years – especially if we substitute cellular intelligence for Darwin’s random mutations.

DAVID: You can't explain the mysterious source of cellular intelligence on a chance basis, so the theory is quite hollow. It didn't just appear our of nowhere.

How often do I have to repeat that I do not accept the chance theory, and cellular intelligence may well have been designed by your God?

DAVID: And the human breakaway from apes is estimated by science as over six million years. Are you purposely sticking to four million out of some sort of defiance against me?

The more websites we consult, the hazier it all gets. I’m not defying you, and I’m quite happy to accept six million years. It makes no difference to my argument. This is the website I consulted:


Human Evolution: A Timeline of Early Hominids [Infographic ...

earthhow.com/human-evolution-timeline/

(My apologies: owing to my technical incompetence, I can't get a direct link. I'm sure you'll know what to do!)

QUOTE: "For about 4 million years, human evolution has been a long, long process. From the early hominids to modern humans, we are in the process of evolving at this very moment.
About 3.9 – 2.55 million years ago, Australopithecus Afarensis was the earliest form of hominids.
Archaeologists dug up fossils in the Afar Triangle of Africa, hence the name “Afarensis”."

Cosmology

QUOTE: "But the meaning of eROSITA’s mushroom clouds is clear: Something went bang in the center of the Milky Way around 15 million to 20 million years ago, around the same time hyenas and weasels were emerging on Earth.”

DAVID: It all gets complexer and complexer and God has not explained why all the weirdness. But is always tums out the weird is necessary, and makes us agree God knows what He is doing and how everything we see must be necessarily designed for creation.

I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

Genome complexity

QUOTE: "Starting as a single cell, organisms undergo millions of generations of divisions to ultimately generate the bones, heart, brain and other components that make up a living being. The mainspring within this intricate process is the transfer of DNA through each subsequent cell split within discrete packets called chromosomes."

DAVID: This is another example where all parts must be designed to appear at the same time for life to continue, not step by step. Chance developments cannot do this.

The quote highlights the continuity of evolution through the activities of cells, and I agree with you: belief in chance requires blind faith, and the complexities of the cell are the strongest evidence for design. However, I need not repeat the problems I have regarding an eternally conscious, sourceless designer.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 07, 2021, 14:30 (201 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages.

dhw: You have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he first directly designed millions of life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.


dhw: But still you refuse to leave it at that, and you continue to ignore the COMBINATION of your beliefs that makes no sense even to you. If you stick to the above agreement, we can end this discussion.

It makes perfect sense to me. As long as you keep misinterpreting and telling me how I should think I'll keep responding. God chose his methods for His reasons. Sim ple, logical.


Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: And the human breakaway from apes is estimated by science as over six million years. Are you purposely sticking to four million out of some sort of defiance against me?

dhw: The more websites we consult, the hazier it all gets. I’m not defying you, and I’m quite happy to accept six million years. It makes no difference to my argument. This is the website I consulted:


Human Evolution: A Timeline of Early Hominids [Infographic ...

earthhow.com/human-evolution-timeline/

(My apologies: owing to my technical incompetence, I can't get a direct link. I'm sure you'll know what to do!)

QUOTE: "For about 4 million years, human evolution has been a long, long process. From the early hominids to modern humans, we are in the process of evolving at this very moment.
About 3.9 – 2.55 million years ago, Australopithecus Afarensis was the earliest form of hominids.
Archaeologists dug up fossils in the Afar Triangle of Africa, hence the name “Afarensis”."

The difference in time is the pre-hominins that existed after the breakaway. I won't bother to list the species for this discussion.


Cosmology

QUOTE: "But the meaning of eROSITA’s mushroom clouds is clear: Something went bang in the center of the Milky Way around 15 million to 20 million years ago, around the same time hyenas and weasels were emerging on Earth.”

DAVID: It all gets complexer and complexer and God has not explained why all the weirdness. But is always tums out the weird is necessary, and makes us agree God knows what He is doing and how everything we see must be necessarily designed for creation.

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, a,l in preparation for us starting only six mya

Genome complexity

QUOTE: "Starting as a single cell, organisms undergo millions of generations of divisions to ultimately generate the bones, heart, brain and other components that make up a living being. The mainspring within this intricate process is the transfer of DNA through each subsequent cell split within discrete packets called chromosomes."

DAVID: This is another example where all parts must be designed to appear at the same time for life to continue, not step by step. Chance developments cannot do this.

dhw: The quote highlights the continuity of evolution through the activities of cells, and I agree with you: belief in chance requires blind faith, and the complexities of the cell are the strongest evidence for design. However, I need not repeat the problems I have regarding an eternally conscious, sourceless designer.

Would you be happier with a flesh and blood designer, the kind we can easily recognize?

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 08, 2021, 11:14 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your contorted complaint is simply a recitation of what evolution does, and it is my belief God does it, by designing all stages.

dhw: You have no idea why, if his sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he first directly designed millions of life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.

You do not “know” that designing millions of non-human life forms etc. WAS your God’s choice of method in order to fulfil the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. Both premises (design everything, one purpose) are YOUR choice as an explanation of life’s history. But you are right, neither of us can explain YOUR choice, and that is why you agreed that you had no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative versions of method and purpose are logical, but you prefer your inexplicable version. I wish you would leave it at that.

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: QUOTE: "For about 4 million years, human evolution has been a long, long process. From the early hominids to modern humans…”

DAVID: The difference in time is the pre-hominins that existed after the breakaway. I won't bother to list the species for this discussion.

Thank you. I’m quite happy to accept the 6 million figure anyway. The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

Cosmology

QUOTE: "But the meaning of eROSITA’s mushroom clouds is clear: Something went bang in the center of the Milky Way around 15 million to 20 million years ago, around the same time hyenas and weasels were emerging on Earth.”

DAVID: […] it always tums out the weird is necessary, and makes us agree God knows what He is doing and how everything we see must be necessarily designed for creation.

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

Genome complexity

dhw: The quote highlights the continuity of evolution through the activities of cells, and I agree with you: belief in chance requires blind faith, and the complexities of the cell are the strongest evidence for design. However, I need not repeat the problems I have regarding an eternally conscious, sourceless designer.

DAVID: Would you be happier with a flesh and blood designer, the kind we can easily recognize?

Of course not. I am not “happy” with any of the theories on offer. That is why I remain agnostic.

Junk DNA

DAVID: Most DNA is purposeful which means it developed from design rather than by chance. The 'junk theory' to support Darwinism is totally dead as this article demonstrates.

Just to repeat earlier comments on this: I agree about design, but there is no reason at all why a Darwinist should not argue that natural selection explains the survival of anything that is useful. In other words, the purposefulness of DNA supports Darwinism, but it does not support those Darwinists who attempt to use junk DNA as an argument against design.

Biological complexity (two articles)

DAVID: A cell is organized soup with multiple side-by-side reaction The design of the complex processes is extremely detailed. Never by chance.

DAVID: A designer required. Without the pores working from the start along with all the processes functioning life couldn't work.

This is where I must redress the balance of my own comments on most of the articles you quote. Biological complexity even at the microscopic level of a single cell is too great for me to believe in chance as the creator of life.

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 08, 2021, 15:28 (200 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.

dhw: You do not “know” that designing millions of non-human life forms etc. WAS your God’s choice of method in order to fulfil the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. Both premises (design everything, one purpose) are YOUR choice as an explanation of life’s history. But you are right, neither of us can explain YOUR choice, and that is why you agreed that you had no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative versions of method and purpose are logical, but you prefer your inexplicable version. I wish you would leave it at that.

Fine. Don't raise the issue again.


Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.


Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

dhw: You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.


Biological complexity (two articles)

DAVID: A cell is organized soup with multiple side-by-side reaction The design of the complex processes is extremely detailed. Never by chance.

DAVID: A designer required. Without the pores working from the start along with all the processes functioning life couldn't work.

This is where I must redress the balance of my own comments on most of the articles you quote. Biological complexity even at the microscopic level of a single cell is too great for me to believe in chance as the creator of life.

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 09, 2021, 08:54 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't need to know why. You do, and can't explain it either. It is just God's choice.

dhw: You do not “know” that designing millions of non-human life forms etc. WAS your God’s choice of method in order to fulfil the single purpose of designing H. sapiens. Both premises (design everything, one purpose) are YOUR choice as an explanation of life’s history. But you are right, neither of us can explain YOUR choice, and that is why you agreed that you had no idea why your God would have chosen such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative versions of method and purpose are logical, but you prefer your inexplicable version. I wish you would leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine. Don't raise the issue again.

Same agreement as before. :-)

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.

I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

dhw: You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 09, 2021, 15:03 (199 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.


Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.

DAVID: The issue is the Milky Way evolution starting from 1.8 billion years post Big bang, all in preparation for us starting only six mya.

dhw: You said it was all “necessarily designed for creation”. The article concerns a bang thousands of millions of years after life began! Are you saying that in order for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing humans, it was not only necessary for him to directly design hyenas and weasels, but he also had to set off a bang in the Milky Way 9-14 million years before he could design the first pre-hominins? Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.


Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it .

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 10, 2021, 09:31 (199 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: The crucial point was your statement that the new finds show that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution”. This removes the great question mark over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion of entirely new species. If there were precursors, 55 million years seems to me to be ample time for further speciation, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: The real gap is the new advanced complexities appearing in the Cambrian suddenly.

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

DAVID: The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.

Agreed, but my point is that 55 million years is a long time, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

Cosmology

dhw: I really don’t know why a bang in the centre of the Milky Way 15-20 million years ago “makes us agree that God knows what he is doing”, or what it has to do with creation, since life goes back thousands of millions of years.[…]

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

DAVID: You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.

There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

You have not commented on the important point that structural change takes place in response to environmental change and not in advance of it.

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

DAVID: It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it.

Sorry, but I think it does, and our long discussion on “brain expansion” covered all aspects of this explanation, which I’m reluctant to go through again. But nobody “knows” how speciation or brain expansion occurred – we can only theorize.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 10, 2021, 14:56 (198 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”, especially if...see above.

DAVID: The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.

dhw: Agreed, but my point is that 55 million years is a long time, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'" And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. Consider the evolution of simpler technologies: the automobile or computer. As Bill Gates put it, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Both cars and computers are examples of progressive creation: the sudden appearance of major innovations followed by variations on pre-existing themes. It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

http://www.arn.org/eic/eic/Welcome.html


Cosmology

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

DAVID: You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

'
Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!


Crocodiles

QUOTE: "The rate of their evolution is generally slow, but occasionally they evolve more quickly because the environment has changed. In particular, this new research suggests that their evolution speeds up when the climate is warmer, and that their body size increases.”

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

dhw: You have not commented on the important point that structural change takes place in response to environmental change and not in advance of it.

Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.


DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

DAVID: It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it.

dhw: Sorry, but I think it does, and our long discussion on “brain expansion” covered all aspects of this explanation, which I’m reluctant to go through again. But nobody “knows” how speciation or brain expansion occurred – we can only theorize.

Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 11, 2021, 10:40 (198 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian Explosion

dhw: I don’t know why you have added “suddenly” when you agree that there is no “abrupt dividing line in evolution”, and you have ignored my point that 55 million years does not constitute “suddenly”...

DAVID: The 'suddenly' applies in the Cambrian in terms of complexity. After the initial slope, the next animals are enormously complex compared to the few fossils on the slope.

dhw: Agreed, but my point is that 55 million years is a long time, especially if we embrace the concept of cellular intelligence responding to new conditions and opportunities.

DAVID: I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'"

Maybe he wrote that before the new discoveries of pre-Cambrian links.In any case, it does not invalidate my argument. See below for the difference cellular intelligence makes.

DAVID: And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. […] It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

Of course it’s progressive creation! Evolution is the history of innovations and variations on pre-existing themes! Nobody can explain the innovations, which is why we theorize. 55 million years is a huge expanse of time. But regardless of time, some of us doubt that random mutations would explain the complexities. Cellular intelligence, responding to the demands and opportunities arising out of new conditions, makes all the difference by eliminating chance as the driving force. But it's a theory, not a proven fact.

Cosmology

DAVID: God does what God does. We usually figure out why after more research.

dhw: If God exists, no one will argue with your first sentence. Your second is on a par with Dawkins: “...if there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (The God Delusion, p. 14). You simply hope to embrace it within the divine. And both of you regard yourselves as scientists!

DAVID: You are ignoring the history of science. After time we usually figure it out. Here I know Dawkins is correct.

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: It shows not all species are driven to change. Hominins changed and the environmental evidence is not strong as a reason to arrive at us.

dhw: When conditions change, some species survive intact, some adapt, some die out, and some change into new species. Nobody knows for sure, but there is no reason to suppose that this general pattern did not apply to hominins and humans.

DAVID: It doesn't explain our unusual brains, and you know it.

dhw: Sorry, but I think it does, and our long discussion on “brain expansion” covered all aspects of this explanation, which I’m reluctant to go through again. But nobody “knows” how speciation or brain expansion occurred – we can only theorize.

DAVID: Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago.

I'd hoped you would not re-open the “brain expansion” thread. We've been over this umpteen times. It is perfectly feasible that local conditions made it necessary or advantageous for particular groups of apes to descend from the trees. It is perfectly feasible that a change of environment would have resulted in changes to the brain, as it learned to solve new problems. We KNOW that the brain changes when it accomplishes new tasks. Remember?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 11, 2021, 14:54 (197 days ago) @ dhw

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'"

dhw: Maybe he wrote that before the new discoveries of pre-Cambrian links.In any case, it does not invalidate my argument. See below for the difference cellular intelligence makes.

its an old quote.


DAVID: And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. […] It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

dhw: Of course it’s progressive creation! Evolution is the history of innovations and variations on pre-existing themes! Nobody can explain the innovations, which is why we theorize. 55 million years is a huge expanse of time. But regardless of time, some of us doubt that random mutations would explain the complexities. Cellular intelligence, responding to the demands and opportunities arising out of new conditions, makes all the difference by eliminating chance as the driving force. But it's a theory, not a proven fact.

I'd love proof of how speciation happens.


Cosmology

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts


Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

dhw: That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation .


DAVID: Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago.

dhw: I'd hoped you would not re-open the “brain expansion” thread. We've been over this umpteen times. It is perfectly feasible that local conditions made it necessary or advantageous for particular groups of apes to descend from the trees. It is perfectly feasible that a change of environment would have resulted in changes to the brain, as it learned to solve new problems. We KNOW that the brain changes when it accomplishes new tasks. Remember?

Thank you for the just-so stories. Our special brain has that ability to adapt. The ape brain is so simple it doesn't need it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 09:07 (197 days ago) @ David Turell

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I don't see how cellular intelligence adds anything when the subsequent gap in complexity is so large. From Dawkins: " With regard to the sudden explosion of new body plans in the Cambrian, even Richard Dawkins admitted, "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.'"

dhw: Maybe he wrote that before the new discoveries of pre-Cambrian links.In any case, it does not invalidate my argument. See below for the difference cellular intelligence makes.

DAVID: its an old quote.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

DAVID: And: the pervasive patterns of natural history are analogous to the historical patterns found in modern technologies: new designs appear suddenly followed by variations on the pre-existing themes. […] It is only logical that the far, far more advanced nanotechnologies found in biology are also examples of progressive creation.

dhw: Of course it’s progressive creation! Evolution is the history of innovations and variations on pre-existing themes! Nobody can explain the innovations, which is why we theorize. 55 million years is a huge expanse of time. But regardless of time, some of us doubt that random mutations would explain the complexities. Cellular intelligence, responding to the demands and opportunities arising out of new conditions, makes all the difference by eliminating chance as the driving force. But it's a theory, not a proven fact.

DAVID: I'd love proof of how speciation happens.

So would we all. But until we have it, we can only theorize, and some theories are more logical than others. For instance, we both agree that random mutations are unlikely designers.

Cosmology

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

DAVID: We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts.

I doubt if anyone would disagree. What does that have to do with you and Dawkins both hoping that science will one day support your unscientific faith in your diametrically opposed interpretation of the facts we know?

Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

dhw: That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: Yes we theorize and our brains are not explained by environmental drive. The apes proved that long ago.

dhw: I'd hoped you would not re-open the “brain expansion” thread. We've been over this umpteen times. It is perfectly feasible that local conditions made it necessary or advantageous for particular groups of apes to descend from the trees. It is perfectly feasible that a change of environment would have resulted in changes to the brain, as it learned to solve new problems. We KNOW that the brain changes when it accomplishes new tasks. Remember?

DAVID: Thank you for the just-so stories. Our special brain has that ability to adapt. The ape brain is so simple it doesn't need it.

I am not disputing the superiority of our brains. Why “just-so”? Nobody knows how or why humans diverged from apes. What I have written makes perfect sense, as we know that life forms respond to changing conditions either by adapting or by dying, and we know that the brain changes in RESPONSE to new conditions We’ve been over all this umpteen times. I don’t know why you want to repeat the arguments.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 21:02 (196 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmology

dhw: There is a huge difference between a prophecy and a belief! And there is an equally huge difference between “eventually science will figure it out” and “eventually science will confirm my belief that there is/isn’t a God”. Both of you claim that science is already the basis of your diametrically opposed conclusions! In your case, you also prophesy that science will vindicate your theory concerning how and why your God created life. You and Dawkins can both believe what you like, but your respective utterances of faith have nothing to do with science.

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

DAVID: We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree. What does that have to do with you and Dawkins both hoping that science will one day support your unscientific faith in your diametrically opposed interpretation of the facts we know?

There is lots we can agree upon.


Crocodiles

dhw: Although this is adaptation and not speciation, it emphasizes the crucial link between cellular change and current conditions. The body size increases in response to the warmer climate – not in anticipation of it!

DAVID: Only in known species adaptations. You haven't explained speciation.

dhw: That is what I have just said (bolded)! But both processes involve cellular change, and since we KNOW that cell communities respond to environmental change, it is perfectly feasible that speciation followed the same pattern. What evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

dhw: I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind. And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 09:05 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmology

DAVID: Science offers the only evidence we have. Remember!

dhw: That is what I would say to you and Dawkins. Your faith that science will confirm your respective beliefs is totally unscientific. One should wait till science has provided the evidence before shouting down those who do not share your faith.

DAVID: We have to theorize from the facts we have, and never invent our own facts.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree. What does that have to do with you and Dawkins both hoping that science will one day support your unscientific faith in your diametrically opposed interpretation of the facts we know?

DAVID: There is lots we can agree upon.

You both interpret the known facts in such a way that you reach diametrically opposed conclusions while both claiming that your particular faith is based on science. At least you have the grace to acknowledge that your conclusion is a matter of faith and not science. Dawkins would probably object vehemently if told that his hope of “embracing” all the mysteries of life “within the natural” is as much a matter of unscientific faith as that of any of the beliefs he dares to call delusional.

Far out cosmology

DAVID: Amazing new methods, with findings both Dawkins and I can agree upon!!!

I should imagine you would even agree that there is life and reproduction on Earth, and evolution happened, and we humans are here, and we are conscious, and we need food. That does not make your respective faiths in a God (you) or in the power of science eventually to prove that there is no God (Dawkins) any less unscientific.

Crocodiles

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

dhw: I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind.

How can you call that evidence? You are merely repeating your belief and telling us that it is the only possibility! Of course innovation requires an explanation, but at least we KNOW that life forms change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. You are right to say that we do not have a continuous line of fossils from millions and millions of years ago tracing every single innovation from bacteria to humans. Nor would it be reasonable to expect such miracles of preservation. How does that prove that your God designed every innovation in advance of changing conditions? And design is not what I am querying.

DAVID: And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains.

That is a different subject dealt with ad nauseam under “brain expansion”.

Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 18:34 (195 days ago) @ dhw

Far out cosmology

DAVID: Amazing new methods, with findings both Dawkins and I can agree upon!!!

dhw: I should imagine you would even agree that there is life and reproduction on Earth, and evolution happened, and we humans are here, and we are conscious, and we need food. That does not make your respective faiths in a God (you) or in the power of science eventually to prove that there is no God (Dawkins) any less unscientific.

Same point from me: scientific findings are the only facts we can use to theorize.


Crocodiles

DAVID: Cell committee adaptations do not explain the gaps of phenotype and physiology in evolutionary speciation.

dhw: I have acknowledged that twice now (bolded). Nobody has a proven theory to explain the innovations that lead to speciation. But the fact that cells restructure themselves in order to adapt at least tells us that they have the ability to restructure themselves. Now please answer my question: what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind.

dhw: How can you call that evidence? You are merely repeating your belief and telling us that it is the only possibility! Of course innovation requires an explanation, but at least we KNOW that life forms change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. You are right to say that we do not have a continuous line of fossils from millions and millions of years ago tracing every single innovation from bacteria to humans. Nor would it be reasonable to expect such miracles of preservation. How does that prove that your God designed every innovation in advance of changing conditions? And design is not what I am querying.

I stick to the point a designing mind is necessary


DAVID: And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains.

dhw: That is a different subject dealt with ad nauseam under “brain expansion”.

It still is evidence.


Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

dhw: I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

Only a mind can make these designs.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, January 14, 2021, 09:18 (195 days ago) @ David Turell

Far out cosmology

DAVID: Amazing new methods, with findings both Dawkins and I can agree upon!!!

dhw: I should imagine you would even agree that there is life and reproduction on Earth, and evolution happened, and we humans are here, and we are conscious, and we need food. That does not make your respective faiths in a God (you) or in the power of science eventually to prove that there is no God (Dawkins) any less unscientific.

DAVID: Same point from me: scientific findings are the only facts we can use to theorize.

And same point from me: you and Dawkins derive totally opposite conclusions from the same facts, and you both share a blind, completely unscientific faith/hope that one day science will prove that your respective conclusions are correct. Meanwhile, you continue to shout each other down.

Crocodiles

dhw: […] what evidence do you have that cell communities change IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: First the large gaps (Gould) ( gaps of phenotype and physiology) in evolutionary speciation. in the fossil record show us so far no bit by bit adaptations to reach speciation. The only logical solution is design in advance. The ID position is mine. The new complexities require an explanation, and it is design by a designing mind.

dhw: How can you call that evidence? You are merely repeating your belief and telling us that it is the only possibility! Of course innovation requires an explanation, but at least we KNOW that life forms change IN RESPONSE to new conditions. You are right to say that we do not have a continuous line of fossils from millions and millions of years ago tracing every single innovation from bacteria to humans. Nor would it be reasonable to expect such miracles of preservation. How does that prove that your God designed every innovation in advance of changing conditions? And design is not what I am querying.

DAVID: I stick to the point a designing mind is necessary

And that is not what I am querying. What evidence do you have that evolutionary innovations take place IN ADVANCE of (and not IN RESPONSE TO) the conditions they are designed to cope with?

DAVID: And secondly, new artifacts only found with new larger brains.

dhw: That is a different subject dealt with ad nauseam under “brain expansion”.

DAVID: It still is evidence.

It is no more “evidence” of your proposal than it is of mine, as repeated ad nauseam under “Brain expansion”: namely, that the brain enlarged AS A RESULT of having to implement new ideas (including making new artefacts, coping with new conditions, exploiting new discoveries etc.) – a process familiar to us from studies of how the modern brain RESPONDS to new demands. We really don’t need to go over all this again, do we?

Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

dhw: I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

DAVID: Only a mind can make these designs.

It is possible that all life forms have “minds” of their own – not in the human sense, but in the form of cellular intelligence which, in turn, may be the product of the mind you call God. I don’t know why you want to go over the same old argument again. I only wanted to thank you, to express my humble admiration for such ingenuity, and to support your argument for design!

Magic embryology

QUOTE: None of this could happen without forces that squeeze, bend and tug the growing animal into shape. Even when it reaches adulthood, its cells will continue to respond to pushing and pulling — by each other and from the environment.

Once again we see that cells respond to the environment. The whole process is based on cooperation between the cells themselves, as they interact with the conditions in which they find themselves. We should bear in mind that every species is the result of millions and millions of years of such cooperation. Once the combination works, the cell communities settle into their particular pattern of conduct (so vividly illustrated here) until something new causes them to change (or to disappear).

DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

45,000 year old cave art

DAVID: Look at the art. It is impressive.

I could only see one picture, but it certainly is impressive. Our ancient ancestors were clearly a lot more sophisticated than was once thought! Many thanks for this.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 14, 2021, 20:29 (194 days ago) @ dhw

Glass sponge lattice design

DAVID: A designing mind is what must have made this structural plan, better than any thought of by human engineers.

dhw: I love these natural wonders and am always grateful to you for such articles. Among other things, they ought to make us humans feel humble when we see the sheer ingenuity of the different life forms, with their endlessly inventive ways of ensuring survival. I can fully understand your argument for design, and we don’t need to go into details as to the hows, whos, whats and whys.

DAVID: Only a mind can make these designs.

dhw: It is possible that all life forms have “minds” of their own – not in the human sense, but in the form of cellular intelligence which, in turn, may be the product of the mind you call God. I don’t know why you want to go over the same old argument again. I only wanted to thank you, to express my humble admiration for such ingenuity, and to support your argument for design!

Thank you. You have your pet theory and I have mine, never to meet in the middle.


Magic embryology

QUOTE: None of this could happen without forces that squeeze, bend and tug the growing animal into shape. Even when it reaches adulthood, its cells will continue to respond to pushing and pulling — by each other and from the environment.

dhw: Once again we see that cells respond to the environment. The whole process is based on cooperation between the cells themselves, as they interact with the conditions in which they find themselves. We should bear in mind that every species is the result of millions and millions of years of such cooperation. Once the combination works, the cell communities settle into their particular pattern of conduct (so vividly illustrated here) until something new causes them to change (or to disappear).

Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.


DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

dhw: Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

At least you are staying either/or


45,000 year old cave art

DAVID: Look at the art. It is impressive.

dhw: I could only see one picture, but it certainly is impressive. Our ancient ancestors were clearly a lot more sophisticated than was once thought! Many thanks for this.

You are welcome. Only one picture presented, but very impressive.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 15, 2021, 09:02 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

QUOTE: None of this could happen without forces that squeeze, bend and tug the growing animal into shape. Even when it reaches adulthood, its cells will continue to respond to pushing and pulling — by each other and from the environment.

dhw: Once again we see that cells respond to the environment. The whole process is based on cooperation between the cells themselves, as they interact with the conditions in which they find themselves. We should bear in mind that every species is the result of millions and millions of years of such cooperation. Once the combination works, the cell communities settle into their particular pattern of conduct (so vividly illustrated here) until something new causes them to change (or to disappear).

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

dhw: Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

DAVID: At least you are staying either/or.

Of course. I am an agnostic and I do not claim to know anything – from the existence of God to the way a possible God might think and work. But I must confess to having grave doubts about certain theories regarding speciation. Two examples are Darwin’s theory of random mutations as the source of innovations, and your own theory of evolution, which we have agreed not to discuss any more.
There now follow four natural wonders – many thanks for these – which amazingly combine to form a complete explanation of how organisms follow the pattern I have outlined above.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

Of course not by chance. However, as usual you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

Plants repel their own toxins

Quote: "To their surprise, the researchers found that tobacco plants which had been transformed so they could no longer produced two proteins involved in the biosynthesis of the diterpene glycosides and thus also not form the defensive substances otherwise stored in the leaves in large amounts, showed conspicuous symptoms of self-poisoning: they were sick, unable to grow normally, and could no longer reproduce.

DAVID: Same song, second verse: there is no way this could develop unless both the toxins and the defenses appeared simultaneously. Only careful design fits.

Same song, second verse. The disturbance caused the plants to become sick. This is the stage you always omit. The toxins kill. The defences (the wonderful part of Nature’s Wonders) are then developed to counter the threat and prevent the sickness.

Insects can adapt to leg amputation

DAVID: It doesn't take many neurons to find an adaptation. Either learned or built-in response.

Yes, a clear example of how the neurons find a way of coping with the new situation. Not simultaneous appearance of “threat” and “antidote”, but cause and effect: new condition, cells respond.


Some eels hunt in packs

QUOTE: Researchers witnessed the electric eels working together to herd small fish into tightly packed balls. Groups of up to 10 eels periodically split off to form cooperative hunting parties.

DAVID: this obvious cooperation will delight dhw.

It does indeed. As with ants and all other social life forms, we have a perfect image for the way cell communities cooperate. In this case, it’s not defence but attack – cooperative communities design their own strategies for both. Thank you for presenting us with such clear examples of how evolution works through cooperative responses to environmental conditions.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 15, 2021, 22:19 (193 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

The only evolution you have enthusiastically described is adaptations of simple changes in existing species. No explanation of speciation which involves the addition of massive amounts of new information in new DNA. My source is God.


DAVID: We see how it happens but have no idea what is guiding the developments, except the general knowledge it must come from the genome. Only a designing mind can create this process of embryological reproduction.

dhw: Or designing “minds” – the cells – which themselves may well have been originally designed by the single mind you call God.

DAVID: At least you are staying either/or.

Of course. I am an agnostic and I do not claim to know anything – from the existence of God to the way a possible God might think and work. But I must confess to having grave doubts about certain theories regarding speciation. Two examples are Darwin’s theory of random mutations as the source of innovations, and your own theory of evolution, which we have agreed not to discuss any more.
There now follow four natural wonders – many thanks for these – which amazingly combine to form a complete explanation of how organisms follow the pattern I have outlined above.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

Of course not by chance. However, as usual you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

The only way by your system is bit by bit improvement, which his impossible when the toxins kill!!!


Plants repel their own toxins

Quote: "To their surprise, the researchers found that tobacco plants which had been transformed so they could no longer produced two proteins involved in the biosynthesis of the diterpene glycosides and thus also not form the defensive substances otherwise stored in the leaves in large amounts, showed conspicuous symptoms of self-poisoning: they were sick, unable to grow normally, and could no longer reproduce.

DAVID: Same song, second verse: there is no way this could develop unless both the toxins and the defenses appeared simultaneously. Only careful design fits.

dhw: Same song, second verse. The disturbance caused the plants to become sick. This is the stage you always omit. The toxins kill. The defences (the wonderful part of Nature’s Wonders) are then developed to counter the threat and prevent the sickness.

No answer to the problem. If toxins kill how do the dead invent an antidote? You back to just-so dreaming. The quote denies your theory.


Insects can adapt to leg amputation

DAVID: It doesn't take many neurons to find an adaptation. Either learned or built-in response.

dhw: Yes, a clear example of how the neurons find a way of coping with the new situation. Not simultaneous appearance of “threat” and “antidote”, but cause and effect: new condition, cells respond.


Some eels hunt in packs

QUOTE: Researchers witnessed the electric eels working together to herd small fish into tightly packed balls. Groups of up to 10 eels periodically split off to form cooperative hunting parties.

DAVID: this obvious cooperation will delight dhw.

dhw: It does indeed. As with ants and all other social life forms, we have a perfect image for the way cell communities cooperate. In this case, it’s not defence but attack – cooperative communities design their own strategies for both. Thank you for presenting us with such clear examples of how evolution works through cooperative responses to environmental conditions.

you are welcome

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 16, 2021, 10:35 (193 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

dhw: Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

DAVID: The only evolution you have enthusiastically described is adaptations of simple changes in existing species. No explanation of speciation which involves the addition of massive amounts of new information in new DNA. My source is God.

I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The only way by your system is bit by bit improvement, which his impossible when the toxins kill!!!

Once again you miss the point, although it is staring you in the face even now. What do you think our scientists are trying to do to counter the murderous Covid-19? Let me spell it out for you. They are trying to accelerate the process by which cells develop a defence against new threats. In Nature, whole species may be wiped out (99% of life forms have disappeared), or alternatively there will be survivors which eventually find a solution. Bacteria are the most obvious example. We can kill them by the million, but they always bounce back. First the threat, then the response.

Plants repel their own toxins

DAVID: No answer to the problem. If toxins kill how do the dead invent an antidote? You back to just-so dreaming. The quote denies your theory.

As above, if the survivors do not find an antidote, the species disappears. You seem to think that in a pandemic everybody dies! So long as there are survivors, there is a chance that they will find an antidote. We are currently using the same process that has existed in Nature since life began. Or do you think that life and evolution began with H. sapiens? First the problem, then the solution (we hope).

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 16, 2021, 15:27 (192 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Or, as probable, they follow instructions in their genomes.

dhw: Of course they follow instructions in their genomes! You always jump in when systems are established. The mystery of speciation is what causes established systems (and hence "instructions") to change. That is the subject of our theories. Over and over again, you produce articles which suggest that the cell communities interact with the environment. I propose that when this changes, the interaction may take one of three paths: each particular combination of cell communities may die, may adapt, or may innovate. Successful adaptations/innovations (the new “instructions”) will be passed on and repeated through the genome, and the cycle repeats itself millions of times through millions of years and millions of combinations from bacteria to every species that ever lived, including us. That is evolution!

DAVID: The only evolution you have enthusiastically described is adaptations of simple changes in existing species. No explanation of speciation which involves the addition of massive amounts of new information in new DNA. My source is God.

dhw: I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent. Thus God has to do direct design at those times when eh new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The only way by your system is bit by bit improvement, which is impossible when the toxins kill!!!

dhw: Once again you miss the point, although it is staring you in the face even now. What do you think our scientists are trying to do to counter the murderous Covid-19? Let me spell it out for you. They are trying to accelerate the process by which cells develop a defence against new threats. In Nature, whole species may be wiped out (99% of life forms have disappeared), or alternatively there will be survivors which eventually find a solution. Bacteria are the most obvious example. We can kill them by the million, but they always bounce back. First the threat, then the response.

The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.


Plants repel their own toxins

DAVID: No answer to the problem. If toxins kill how do the dead invent an antidote? You back to just-so dreaming. The quote denies your theory.

dhw: As above, if the survivors do not find an antidote, the species disappears. You seem to think that in a pandemic everybody dies! So long as there are survivors, there is a chance that they will find an antidote. We are currently using the same process that has existed in Nature since life began. Or do you think that life and evolution began with H. sapiens? First the problem, then the solution (we hope).

The virus are not internally made toxins which must come initially with the antidote internally also. No comparison at all.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 17, 2021, 09:33 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

dhw: I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

DAVID: In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent. Thus God has to do direct design at those times when eh new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs.

Not instead of! Precise designs for complex new needs is exactly what I am proposing, and even in your vague description above, you have your God RESPONDING to new needs: he has to do direct design “when the new needs are extremely complicated”! But in your version, he improvises when he looks into his crystal ball and sees a new problem on the way: “I see that pre-whales are going to run short of food. I’d better step in and operate on them by turning their legs into flippers, and then tell them to start hunting in the water.” Your alternative to this takes place 3.8 billion years ago, when he is busily devising programmes for every undabbled life form, lifestyle, econiche, strategy and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history: “Ah, I see that my pre-whales are going to run short of food in Year X, so I’d better devise a programme for leg-to-flipper change.”

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet again you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:
"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.
“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”

The same process is used as a defence against threats from inside and outside. It’s common sense anyway that problems precede solutions, and I really don’t know why you think history tells us that the process is reversed (whales) or, at best, synchronized to originate simultaneously (snakes). If life forms don’t adapt to changing conditions or find ways of countering threats to their existence, they disappear, and that means RESPONSE to new needs.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 17, 2021, 14:06 (191 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

dhw: I really don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge that nobody knows the cause of speciation. But adaptation gives us a clue, and you have not responded to my all-important point that the instructions in the genome are those that have been established when life forms have changed their structures – either through simple adaptations, complex adaptations or innovations. This process would have applied even if 3.8 billion years ago your God had provided the first cells with programmes for every innovation, life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., or had stepped in personally to dabble every one. Of course there are “instructions in the genome”. But my theistic alternative to your one-by-one preprogramming and dabbling theories is that your God gave cells the intelligence to work out their own instructions and to pass them on.

DAVID: In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent. Thus God has to do direct design at those times when eh new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs.

dhw: Not instead of! Precise designs for complex new needs is exactly what I am proposing, and even in your vague description above, you have your God RESPONDING to new needs: he has to do direct design “when the new needs are extremely complicated”! But in your version, he improvises when he looks into his crystal ball and sees a new problem on the way: “I see that pre-whales are going to run short of food. I’d better step in and operate on them by turning their legs into flippers, and then tell them to start hunting in the water.” Your alternative to this takes place 3.8 billion years ago, when he is busily devising programmes for every undabbled life form, lifestyle, econiche, strategy and natural wonder for the whole of life’s history: “Ah, I see that my pre-whales are going to run short of food in Year X, so I’d better devise a programme for leg-to-flipper change.”

You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The obvious issue is timing of the development. What must happen is the toxin and the antidote mechanism both must be evolved simultaneously or snakes will commit suicide. Only a planned design fits this event. Never by chance.

dhw: Of course not by chance. However, yet again you jump in when the system is established. It doesn’t occur to you that initially snakes may well have “committed suicide”, and so an antidote had to be developed in order to stop this from happening. It is the same natural process that we are so desperately striving to accelerate in order to counter the Covid threat. Cells respond to threats. If they don’t, they die.

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

dhw: They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:
"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.
“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”

The same process is used as a defence against threats from inside and outside. It’s common sense anyway that problems precede solutions, and I really don’t know why you think history tells us that the process is reversed (whales) or, at best, synchronized to originate simultaneously (snakes). If life forms don’t adapt to changing conditions or find ways of countering threats to their existence, they disappear, and that means RESPONSE to new needs.

Your response is off point. My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or
animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous. That implies only design works. It is not, which came first chicken or egg. This actually exists in us. Our stomach acid has a pH of one, an extreme acid to dissolve food, but our stomach lining handles it without problems. How did that develop?

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 18, 2021, 09:02 (191 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: In our discussions, I've come to realize that future change must account for future needs which in advance may not be apparent.Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated, as in the whale series. Your theory seems as if organisms make it up as time goes along instead of precise designs for complex new needs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Not instead of! Precise designs for complex new needs is exactly what I am proposing, and even in your vague description above, you have your God RESPONDING to new needs: he has to do direct design “when the new needs are extremely complicated”! […]

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

dhw: They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:

"Even more bizarrely and wonderfully, this appeared to be a trait that was picked up in many different snakes in a case of convergent evolution – where species develop a shared trait that has nothing to do with their genetic ancestry.
“'We have shown that it has evolved independently on 10 separate occasions,” says Fry. “Eight times within different snakes that are prey for venomous snakes, and two times in venomous snakes as a form of resistance to their own venom.'”
The same process is used as a defence against threats from inside and outside. It’s common sense anyway that problems precede solutions, and I really don’t know why you think history tells us that the process is reversed (whales) or, at best, synchronized to originate simultaneously (snakes). If life forms don’t adapt to changing conditions or find ways of countering threats to their existence, they disappear, and that means RESPONSE to new needs.

DAVID: Your response is off point. My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.

Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category?

DAVID: That implies only design works. It is not, which came first chicken or egg. This actually exists in us. Our stomach acid has a pH of one, an extreme acid to dissolve food, but our stomach lining handles it without problems. How did that develop?

There is no need to change the example. Of course only design works. Whether the design is done by your God or by the organisms themselves makes no difference to the process: it goes against all reason to argue as you do that solutions either precede the problems they are meant to solve (whales) or they originate simultaneously (snakes).

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTES: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)
"At a small scale, there’s no “thought” of adaptation, there’s simply change based on chemistry and physics. At a higher, population scale, we can’t see these hidden complexities, so it all seems like adaptation. Quite simply, molecules are not intelligently evolved. (David's bold)
"Constructive neutral evolution is a beautiful theory that highlights exactly how complex evolution is, and that it goes well beyond “survival of the fittest”. Sometimes, things just uselessly evolve."

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. Maybe one day scientists will say these molecules are not useless, and you will claim that proves God is at work, and Darwinists will say this supports natural selection; as it stands, you should be flummoxed by your God designing something useless, but a Darwinist can say that so long as the molecules do no harm, there is no reason for them to disappear, as with junk DNA, which – if there is such a thing – is still here.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 18, 2021, 16:50 (190 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

dhw: And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series..


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The vaccines are a way of learning how to repel the virus without getting killed in the process. And they are not internal toxins the snakes constantly make and must make defenses for simultaneously. you example is apples and oranges.

dhw: They are not just internal toxins. Read the article:

DAVID: Your response is off point. My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.


dhw: Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category?

Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.


DAVID: That implies only design works. It is not, which came first chicken or egg. This actually exists in us. Our stomach acid has a pH of one, an extreme acid to dissolve food, but our stomach lining handles it without problems. How did that develop?

dhw: There is no need to change the example. Of course only design works. Whether the design is done by your God or by the organisms themselves makes no difference to the process: it goes against all reason to argue as you do that solutions either precede the problems they are meant to solve (whales) or they originate simultaneously (snakes).

It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTES: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)
"At a small scale, there’s no “thought” of adaptation, there’s simply change based on chemistry and physics. At a higher, population scale, we can’t see these hidden complexities, so it all seems like adaptation. Quite simply, molecules are not intelligently evolved. (David's bold)
"Constructive neutral evolution is a beautiful theory that highlights exactly how complex evolution is, and that it goes well beyond “survival of the fittest”. Sometimes, things just uselessly evolve."

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

dhw: Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. Maybe one day scientists will say these molecules are not useless, and you will claim that proves God is at work, and Darwinists will say this supports natural selection; as it stands, you should be flummoxed by your God designing something useless, but a Darwinist can say that so long as the molecules do no harm, there is no reason for them to disappear, as with junk DNA, which – if there is such a thing – is still here.

Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 11:24 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: You are back to imagining giant designing ability by cell committees. I can't buy it.

dhw: And you are back to dodging the issue here, which is your claim that evolutionary innovations are made in advance of the new conditions they have to cope with, though you yourself also have your God RESPONDING (as bolded above) to new needs.

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? Or do you really think he sits looking into his crystal ball and sees that next week there’ll be a food shortage on land, so he’d better step in and turn legs into flippers before telling the pre-whales that they’ll find food in the water? I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: My discussion concerned only on how a poison containing plant or animal developed a toxin against others and an antidote for itself, and it seems to me it must be simultaneous.

dhw: Why do you ignore the rest of the article? You seem now to be agreeing that plants and animals which develop antidotes to poisons from outside follow the obvious pattern of problem first, solution second, but if plants and animals develop antidotes to their own poisons, they apparently develop problem and solution simultaneously. I suggest that the first type will carry on dying until the antidote is found. Why should that not apply to the second category? [David's bold]

DAVID: Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.
And
DAVID: It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.

Once again you assume that when there’s a problem, every individual immediately dies. My “apparently” referred to the illogicality of your implied agreement that eight of the snakes had a problem first and solved it second, whereas the other two solved the problem at the same time as they (or your God) created it. Nobody knows how any of these mechanisms work, but I see no reason why cells should be able to work out solutions to problems from outside, and yet unable to work out solutions to problems arising from their own activities. ALL innovations and adaptations entail new forms of cooperation between the cell communities, and that applies whether your God manipulated every one directly, or gave them the power to do their own self-modifications. In any case, I don't really understand why this is so important to you, unless you think that somehow eight-snakes problem followed by solution doesn't count, whereas two-snakes simultaneity proves that God designed all speciation, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in advance of any need. I’ll avoid bringing in the rest of your theory of evolution, as agreed.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTE: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

dhw: Ts, ts, what terrible mistakes has your God designed now? (But the article says "no disadvantage".) I really have no idea what all this is supposed to prove. You devote article after article telling us there is no such thing as junk DNA, because your God has designed everything with a purpose, and now you pick on apparently useless molecules as if somehow they prove your point. [etc. – I shan’t reproduce the rest of my response, as I’m going to have to repeat it.]

DAVID: Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

You have missed the point. Junk DNA is an analogy, so I’ll scrap it. 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 15:17 (189 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

dhw: New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? ... I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

I have an entirely unknotted view. God prepared the pre-whale a way to enter a watery environment. But He didn't change hippos!!! So they keep wading. God speciates.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: Obviously external threats are certainly not the same as internal threats which you agree need simultaneity in bold.
And
DAVID: It goes against your unreasonable reasoning. Cells cannot solve their own self-poisoning. They don't survive to find a solution.

dhw: Once again you assume that when there’s a problem, every individual immediately dies. My “apparently” referred to the illogicality of your implied agreement that eight of the snakes had a problem first and solved it second, whereas the other two solved the problem at the same time as they (or your God) created it. Nobody knows how any of these mechanisms work, but I see no reason why cells should be able to work out solutions to problems from outside, and yet unable to work out solutions to problems arising from their own activities. ALL innovations and adaptations entail new forms of cooperation between the cell communities, and that applies whether your God manipulated every one directly, or gave them the power to do their own self-modifications. In any case, I don't really understand why this is so important to you, unless you think that somehow eight-snakes problem followed by solution doesn't count, whereas two-snakes simultaneity proves that God designed all speciation, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in advance of any need. I’ll avoid bringing in the rest of your theory of evolution, as agreed.

Your faith in cell intelligence is overwhelming, as you simply agree the poison appears with the solution at the same time with cell magic. My point is God design is required, cells are n ot ctaht smart.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

QUOTE: This is known as constructive neutral evolution (CNE). A molecular mechanism may evolve even though it provides no benefit just because it also provides no disadvantage – it simply happens because of biochemical quirk. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices? And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!

DAVID: Darwin scientists can't explain these molecules and you are taking the wrong tack. It is their discovery and tortured explanation that makes no sense. First, the molecules are products, not DNA, so junk DNA is not involved. From the God standpoint I didn't repeat your point about eventually finding some reasonable use, which is always reasonable. I didn't need to. And slowly so-called junk DNA is disappearing as functions are found. I've presented a whole series of new discoveries in this regard.

dhw: You have missed the point. Junk DNA is an analogy, so I’ll scrap it. 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 11:15 (188 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

DAVID: New needs require design and are the same as anticipating new species with different conditions as in the whale series.

dhw: New needs require a RESPONSE. You wrote: “Thus God has to do direct design at those times when the new needs are extremely complicated.” How can this be anything other than a RESPONSE to the complicated needs? ... I accept that the response is designed, but it is the exact opposite of design IN ANTICIPATION of new needs. You are tying yourself in verbal knots.

DAVID: I have an entirely unknotted view. God prepared the pre-whale a way to enter a watery environment. But He didn't change hippos!!! So they keep wading. God speciates.

What on earth have hippos got to do with it? Hippos managed perfectly well as they were. Pre-whales must have needed to change (it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time, water offered them better prospects of survival than land). How does that come to mean that God must have operated on their legs before they entered the water?

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: Your faith in cell intelligence is overwhelming, as you simply agree the poison appears with the solution at the same time with cell magic. My point is God design is required, cells are n ot ctaht smart.

I do NOT agree! My version is that ALL the snakes had a problem and subsequently solved it for themselves. If this discussion is to continue, we’d better clarify your own version: do you believe the cell communities of the eight snakes solved the external problem themselves (problem first, solution followed), but your God had to step in and solve the internal problem of the other two (designing problem and solution simultaneously)? Or did he step in to operate on all ten? If all ten, why are you bothering to distinguish between external and internal?

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?

dhw: 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

DAVID: We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.

And you have not commented on 1), 2), 3) or 4), which support Darwinian evolution and raise huge questions for your own theory. As regards RNA folding:

DAVID: I love the strange Darwinist discussion in bold. Folding and unfolding must have a reason and purpose. Why does it bother to form a knot in the first place, instead of directly forming?

Why do you expect me to answer your question? Do please explain why your God bothered to make RNA form a knot in the first place.

Balance of Nature

DAVID: Most ecosystems are important but happen accidently. […]

Ecosystems are important to the organisms that live in them! Your acknowledgement that they happen accidentally fits in with the apparently higgledy-piggledy coming and going that constitutes the history of life. This suggests that if there is such a being as God, he deliberately set up a system which would result in ever changing ecosystems and life forms without any specific plan.

Neanderthal birth canal differs

QUOTE: Babies didn’t need to twist, and heads emerged sideways instead of facing backwards. On the other hand, while this potentially meant that births could have been somewhat faster, with less risk of infants getting stuck, the babies’ longer skulls meant it was still a tight squeeze.

DAVID: if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

It’s always interesting to hear a dualist talk of the brain as the source of intelligence - it’s a good thing you accepted my materialism/dualism compromise! Why do you claim that we are more intelligent? Recent research suggests that they were just as intelligent as sapiens at the time of their co-existence. As regards your question, it’s just one more in the long line of questions arising from your theory that your God designed absolutely everything although you have no idea why. (See also snake venom, useless evolution, RNA folding, balance of Nature…)

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 01:25 (188 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

dhw: What on earth have hippos got to do with it? Hippos managed perfectly well as they were. Pre-whales must have needed to change (it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time, water offered them better prospects of survival than land). How does that come to mean that God must have operated on their legs before they entered the water?

Since I believe God speciates, He decided they were OK as waders


Snakes repel their own venom

dhw: I do NOT agree! My version is that ALL the snakes had a problem and subsequently solved it for themselves. If this discussion is to continue, we’d better clarify your own version: do you believe the cell communities of the eight snakes solved the external problem themselves (problem first, solution followed), but your God had to step in and solve the internal problem of the other two (designing problem and solution simultaneously)? Or did he step in to operate on all ten? If all ten, why are you bothering to distinguish between external and internal?

The problem is only with the snakes who are protected from their own poison. We have venus trap plants who are protected from their own digestive enzymes, our stomachs protected from severe pH acid levels, etc. This exists all throughout biology. It requires simultaneous development, therefore design.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?

dhw: 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

DAVID: We don't know if they are useless, just currently unexplained. And you didn't comment on the genome Darwin nuttiness from yesterday: "Genome complexity: RNA folding" in the same vein.

dhw: And you have not commented on 1), 2), 3) or 4), which support Darwinian evolution and raise huge questions for your own theory.

I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

As regards RNA folding:


dhw: Why do you expect me to answer your question? Do please explain why your God bothered to make RNA form a knot in the first place.

The Darwinists asked the stupid question I didn't.


Balance of Nature

DAVID: Most ecosystems are important but happen accidently. […]

dhw: Ecosystems are important to the organisms that live in them! Your acknowledgement that they happen accidentally fits in with the apparently higgledy-piggledy coming and going that constitutes the history of life. This suggests that if there is such a being as God, he deliberately set up a system which would result in ever changing ecosystems and life forms without any specific plan.

The issue is they have a specific God-given design with top predators for food supply.


Neanderthal birth canal differs

DAVID: if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

dhw: It’s always interesting to hear a dualist talk of the brain as the source of intelligence - it’s a good thing you accepted my materialism/dualism compromise! Why do you claim that we are more intelligent? Recent research suggests that they were just as intelligent as sapiens at the time of their co-existence. As regards your question, it’s just one more in the long line of questions arising from your theory that your God designed absolutely everything although you have no idea why.

I agreed to your compromise. My dualist soul uses my very intelligent brain.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 12:28 (187 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

dhw: […] Hippos managed perfectly well as they were. Pre-whales must have needed to change (it is not unreasonable to assume that at the time, water offered them better prospects of survival than land). How does that come to mean that God must have operated on their legs before they entered the water?

DAVID: Since I believe God speciates, He decided they were OK as waders.

Obviously they were OK as waders, since they survived OK as waders. So what was the point of mentioning them? Pre-whales probably would not have survived on land, and that is why they entered the water. How does that come to mean that your God must have operated to change their legs into flippers before they did so?

Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The problem is only with the snakes who are protected from their own poison. We have venus trap plants who are protected from their own digestive enzymes […] etc. This exists all throughout biology. It requires simultaneous development, therefore design.

I’m not arguing against design. Cellular intelligence could do the designing. Why do you constantly ignore my questions? I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?

dhw: 1) If the molecules are useless, why did your God design them? 2) If they make terrible mistakes, why did your God design useless molecules to make terrible mistakes? 3) The article says that the molecules do not create any disadvantage, in which case there is no need for natural selection to get rid of them (an argument that Darwinists could also apply to junk DNA). 4) If it turns out that the molecules are useful after all, this will support the principle of natural selection. There is therefore nothing in the article that contradicts Darwinian evolution, but if the molecules are useless, they raise awkward questions for creationists like yourself.

DAVID: I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

That is not my assertion! You claim that your God designed useless molecules, as if somehow this made a mockery of Darwinian evolution. (Same problem with RNA folding.) It doesn’t. It makes a mockery of your interpretation of evolution and your God’s role in it. The fact that you have no idea how to explain your interpretation hardly justifies your attack on Darwinian evolution, let alone your absurd claim that I’m suggesting God doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s YOUR theory about what God does that requires and fails to get an explanation from you.

Balance of Nature

DAVID: Most ecosystems are important but happen accidently. […]

dhw: […] Your acknowledgement that they happen accidentally fits in with the apparently higgledy-piggledy coming and going that constitutes the history of life. This suggests that if there is such a being as God, he deliberately set up a system which would result in ever changing ecosystems and life forms without any specific plan.

DAVID: The issue is they have a specific God-given design with top predators for food supply.

No problem. The problem arises when you try to make out that every ecosystem in life’s history was geared to a single purpose. I shan’t repeat what you think that was.

Neanderthal birth canal differs

DAVID: ...if true why did our birth canal get so difficult in birthing? Their brains actually were bigger in size. But it appears our brains were more intelligent. There must be reason we do not yet know.

dhw: It’s always interesting to hear a dualist talk of the brain as the source of intelligence - it’s a good thing you accepted my materialism/dualism compromise! [...]

DAVID: I agreed to your compromise. My dualist soul uses my very intelligent brain.

That was not my compromise! You agree that “consciousness is an emergent product of the living brain”. A “soul” without consciousness or intelligence could hardly use anything! The compromise is that what we might call our immaterial self is an emergent product of the brain (materialism) but it is possible that the product itself may survive the death of its source, as an independent entity (NDEs – dualism). I note that the original question and the subject of Neanderthal intelligence have been dropped.

Genome complexity: plants swap organelles, DNA intact

QUOTE: "[…] Hertle points out that once a mosaic cell in a graft callus starts to produce roots, shoots and flowers, it could give rise to a new species or subspecies, especially if cell walls open wide enough to admit nuclear genomes."

DAVID: I can easily see this as a God-designed method for plant evolution and new species creation.

And I can easily see it as a method whereby intelligent cells (possibly God-designed) are able to produce new species or subspecies.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 21, 2021, 19:21 (187 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology

DAVID: Since I believe God speciates, He decided they were OK as waders.

dhw: Obviously they were OK as waders, since they survived OK as waders. So what was the point of mentioning them? Pre-whales probably would not have survived on land, and that is why they entered the water. How does that come to mean that your God must have operated to change their legs into flippers before they did so?

I repeat, I believe only God can speciate. There is a variety of strange types: seals penguins, etc., who use water to feed but remain land based. God's choice. It proves there no necessity to became entirely aquatic.


Snakes repel their own venom

DAVID: The problem is only with the snakes who are protected from their own poison. We have venus trap plants who are protected from their own digestive enzymes […] etc. This exists all throughout biology. It requires simultaneous development, therefore design.

dhw: I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

Only simultaneous design will work. If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote? I'm not discussing external poison!!! You are simply avoiding my proposition. I assume God at work here and probably helping with external poisoning.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

dhw: That is not my assertion! You claim that your God designed useless molecules, as if somehow this made a mockery of Darwinian evolution.

It is the Darwinists who claim the molecules are useless and survived by habit!!!! My answer above suffices.


Neanderthal birth canal differs

dhw: I note that the original question and the subject of Neanderthal intelligence have been dropped.

It is obvious they were quite intelligent.


Genome complexity: plants swap organelles, DNA intact

QUOTE: "[…] Hertle points out that once a mosaic cell in a graft callus starts to produce roots, shoots and flowers, it could give rise to a new species or subspecies, especially if cell walls open wide enough to admit nuclear genomes."

DAVID: I can easily see this as a God-designed method for plant evolution and new species creation.

dhw: And I can easily see it as a method whereby intelligent cells (possibly God-designed) are able to produce new species or subspecies.

Well, our theories still differ. Good for more debate.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, January 22, 2021, 09:38 (187 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology
DAVID: I repeat, I believe only God can speciate. There is a variety of strange types: seals penguins, etc., who use water to feed but remain land based. God's choice. It proves there no necessity to became entirely aquatic.

You don’t need to keep repeating your belief or to tell us about other species. Just tell us why you think that your God must have popped in to operate on some pre-whales’ legs before they entered the water, and that it’s not possible that these animals found they had a better chance of survival in the water, and in time their bodies adapted to the new environment – a process which included legs being transformed into flippers.

Snakes repel their own venom.
dhw: I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

DAVID: Only simultaneous design will work. If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote? I'm not discussing external poison!!! You are simply avoiding my proposition. I assume God at work here and probably helping with external poisoning.

In answer to your question, maybe the internal poison doesn’t always kill. We kill millions of bacteria with our medications, but others survive and find an “antidote”. Maybe in the same way, some snakes died but others survived. I like your answer to my question, since “probably” leaves open the possibility that your God did not help. This can only mean that he may have given the eight snakes the wherewithal to find their own way of surviving external poisons. I would suggest that the same mechanism for doing so would also be present in the two snakes that needed to find antidotes to the poison from within.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution
DAVID: I don't need to reply to your assertions God doesn't know what He is doing. Unexplained as yet is enough response.

dhw: That is not my assertion! You claim that your God designed useless molecules, as if somehow this made a mockery of Darwinian evolution.

DAVID: It is the Darwinists who claim the molecules are useless and survived by habit!!!! My answer above suffices.

You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” I have told you what happened to natural selection. According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them. If they turn out to be useful, then of course natural selection will preserve them. No problem then for Darwinian evolution. However, you also wrote: “And note molecules are not intelligent, because they make these terrible mistakes!” That’s you talking about terrible mistakes, not the authors of the article, and since you believe that your God designed absolutely everything, I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

Macrophages
QUOTE: "The researchers note that the diverse responses to opposing cues may allow macrophages to more readily adapt to changing environments, as well as to quickly transition from attack mode to focusing on tissue repair.”

DAVID: Very clever design to have these cells multitask.

Yes indeed. The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

De novo or orphan genes
QUOTES: The authors describe bursts of innovation: upon the origin of placental mammals, 357 novel genes; upon the origin of the metazoan, 1,189 novel genes; upon the origin of the land plants, 1,167 novel genes; and upon the origin of the flowering plants, 2,525 novel genes.
"[..] This leads the authors to infer massive gene losses and frequent horizontal gene transfer in the history of life.

DAVID: Gould's gaps and punctuation stares at you in your face. Behe laughs about the losses. This question is not 'wide open' as this discontinuity is perfect evidence of God the designer at work stepping in.

The article is a complete vindication of my description of the process, under Evolution: a different view with loss of traits; not Behe. On 18 September 2020, 11.09, I wrote: “The process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection.” However, I should have included horizontal gene transfer. I see absolutely no reason why you should regard the discontinuity as evidence of God stepping in. I would say it is due to the fact that environmental change occurs in bursts, and speciation is a consequence of cell communities responding to new requirements and/or opportunities provided by those changes, whether local or global. If existing structures cannot cope with or exploit these changes, they will die – hence the extinction of 99% of past species. But the source of the ability to change (adapt or innovate) remains an open question, and your God is a possible answer to that question.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, January 22, 2021, 19:33 (186 days ago) @ dhw

Magic embryology
You don’t need to keep repeating your belief or to tell us about other species. Just tell us why you think that your God must have popped in to operate on some pre-whales’ legs before they entered the water, and that it’s not possible that these animals found they had a better chance of survival in the water, and in time their bodies adapted to the new environment – a process which included legs being transformed into flippers.

We have no proof that stepwise adaptions result in speciation, so it remains a nice theory. The massive evidence of gaps is strongly against it.


Snakes repel their own venom.
dhw: I repeat: do you believe that organisms autonomously develop antidotes in response to the threat posed by external poisons, or do you believe your God either preprogrammed the antidotes or stepped in to do a dabble? I’ll come onto internal threats when I get your answer.

DAVID: Only simultaneous design will work. If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote? I'm not discussing external poison!!! You are simply avoiding my proposition. I assume God at work here and probably helping with external poisoning.

dhw: In answer to your question, maybe the internal poison doesn’t always kill.

Why dodge? The discussion is all about lethal poisons.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: It is the Darwinists who claim the molecules are useless and survived by habit!!!! My answer above suffices.

You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” I have told you what happened to natural selection. According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them.

So natural selection allowed useless evolution like junk DNA? Chance at work?

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

The high-speed reactions with errors have been discussed ad nauseum.


Macrophages
QUOTE: "The researchers note that the diverse responses to opposing cues may allow macrophages to more readily adapt to changing environments, as well as to quickly transition from attack mode to focusing on tissue repair.”

DAVID: Very clever design to have these cells multitask.

dhw: Yes indeed. The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

This in only clever immune system design. Stop clutching at straws.


De novo or orphan genes
QUOTES: The authors describe bursts of innovation: upon the origin of placental mammals, 357 novel genes; upon the origin of the metazoan, 1,189 novel genes; upon the origin of the land plants, 1,167 novel genes; and upon the origin of the flowering plants, 2,525 novel genes.
"[..] This leads the authors to infer massive gene losses and frequent horizontal gene transfer in the history of life.

DAVID: Gould's gaps and punctuation stares at you in your face. Behe laughs about the losses. This question is not 'wide open' as this discontinuity is perfect evidence of God the designer at work stepping in.

dhw: The article is a complete vindication of my description of the process, under Evolution: a different view with loss of traits; not Behe. On 18 September 2020, 11.09, I wrote: “The process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection.” However, I should have included horizontal gene transfer. I see absolutely no reason why you should regard the discontinuity as evidence of God stepping in. I would say it is due to the fact that environmental change occurs in bursts, and speciation is a consequence of cell communities responding to new requirements and/or opportunities provided by those changes, whether local or global. If existing structures cannot cope with or exploit these changes, they will die – hence the extinction of 99% of past species. But the source of the ability to change (adapt or innovate) remains an open question, and your God is a possible answer to that question.

The gaps between species are strong evidence for God coding DNA to create increasing complexity, a hallmark of our evolution. I still propose God speciating. Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions. Of course new complexity requires bursts of innovation. No Darwin here.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, January 23, 2021, 12:59 (185 days ago) @ David Turell

Water to land limb changes

DAVID: The gaps tell us speciation is not due to simple step-by-step adaptations. You may ask for transitional forms, and they exist with huge gaps. From my viewpoint, the gaps tell us design is real.

You expect to find a complete fossil record of every change from 400-350 million years ago! Nobody knows what stages may have filled the gaps between the few miraculously surviving fossils. But I agree that design is real: some organisms adapt to new conditions and may complexify through improvements as further aids to survival, and there has to be a mechanism enabling these adaptations and improvements. I propose (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence. I find this more convincing than random mutations and divine programmes or dabbles to produce every change. But these are all unproven theories. See below:

Cambrian explosion

dhw: I’ll leave you, Bechly and the other experts to haggle over percentages, and will happily accept your original statement that “there certainly isn’t an abrupt dividing line in evolution.”

DAVID: Yes, each stage has some connection, as you try to ignore the complexity gap.

If there is a connection, the only gap is the time between innovations, which I suggest is caused by the irregularity of environmental changes. See above for complexity.

Magic embryology

DAVID: We have no proof that stepwise adaptions result in speciation, so it remains a nice theory. The massive evidence of gaps is strongly against it.
And under “De novo or orphan genes”:
DAVID: The gaps between species are strong evidence for God coding DNA to create increasing complexity, a hallmark of our evolution.

See above for the unproven theories. The lack of fossils does not provide “massive evidence” for anything, let alone an unknown, sourceless mind which has preprogrammed or dabbled every single change.

Snakes repel their own venom.

DAVID: If only personal poison is present and kills, how is there survival to develop the antidote?[…].

dhw: [...] maybe the internal poison doesn’t always kill.

DAVID: Why dodge? The discussion is all about lethal poisons.

All the poisons, internal and external, are lethal, but that does not mean they kill every individual organism. If eight survivors find an antidote, why can't the other two?

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” […] According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them.

DAVID: So natural selection allowed useless evolution like junk DNA? Chance at work?

There would be no pressure for harmless molecules or junk DNA to be discarded. It would not disprove natural selection, but it would raise the question of why a designer God would deliberately design something useless, let alone that makes "terrible mistakes".

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

DAVID: The high-speed reactions with errors have been discussed ad nauseum.

And your only explanation was that your God was unable to avoid incorporating the harmful ones, tried to correct them, often failed, and left it to humans to try and correct them. How does this mean that I say God doesn’t know what he is doing?

Macrophages

dhw: The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

DAVID: This in only clever immune system design. Stop clutching at straws.

Stem cells are not confined to the immune system, and can also deliberately change their function. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that when cells change their structure (adaptation/innovation) to meet new needs, it suggests that they have the ability to change their structure to meet new needs?

De novo or orphan genes

DAVID: […] this discontinuity is perfect evidence of God the designer at work stepping in.

dhw: […] I see no reason why you should regard the discontinuity as evidence of God stepping in. I would say it is due to the fact that environmental change occurs in bursts, and speciation is a consequence of cell communities responding to new requirements and/or opportunities provided by those changes, whether local or global. […]

DAVID: I still propose God speciating. Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions.

Did he? You eventually agreed that he had only found examples of species modifications (e.g. among bears). Now please explain your objection to my explanation of discontinuity.

An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: In this case the salmonella reprogram the Krebs cycle by altering DNA in the invaded cells!!! Not their own DNA, which Shapiro studied, but to me editing is editing.

Agreed. Another example of bacteria working out their own means of survival. I have no idea why your God would have preprogrammed or dabbled with this nasty salmonella to poison us. Do you? Maybe the “editing” is the product of the autonomous intelligence which Shapiro thinks is present in all cells.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 23, 2021, 19:05 (185 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes repel their own venom.

DAVID: Why dodge? The discussion is all about lethal poisons.


dhw: All the poisons, internal and external, are lethal, but that does not mean they kill every individual organism. If eight survivors find an antidote, why can't the other two?

Still dodging. We know the poison kills others in the two snakes that are self-protected. Self-protection must be simultaneously designed. The eight otheres have no place in this discussion


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: You asked: “What happened to perfect natural selection which always makes the right choices?” […] According to the article, the molecules are harmless, in which case there was no necessity to discard them.

DAVID: So natural selection allowed useless evolution like junk DNA? Chance at work?

dhw: There would be no pressure for harmless molecules or junk DNA to be discarded. It would not disprove natural selection, but it would raise the question of why a designer God would deliberately design something useless, let alone that makes "terrible mistakes".

The appendix was ' a useless vestige' until its immune purpose was found.


dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.

DAVID: The high-speed reactions with errors have been discussed ad nauseum.

dhw: And your only explanation was that your God was unable to avoid incorporating the harmful ones, tried to correct them, often failed, and left it to humans to try and correct them. How does this mean that I say God doesn’t know what he is doing?

God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.


Macrophages

dhw: The ability of these cells to multitask in order to meet the needs imposed or opportunities offered by changing environments may well be the key to speciation.

DAVID: This in only clever immune system design. Stop clutching at straws.

dhw: Stem cells are not confined to the immune system, and can also deliberately change their function. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that when cells change their structure (adaptation/innovation) to meet new needs, it suggests that they have the ability to change their structure to meet new needs?

Stem cells follow given embryological rules.


De novo or orphan genes

DAVID: I still propose God speciating. Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions.

Did he? You eventually agreed that he had only found examples of species modifications (e.g. among bears). Now please explain your objection to my explanation of discontinuity.

Behe also discussed mammoths vs elephants I didn't mention before because of book explanation complexity, in explaining disappearance of a species in a section called 'speciation by degradation' (page 195), a comparison of DNA in both: mammoths disappeared due to "2,000 amino acid residues mutated,..500 damaged genes, 26 seriously degraded". The two species separated seven million years ago. This is the only actual speciation event he covered. You are correct, the rest is adaptive. Your explanation is fine but ignores the huge gaps in function between new species from old.


An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: In this case the salmonella reprogram the Krebs cycle by altering DNA in the invaded cells!!! Not their own DNA, which Shapiro studied, but to me editing is editing.

dhw: Agreed. Another example of bacteria working out their own means of survival. I have no idea why your God would have preprogrammed or dabbled with this nasty salmonella to poison us. Do you? Maybe the “editing” is the product of the autonomous intelligence which Shapiro thinks is present in all cells.

Interesting: did you note I understand Shapiro's contributions to evolution research, but I still reject your wild extrapolations. Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, January 24, 2021, 08:14 (185 days ago) @ David Turell

Snakes repel their own venom.

dhw: All the poisons, internal and external, are lethal, but that does not mean they kill every individual organism. If eight survivors find an antidote, why can't the other two?

DAVID: Still dodging. We know the poison kills others in the two snakes that are self-protected. Self-protection must be simultaneously designed. The eight otheres have no place in this discussion.

Of course they have a place! The question in both cases is how the antidote originated. If, as you appear to agree, enough of the eight-snake species survived the external poison and found an antidote without your God popping in with the goody-bag, it’s possible that enough of the two-snake species survived the internal poison and did the same.

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: There would be no pressure for harmless molecules or junk DNA to be discarded. It would not disprove natural selection, but it would raise the question of why a designer God would deliberately design something useless, let alone that makes "terrible mistakes".

DAVID: The appendix was ' a useless vestige' until its immune purpose was found.

Now you are trying to prove there is no junk. That is no answer to the question of why your God would have designed molecules which according to you made terrible mistakes.

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.[…]

DAVID: God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.

It’s your theory that God is trying (and often failing) to correct the errors resulting from his design. How does that explain why he designed molecules that make terrible mistakes? And how does that make me “guilty” of saying God doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s you who have no idea why God would do what you claim he does. So maybe your theory is wrong.

Macrophages

dhw: Stem cells are not confined to the immune system, and can also deliberately change their function. Why is it clutching at straws to suggest that when cells change their structure (adaptation/innovation) to meet new needs, it suggests that they have the ability to change their structure to meet new needs?

DAVID: Stem cells follow given embryological rules.

Stem cells take on different functions, as do the macrophages, and this could be the key to speciation. They repeat their new functions (= “follow rules”) once the new system has been established.

De novo or orphan genes

DAVID: Behe found advances by deletions without DNA additions.

dhw: Did he? You eventually agreed that he had only found examples of species modifications (e.g. among bears). Now please explain your objection to my explanation of discontinuity.

DAVID: Behe also discussed mammoths vs elephants I didn't mention before because of book explanation complexity, in explaining disappearance of a species […] The two species separated seven million years ago. This is the only actual speciation event he covered. You are correct, the rest is adaptive. Your explanation is fine but ignores the huge gaps in function between new species from old.

Species disappearing has nothing to do with speciation. Thank you for acknowledging my fine explanation, which explained discontinuity, which = the huge gaps.

An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

dhw: Another example of bacteria working out their own means of survival. I have no idea why your God would have preprogrammed or dabbled with this nasty salmonella to poison us. Do you? Maybe the “editing” is the product of the autonomous intelligence which Shapiro thinks is present in all cells.

DAVID: Interesting: did you note I understand Shapiro's contributions to evolution research, but I still reject your wild extrapolations.

They are not wild extrapolations. Do you really want me to repeat the quotes reproduced in your own book, in which Shapiro explicitly describes cellular intelligence and its crucial role in evolutionary innovation?

DAVID: Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

I’m afraid your suggestion that maybe bad bacteria have an unknown beneficial purpose is not a very convincing explanation of why your God directly designed bad bacteria. Maybe he did NOT directly design them, but – theistic explanation - they were/are part of a free-for-all resulting from his design of cellular intelligence devoted to finding ways of survival.

Colliding galaxies

DAVID: […] dhw worries that the universe is too large and complicated and wonders why God did it that over-sized way. Not to worry, NASA says the number of galaxies in the hundreds of billions not trillions:

I couldn’t care less whether NASA says hundreds of billions or trillions (they can’t possibly know anyway). I merely ask why you think your God designed all the galaxies, old and new, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. But in the light of the thread on human evolution, maybe you think there are hundreds of billions (not trillions) of ETs out there as well?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 24, 2021, 19:19 (184 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes repel their own venom.

DAVID: Still dodging. We know the poison kills others in the two snakes that are self-protected. Self-protection must be simultaneously designed. The eight otheres have no place in this discussion.

dhw: it’s possible that enough of the two-snake species survived the internal poison and did the same.

Same hopeful dodge. It obviously requires simultaneous design.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.[…]

DAVID: God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.

dhw: It’s your theory that God is trying (and often failing) to correct the errors resulting from his design. How does that explain why he designed molecules that make terrible mistakes?

The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.


An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

dhw: I’m afraid your suggestion that maybe bad bacteria have an unknown beneficial purpose is not a very convincing explanation of why your God directly designed bad bacteria. Maybe he did NOT directly design them, but – theistic explanation - they were/are part of a free-for-all resulting from his design of cellular intelligence devoted to finding ways of survival.

Your usual sop to theism. Remember cellular intelligence is just an unproven theory


Colliding galaxies

DAVID: […] dhw worries that the universe is too large and complicated and wonders why God did it that over-sized way. Not to worry, NASA says the number of galaxies in the hundreds of billions not trillions:

dhw: I couldn’t care less whether NASA says hundreds of billions or trillions (they can’t possibly know anyway). I merely ask why you think your God designed all the galaxies, old and new, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. But in the light of the thread on human evolution, maybe you think there are hundreds of billions (not trillions) of ETs out there as well?

We can't know, but can look with SETI without a positive result so far.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, January 25, 2021, 09:04 (184 days ago) @ David Turell

Snakes repel their own venom.

dhw: If…enough of the eight-snake species survived the external poison and found an antidote without your God popping in with the goody-bag, it’s possible that enough of the two-snake species survived the internal poison and did the same.

DAVID: Same hopeful dodge. It obviously requires simultaneous design.

Ah well, I’ll settle for the (theistic) implications of your argument: species either die out, or survivors find their own antidotes to poisons and cures for diseases. Your God only “probably” helps - though how he can help without providing the antidotes and cures I don’t know - but that leaves the possibility that he doesn’t help. I’m happy to go along with this possibility. Thank you. Meanwhile, however, there are two varieties of snake for which your God had to directly provide the goody–bag, because you know that no individual could possibly have survived otherwise. I don’t know how you know, but shall we leave it at that?

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: I have every right to ask you why you think your God designed molecules that make terrible mistakes. Your answer (that I am saying “God doesn’t know what he is doing”) is totally out of order.[…]

DAVID: God know what He is doing in trying to code for error corrections.

dhw: It’s your theory that God is trying (and often failing) to correct the errors resulting from his design. How does that explain why he designed molecules that make terrible mistakes?

DAVID: The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.

A good design with errors doesn’t sound like a good design to me. We’ve now digressed from the original article, which did not even mention mistakes, and are back to theodicy. In this context, I’d prefer to talk about cells. If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them! As with humans and their (God-given?) free will, it’s obviously not your God’s fault if cells decide to make what we consider to be bad choices. Thank you for supporting the case for cells that know what they’re doing.

An inventive mechanism: A DNA 'Shapiro change'

DAVID: Bacteria are still here as super-important contributors to life. The bad is back to theodicy debates and my suggesting they have a real purpose, not yet discovered, but perhaps as part of the beneficial biome when under control in the GI tract..

dhw: I’m afraid your suggestion that maybe bad bacteria have an unknown beneficial purpose is not a very convincing explanation of why your God directly designed bad bacteria. Maybe he did NOT directly design them, but – theistic explanation - they were/are part of a free-for-all resulting from his design of cellular intelligence devoted to finding ways of survival.

DAVID: Your usual sop to theism. Remember cellular intelligence is just an unproven theory.

1) It is not a sop. I am an agnostic. 2) Once more: ALL theories, including your own and the God theory, are unproven. If they were proven, we would not be having these discussions. However, my theory provides a logical explanation for bad bacteria, which I suggest has more substance than a theory which provides no logical explanation.

Colliding galaxies

DAVID: […] dhw worries that the universe is too large and complicated and wonders why God did it that over-sized way. Not to worry, NASA says the number of galaxies in the hundreds of billions not trillions:

dhw: I couldn’t care less whether NASA says hundreds of billions or trillions (they can’t possibly know anyway). I merely ask why you think your God designed all the galaxies, old and new, if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. But in the light of the thread on human evolution, maybe you think there are hundreds of billions (not trillions) of ETs out there as well?

DAVID: We can't know, but can look with SETI without a positive result so far.

Apart from “with SETI”, that sums up all our theories about all the unsolved mysteries. Hence agnosticism.

Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, January 25, 2021, 15:20 (183 days ago) @ dhw

Snakes repel their own venom.

Ah well, I’ll settle for the (theistic) implications of your argument: ..I don’t know how you know, but shall we leave it at that?

Fine.


Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

dhw: This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

dhw: Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

The real point is CO2 has been up and down in vast shifts all through Earth history. The current manufactured hysteria is all political from the UN to get more money to poor third world countries. There are better charitable ways

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 09:03 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: The molecules are acting under orders. A good design with molecular errors is not God's fault. At least He knew they could make mistakes. Living requires high-speed reactions. The molecules know their rules but at times their mistakes happen, which is obviously not God's fault.

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

DAVID: Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

There is no distortion of biochemistry. We are dealing with the same “mistakes”, but please note that we have now diverged from the article we began with, which dealt with a useless but harmless molecular mechanism, and are back on the subject of theodicy. I am challenging the claim that a design with “errors” is a good design, that the designer is not responsible for “errors” in his design, and that if cells were designed to know the rules but break them, then the designer must have given them the autonomous ability to know and break them! But I am suggesting that if your God exists, he may not have WANTED to design life forms that were so perfect they would live for ever, and he may have WANTED the ever changing and unpredictable history of life and evolution that has produced the vast range of life forms from bacteria to humans. What you call “mistakes and “errors” would all be part of the great free-for-all, since mistakes and errors are only what we humans would regard as the bad side of a process which demands constant change – diversion from what exists into something that has not existed before. Not Darwin’s randomness, not your God’s error-prone design, but the result of deliberate change as intelligent cells (origin unknown, but possibly designed by your God) adjust to or exploit or succumb to new conditions. (See also below, on catastrophes.)

Repairing DNA breaks
DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

Controlling rate of RNAs

DAVID: processes need speed controls and this is one of them. It reeks of design. Note my bold. The high speed of these processes is illustrated, from our knowledge that the bacteria replicating every 20 minutes. Occasional molecular mistakes must be expected.

Agreed. And if God designed them, and if God is a competent designer, we can assume that he designed what he wanted to design. You always moan that a God who deliberately designed a free-for-all is somehow weak. Don’t you think a God who designed something which was bound to make “mistakes”, and tried but often failed to correct them, is weaker than a God who designs what he wants to design?

Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

dhw: This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.”

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

dhw: Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

DAVID: The real point is CO2 has been up and down in vast shifts all through Earth history. The current manufactured hysteria is all political from the UN to get more money to poor third world countries. There are better charitable ways.

I don’t wish to enter into discussions on the validity or the current politics of climate change. You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 01:49 (182 days ago) @ dhw

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

DAVID: Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

dhw: There is no distortion of biochemistry. We are dealing with the same “mistakes”, but please note that we have now diverged from the article we began with, which dealt with a useless but harmless molecular mechanism, and are back on the subject of theodicy. I am challenging the claim that a design with “errors” is a good design,

I still challenge this as a distortion of the understanding of function of living biochemistry that forms life. You recognize the high speed needed, with trillions of reaction occurring constantly. In the soup the molecules either react properly to exactitude of action but being free in the soup, means free to make a mistake so they are really free to react improperly. In my opinion. It cannot be rigidly correct 100% of the time. Life requires the high speed in a soup. God cannot do it better, and that doesn't make Him a bad designer as you like to imply. This is the best that can be done. And 3.8 by's prove the point. We are here despite all your worry about the errors. Not as bad as your view.


Repairing DNA breaks
DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

dhw: Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

I think He couldn't


Controlling rate of RNAs

DAVID: processes need speed controls and this is one of them. It reeks of design. Note my bold. The high speed of these processes is illustrated, from our knowledge that the bacteria replicating every 20 minutes. Occasional molecular mistakes must be expected.

dhw: Agreed. You always moan that a God who deliberately designed a free-for-all is somehow weak. Don’t you think a God who designed something which was bound to make “mistakes”, and tried but often failed to correct them, is weaker than a God who designs what he wants to design?

I accept the fact without a moan, He cannot create something that lives with no molecular mistakes. Bothers you more than me.


Plants control carbon cycle

QUOTE: After all, if a bunch of dumb ferns could naturally perform carbon sequestration on such a tremendous scale, why couldn’t clever humans deliberately do the same thing?

dhw: This is an amazing idea! At a stroke it could remove all the agonizing over how to combat climate change without any radical changes to our civilisation. I wonder why it hasn’t been followed up.

QUOTE: "The Azolla Event was an environmental catastrophe for life in the Eocene epoch.”

DAVID: The article goes on to discuss humans using plants to control CO2 on Earth and maintain balances within tight limits. It has been designed to run by itself until humans arrived to upset the balances. But it should be noted the range of CO2 concentrations, both high and low are way beyond anything currently happening.

dhw: Yeah, the Azolla Event was a catastrophe for life before humans arrived to upset the balances and cause catastrophes. Well done, Nature.

DAVID: The real point is CO2 has been up and down in vast shifts all through Earth history. The current manufactured hysteria is all political from the UN to get more money to poor third world countries. There are better charitable ways.

dhw: I don’t wish to enter into discussions on the validity or the current politics of climate change. You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

I think God is in control of the original design of the overall weather pattern systems. My entries into 'privileged planet' show that.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 13:01 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

dhw: If cells know the rules and break them, clearly he designed the cells in such a way that they would know the rules and be free to break them!

DAVID: Mistaken folding or bad reactions are pure mistakes, not willful mischief, as you distort biochemistry.

dhw: There is no distortion of biochemistry. We are dealing with the same “mistakes”, but please note that we have now diverged from the article we began with, which dealt with a useless but harmless molecular mechanism, and are back on the subject of theodicy. I am challenging the claim that a design with “errors” is a good design […]…

DAVID: I still challenge this as a distortion of the understanding of function of living biochemistry that forms life. You recognize the high speed needed, with trillions of reaction occurring constantly. In the soup the molecules either react properly to exactitude of action but being free in the soup, means free to make a mistake so they are really free to react improperly. In my opinion. It cannot be rigidly correct 100% of the time. Life requires the high speed in a soup. God cannot do it better, and that doesn't make Him a bad designer as you like to imply. This is the best that can be done. And 3.8 by's prove the point. We are here despite all your worry about the errors. Not as bad as your view.

The article which started this discussion was about a harmless molecular structure that served no purpose and so you thought it negated Darwinian natural selection. (See the heading.) When I challenged your conclusion, you switched the subject to high speed molecules and “mistakes”, and referred me to our discussion on “God’s error corrections”. This in turn leads to theodicy – and we are no longer talking about the odd blip. The problem is the major blips: i.e. diseases and their causes, and in the wider framework, why your God would have deliberately (as you think) designed the bad cells, bacteria, viruses etc. and everything else which we humans consider to be “bad”. Our next exchange follows on from this:

Repairing DNA breaks

DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

dhw: Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

DAVID: I think He couldn't.

Interesting that your God is incapable of designing what he wants, tries hard to make up for it (but often fails), and yet you always moan that my hypothesis of a God who designs exactly what he wants (namely the free-for-all which has produced the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution) makes him seem “weak”.

DAVID (under “Controlling rate of RNAs”): I accept the fact without a moan, He cannot create something that lives with no molecular mistakes. Bothers you more than me.

But don’t you think a God who designs what he wants to design is less weak than a God who can’t design what he wants to design, and tries hard but often in vain to correct the “errors”?

Plants control carbon cycle

dhw: You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: I think God is in control of the original design of the overall weather pattern systems. My entries into 'privileged planet' show that.

You drew our attention to catastrophes and to humans upsetting the balance of Nature. This raises the interesting question of whether your God deliberately designed catastrophes and indeed all the environmental changes, global and local, that have accompanied (and I suggest also triggered) both extinctions and the arrival of new species. I’m not sure what you mean by “overall weather patterns”, so perhaps you could be more precise. Do you think he controls/controlled all the environmental changes, global and local, that accompanied (triggered) evolutionary changes, or do you think he set up a system through which environmental changes were/are left to chance?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 17:57 (181 days ago) @ dhw

Darwin scientists find useless evolution

DAVID: I still challenge this as a distortion of the understanding of function of living biochemistry that forms life. You recognize the high speed needed, with trillions of reaction occurring constantly. In the soup the molecules either react properly to exactitude of action but being free in the soup, means free to make a mistake so they are really free to react improperly. In my opinion. It cannot be rigidly correct 100% of the time. Life requires the high speed in a soup. God cannot do it better, and that doesn't make Him a bad designer as you like to imply. This is the best that can be done. And 3.8 by's prove the point. We are here despite all your worry about the errors. Not as bad as your view.

dhw: The article which started this discussion was about a harmless molecular structure that served no purpose and so you thought it negated Darwinian natural selection. (See the heading.) When I challenged your conclusion, you switched the subject to high speed molecules and “mistakes”, and referred me to our discussion on “God’s error corrections”. This in turn leads to theodicy – and we are no longer talking about the odd blip. The problem is the major blips: i.e. diseases and their causes, and in the wider framework, why your God would have deliberately (as you think) designed the bad cells, bacteria, viruses etc. and everything else which we humans consider to be “bad”. Our next exchange follows on from this:

Repairing DNA breaks

DAVID: We still see that mistakes can happen when molecules are acting and BIR is not a perfect solution. Perhaps perfection is impossible even with God in charge of possible designs.

dhw: Perhaps your God did not seek perfection.

DAVID: I think He couldn't. >

dhw: Interesting that your God is incapable of designing what he wants, tries hard to make up for it (but often fails), and yet you always moan that my hypothesis of a God who designs exactly what he wants (namely the free-for-all which has produced the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution) makes him seem “weak”.

Now we are returning to God's personality discussion. I think if Him as highly purposeful with the process of evolution absolutely directed toward the production of humans with big brain consciousness. The broad bush is for econiches to provide food for all and is practical and not higgledy-piggledy. Your failure to see God's purpose muddles your approach.


DAVID (under “Controlling rate of RNAs”): I accept the fact without a moan, He cannot create something that lives with no molecular mistakes. Bothers you more than me.

dhw: But don’t you think a God who designs what he wants to design is less weak than a God who can’t design what he wants to design, and tries hard but often in vain to correct the “errors”?

You still don't understand the biochemistry of life with high-speed reactions. The molecules are free to make mistakes to have the system work at the speed it does. This design we have works, as evolutionary history shows. That is a positive not your persistent negative dark view.


Plants control carbon cycle

dhw: You harp on about humans upsetting the balance of Nature, on which we both agree. But you also agree that the balance of Nature has constantly shifted throughout life’s history, with catastrophe after catastrophe. So do you think all these pre-human catastrophes (plus less dramatic local changes) were directly designed by your God to destroy most of the life forms you think he had directly designed up to then? Or do you think the catastrophes (plus less dramatic local events) might have been the result of a specially designed system of random environmental changes requiring new responses from the life forms exposed to them? The question is of major importance in the light of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: I think God is in control of the original design of the overall weather pattern systems. My entries into 'privileged planet' show that.

dhw: You drew our attention to catastrophes and to humans upsetting the balance of Nature. This raises the interesting question of whether your God deliberately designed catastrophes and indeed all the environmental changes, global and local, that have accompanied (and I suggest also triggered) both extinctions and the arrival of new species. I’m not sure what you mean by “overall weather patterns”, so perhaps you could be more precise. Do you think he controls/controlled all the environmental changes, global and local, that accompanied (triggered) evolutionary changes, or do you think he set up a system through which environmental changes were/are left to chance?'

I don't much of anything chance-caused. I see God in tight control. La Nina and El Nino are recognized Pacific patterns that control all weather over the globe. Monsoon rain patterns are another.

Miscellany; Asian weather patterns from ancient times

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 19:19 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

A new study shows the importance of the Himalayan rise:

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-unravels-hidden-eastern-asia-honey.html

"A study has revealed for the first time the ancient origins of one of the world's most important ecosystems by unlocking the mechanism which determined the evolution of its mountains and how they shaped the weather there as well as its flora and fauna.

"It was previously thought Southern Tibet and the Himalaya were instrumental in turning the once barren land of eastern Asia into lush forests and abundant coastal regions which became home to a rich array of plant, animal and marine life, including some of the world's rarest species. But new findings, published today in the journal Science Advances, conversely show Northern Tibet played the more influential role in this transformation which began more than 50 million years ago.

"Scientists from a UK-China partnership used an innovative climate model to simulate vegetation and plant diversity, combined with spectacular new fossil finds, to discover how this unique biodiversity hotspot evolved.

***

"The findings showed that from the late Paleogene to the early Neogene age, some 23-40 million years ago, the growth of the north and northeastern portion of Tibet was the most important factor because it increased rainfall, especially winter rainfall, over eastern Asia where dry winter conditions existed before.

"This allowed the development of a stable, wet and warm climate, conducive to the evolution of vast and varied plants and animal species which formed the biodiversity hotspot known today for supplying more than a billion people with fresh water and providing ingredients used for lifesaving pharmaceutical drugs. Rare species of monkey, tiger, leopard, bear, fox, mongoose, hedgehog, seal, dolphin, and sea lion all live in this abundant ecosystem.

"Earlier research has mainly investigated the impact of Tibetan mountain building much further to the South when India collided with Asia around 55 million years ago, leading to the rise of the Himalaya mountains and, eventually, the vast arid Tibetan Plateau. However, recent work is increasingly showing the creation of the modern Tibetan plateau was complex, and did not rise as one monolithic block as originally believed.

***

"'The topography of northern Tibet decreases the East Asian winter monsoon winds in the southern part of China, causing wetter winters in eastern Asia and this allows the expansion of vegetation and biodiversity."

"So enigmatic was the drastic change that even in Chinese folklore this area is known as the 'Land of Fish and Rice', due to its immense productivity.

"Without the growth in Northern Tibetan mountains, none of this would exist. But our research should also be taken as a cautionary tale," Professor Valdes explained.

"'A unique set of tectonic and stable climatic conditions over millions of years allowed the development of this rare species rich region of South East Asia.

***

"Professor Zhekun Zhou, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' XTBG, who led on the fossil analysis, said: "So effectively, without northern Tibetan growth, there would be no 'land of milk and honey' in eastern Asia. This research represents a significant breakthrough in understanding how this remarkably rich region of mountainous terrain and diverse plant life formed.'"

Comment: The issue of climate patterns is partially solved by this study. Drifting continents and subduction cause mountain ranges which then influence climate patterns. Part of God's design for a privileged planet. Special ecosystems are vital for life to continue.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 08:53 (174 days ago) @ dhw

Einstein theory

DAVID: A great review of the whole history and all the wonders about the universe it has produced:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einstein-theory-general-relativity-gravity-black-ho...

DAVID: a ten minute read well worth it.

Thank you. It took me more than ten minutes, but was well worth the time spent. Just one quote:

General relativity has become the foundation for today’s understanding of the cosmos. But the current picture is far from complete. Plenty of questions remain about mysterious matter and forces, about the beginnings and the end of the universe, about how the science of the big meshes with quantum mechanics, the science of the very small.”

While we marvel at the extent of what we know, the fact of the matter (I use the phrase deliberately) is that we know next to nothing!

Xxxxxx

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 04, 2021, 15:43 (173 days ago) @ dhw

Einstein theory

DAVID: A great review of the whole history and all the wonders about the universe it has produced:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einstein-theory-general-relativity-gravity-black-ho...

DAVID: a ten minute read well worth it.

dhw: Thank you. It took me more than ten minutes, but was well worth the time spent. Just one quote:

General relativity has become the foundation for today’s understanding of the cosmos. But the current picture is far from complete. Plenty of questions remain about mysterious matter and forces, about the beginnings and the end of the universe, about how the science of the big meshes with quantum mechanics, the science of the very small.”

While we marvel at the extent of what we know, the fact of the matter (I use the phrase deliberately) is that we know next to nothing!

And with that 'nothing' we try to debate about God and His works.


Xxxxxx

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

dhw: I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

Of course, I meant God designed their steel-like web making. Whether they stumbled accidently on hoisting heavy prey is a definite possibility. Spiders don't usually do this so it is difficult for me to assume God taught a special class to this isolated group. I think they accidently stumbled into it and it worked and became an instinct. I am convinced many instinctual activities developed just that way. We train dogs by repetition and then they react as if instinctual. Observation and memory may teach these special spiders..

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 05, 2021, 08:56 (173 days ago) @ David Turell

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

dhw: I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

DAVID: Of course, I meant God designed their steel-like web making. Whether they stumbled accidently on hoisting heavy prey is a definite possibility. Spiders don't usually do this so it is difficult for me to assume God taught a special class to this isolated group. I think they accidently stumbled into it and it worked and became an instinct. I am convinced many instinctual activities developed just that way. We train dogs by repetition and then they react as if instinctual. Observation and memory may teach these special spiders.

So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.

Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

plate tectonics

QUOTES: Collins readily admits that there was a fair bit of guesswork involved in producing the model – which is why it’s never been done before.

“No one’s put their neck out enough to get it cut off by trying to produce these models – because everything on them is controversial,” he explains. “For every interpretation of every rock in the middle of Africa or whatever, somebody else will have a different age, or think it was formed in a different tectonic setting.”

This model is very much a first step, Collins says, “but you’ve got to start somewhere”.

It is indeed fascinating, but these quotes are a delightful caveat!

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 05, 2021, 15:22 (172 days ago) @ dhw

spiders lasso, lift huge prey

DAVID: They certainly know how to use their webs. The usual debate will be how much did God help? He designed their ability to spin steel-like webs but this may be their own learned adaptation.

dhw: I don’t know if this is the usual debate, but I’ll join in. What do you mean by “he designed their ability”? Do you mean he gave them the intelligence to work out how to design webs, or do you mean that as part of his goal of evolving humans and their food supply, he popped in to give spiders courses in web-spinning, or he operated on pre-web-spinning spiders to give them their web-spinning apparatus, or 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with programmes not just for the evolution of spiders but also for their web-spinning ability?

DAVID: Of course, I meant God designed their steel-like web making. Whether they stumbled accidently on hoisting heavy prey is a definite possibility. Spiders don't usually do this so it is difficult for me to assume God taught a special class to this isolated group. I think they accidently stumbled into it and it worked and became an instinct. I am convinced many instinctual activities developed just that way. We train dogs by repetition and then they react as if instinctual. Observation and memory may teach these special spiders.

dhw: So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.


I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders


Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

dhw: This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.


plate tectonics

QUOTES: Collins readily admits that there was a fair bit of guesswork involved in producing the model – which is why it’s never been done before.

“No one’s put their neck out enough to get it cut off by trying to produce these models – because everything on them is controversial,” he explains. “For every interpretation of every rock in the middle of Africa or whatever, somebody else will have a different age, or think it was formed in a different tectonic setting.”

This model is very much a first step, Collins says, “but you’ve got to start somewhere”.

dhw: It is indeed fascinating, but these quotes are a delightful caveat!

Agreed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 06, 2021, 11:32 (171 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

dhw: This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 06, 2021, 19:03 (171 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: So your God preprogrammed spiders and webmaking 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform the necessary operations on pre-spiders. Just making sure I've understood. I agree, though, that many of the natural wonders you like to attribute to your God’s direct design could be the result of organisms accidentally stumbling on useful additions to their means of survival, and I would propose that when confronted with problems, they also use their intelligence to solve them. In both cases, the advantages will survive and become instinctual.

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

I know. I find it illogical you can still consider chance causation or drag in panpsychism as a form of mind (God lite).


Fin to limb genes

QUOTE: These results reveal that the ability to form limb-like structures was present in the common ancestor of tetrapods and teleost fishes and has been retained in a latent state which can be activated by genetic changes. (David’s bold)

DAVID: This is a beautiful example of my theory that God had preplanning in His coding of early DNA.

dhw: This is the mechanism for all kinds of changes. If God exists, I would agree that he endowed “early DNA” with the ability to form all kinds of structures, and I have no objection to your calling this “preplanning” – it is the blueprint for diversification. It does not, however, mean that your God preplanned every new life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., or that he turned fins into limbs or limbs into fins before the particular life form changed its environment, or that every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. I would say this article is a “beautiful example” of my theory that the mechanism for evolution was present in the earliest cells (possibly God’s design), and resulted in speciation as and when cell communities used it to adapt to or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

dhw: Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 07, 2021, 11:03 (171 days ago) @ David Turell

How we see color

DAVID: Do we all see exactly the same shade?:
https://theconversation.com/do-you-see-red-like-i-see-red-151650?utm_medium=email&u...

QUOTE: "Is the red I see the same as the red you see?”

Nothing new here. It's the usual problem leading to the subjectivity of all perception and to epistemology, which we’ve discussed many times.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

DAVID: I know. I find it illogical you can still consider chance causation or drag in panpsychism as a form of mind (God lite).

Hold on, hold on! I do not consider spiders to be the first cause! I would regard them and their webs as the products of evolution, as cell communities (possibly designed by your God) find their own ways of surviving. My scepticism concerns your fixed belief that although your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he directly preprogrammed or dabbled every other life form etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. And to be honest, even if the spider is essential to our human food supply and environment, I would still find it hard to believe your God programmed it 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to operate on the cells of a bunch of pre-spiders.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

dhw: Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 07, 2021, 14:13 (170 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: I agree. I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: Hardly an agreement, but if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

DAVID: I know. I find it illogical you can still consider chance causation or drag in panpsychism as a form of mind (God lite).

dhw: Hold on, hold on! I do not consider spiders to be the first cause! I would regard them and their webs as the products of evolution, as cell communities (possibly designed by your God) find their own ways of surviving. My scepticism concerns your fixed belief that although your God’s sole purpose was to design H. sapiens, he directly preprogrammed or dabbled every other life form etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. And to be honest, even if the spider is essential to our human food supply and environment, I would still find it hard to believe your God programmed it 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to operate on the cells of a bunch of pre-spiders.

Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Our views are not that different. Yours: God might have; mine: God did it.

dhw: Your “God did it” means that he preprogrammed everything 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to change fins to limbs and limbs to fins before the respective animals changed their environments. My “God might have” refers to the design of cells with the intelligence to “do it” themselves. I’d say there’s quite a difference.

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

dhw: More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 12:43 (168 days ago) @ David Turell

For some reason, I forgot to post the first two replies yesterday! My apologies.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: I view the strong webs as God's gift to spiders.

dhw: […] if you believe your God preprogrammed spiders and their strong webs 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively popped in to operate on pre-spiders, so be it.

DAVID: Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.

You have missed out at least half of our discussion! I have questioned your illogical interpretation of your God’s purpose (to design H. sapiens) and method (to design millions of individual life forms etc. unconnected with humans), and I have offered you several alternative theistic answers (including experimentation, God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible. But I know you are happy with your illogical theory of evolution and your lack of any answer to the problem of theodicy. I don’t want you to be unhappy, so perhaps we should leave it at that.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

dhw: More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing? You even have a ready-made analogy here. Would it have been easier for your God to have designed furniture, telephones, computers, cars, planes, rockets etc. himself instead of giving humans the ability to do their own designing?

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept. The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.

Balance of nature

QUOTE: We’ve warmed the atmosphere, raised sea levels, erased countless species and forged an uncertain future for humankind and the planet.

DAVID:…. human stupidity or hubris? We not smart enough to leave alone the structure God have us to start with. With this evidence of stupidity and poor analysis of consequences who are we to judge God's works critically?

I’d say it’s human stupidity AND hubris, but who is judging your God’s works critically in our discussions? You raised the problem of errors and of theodicy, and you also have no idea why your God would have designed millions of life forms that had no connection with humans, even though he only wanted to design humans! Discussing theodicy and criticising your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method is a criticism of your interpretation, not of your God!

Highest speed claw snapping

QUOTE: Intriguingly, the observations also revealed that sometimes the resulting water jets caused “cavitation”, where rapid changes in water pressure cause bubbles to form – and when they pop, they release an immense amount of energy, enough to degrade the steel of boat propellers. (David’s bold for emphasis)

But why do amphipods snap their claws in the first place?

DAVID: Is this a slowly developed adaptation, and if so 'why' as the authors pose? If it appeared all at once it had to designed to make everything work and be protected from such force.

Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 18:54 (168 days ago) @ dhw

For some reason, I forgot to post the first two replies yesterday! My apologies.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.

dhw: You have missed out at least half of our discussion! ....God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible.

What are you smoking? God is never human. Look at the bold; totally humanizing as your version of God bumbles along changing His mind. Your version of God's actions and thoughts are logical only if He is very human in His thought processes and reasons. I've not changed.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Your God 'cell intelligence' is really God one step removed.

dhw: More than one step. If God exists, I would remove the millions and millions of steps you make him take, either through individual programmes for every life form, econiche etc., or through individual operations carried out or courses given to millions of living creatures as he changes them from one species to another, or instructs them on how to perform their wonders.

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing?

As a designer I have done exactly that. Simple direct design is quick and easy.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:

https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...


Balance of nature

QUOTE: We’ve warmed the atmosphere, raised sea levels, erased countless species and forged an uncertain future for humankind and the planet.

DAVID:…. human stupidity or hubris? We not smart enough to leave alone the structure God have us to start with. With this evidence of stupidity and poor analysis of consequences who are we to judge God's works critically?

dhw: Discussing theodicy and criticising your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method is a criticism of your interpretation, not of your God!

Agreed


Highest speed claw snapping

QUOTE: Intriguingly, the observations also revealed that sometimes the resulting water jets caused “cavitation”, where rapid changes in water pressure cause bubbles to form – and when they pop, they release an immense amount of energy, enough to degrade the steel of boat propellers. (David’s bold for emphasis)

But why do amphipods snap their claws in the first place?

DAVID: Is this a slowly developed adaptation, and if so 'why' as the authors pose? If it appeared all at once it had to designed to make everything work and be protected from such force.

dhw: Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 11:57 (167 days ago) @ David Turell

MAX PLANCK

dhw: I hesitate to cross swords with such an eminent scientist who can't answer back, but hold on. “Matter as such does not exist”, but matter exists? Everything we know of has to originate, but how does that come to mean it doesn’t exist “as such”?

DAVID: The atom is pure energy particles is his meaning.

That does not mean that matter doesn’t exist/is not real.

dhw: I’m going to risk philosophical life and limb here, but I truly believe that matter is real. I don’t know how it originated, but maybe…just maybe…it has always been there. Hold on for the next mystery…

DAVID: But, remember E=mc2. At the plasma stage our universe was pure energy in a plasma state.

That does not mean that matter is not real, or that the process of energy producing matter has not gone on for eternity.

dhw: Why didn’t he just say there had to be a first cause, and he believed it was a spiritual being named God, instead of all this tangled sophistry?

DAVID: I can't speak for him, but a first cause MUST exist eternally.

I have just said that I wish he had said so, instead of all the sophistry.

Spiders lasso

DAVID: Evolution is still a steady process from simple to complex, and the more complex reek of design, which you actively recognize and keeps you solidly agnostic. You are still all questioning with no answers. I'm happy with my answers and positions.

dhw: You have missed out at least half of our discussion! ....God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible.

DAVID: What are you smoking? God is never human. Look at the bold; totally humanizing as your version of God bumbles along changing His mind. Your version of God's actions and thoughts are logical only if He is very human in His thought processes and reasons. I've not changed.

I have not said that God is human, and I have not said he is bumbling along or changing his mind. You have agreed it is possible (originally, it was probable) that your God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. (That does not mean he has two arms, two legs and a beard.) Getting new ideas is part of the process of creativity. This is not bumbling or mind-changing. And why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing?

DAVID: As a designer I have done exactly that. Simple direct design is quick and easy.

There are lots of things that are quick and easy. I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...


Please don’t do this. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with Egnor’s misuse of dualism v materialism to “prove” that we have free will. You have completely ignored my response to Egnor's half-baked argument (I shan't reproduce my response here). Please stick to the subject.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 14:52 (167 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: You have missed out at least half of our discussion! ....God getting new ideas as he goes along, a free-for-all governed by possibly God-given cellular intelligence). You have accepted that they are all logical, and we have now finally managed to jettison your “humanization” objection, since you agree that human characteristics are possible.

DAVID: What are you smoking? God is never human. Look at the bold; totally humanizing as your version of God bumbles along changing His mind. Your version of God's actions and thoughts are logical only if He is very human in His thought processes and reasons. I've not changed.

dhw: I have not said that God is human, and I have not said he is bumbling along or changing his mind. You have agreed it is possible (originally, it was probable) that your God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Getting new ideas is part of the process of creativity. This is not bumbling or mind-changing. And why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: What on earth do you mean by “second hand instructions”? Why is it easier to draw up millions of individual programmes and to perform millions of operations and give millions of lessons than to create a single mechanism which will enable all life forms to do their own designing?

DAVID: As a designer I have done exactly that. Simple direct design is quick and easy.

dhw: There are lots of things that are quick and easy. I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

A pure directionless view of evolution


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

QUOTE: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...

dhw: Please don’t do this. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with Egnor’s misuse of dualism v materialism to “prove” that we have free will. You have completely ignored my response to Egnor's half-baked argument (I shan't reproduce my response here). Please stick to the subject.

Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Of course we have no idea how it developed – or even why. What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 11, 2021, 09:20 (167 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: […] why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

DAVID: Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him.

Same silly objection to his having human characteristics although according to you he probably/possibly has human characteristics. Of course if he exists he has a purpose. But all you can think of is that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Hence your illogical theory of evolution dealt with on the other thread. Creating something of interest is a purpose.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

DAVID: A pure directionless view of evolution.

That does not explain why it is easier to perform a million operations than to give the task to the life forms themselves. And what direction do you see in the 99% of individually designed, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the directly designed bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Study this argument from ID. It can not be condensed with visuals required:
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/01/why-the-idea-that-the-human-mind-is-an-illusion-doesnt-w...

dhw: Please don’t do this. The article has nothing whatsoever to do with Egnor’s misuse of dualism v materialism to “prove” that we have free will. You have completely ignored my response to Egnor's half-baked argument (I shan't reproduce my response here). Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting.

There are lots of things that are interesting, but you raised the subject of Egnor on free will, and then ignored my response. I thought you wanted to discuss or even defend his viewpoint.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

Every life form has to have food. But according to you every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. So please tell us whether you think claw-snapping is part of the goal of evolving humans or of supplying food to humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 11, 2021, 16:53 (166 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: […] why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

DAVID: Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him.

Same silly objection to his having human characteristics although according to you he probably/possibly has human characteristics. Of course if he exists he has a purpose. But all you can think of is that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Hence your illogical theory of evolution dealt with on the other thread. Creating something of interest is a purpose.

Notice you've invented a very minor purpose at that.


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

DAVID: A pure directionless view of evolution.

dhw: That does not explain why it is easier to perform a million operations than to give the task to the life forms themselves. And what direction do you see in the 99% of individually designed, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the directly designed bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting.

dhw: There are lots of things that are interesting, but you raised the subject of Egnor on free will, and then ignored my response. I thought you wanted to discuss or even defend his viewpoint.

I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

dhw: Every life form has to have food. But according to you every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. So please tell us whether you think claw-snapping is part of the goal of evolving humans or of supplying food to humans.

Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 12, 2021, 11:22 (165 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: […] why shouldn’t your God experiment, and why shouldn’t he learn from each new step he takes, and since he is supposed to be a unique being, why should he not create things in order to have something outside himself that he can be interested in?

DAVID: Same human comparisons. God knows His goals all along with purpose. Again He has to find interests just like us humans in your humanizing view of Him.

dhw: Same silly objection to his having human characteristics although according to you he probably/possibly has human characteristics. Of course if he exists he has a purpose. But all you can think of is that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Hence your illogical theory of evolution dealt with on the other thread. Creating something of interest is a purpose.

DAVID: Notice you've invented a very minor purpose at that.

So once more, please tell us why you think your interested God created all the life forms, including humans, and their food supplies.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Easier to take first hand control then drawing up second hand instructions.

dhw: I am asking why it would be easier for your God to directly design millions and millions of programmes, and directly perform millions and millions of operations, than to sit back and watch the different life forms design their own programmes and perform their own operations.

DAVID: A pure directionless view of evolution.

dhw: That does not explain why it is easier to perform a million operations than to give the task to the life forms themselves. And what direction do you see in the 99% of individually designed, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the directly designed bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

DAVID: Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.

Totally irrelevant to the questions I am asking. But I’ll rephrase them for you: what direction do you see in the 99% of preplanned, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the preplanned bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism.

DAVID: Sorry. I thought the mirror approach interesting.

dhw: There are lots of things that are interesting, but you raised the subject of Egnor on free will, and then ignored my response. I thought you wanted to discuss or even defend his viewpoint.

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

His subject was free will, and he totally ignored the cause-and-effect argument against free will.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: What I would like to know is why your God would specially design all this claw-snapping if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens. Do you think high-speed claw snapping is an essential part of our food supply?

DAVID: Part of all ecosystems in its own system.

dhw: Yes, every life form that ever lived is/was part of its ecosystem. No connection whatsoever to the theory that every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Ignoring the need for food for all provided by the huge straggly bush.

dhw: Every life form has to have food. But according to you every life form is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. So please tell us whether you think claw-snapping is part of the goal of evolving humans or of supplying food to humans.

DAVID: Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

Yes, we know that, and that has always been the case with every life form that ever existed. So do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God pre-planned claw-snapping, or popped in to construct a special claw-snapability in order to provide humans with their food supply? My question is serious, because the only alternatives to your theory are random mutations and cellular intelligence.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 12, 2021, 16:18 (165 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

dhw: So once more, please tell us why you think your interested God created all the life forms, including humans, and their food supplies.

None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.

dhw: Totally irrelevant to the questions I am asking. But I’ll rephrase them for you: what direction do you see in the 99% of preplanned, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the preplanned bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

You've again ignored necessary food supply. I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

dhw: His subject was free will, and he totally ignored the cause-and-effect argument against free will.

Define your cause and effect rebuttal. Brain responses per Libet?


Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

dhw: Yes, we know that, and that has always been the case with every life form that ever existed. So do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God pre-planned claw-snapping, or popped in to construct a special claw-snapability in order to provide humans with their food supply? My question is serious, because the only alternatives to your theory are random mutations and cellular intelligence.

You have never told us where cellular intelligence comes from except possibly God. We both reject random mutations, so that leaves God in charge or cell intelligence out of nowhere or chance. Very weak.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 13, 2021, 12:20 (164 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

dhw: So once more, please tell us why you think your interested God created all the life forms, including humans, and their food supplies.

DAVID: None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.

Nobody “knows” any of the answers, including whether God exists. That is why we theorize and test the logic of the different theories. You are sure he is interested. So what logic makes you sure he did not create life (including humans) in order to have something to be interested in? And why are you so insistent that he had a purpose, but then so scared of telling us what you think that purpose might have been?

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: [ignoring a question:) Answered in my new entry on DNA pre-planning.

dhw: Totally irrelevant to the questions I am asking. But I’ll rephrase them for you: what direction do you see in the 99% of preplanned, extinct life forms that had no connection with humans although humans were your God's one and only purpose, or in the preplanned bad bacteria and viruses that cause so much suffering?

DAVID: You've again ignored necessary food supply

For the thousandth time, ALL forms of life are part of the food supply for other forms of life, but that does not mean they were all part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.

So what was the point in your raising the question in the first place if you are not prepared to offer an answer and yet dismiss a possible answer even though you agree that it is logical?


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

dhw: His subject was free will, and he totally ignored the cause-and-effect argument against free will.

DAVID: Define your cause and effect rebuttal. Brain responses per Libet?

Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts! February 9:

EGNOR: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: As usual, Egnor only tells half the story. His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept. The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: Part of the always necessary food supply as I've stated. Each tiny econiche system supports other larger systems thus providing food for all. Without an energy supply chain life disappears.

dhw: Yes, we know that, and that has always been the case with every life form that ever existed.So do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God pre-planned claw-snapping, or popped in to construct a special claw-snapability in order to provide humans with their food supply? My question is serious, because the only alternatives to your theory are random mutations and cellular intelligence.

DAVID: You have never told us where cellular intelligence comes from except possibly God. We both reject random mutations, so that leaves God in charge or cell intelligence out of nowhere or chance. Very weak.

Yet again, you refuse to answer my question. I’ll restate it in even more radical terms: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

I don’t know often you want me to repeat the three explanations I have offered for cellular intelligence, but here they are again: your God, chance, some form of panpsychism. But I find all three equally unconvincing. Our discussion, however, centres on Chapter 2 of life, which concerns how evolution progresses, not how it originated. Hence the question which I have asked and which you have not answered.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 13, 2021, 19:13 (164 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.

dhw: So what logic makes you sure he did not create life (including humans) in order to have something to be interested in? And why are you so insistent that he had a purpose, but then so scared of telling us what you think that purpose might have been?

The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?


Fin to limb genes

DAVID: You've again ignored necessary food supply


dhw: For the thousandth time, ALL forms of life are part of the food supply for other forms of life, but that does not mean they were all part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging.

No dodge. You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex


DAVID: I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.

dhw: So what was the point in your raising the question in the first place if you are not prepared to offer an answer and yet dismiss a possible answer even though you agree that it is logical?

Some subjects are presented for completeness without answers known. Why not?>


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I like Egnor's reasoning. You have a different approach I do not accept as a proper form of dualism as I view it.

dhw: Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts! February 9:

EGNOR: Sensitive states are sensation, perception, imagination, memory, and sensitive appetites (emotions), among others. These are tightly linked to matter and may be considered material powers. Human beings also have rational mental states, which are the powers of the intellect and the will. These abstract powers are immaterial — they are not caused by matter — and thus the will is not determined by the brain.

dhw: His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept.

I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Yet again, you refuse to answer my question. I’ll restate it in even more radical terms: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

dhw: I don’t know often you want me to repeat the three explanations I have offered for cellular intelligence, but here they are again: your God, chance, some form of panpsychism. But I find all three equally unconvincing. Our discussion, however, centres on Chapter 2 of life, which concerns how evolution progresses, not how it originated. Hence the question which I have asked and which you have not answered.

You know my expected answer. God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 14, 2021, 16:00 (163 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

DAVID: None of us know that answer. Theology is filled with guesses.

dhw: So what logic makes you sure he did not create life (including humans) in order to have something to be interested in? And why are you so insistent that he had a purpose, but then so scared of telling us what you think that purpose might have been?

DAVID: The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?

I have asked why he created life including humans, and you keep chickening out of answering. I don’t know why you regard the creation of something interesting as not being purposeful.

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: You've again ignored necessary food supply

dhw: For the thousandth time, ALL forms of life are part of the food supply for other forms of life, but that does not mean they were all part of the goal of evolving humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex.

That does not mean it is one continuing process from bacteria to H. sapiens! It is one continuing process which according to you has encompassed the direct design of millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans, though you insist that the only purpose of all those extinct life forms was to enable your God to design humans.

DAVID: I have said I'll wait to condemn bad bugs, which may turn out to have good purpose.

dhw: So what was the point in your raising the question in the first place if you are not prepared to offer an answer and yet dismiss a possible answer even though you agree that it is logical?

DAVID: Some subjects are presented for completeness without answers known. Why not?

All our subjects are “without answers known”. That is why they are open to discussion. And then we test the various possible explanations. I see that as the purpose of this forum.

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: His approach is all about dualism versus materialism. Has he never heard of the cause-and-effect argument against free will? Namely, that every decision we take is influenced by factors beyond our control – not just the brain but our whole genetic makeup, our upbringing, our environment, chance events etc. We have dealt with this subject over and over again, and belief in free will depends on what the will is supposed to be free from. The above makes the case against the concept.

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You know my expected answer. God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 14, 2021, 18:45 (163 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?

dhw: I have asked why he created life including humans, and you keep chickening out of answering. I don’t know why you regard the creation of something interesting as not being purposeful.

God does not need anything to interest Him. He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.


Fin to limb genes


DAVID: You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex.

dhw: That does not mean it is one continuing process from bacteria to H. sapiens! It is one continuing process which according to you has encompassed the direct design of millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans, though you insist that the only purpose of all those extinct life forms was to enable your God to design humans.

I think God could have designed humans without the bush, but what we would we eat? Therefore He evolved a huge bush.


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

dhw: I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

My answer above is in full support of that approach you cited. I'm with Egnor.


Highest speed claw snapping

dhw: Do you think an unknown, sourceless, intelligent being created a special programme for claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform a claw-snapping operation on a few pre-claw-snappers, and did so as part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You know my expected answer. God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

I've told you over and over I don't know which mechanism God used for each and every design, but I have shown in recent entries the strong evidence of pre-planning in antecedent DNAs.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, February 15, 2021, 12:33 (162 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

DAVID: The purpose is production of humans, as previously stated. My view of God is that He is too purposeful to create something for His own self-interest. Do you think He gets bored?

dhw: I have asked why he created life including humans, and you keep chickening out of answering. I don’t know why you regard the creation of something interesting as not being purposeful.

DAVID: God does not need anything to interest Him.

I didn’t know you were that pally with your God. When did he tell you this?

DAVID: He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.

Ah, he only tells you the reasons he did NOT have for creating life. ;-) And yes, religions are full of guesswork. How does that come to mean that God is interested in us (your belief) but didn’t create life because he wanted to create something that would interest him?

Fin to limb genes

DAVID: You forget or ignore our evolution is one continuing process from simple to complex.

dhw: That does not mean it is one continuing process from bacteria to H. sapiens! It is one continuing process which according to you has encompassed the direct design of millions of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans, though you insist that the only purpose of all those extinct life forms was to enable your God to design humans.

DAVID: I think God could have designed humans without the bush, but what we would we eat? Therefore He evolved a huge bush.

So he evolved a huge bush, 99% of which no longer exists and had no connection with us, so that we could eat the present bush. See your own quotes under “Theodicy….”

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

dhw: I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

DAVID: My answer above is in full support of that approach you cited. I'm with Egnor.

Egnor never mentioned cause and effect. That was my complaint!

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID:I've told you over and over I don't know which mechanism God used for each and every design, but I have shown in recent entries the strong evidence of pre-planning in antecedent DNAs.

You have told us over and over again that your God either preprogrammed the first cells with all the advances, or stepped in to dabble. At different times you have favoured one over the other. On the thread “more genomic evidence”, you have at last mentioned a “mechanism for advance”, which ties in neatly with the theory of cellular intelligence. None of the articles on DNA provide “strong evidence” of pre-planning, unless you mean evidence for a mechanism which enabled later life forms to create the changes that led to speciation.

The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, February 15, 2021, 22:55 (162 days ago) @ dhw

Spiders lasso

DAVID: He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.

dhw: Ah, he only tells you the reasons he did NOT have for creating life. ;-) And yes, religions are full of guesswork. How does that come to mean that God is interested in us (your belief) but didn’t create life because he wanted to create something that would interest him?

Again pure humanizing


EGNOR ON FREE WILL

DAVID: I needed your repetition to properly answer point for point. The 'beyond our control' is totally fallacious. I have full right to chose among the influences in my past and discard them. Raised liberal I am now a very conservative libertarian. You are correct, free will involves what you make yourself free from, and environment, chance events, previous easily discarded upbringing never should influence an individual decision in that moment of thought. Freedom from most of the past in very possible.

dhw: I don’t know why you left out the last sentence of my answer: ”The argument in defence of the concept is that all the influences combine to make the unique person that is me, and nobody else takes my decisions.” My point was that Egnor made no mention of this all-important aspect of the subject.

DAVID: My answer above is in full support of that approach you cited. I'm with Egnor.

dhw: Egnor never mentioned cause and effect. That was my complaint!

And I've said cause and effecf are very weak theories.


Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply?

DAVID:I've told you over and over I don't know which mechanism God used for each and every design, but I have shown in recent entries the strong evidence of pre-planning in antecedent DNAs.

dhw: You have told us over and over again that your God either preprogrammed the first cells with all the advances, or stepped in to dabble. At different times you have favoured one over the other. On the thread “more genomic evidence”, you have at last mentioned a “mechanism for advance”, which ties in neatly with the theory of cellular intelligence. None of the articles on DNA provide “strong evidence” of pre-planning, unless you mean evidence for a mechanism which enabled later life forms to create the changes that led to speciation.

And my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

dhw: A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

You shipped my comment: Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.

My thought is the entire sets of layers of information and controls in the genome manages what the cells are told to do. Top down not bottom up.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 12:20 (161 days ago) @ David Turell

Spiders lasso

DAVID: He does not tell us why He created life, and religions are full of guesswork.

dhw: Ah, he only tells you the reasons he did NOT have for creating life. And yes, religions are full of guesswork. How does that come to mean that God is interested in us (your belief) but didn’t create life because he wanted to create something that would interest him?

DAVID: Again pure humanizing

Nothing wrong with that. See “theodicy”.

EGNOR ON FREE WILL

dhw: Egnor never mentioned cause and effect. That was my complaint!

DAVID: And I've said cause and effecf are very weak theories.

You agreed that before we can talk of free will, we need to know what we are meant to be free from. The fact that you don’t believe your decisions are influenced by all the factors I listed (heredity, upbringing, chance events etc.) does not make the theory “weak”. You believe in the alternative version, which I also presented. Egnor didn’t even consider either version, and that was why I objected to his simplistic approach to the subject.

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply? […]

DAVID: And my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

So was this “coding” a specific programme designed 3.8 billion years ago for every single advancement in the history of evolution? Or did your God pop in from time to time to insert new programmes long before they were needed? Or could it have been in the form of a mechanism which could work out advancements as and when required or facilitated? Please answer.

The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

dhw: A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

DAVID: You shipped my comment: Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.
My thought is the entire sets of layers of information and controls in the genome manages what the cells are told to do. Top down not bottom up
.

Yes indeed, nobody knows. Hence my three alternatives in the questions asked above, which I hope you will answer directly. Can you think of any alternatives to these three explanations?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 16, 2021, 18:02 (161 days ago) @ dhw

Highest speed claw snapping

DAVID: God is the designer of life and evolution. History is a clear picture of how He did it by design.

dhw: You have only offered us two forms of design, so please tell us: do you think he designed claw-snapping 3.8 billion years ago, or stepped in to perform an operation? And do you think claw-snapping was part of his goal to evolve humans and their food supply? […]

DAVID: And my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

dhw: So was this “coding” a specific programme designed 3.8 billion years ago for every single advancement in the history of evolution? Or did your God pop in from time to time to insert new programmes long before they were needed? Or could it have been in the form of a mechanism which could work out advancements as and when required or facilitated? Please answer.

I have. God either programs in advance or steps in to dabble. Adaptations do not lead to speciation, and that is as far as organisms can go on their own.


The biochemistry of cells

QUOTE: One of the unique things with this study is that we have been able to study individual cells instead of simply entire cell populations. This has allowed us to really be able to see how the cells transition from their individual behaviour to coordinating with their neighbours.

dhw: A neat summary of the process whereby individual cells cooperate to form communities – and we can extend this to how cell communities cooperate with other cell communities as they go on to create the ever increasing variety of structures which make up the history of life on Earth.

DAVID: You shipped my comment: Comment: I do not understand how glycolytic oscillations carry messages, but no else knows either. We know DNA carries information in its code. Does the pitch of the oscillations? The advancing research raises more questions than answers.
My thought is the entire sets of layers of information and controls in the genome manages what the cells are told to do. Top down not bottom up
.

dhw: Yes indeed, nobody knows. Hence my three alternatives in the questions asked above, which I hope you will answer directly. Can you think of any alternatives to these three explanations?

Answered above. God is in charge of new species creation.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 13:38 (160 days ago) @ David Turell

Evol: always advancing or not?

QUOTE: "[…] it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"

DAVID: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward

But one would have thought that a God who, according to you, had just one purpose and was always in full control of evolution, would have moved steadily forward in his pursuit of his goal. Hence my repeating ad nauseam my question why you think he didn’t, and your ad nauseam insistence that it’s all logical though you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his purpose this way.

Extreme extremophiles

QUOTE: "Learning more about how the organisms have adapted to their freezing home far from food may also give us clues about how life evolved […]

DAVID: Just more evidence showing how tough life is, surviving everywhere.

It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms. It makes you wonder if this astonishing ability of organisms to adapt to all conditions isn’t evidence of an in-built mechanism both for adaptation and for speciation, as opposed to your 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme for all undabbled life forms and food supplies “as part of the goal of evolving humans”.

High speed claw snapping

DAVID: […] my preferred view is the coding for advancement was pre-inserted long before new advanced forms appeared.

dhw: So was this “coding” a specific programme designed 3.8 billion years ago for every single advancement in the history of evolution? Or did your God pop in from time to time to insert new programmes long before they were needed? Or could it have been in the form of a mechanism which could work out advancements as and when required or facilitated?

DAVID: God either programs in advance or steps in to dabble. Adaptations do not lead to speciation, and that is as far as organisms can go on their own.


It is sometimes impossible to draw a clear line between adaptation and speciation: one can argue that legs becoming flippers is adaptation to new conditions, and every other stage in the switch from pre-whale to whale is the same. But I’m not pretending to know how all innovations originated! That is one of the many mysteries we all grapple with. Hence such theories as divine pre-planning, divine dabbling, random mutations and cellular intelligence.

Physical change in speciation

QUOTE: "...neo-Darwinism must explain not only how hardware features mutated into existence but also how the biological operating software came into existence and could then be modified successfully in dramatic ways.
***
"Materialist thinkers contend that every feature of brain, mind, and consciousness arose via cause-effect physics and chemistry accounted for by neo-Darwinism. In that case, they first need to explain how biological software is created and stored in animals, and then how such software can be mutated by accident just in time to operate new biological hardware. Solve those problems first, before claiming human consciousness is mere biochemistry."

Yet another article flogging the case against chance, which we agreed on long ago. Why don’t these good folk consider the possibility that the ability of ALL organisms to change their structures lies in a form of intelligence which has gradually evolved into the superintelligence of human self-awareness? ALL organisms are composed of cells, and even you believe in common descent. This means that throughout thousands of millions of years, cells have learned to cooperate and combine in forming one new structure after another. You believe these were divinely programmed or dabbled, but the cells would still have had to cooperate and combine, whether he did it or they did it for themselves. The PROCESS of restructuring is the same. Hardware/software is an unnecessary image. Of course all parts of the organism must function together if it is to survive. The great problem is how the ability of cells to reorganize themselves arose in the first place, which is the same as asking what is the origin of life. Nobody knows.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

Nobody ever said they were.

DAVID: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.

Do you believe we are descended from apes or don’t you?


Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 18:27 (160 days ago) @ dhw

Evol: always advancing or not?

QUOTE: "[…] it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"

DAVID: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward

dhw: But one would have thought that a God who, according to you, had just one purpose and was always in full control of evolution, would have moved steadily forward in his pursuit of his goal. Hence my repeating ad nauseam my question why you think he didn’t, and your ad nauseam insistence that it’s all logical though you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his purpose this way.

My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical. The Darwinian article is discussing the viability of the 'fitness' theory, and finds evolution doesn't really fit it. God wanted us but was not at high speed over 3.8 billion years


Extreme extremophiles

QUOTE: "Learning more about how the organisms have adapted to their freezing home far from food may also give us clues about how life evolved […]

DAVID: Just more evidence showing how tough life is, surviving everywhere.

dhw: It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

Physical change in speciation

QUOTE: "...neo-Darwinism must explain not only how hardware features mutated into existence but also how the biological operating software came into existence and could then be modified successfully in dramatic ways.
***
"Materialist thinkers contend that every feature of brain, mind, and consciousness arose via cause-effect physics and chemistry accounted for by neo-Darwinism. In that case, they first need to explain how biological software is created and stored in animals, and then how such software can be mutated by accident just in time to operate new biological hardware. Solve those problems first, before claiming human consciousness is mere biochemistry."

dhw: ALL organisms are composed of cells, and even you believe in common descent. This means that throughout thousands of millions of years, cells have learned to cooperate and combine in forming one new structure after another. You believe these were divinely programmed or dabbled, but the cells would still have had to cooperate and combine, whether he did it or they did it for themselves. The PROCESS of restructuring is the same. Hardware/software is an unnecessary image. Of course all parts of the organism must function together if it is to survive. The great problem is how the ability of cells to reorganize themselves arose in the first place, which is the same as asking what is the origin of life. Nobody knows.

We ID folks believe only a designer had to do it.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

dhw: Nobody ever said they were.

DAVID: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.

dhw: Do you believe we are descended from apes or don’t you?

Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.>


Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

dhw: No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.

I can only look at the real history and not question why God did it the way it appeared. It resulted in more sapiens immunity noting bad bugs were around.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 11:16 (159 days ago) @ David Turell

Evol: always advancing or not?

QUOTE: "[…] it calls into doubt whether true fitness maxima exist and, more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory.'"

DAVID: Basically evolution can go back and forth, not steadily forward

dhw: But one would have thought that a God who, according to you, had just one purpose and was always in full control of evolution, would have moved steadily forward in his pursuit of his goal. Hence my repeating ad nauseam my question why you think he didn’t, and your ad nauseam insistence that it’s all logical though you have no idea why he would have fulfilled his purpose this way.

DAVID: My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical.

Yes of course God, if he exists, must have chosen to set up the process of evolution, and yes of course he is responsible for the history of life. How does that explain your theory that he only had one purpose – to design H. sapiens – and proceeded to design anything but H. sapiens?

DAVID: The Darwinian article is discussing the viability of the 'fitness' theory, and finds evolution doesn't really fit it.

And “more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory”. But you believe in directionality – because according to you every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: God wanted us but was not at high speed over 3.8 billion years.

So your God had only one purpose, and was mighty slow in even beginning to fulfil it, and so he quickly designed millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans. You don’t think it might just be possible that he actually wanted to have the vast variety of life forms that preceded ours and had no connection with ours?

Extreme extremophiles

QUOTE: "Learning more about how the organisms have adapted to their freezing home far from food may also give us clues about how life evolved […]

DAVID: Just more evidence showing how tough life is, surviving everywhere.

dhw: It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

DAVID: Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

Physical change in speciation

dhw: ALL organisms are composed of cells, and even you believe in common descent. This means that throughout thousands of millions of years, cells have learned to cooperate and combine in forming one new structure after another. You believe these were divinely programmed or dabbled, but the cells would still have had to cooperate and combine, whether he did it or they did it for themselves. The PROCESS of restructuring is the same. Hardware/software is an unnecessary image. Of course all parts of the organism must function together if it is to survive. The great problem is how the ability of cells to reorganize themselves arose in the first place, which is the same as asking what is the origin of life. Nobody knows.

DAVID: We ID folks believe only a designer had to do it.

I know what you believe. Now please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

Chimps ‘r’ not us

dhw: Nobody ever said they were.

DAVID: We may have 98% similar bases with chimps but the 3-D DNA's are at least 78% different as discussed in our past entries.

dhw: Do you believe we are descended from apes or don’t you?

DAVID: Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.

You and the materialists still believe that we are descended from a common ape ancestor. So what is the new percentage meant to prove?

Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

dhw: No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.)

DAVID: I can only look at the real history and not question why God did it the way it appeared. It resulted in more sapiens immunity noting bad bugs were around.

I am not disputing the real history. For some reason, you always present your interpretation of history and God’s role in it as if it were a fact. It’s not. It’s a theory, and you refuse to question the logic of your theory.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 18, 2021, 18:11 (159 days ago) @ dhw

Evol: always advancing or not?

DAVID: My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical.

dhw: Yes of course God, if he exists, must have chosen to set up the process of evolution, and yes of course he is responsible for the history of life. How does that explain your theory that he only had one purpose – to design H. sapiens – and proceeded to design anything but H. sapiens?

Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history, as in the bold..


DAVID: The Darwinian article is discussing the viability of the 'fitness' theory, and finds evolution doesn't really fit it.

dhw: And “more broadly, it implies that directionality and progress in evolution may be illusory”. But you believe in directionality – because according to you every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: God wanted us but was not at high speed over 3.8 billion years.

dhw: So your God had only one purpose, and was mighty slow in even beginning to fulfil it, and so he quickly designed millions of other life forms that had no connection with humans. You don’t think it might just be possible that he actually wanted to have the vast variety of life forms that preceded ours and had no connection with ours?

Again, purpose forgotten or conveniently omitted: necessary food supply for a huge human population .


Extreme extremophiles

dhw: It is truly amazing. Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

DAVID: Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No sttruggle.


Physical change in speciation

DAVID: We ID folks believe only a designer had to do it.

dhw: I know what you believe. Now please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may cerate mistakes.


Chimps ‘r’ not us

DAVID: Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.

dhw: You and the materialists still believe that we are descended from a common ape ancestor. So what is the new percentage meant to prove?

God required for new highly different designs. We are amazingly different. Bo simple change.


Immunity from Neanderthals

DAVID: A little interbreeding helped us sapiens folks. This has been discussed before when it was found that Neanderthal genes help our general immunity. This is a more specific case. dhw asked in the past why God would produce so many varieties of hominin/homo types and this result offers a reason.

dhw: No it doesn’t. If H. sapiens was the only species he wanted, and if he is always in total control of evolution, why this roundabout way of doing it? (In anticipation of your stock reply, no, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your interpretation of your hypothetical God's purpose and method in creating the evolutionary process.)

DAVID: I can only look at the real history and not question why God did it the way it appeared. It resulted in more sapiens immunity noting bad bugs were around.

dhw: I am not disputing the real history. For some reason, you always present your interpretation of history and God’s role in it as if it were a fact. It’s not. It’s a theory, and you refuse to question the logic of your theory.

I luckily have you to question me. :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 19, 2021, 11:08 (159 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: My logic is God chose to evolve. He makes history and so that is logical.

dhw: Yes of course God, if he exists, must have chosen to set up the process of evolution, and yes of course he is responsible for the history of life. How does that explain your theory that he only had one purpose – to design H. sapiens – and proceeded to design anything but H. sapiens?

DAVID: Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history, as in the bold.

No “inversion”. The problem you so desperately try to avoid is why a God whose only purpose was to “evolve” (by which you mean design) H. sapiens plus food supply chose to evolve the millions of other life forms plus their food supplies which constitute the 99% that had no connection with humans. (The other 1% is the thread from bacteria to humans, in case you haven’t cottoned on.)

DAVID: Again, purpose forgotten or conveniently omitted: necessary food supply for a huge human population.

Cracked record. The food supply for the millions of extinct life forms did not provide food for humans. How many more times? “The current bush is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” (D.Turell)

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: Note that even you lay emphasis on survival as the prime purpose of life forms.

DAVID: Just the opposite!! Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere. As usual you are backwards in you thinking.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No struggle.

It makes no difference whether it’s easy or hard: please tell us what purpose other than survival these organisms might have had in “adapting to their freezing home”.

Physical change in speciation

dhw: …please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may cerate mistakes.

It’s not “secondhand” if God gave them the intelligence to do it, and of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?

Chimps ‘r’ not us

DAVID: Did you miss the point? Yes we descended, but we are not 98% the same as materialistic Darwinists tout.

dhw: You and the materialists still believe that we are descended from a common ape ancestor. So what is the new percentage meant to prove?

DAVID: God required for new highly different designs. We are amazingly different. Bo simple change.

But you believe that your God directly designed EVERY life form! That’s one of the major problems with your whole theory! If God had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens (plus food supply) – why did he design all the other life forms (plus food supplies) that had no connection with H. sapiens?

Antibiotic honey

DAVID: There are many steps in making honey. Not by chance. The process was designed.

Only included so that I can thank you for another wonderful article. And yes, those bees are clever designers, aren’t they!

insects silence plant defenses

DAVID: War between organisms is a part of life. What the plants are capable of producing affords secondary defenses, not immediate lethal. That allows the insects to try to adapt, but as I view it, enzymes are enormous complex molecules that God might have designed.

According to you, survival is not a struggle but is easy thanks to your God’s designs. But we are still faced with the obvious fact that survival is the prime motive for the behaviour of both plants and insects. Thank you for using the word “might” in “might have designed”. We are slowly coming closer together in our use of vocabulary.

Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.
Be a climate realist.

DAVID: I am a twin with this guy. I knew all the material presented long ago.

This is really scary. We, the innocent public, are in trouble either way, whether the dangers are real or the vested interests have created a tissue of lies about them. The article is scrupulously fair, though, in acknowledging the very real problems, and restricting the scepticism to the forecasts. I shouldn’t really take part in this discussion, because like most of us, I have no way of knowing how accurate the crystal-ball-gazers might be. But I would still say that the effects of pollution and of human interference with Nature are already devastating, and it is clear that drastic changes are needed if these effects are to be kept under control.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 19, 2021, 19:38 (158 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history,

dhw: The problem you so desperately try to avoid is why a God whose only purpose was to “evolve” (by which you mean design) H. sapiens plus food supply

God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.


Extreme extremophiles

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No struggle.

dhw: It makes no difference whether it’s easy or hard: please tell us what purpose other than survival these organisms might have had in “adapting to their freezing home”.

No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.


Physical change in speciation

dhw: …please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.

dhw: It’s not “secondhand” if God gave them the intelligence to do it, and of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?

Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.
Be a climate realist.

DAVID: I am a twin with this guy. I knew all the material presented long ago.

dhw: This is really scary. We, the innocent public, are in trouble either way, whether the dangers are real or the vested interests have created a tissue of lies about them. The article is scrupulously fair, though, in acknowledging the very real problems, and restricting the scepticism to the forecasts. I shouldn’t really take part in this discussion, because like most of us, I have no way of knowing how accurate the crystal-ball-gazers might be. But I would still say that the effects of pollution and of human interference with Nature are already devastating, and it is clear that drastic changes are needed if these effects are to be kept under control.

A public interest entry. This guy was 'fair' and not like the global warming scare-folks. The UN IPPC is a money-gathering ploy: enough scare, more money donated out of fright. Just go back to the Climategate emails to see the farce. I've read them. And to be perfectly clear, I've read Gore's first alarming book with its debunked claims.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 20, 2021, 11:33 (157 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: Your inverted reasoning is amazing. How do you get from bacteria to humans without the intermediate steps? And you concede God could have chosen to evolve and create known history,

dhw: The problem you so desperately try to avoid is why a God whose only purpose was to “evolve” (by which you mean design) H. sapiens plus food supply chose to evolve the millions of other life forms plus their food supplies which constitute the 99% that had no connection with humans. (The other 1% is the thread from bacteria to humans, in case you haven’t cottoned on.)

DAVID: God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.

Unfortunately you left out the bold, which you always try to ignore anyway. The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: [..] Life is so tough it easily survives everywhere.

dhw: How does that come to mean that the prime objective of all life forms is not survival? Please tell us what other purpose these extreme extremophiles might have in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: Different interpretation: God made life so tough it easily survives everywhere. No struggle.

dhw: It makes no difference whether it’s easy or hard: please tell us what purpose other than survival these organisms might have had in “adapting to their freezing home”.

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

Physical change in speciation

dhw: …please tell us why you ID folks consider it impossible for your designer to have designed a mechanism that would enable cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.

dhw: It’s not “secondhand” if God gave them the intelligence to do it, and of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?

DAVID: Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

Dear Dr Turell, have you never heard of people and animals dying from errors in the system (i.e. various well-known diseases), from lack of resistance to bad bacteria and viruses, or from an inability to cope with new conditions?

Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.
Be a climate realist.

DAVID: I am a twin with this guy. I knew all the material presented long ago.

dhw: This is really scary. We, the innocent public, are in trouble either way, whether the dangers are real or the vested interests have created a tissue of lies about them. The article is scrupulously fair, though, in acknowledging the very real problems, and restricting the scepticism to the forecasts. I shouldn’t really take part in this discussion, because like most of us, I have no way of knowing how accurate the crystal-ball-gazers might be. But I would still say that the effects of pollution and of human interference with Nature are already devastating, and it is clear that drastic changes are needed if these effects are to be kept under control.

DAVID: A public interest entry. This guy was 'fair' and not like the global warming scare-folks. The UN IPPC is a money-gathering ploy: enough scare, more money donated out of fright. Just go back to the Climategate emails to see the farce. I've read them. And to be perfectly clear, I've read Gore's first alarming book with its debunked claims.

I can’t argue with any of this. I have no idea what the future holds. I have simply said that our present way of life is already creating huge damage to the environment and to all life including our own. You yourself have posted articles explaining how we are upsetting the balance of Nature. Something has to change.

Landing on Mars

QUOTE: "The mission’s goal is to roll around Jezero Crater and collect rock samples from the river delta and an ancient lake that might hold evidence of past Martian life.”

DAVID: Just bringing the news to this site.

Thank you. It’s hit the headlines over here too. Despite the huge expense, I find this thrilling, as an example of humankind’s “perseverance” in the quest for clues to the mystery of life and the nature of the universe we live in.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 20, 2021, 21:44 (157 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.

dhw: Unfortunately you left out the bold, which you always try to ignore anyway. The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

Your objection is totally illogical. My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history. The huge bush is food supply. I never dodge this point of view. And you cannot demolish it, no matter hoe much you complain.


Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

It did in the sense I have given. So life wouold exist always.


Physical change in speciation

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.
d?[/i]

DAVID: Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

dhw: Dear Dr Turell, have you never heard of people and animals dying from errors in the system (i.e. various well-known diseases), from lack of resistance to bad bacteria and viruses, or from an inability to cope with new conditions?

My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.


Can we control climate?

QUOTE: The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

Be a climate realist.[/i]

DAVID: A public interest entry. This guy was 'fair' and not like the global warming scare-folks. The UN IPPC is a money-gathering ploy: enough scare, more money donated out of fright. Just go back to the Climategate emails to see the farce. I've read them. And to be perfectly clear, I've read Gore's first alarming book with its debunked claims.

dhw: I can’t argue with any of this. I have no idea what the future holds. I have simply said that our present way of life is already creating huge damage to the environment and to all life including our own. You yourself have posted articles explaining how we are upsetting the balance of Nature. Something has to change.

It will have to be human nature


Landing on Mars

QUOTE: "The mission’s goal is to roll around Jezero Crater and collect rock samples from the river delta and an ancient lake that might hold evidence of past Martian life.”

DAVID: Just bringing the news to this site.

dhw: Thank you. It’s hit the headlines over here too. Despite the huge expense, I find this thrilling, as an example of humankind’s “perseverance” in the quest for clues to the mystery of life and the nature of the universe we live in.

The pictures it sent are fabulous.

https://www.universetoday.com/150197/perseverance-has-landed-here-are-its-first-picture...

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 21, 2021, 11:13 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: God has never told me why He evolved us, but since God is the designer/creator, He did.

dhw: The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

DAVID: Your objection is totally illogical. My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history.

But if he exists, he also chose to evolve millions of other life forms, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, but you insist that humans were his only purpose, and so you have no idea why he chose to evolve all the other life forms. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: The huge bush is food supply.

But the huge bush of the past was not for humans, and you insist that every life form etc. was "part of the goal of evolving humans".! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I never dodge this point of view. And you cannot demolish it, no matter hoe much you complain.

You have just repeated the same dodges that you have been using for months if not years. Please stop it, and let’s move on.

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

DAVID: It did in the sense I have given. So life would exist always.

And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

Physical change in speciation

DAVID: Secondhand designing requires too many instructions, and may create mistakes.

dhw: [referring to autonomous cellular intelligence): […] of course it will create mistakes – that’s why organisms die, or hadn’t you noticed?]

DAVID: Silly. Do you expect to die of a mistake? You will wear out as I am doing.

dhw: Dear Dr Turell, have you never heard of people and animals dying from errors in the system (i.e. various well-known diseases), from lack of resistance to bad bacteria and viruses, or from an inability to cope with new conditions?

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 21, 2021, 21:51 (156 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

dhw: The question is not why he evolved us, but why – if we (plus food supply) were his only goal – he designed all the other life forms plus food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. See “theodicy” for your only way out of this endless and pointless repetition of dodges.

DAVID: Your objection is totally illogical. My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history.

dhw: But if he exists, he also chose to evolve millions of other life forms, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, but you insist that humans were his only purpose, and so you have no idea why he chose to evolve all the other life forms. Please stop dodging!

It is not a dodge. You don't accept my logic just as I don't accept the illogic of your complaint.

dhw: You have just repeated the same dodges that you have been using for months if not years. Please stop it, and let’s move on.

Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.


Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

DAVID: It did in the sense I have given. So life would exist always.

dhw: And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

Of course life will survive, but I see a difference of approach. Life is built to survive but evolution does not depend upon survival to drive it, which you imply


Physical change in speciation


DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

Organisms make minor adaptations by using information in their cell's DNA. That is all we know. You want cell committees to do the work to avoid direct actions by God. We will always differ on the point.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, February 22, 2021, 13:25 (155 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: My simple logical reasoning stays the same: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, thus the known history.

dhw: But if he exists, he also chose to evolve millions of other life forms, and 99% of them had no connection with humans, but you insist that humans were his only purpose, and so you have no idea why he chose to evolve all the other life forms. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: It is not a dodge. You don't accept my logic just as I don't accept the illogic of your complaint.

What logic? You have agreed that you have no idea why a God with a single purpose (H. sapiens plus food supply) would directly create millions of now extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

dhw: You have just repeated the same dodges that you have been using for months if not years. Please stop it, and let’s move on.

DAVID: Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.

Done – until the next time you raise the issue!

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: No purpose. Life can adapt to living everywhere and to survive extinction events God knew would happen. He wanted life to survive any eventuality, toughness built-in.

dhw: Some life forms survive and some don’t. But if God exists, I’ll go along with the idea that he provided cells with the mechanism which he knew would enable some of them to survive and even to evolve. So if your God wanted life to survive, what makes you think that whatever method he may have used to enable them to survive did not have the purpose of enabling them to survive?

DAVID: It did in the sense I have given. So life would exist always.

dhw: And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

DAVID: Of course life will survive, but I see a difference of approach. Life is built to survive but evolution does not depend upon survival to drive it, which you imply.

What do you think is the purpose of adaptation, if it is not to survive? What do you think is the purpose of innovations if it is not to improve chances of survival?

Physical change in speciation

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

DAVID: Organisms make minor adaptations by using information in their cell's DNA. That is all we know. You want cell committees to do the work to avoid direct actions by God. We will always differ on the point.

You dismissed the theory of cellular intelligence because it would make mistakes, and I have pointed out to you that what you believe is your God’s direct handiwork has resulted in the mistakes that cause horrendous diseases etc. etc. Hence theodicy. Your scepticism concerning the autonomous ability of cells to design innovations is a separate subject. Please stick to the point.

Neanderthal contributions

QUOTES: "It was recently shown that the major genetic risk factor associated with becoming severely ill with COVID-19 when infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is inherited from Neandertals.
In contrast to the previously described Neandertal haplotype that increases the risk for severe COVID-19, this Neandertal haplotype is protective against severe disease.

DAVID: More evidence that interbreeding of human types aided in our overall immunities. Since different environments had different viruses the different disease experiences were combined in sapiens as as final product of evolution.

It would appear that we have inherited good and bad genetic factors from our ancestors, which is hardly surprising.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, February 22, 2021, 19:05 (155 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: It is not a dodge. You don't accept my logic just as I don't accept the illogic of your complaint.

dhw: What logic? You have agreed that you have no idea why a God with a single purpose (H. sapiens plus food supply) would directly create millions of now extinct life forms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

Why can't you accept the logic that God chose td evolve us from bacteria?

DAVID: Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.

dhw: Done – until the next time you raise the issue!

Fine


Extreme extremophiles

dhw: And what is the continuance of life if it’s not survival?

DAVID: Of course life will survive, but I see a difference of approach. Life is built to survive but evolution does not depend upon survival to drive it, which you imply.

dhw: What do you think is the purpose of adaptation, if it is not to survive? What do you think is the purpose of innovations if it is not to improve chances of survival?

I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.


Physical change in speciation

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.

DAVID: Organisms make minor adaptations by using information in their cell's DNA. That is all we know. You want cell committees to do the work to avoid direct actions by God. We will always differ on the point.

dhw: You dismissed the theory of cellular intelligence because it would make mistakes, and I have pointed out to you that what you believe is your God’s direct handiwork has resulted in the mistakes that cause horrendous diseases etc. etc. Hence theodicy. Your scepticism concerning the autonomous ability of cells to design innovations is a separate subject. Please stick to the point.

My response to God's creation of life and the inherent mistakes that occur are unavoidable from the model of biochemistry that life must use in actively living.


Neanderthal contributions

QUOTES: "It was recently shown that the major genetic risk factor associated with becoming severely ill with COVID-19 when infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is inherited from Neandertals.
In contrast to the previously described Neandertal haplotype that increases the risk for severe COVID-19, this Neandertal haplotype is protective against severe disease.

DAVID: More evidence that interbreeding of human types aided in our overall immunities. Since different environments had different viruses the different disease experiences were combined in sapiens as as final product of evolution.

dhw: It would appear that we have inherited good and bad genetic factors from our ancestors, which is hardly surprising.

Agreed.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 12:53 (154 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: always advancing or not?

DAVID: Why can't you accept the logic that God chose to evolve us from bacteria?

How often do I have to repeat that the problem is why, if he only wanted to evolve [design] us, he also designed millions of life forms that had no connection with us? Please stop dodging, and let’s move on.

DAVID: Of course move on as we will never agree on the points in question.

dhw: Done – until the next time you raise the issue!

DAVID: Fine

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: What do you think is the purpose of adaptation, if it is not to survive? What do you think is the purpose of innovations if it is not to improve chances of survival?

DAVID: I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.

Of course not. Adaptation alone enables organisms to survive as themselves. But the argument goes that the same process that enables organisms to change their own structures may have enabled them to innovate as well as adapt. But innovation too would be motivated by the drive to improve chances of survival. Please tell us what other driving force you believe would motivate innovation.

Physical change in speciation

DAVID: My point is most of us die of wearing out, not mistakes.

dhw: I’m sure that will provide great consolation for those who do die because of mistakes (i.e. the list of horrendous diseases). My point is that there ARE mistakes, so there is no point in dismissing the cellular theory just because it would make mistakes.[…]

DAVID: My response to God's creation of life and the inherent mistakes that occur are unavoidable from the model of biochemistry that life must use in actively living.

You dismissed the theory of cellular intelligence because it would make mistakes. The model of biochemistry you say your God used produced “unavoidable” mistakes. Maybe the model of biochemistry your God used is the intelligent cell. With the same result.

How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

It seems as if one of the evolutionary mechanisms did work. Slower growth. So if your God didn’t bother about it, are you saying that the plant found this “partial remedy” all by itself? Sounds like some form of cellular intelligence then. One must always bear in mind the extinction of species – cellular intelligence does not solve all the problems. Hence the 99% extinction rate. No need to faff around trying to explain why God designed a system full of errors, plus bad bacteria and bad viruses. Let’s just assume he designed what he wanted to design – the system that led to the great and ever changing bush of life. What could be more interesting?

Transposons

DAVID: We know that transposons jump around, but not what controls the jumping. Chance or programmed?

I have read that the person who first discovered transposons was the Nobel-prize-winning Barbara McClintock. She was also a firm believer in cellular intelligence.Just thought it was worth mentioning.

Dualism

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

QUOTE: Epiphenomenalism, which I understand more precisely as the view that brain events cause conscious events, but conscious events never cause brain events, is self-defeating.

I don’t know what he means by “self-defeating”, but I would have assumed that if there is a soul, its thoughts will depend very largely on information delivered by the brain, and after processing the information, the soul will then use the brain to give material implementation to its conscious thoughts.

DAVID: I view the brain as a physical instrument the soul must use to form my immaterial conscious 'me'.

For once we agree on this description of dualism, following the process I have summarized above.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 23, 2021, 16:49 (154 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.

dhw: ...Please tell us what other driving force you believe would motivate innovation.

God of course

How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

It seems as if one of the evolutionary mechanisms did work. Slower growth... Let’s just assume he designed what he wanted to design – the system that led to the great and ever changing bush of life. What could be more interesting?

Back to a human God who needs interestng events.


Transposons

DAVID: We know that transposons jump around, but not what controls the jumping. Chance or programmed?

dhw: I have read that the person who first discovered transposons was the Nobel-prize-winning Barbara McClintock. She was also a firm believer in cellular intelligence. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

I know her role.


Dualism

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body


QUOTE: Epiphenomenalism, which I understand more precisely as the view that brain events cause conscious events, but conscious events never cause brain events, is self-defeating.

dhw: I don’t know what he means by “self-defeating”, but I would have assumed that if there is a soul, its thoughts will depend very largely on information delivered by the brain, and after processing the information, the soul will then use the brain to give material implementation to its conscious thoughts.

DAVID: I view the brain as a physical instrument the soul must use to form my immaterial conscious 'me'.

dhw: For once we agree on this description of dualism, following the process I have summarized above.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 12:13 (153 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: I differ in a nuance you avoid. God created life so it would always survive, so of course it adapts, but as above, I do not see adaptation as driving evolution.

dhw: ...Please tell us what other driving force you believe would motivate innovation.

DAVID: God of course.

That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: How did the plant find this so-called remedy? Considering Darwinist 'fitness' theories, this is a mistake and a reduction in plant growth. It seems as if evolutionary mechanisms for adaptation didn't work. And from my viewpoint God didn't bother to fix it. Of course it is obvious slower growth prevented root tip damage as a sort of partial solution.

It seems as if one of the evolutionary mechanisms did work. Slower growth... Let’s just assume he designed what he wanted to design – the system that led to the great and ever changing bush of life. What could be more interesting?

DAVID: Back to a human God who needs interestng events.

Why “needs”? Why not “wants” or, to use your own word: “desires”, as in your belief that he seems to be “full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.

Dualism (Swinburne)

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

DAVID: The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body.

That has nothing to do with the blatant contradiction between his two statements. If the material brain determines the properties of the immaterial soul, how can it be said that nothing in the body “entails what happens to my conscious life”?

Slime mold

QUOTE: “The ability to store and recover information gives an organism a clear advantage when searching for food or avoiding harmful environments, and has been traditionally linked to organisms that have a nervous system. A new study authored by Mirna Kramar (MPIDS) and Prof. Karen Alim (TUM and MPIDS) challenges this view by uncovering the surprising abilities of a highly dynamic, single-celled organism to store and retrieve information about its environment.

QUOTE: "The authors highlight that the ability of Physarum to form memories is intriguing given the simplicity of this living network. "It is remarkable that the organism relies on such a simple mechanism and yet controls it in such a fine-tuned way. These results present an important piece of the puzzle in understanding the behavior of this ancient organism and at the same time point to universal principles underlying behavior."

David, you have often dismissed the concept of cellular intelligence because cells do not have what we recognize as a brain. This entry clearly suggests that brain and nervous system are NOT prerequisities for intelligent behaviour.

Viruses

DAVID: What this seems to mean is that viruses are not an aberrant life form but necessary to the overall balance scheme for living organisms. That tells us there are good and bad viruses just like good and bad bacteria, good and bad predator animals, and good and bad humans, all playing a role in our reality.

Yes indeed. This is the great problem of theodicy. Your Swinburne tells us of God’s omnipotence and “perfect goodness” (though I don’t know how he knows, or even what his criteria are), so how come God created so much that has turned out to be bad? If he’s omnipotent, he could have created whatever he wanted to create. So he must have wanted to create the bad. But if he’s all good, why would he want to create the bad? Out of interest, may I ask you whether your concept of God includes “perfect goodness” (whatever that may mean)?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 15:53 (153 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 15:59

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

To make living easier.


How roots fight compacted soils

DAVID: Back to a human God who needs interesting events.

dhw: Why “needs”? Why not “wants” or, to use your own word: “desires”, as in your belief that he seems to be “full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves.

The quote stands on it own. God 'desires' are not equivalent to human desires.


Dualism (Swinburne)

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

DAVID: The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body.

dhw: That has nothing to do with the blatant contradiction between his two statements. If the material brain determines the properties of the immaterial soul, how can it be said that nothing in the body “entails what happens to my conscious life”?

The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.


Slime mold

dhw: David, you have often dismissed the concept of cellular intelligence because cells do not have what we recognize as a brain. This entry clearly suggests that brain and nervous system are NOT prerequisities for intelligent behaviour.

Why did you erase my comment? "Comment: A physical-chemical mechanism is shown to easily replace a complex neuron network to create a mechanism of memory. This is much more understandable attribute than how slime mold solves mazes, but offers an answer: Thick and thin tubules respond to faint chemical traces from the maze goal and draws it forward by following intensity of the trace chemical." I obviously knew a brain is not needed!!!!!


Viruses

DAVID: What this seems to mean is that viruses are not an aberrant life form but necessary to the overall balance scheme for living organisms. That tells us there are good and bad viruses just like good and bad bacteria, good and bad predator animals, and good and bad humans, all playing a role in our reality.

Yes indeed. This is the great problem of theodicy. Your Swinburne tells us of God’s omnipotence and “perfect goodness” (though I don’t know how he knows, or even what his criteria are), so how come God created so much that has turned out to be bad? If he’s omnipotent, he could have created whatever he wanted to create. So he must have wanted to create the bad. But if he’s all good, why would he want to create the bad? Out of interest, may I ask you whether your concept of God includes “perfect goodness” (whatever that may mean)?

It's your British Swinburne, not mine. As a Christian theologian he has extremes of belief I
ignore, using only parts of his ideas I agree with. God is good is acceptable to me. Viruses are so common and numerous God obviously created and used them for his purposes. The 'bad' forms are our interpretation of them. There may be good involved.

Miscellany: how algae find light

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 24, 2021, 18:57 (153 days ago) @ David Turell

They need to use it and tehy can find it:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-celled-algae-rotate.html

"The tiny alga, which is found abundantly in fresh-water ponds across the world, swims by beating its two flagella, hair-like structures that adopt a whip-like movement to move the cell. These flagella beat in much the same way as the cilia in the human respiratory system.

"Chlamydomonas cells are able to sense light through a red eye spot and can react to it, known as phototaxis. The cell rotates steadily as it propels itself forwards using a sort of breaststroke, at a rate of about once or twice a second, so that its single eye can scan the local environment.

***

"The researchers discovered that the flagella were able to move the Chlamydomonas in a clockwise fashion with each power stroke, and then anticlockwise on the reverse stroke—akin to how a swimmer rocks back and forth when switching from one arm to another. Except here the cell feels no inertia.

"Furthermore, they also deduced how simply by exerting slightly different forces on the two flagella, the alga can even steer, rather than just move in a straight line.

"The researchers were able to show that by adding in an additional influence, such as light, the alga can navigate left or right by knowing which flagellum to stroke harder than the other.

"Dr. Kirsty Wan, who led the study said: "The question of how a cell makes these types of precise decisions can be a matter of life or death. It's quite a remarkable feat of both physics and biology, that a single cell with no nervous system to speak of is able to do this...It's an age-old mystery that my group is currently working hard to solve."

"For the study, the researchers were able to test various scenarios to determine which variables were influencing the trajectory. Their study showed that by varying different parameters, such as if one flagella is slightly stronger than another, the tilt plane of the flagella or its beat pattern, the algae can manipulate its own movement."

Comment: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, February 25, 2021, 12:53 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

DAVID: To make living easier.

“Easier”? All the home comforts? Please stop messing about with language. What do you mean here by “living” if not survival?

Dualism (Swinburne)

QUOTE: the identity of me does not consist in what happens to my body, but in what happens to my conscious life, and so I am who I am in virtue of what happens to my conscious life. Nothing that happens in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life. So being me must consist in being a substance separate from my body.

QUOTE: my brain largely determines which properties my soul has at any time. Hence my childhood interactions with the world form my childhood brain which forms my childhood outlook on the world; and my old age interactions with the world form my old age brain, which in turn forms my old age outlook on the world.

dhw: It seems to me that if the brain largely determines the properties of the soul at any time, it is absurd to claim that “nothing in my body entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”. Unless he thinks the brain is not part of the body....

DAVID: The soul which uses the brain for information and expression is not part of the physical body.

dhw: That has nothing to do with the blatant contradiction between his two statements. If the material brain determines the properties of the immaterial soul, how can it be said that nothing in the body “entails what happens to my conscious life”?

DAVID: The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.

If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?”

Slime mold

dhw: David, you have often dismissed the concept of cellular intelligence because cells do not have what we recognize as a brain. This entry clearly suggests that brain and nervous system are NOT prerequisities for intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: Why did you erase my comment? "Comment: A physical-chemical mechanism is shown to easily replace a complex neuron network to create a mechanism of memory. This is much more understandable attribute than how slime mold solves mazes, but offers an answer: Thick and thin tubules respond to faint chemical traces from the maze goal and draws it forward by following intensity of the trace chemical." I obviously knew a brain is not needed!!!!!

I didn’t need to quote you! I am delighted at your agreement with the article that there is a mechanism which enables organisms to act intelligently even though they do not have a brain or a nervous system.

How algae find light

QUOTE: The question of how a cell makes these types of precise decisions can be a matter of life or death. It's quite a remarkable feat of both physics and biology, that a single cell with no nervous system to speak of is able to do this...It's an age-old mystery that my group is currently working hard to solve."

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

red light stimulates moth sex

DAVID: No explanation of why it is important:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2268874-moth-species-becomes-more-sexually-active-...

QUOTE: "An Asian-Australian moth becomes more sexually active under red light than under another colour of light or in the dark.”

I have a theory. The Asian-Australian moth is actually descended from European moths (American as well?) who frequent various districts in towns and cities in which certain buildings are dedicated to sexual activities frowned on by the authorities (many of whom nevertheless make use of them). The moths will subconsciously have associated the red light with the activity associated with the red light. I am applying for a research grant to investigate this extremely important evidence of causative links between human and insect behaviour, and I do hope you will support my application.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 00:06 (152 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

DAVID: To make living easier.

dhw: “Easier”? All the home comforts? Please stop messing about with language. What do you mean here by “living” if not survival?

God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought


Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.

dhw: If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?”

Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above


How algae find light

QUOTE: The question of how a cell makes these types of precise decisions can be a matter of life or death. It's quite a remarkable feat of both physics and biology, that a single cell with no nervous system to speak of is able to do this...It's an age-old mystery that my group is currently working hard to solve."

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

dhw: You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

For once we agree, but only at the tiny level of minor adaptations


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

God has reasons why He picks and chooses. He won't tell us why.


red light stimulates moth sex

DAVID: No explanation of why it is important:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2268874-moth-species-becomes-more-sexually-active-...

QUOTE: "An Asian-Australian moth becomes more sexually active under red light than under another colour of light or in the dark.”

dhw: I have a theory. The Asian-Australian moth is actually descended from European moths (American as well?) who frequent various districts in towns and cities in which certain buildings are dedicated to sexual activities frowned on by the authorities (many of whom nevertheless make use of them). The moths will subconsciously have associated the red light with the activity associated with the red light. I am applying for a research grant to investigate this extremely important evidence of causative links between human and insect behaviour, and I do hope you will support my application.

I will. :-) :-) :-) :-)

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, February 26, 2021, 14:24 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

dhw: That is not what I meant. What was and is the purpose of organisms adapting and innovating?

DAVID: To make living easier.

dhw: “Easier”? All the home comforts? Please stop messing about with language. What do you mean here by “living” if not survival?

DAVID: God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought

Survival is anything but a sure thing for living organisms. That’s why 99% of them have died out. I really don’t know what motive you can think of for adaptation and innovation other than to facilitate survival.

DAVID: These immobile organisms are surviving. The point I am making is life always survives, so survival is not an issue that drives evolution. Life designed peremptorily to survive. Opposite to the Darwin approach. Extremophiles make the concept clear.

Life is not an organism. Organisms adapt or die. Extremophiles do indeed make the concept clear: some organisms can adapt, and others can’t. Those that can, survive. Those that can’t, do not survive. It’s what you like to call the truism of the Darwinian approach, but the very mention of Darwin seems to make you believe that a truism can’t be true..

Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: The qualities of the material brain determines how the soul can work. He is only stating my statement you cannot seem to follow. Your soul can only work with the brain it must use. A senile brain produces senility, not the soul's fault. A soul free from a sick brain will think normally.

dhw: If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?

DAVID: Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above.

Of course. But if a sick brain causes sick consciousness, how can anyone possibly say “nothing that happens in my body/brain entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life?” You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Swinburne. Thank you for your support.

How algae find light

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

dhw: You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

DAVID: For once we agree, but only at the tiny level of minor adaptations.

An important step forward. If your God exists and designed an autonomous mechanism to make precise decisions without any input from him, it is not impossible to imagine that the same mechanism might make “precise decisions” that lead to major as well as minor adaptations.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

DAVID: God has reasons why He picks and chooses. He won't tell us why.

If God exists, no one can disagree with you. We can only discuss one another’s interpretations of his actions and possible reasons for those actions. So I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, he would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 18:17 (151 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought

dhw: Survival is anything but a sure thing for living organisms. That’s why 99% of them have died out. I really don’t know what motive you can think of for adaptation and innovation other than to facilitate survival.

If it is not a sure thing, explain all the extremophiles I've presented. Life is built to survive, so it is not a problem in my view. Survival, Darwin style, does not drive evolution. we've covered my views before.


DAVID: These immobile organisms are surviving. The point I am making is life always survives, so survival is not an issue that drives evolution. Life designed peremptorily to survive. Opposite to the Darwin approach. Extremophiles make the concept clear.

dhw: Life is not an organism. Organisms adapt or die. Extremophiles do indeed make the concept clear: some organisms can adapt, and others can’t. Those that can, survive. Those that can’t, do not survive. It’s what you like to call the truism of the Darwinian approach, but the very mention of Darwin seems to make you believe that a truism can’t be true.

Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the first is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.


Dualism (Swinburne)

dhw: If your conscious life is affected by your sick brain, how can that mean “nothing that happens in my body [which includes the brain] entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life”?

DAVID: Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above.

dhw: Of course. But if a sick brain causes sick consciousness, how can anyone possibly say “nothing that happens in my body/brain entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life?” You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Swinburne. Thank you for your support.

I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.


How algae find light

DAVID: it doesn't take intelligent analysis by the algae, just an intelligently designed built-in response system. I'm sure a little more molecular research will find it.

dhw: You are always sure that further research will confirm all your assumptions. Meanwhile, may I suggest that the “built-in response system” is actually a form of intelligence whereby all life forms “make these types of precise decisions”, as opposed to your God having had to programme every decision 3.8 billion years ago, or to keep popping in to deliver lessons or perform operations.

DAVID: For once we agree, but only at the tiny level of minor adaptations.

dhw: An important step forward. If your God exists and designed an autonomous mechanism to make precise decisions without any input from him, it is not impossible to imagine that the same mechanism might make “precise decisions” that lead to major as well as minor adaptations.

We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: These most unusual animals that obviously require the most designing might have this designed also. I wonder if this applies to manatees and other aquatic mammals.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought we were the unusual animals that required the most designing. Don’t you think it’s a bit unfair that your God designed cetaceans to have built-in protection against cancer, and left us out, even though we were apparently his only goal in creating life?

DAVID: God has reasons why He picks and chooses. He won't tell us why.

dhw: If God exists, no one can disagree with you. We can only discuss one another’s interpretations of his actions and possible reasons for those actions. So I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, he would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

Miscellany: does' extinct' mean really extinct

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 18:40 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

No, it depends upon what humans find and the conclude:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-bird-believed-extinct-years-borneo.html

"Back sometime between 1843 and 1848 a bird now called the black-browed babbler was captured by naturalist Carl A.L.M. Schwaner. Records of the find are sketchy, but it appeared the bird had been captured on the island of Java. That finding was the one and only piece of evidence of the bird's existence—it is currently labeled as "data deficient" in ornithology texts. The bird was put into storage, and for the next 170 years, there were no further reports of its existence. Over time, the bird and its history became known as "the biggest enigma in Indonesian ornithology." Most in the field assumed it had gone extinct. Then, last year, a pair of researchers, Muhammad Rizky Fauzan and Muhammad Suranto captured a bird that they could not identify on the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo. They took pictures of it and sent them to colleagues, then released the bird.

"As the team conducted research on the bird in the pictures, it soon became clear that its description matched that of the bird in storage in the Netherlands. A closer look confirmed that it was indeed the same species—a living black-browed babbler.

"The bird was caught in Kalimantan, near the center of the island of Borneo, and its discovery proves the bird was only thought to be extinct because people were looking for it in the wrong place. Its existence also raises the question of how many of its species are living in Borneo, and whether it is at risk." (my bold)

Comment: 'At risk' is based only upon human judgement, which is this case is obviously faulty. With 99% extinct, why should we fight to save species other than the ones humans are known to be currently damaging??

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 09:20 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God made survival a sure thing for living organisms, a nuanced difference in thought

dhw: Survival is anything but a sure thing for living organisms. That’s why 99% of them have died out. […]

DAVID: If it is not a sure thing, explain all the extremophiles I've presented. Life is built to survive, so it is not a problem in my view. Survival, Darwin style, does not drive evolution. we've covered my views before.

I answered this last time:

dhw: Life is not an organism. Organisms adapt or die. Extremophiles do indeed make the concept clear: some organisms can adapt, and others can’t. Those that can, survive. Those that can’t, do not survive. It’s what you like to call the truism of the Darwinian approach, but the very mention of Darwin seems to make you believe that a truism can’t be true.

DAVID: Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the first is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.

You mean survival of the fittest, and I have just said that it is a truism, and I agree that it is circular reasoning, but you simply ignore the fact that it is not “life” but life forms that survive or do not survive. If you do not agree that organisms adapt in order to survive, please tell us what other reason you think they have for adapting.

Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: Of course a sick brain creates a sick consciousness while living. Freed of a sick brain, the soul returns to normal, as above.

dhw: Of course. But if a sick brain causes sick consciousness, how can anyone possibly say “nothing that happens in my body/brain entails or is entailed by what happens to my conscious life?” You are agreeing with me and disagreeing with Swinburne. […]

DAVID: I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.

And your statement above confirms that in direct contrast to Swinburne, you believe that what happens in your brain affects what happens in your conscious life (“creates a sick consciousness”). Why don’t you just say you agree with me, as you did on the “theodicy” thread?

How algae find light

DAVID: We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.

Why “imagined”? If my theories are “imagined”, so are they all, including your own. If, as you agree, your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to make “minor” decisions, why do you consider it to be beyond your God’s powers to enable them to make “major” decisions? Don’t forget that even for you, the intelligent behaviour of cells has a 50/50 chance of being the result of their own intelligence.

cetaceans get much less cancer

dhw: […] I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, [your God] would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

“Trained”? What does that mean? He popped in to give cetaceans courses on how to prevent cancer? All because their immunity was essential to his pursuit of his one and only goal, which was to directly design us? I am not attacking Adler. You have told us repeatedly that he does not deal with your theory of evolution. And I have always noted your term “committee” to replace my term “community”. It’s what one might call your effort to ridicule the theory by “humanizing” cells!

Packing DNA and repairing it

DAVID: Corrected typos in the title. Surprised you didn't note the cellular intelligence provided by God's coding DNA to handle this.

I really can’t comment on all the articles you post, and there was nothing I could add to this one. But I like your new comment. I have no problem with the idea that your God might have been the designer of cellular intelligence.

Extinction

QUOTE: "[…] its discovery proves the bird was only thought to be extinct because people were looking for it in the wrong place. Its existence also raises the question of how many of its species are living in Borneo, and whether it is at risk." (David’s bold)

DAVID: 'At risk' is based only upon human judgement, which is this case is obviously faulty. With 99% extinct, why should we fight to save species other than the ones humans are known to be currently damaging??

I don’t understand your comment. Of course only humans can judge if it’s at risk. And what is wrong with trying to save a species? If those that we are damaging deserve our efforts to preserve them, why shouldn’t we try to preserve other species as well?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 21:20 (150 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.

dhw: I have just said that it is a truism, and I agree that it is circular reasoning, If you do not agree that organisms adapt in order to survive, please tell us what other reason you think they have for adapting.

Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.


Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.

dhw: And your statement above confirms that in direct contrast to Swinburne, you believe that what happens in your brain affects what happens in your conscious life (“creates a sick consciousness”). Why don’t you just say you agree with me, as you did on the “theodicy” thread?

I agreed with you. What else do you want?


How algae find light

DAVID: We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.

dhw: Why “imagined”? If my theories are “imagined”, so are they all, including your own. If, as you agree, your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to make “minor” decisions, why do you consider it to be beyond your God’s powers to enable them to make “major” decisions?

We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

cetaceans get much less cancer

dhw: […] I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, [your God] would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

dhw: He popped in to give cetaceans courses on how to prevent cancer? All because their immunity was essential to his pursuit of his one and only goal, which was to directly design us? I am not attacking Adler. You have told us repeatedly that he does not deal with your theory of evolution.

Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never go into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.


Extinction

QUOTE: "[…] its discovery proves the bird was only thought to be extinct because people were looking for it in the wrong place. Its existence also raises the question of how many of its species are living in Borneo, and whether it is at risk." (David’s bold)

DAVID: 'At risk' is based only upon human judgement, which is this case is obviously faulty. With 99% extinct, why should we fight to save species other than the ones humans are known to be currently damaging??

dhw: I don’t understand your comment. Of course only humans can judge if it’s at risk. And what is wrong with trying to save a species? If those that we are damaging deserve our efforts to preserve them, why shouldn’t we try to preserve other species as well?

I would send time and money only on stopping human damage. Natural extinctions should be ignored.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 09:22 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Survival is a foundation stone in your Darwin approach. I don't think it is a proven concept at all. Survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Sounds good. Very weak.

dhw: I have just said that it is a truism, and I agree that it is circular reasoning, If you do not agree that organisms adapt in order to survive, please tell us what other reason you think they have for adapting.

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on, but of course in your case we have a God who directly designs every life form anyway, and so he could always step in and perform operations on the latest batch of survivors to ensure that they did survive and that they then diversified. Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

Dualism (Swinburne)

DAVID: I pick and choose with Swinburne. My statement above stands.

dhw: And your statement above confirms that in direct contrast to Swinburne, you believe that what happens in your brain affects what happens in your conscious life (“creates a sick consciousness”). Why don’t you just say you agree with me, as you did on the “theodicy” thread?

DAVID: I agreed with you. What else do you want?

You didn’t – you merely stood by your statement. Thank you for now agreeing with me that Swinburne was wrong. :-)

How algae find light

DAVID: We both know organisms can make minor adaptation. I don't follow your imagined theories.

dhw: Why “imagined”? If my theories are “imagined”, so are they all, including your own. If, as you agree, your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to make “minor” decisions, why do you consider it to be beyond your God’s powers to enable them to make “major” decisions?

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

Again, you merely reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining to me why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have now explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

cetaceans get much less cancer

dhw: […] I am left wondering why, if humans were his only purpose, [your God] would design special cancer protection for cetaceans and not for us. In fact, it makes me wonder whether we were not his only purpose, or whether he actually didn’t design special cancer protection, but like most other individual characteristics of individual species, this feature was simply the result of decisions taken by the cell communities of different life forms as they sought to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You just can't help attacking Adler and me. Your cell committees (note, it's my term) are trained by God to adapt in minor ways.

dhw: He popped in to give cetaceans courses on how to prevent cancer? All because their immunity was essential to his pursuit of his one and only goal, which was to directly design us? I am not attacking Adler. You have told us repeatedly that he does not deal with your theory of evolution.

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never go into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

The theory that your God directly designed every species, natural wonder etc. in the history of life as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of biochemistry. The biochemistry would remain the same if your God designed every change or gave organisms the power to design their own changes. In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

Extinction

dhw: […] what is wrong with trying to save a species? If those that we are damaging deserve our efforts to preserve them, why shouldn’t we try to preserve other species as well?

DAVID: I would spend time and money only on stopping human damage. Natural extinctions should be ignored.

Well, I’m a softie. But I’m not consistent in my thinking. I would like to see the complete extinction of the bad bacteria and viruses you think your God directly created, but I’m all in favour of preserving the nice guys!

Are kookie theories justified?

QUOTE: "The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. (David’s bold)

A lovely article, very well suited to the AgnosticWeb! Thank you.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 16:05 (149 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

dhw: I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on,...Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)


How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you merely reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining to me why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have now explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never goes into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

dhw: In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.


Are kookie theories justified?

QUOTE: "The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices. (David’s bold)

dhw: A lovely article, very well suited to the AgnosticWeb! Thank you.

Delighted to present it.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 01, 2021, 13:47 (148 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: Life (your preferred, living forms) has the built in ability from God to adapt. We agree. God has seen to it that life/living forms can always adapt to survive and maintain a living population. That is different nuanced position that you avoid answering.

dhw: I’m glad we agree that, if we assume God exists, he gave life forms the ability to change their structure so that they could survive. 99% of them failed to do so. I don’t know why you expect me to share your faith that your God always knew that 1% would survive, and therefore life would go on,...Darwinian survival clearly plays a key role in your interpretation of evolution.

DAVID: God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)
And:
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

So your God, who is in total control of evolution, built organisms to survive, although 99% of them are extinct, but he built the extreme extremophiles to ensure that 1% would survive. I admit to being confused. Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

DAVID: The second aspect is origin of life theories. Since the Earth was not that hospitable at life's origin, whatever came first had to possess these same abilities for survival.

I agree. And the ability to adapt to changing conditions is fundamental to survival. That is the whole purpose of adaptation. But for some reason I simply cannot understand, you say that survival and improving chances of survival were NOT the purpose of adaptation and all the complex innovations that led from bacteria to humans.

DAVID: The great oxygenation event occurred much later and was a much easier way to create energy as we measure it in calories of heat. Of course antioxidants had to be added to control the oxygenation process, all part of good design. My view is always opposite Darwin. He emphasized survival to get rid of God. In my view God provides survival. We are diametrically opposite. There is no middle ground.

So God provides the mechanisms for survival, and that means survival is not the purpose of the mechanisms. I don’t get it. As for your attack on Darwin, you know as well as I do that he was an agnostic and saw “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species) He emphasized survival, because whether your God did or did not preprogramme or dabble every evolutionary innovation, it would make no sense at all for the innovation NOT to be geared to coping with existing conditions. And even devout Christians can believe that organisms descended from other organisms, and that pre-whale legs can have turned to flippers in order to help them adapt to life in the water.

How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler and I agree humans were the goal of evolution. Adler never goes into the nuts and bolts of biochemistry.

dhw: [...] In any case, it makes no difference whether Adler believes in your personal theory or not. I am discussing all this with you, not with Adler.

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

Chixculub

DAVID: Not volcanoes says latest study:
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-asteroid-crater-case-dinosaur-extinction.html

"Researchers believe they have closed the case of what killed the dinosaurs, definitively linking their extinction with an asteroid that slammed into Earth 66 million years ago by finding a key piece of evidence: asteroid dust inside the impact crater.

DAVID: this is how real science works. Keep searching until the key proving evidence appears. In theoretical science, the theory must be based on existing known facts, not a network of guesswork.

I must confess I didn’t even know that Chixculub was in doubt! I support your plea for agnosticism (“keep searching”) until “key proving evidence” appears, and for theories to be based on existing known facts.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 01, 2021, 16:26 (148 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)
And:
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

dhw: Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.


DAVID: The great oxygenation event occurred much later and was a much easier way to create energy as we measure it in calories of heat. Of course antioxidants had to be added to control the oxygenation process, all part of good design. My view is always opposite Darwin. He emphasized survival to get rid of God. In my view God provides survival. We are diametrically opposite. There is no middle ground.

dhw: So God provides the mechanisms for survival, and that means survival is not the purpose of the mechanisms....it would make no sense at all for the innovation NOT to be geared to coping with existing conditions. And even devout Christians can believe that organisms descended from other organisms, and that pre-whale legs can have turned to flippers in order to help them adapt to life in the water.

God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.


How algae find light

DAVID: We will always disagree as to God's role in major design changes. God designs/runs evolution.

dhw: Again, you reiterate your beliefs instead of explaining why you find my alternatives impossible or illogical. You have explicitly agreed that your God has enabled life forms to autonomously change their structures in order to survive in changing conditions. So why is it inconceivable that the same mechanism might be used to autonomously change structures in order to find new ways of surviving in changing conditions?

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

dhw: It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

It remains an unproven theoretical conjecture.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.


Chixculub

DAVID: Not volcanoes says latest study:
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-asteroid-crater-case-dinosaur-extinction.html

"Researchers believe they have closed the case of what killed the dinosaurs, definitively linking their extinction with an asteroid that slammed into Earth 66 million years ago by finding a key piece of evidence: asteroid dust inside the impact crater.

DAVID: this is how real science works. Keep searching until the key proving evidence appears. In theoretical science, the theory must be based on existing known facts, not a network of guesswork.

dhw: I must confess I didn’t even know that Chixculub was in doubt! I support your plea for agnosticism (“keep searching”) until “key proving evidence” appears, and for theories to be based on existing known facts.

Not much is 100% proven.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 13:16 (147 days ago) @ David Turell

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: God knows 1% would survive by His designs of life. Our nuanced difference remains. God guaranteed survival. It is not an issue to drive evolution (Darwinist thought)
And:
DAVID: the first point is to note that these organisms survive easily in the most extreme and unusual way. In my view God made them that way. And it is purposeful. Life/organisms will always survive because they are built to survive by God.

dhw: Let me revert to our favourite example, just to clarify your beliefs. When, according to you, he transformed pre-whale legs into flippers, did he or did he not do so in order to give this organism an improved chance of surviving in the water? Please tell us any other purpose you think he might have had.

DAVID: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

How algae find light

DAVID: Minor adaptations do not result in speciation as you imply.

dhw: It is a theory. Why is it inconceivable?

DAVID: It remains an unproven theoretical conjecture.

So does your God theory and every theory that tries to explain every unsolved mystery.

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

Neanderthal research

QUOTE: "Thus, Neandertals had a similar capacity to us to produce the sounds of human speech, and their ear was "tuned" to perceive these frequencies. This change in the auditory capacities in Neandertals, compared with their ancestors from Atapuerca, parallels archaeological evidence for increasingly complex behavioral patterns, including changes in stone tool technology, domestication of fire and possible symbolic practices. Thus, the study provides strong evidence in favor of the coevolution of increasingly complex behaviors and increasing efficiency in vocal communication throughout the course of human evolution."

DAVID: This study is based on preserved ear bones. Its weakness is the assumption that the auditory area of the brain was structurally advanced enough to handle the sounds of speech and make speech. My guess is, yes it was.

I have never understood the assumption that sapiens invented language. Does anyone seriously believe that earlier forms of human did not communicate? All life forms have means of communication, and our fellow animals use sound as one method. It seems to me that there would be a natural progression from a small range of sounds to a larger range of sounds as pre-sapiens expanded the range of subjects to be communicated. The brain would change and the other related parts of the anatomy would change in response to these new requirements. The more we invent and discover, the more sounds we need. Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 18:17 (147 days ago) @ dhw

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

dhw: Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

Flippers are not an advance in evolution, just a side step to allow mammals into living in water. Flippers are speciation, not adaptation. Survival does not drive evolution, bacteria still here and working proves the point, evolution was never necessary for their survival.


DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

dhw: There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

My point: survival as used by Darwinists is not necessary to drive evolution. God does it.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

dhw: That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

Another distorted twist. Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

Neanderthal research

QUOTE: "Thus, Neandertals had a similar capacity to us to produce the sounds of human speech, and their ear was "tuned" to perceive these frequencies. This change in the auditory capacities in Neandertals, compared with their ancestors from Atapuerca, parallels archaeological evidence for increasingly complex behavioral patterns, including changes in stone tool technology, domestication of fire and possible symbolic practices. Thus, the study provides strong evidence in favor of the coevolution of increasingly complex behaviors and increasing efficiency in vocal communication throughout the course of human evolution."

DAVID: This study is based on preserved ear bones. Its weakness is the assumption that the auditory area of the brain was structurally advanced enough to handle the sounds of speech and make speech. My guess is, yes it was.

dhw: I have never understood the assumption that sapiens invented language. Does anyone seriously believe that earlier forms of human did not communicate? All life forms have means of communication, and our fellow animals use sound as one method. It seems to me that there would be a natural progression from a small range of sounds to a larger range of sounds as pre-sapiens expanded the range of subjects to be communicated. The brain would change and the other related parts of the anatomy would change in response to these new requirements. The more we invent and discover, the more sounds we need. Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

We fully agree. My quotes (first book) from "The Ape That Spoke", John MacCrone, 1991 supports our position. .

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 11:55 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

I asked David what purpose whale flippers may have had other than to improve chances of survival in the water.

DAVID: To advance evolution, which has nothing to do with Darwinian 'survival", any empty concept.

dhw: Why are flippers an advance on legs? Do you agree that animals sometimes have to change their structure in order to survive new conditions? (It’s called adaptation.) If you do, then please explain what you mean by survival being an “empty concept”.

DAVID: Flippers are not an advance in evolution, just a side step to allow mammals into living in water. Flippers are speciation, not adaptation. Survival does not drive evolution, bacteria still here and working proves the point, evolution was never necessary for their survival.

Dealt with under “pre-planning”. Thank you for agreeing that speciation does NOT serve the purpose of advancing evolution (see your first comment above), but allows for an improvement to the organism’s chances of survival - or do you not regard “living” as being essential to survival?

DAVID: God drives evolution, not survival, but continuing to live cannot be ignored so adaptability to new conditions must be provided by God.

dhw: There is no conflict here. If your God enables organisms to survive, then his provision of that ability is driven by the need to enable organisms to survive! How does that make survival an “empty concept”? It is your God’s motive for providing adaptability!

DAVID: My point: survival as used by Darwinists is not necessary to drive evolution. God does it.

Please forget your antipathy towards Darwin and Darwinists. If your God provides organisms with adaptability, and adaptability is what enables organisms to survive, how can you say that survival is an “empty concept” and is not a motive (= a driving force) for whatever adaptive changes your God preprogrammes or dabbles?

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

dhw: That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

DAVID: Another distorted twist. Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

And I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but you keep telling me that Adler does not deal with your theory that your God directly designed every life form, and 99% had no connection with humans, although humans were your God’s only goal. We should not be arguing about what Adler says and doesn’t say. It’s another red herring. Please deal with the issues.

Neanderthal research

dhw: Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

DAVID: We fully agree. My quotes (first book) from "The Ape That Spoke", John MacCrone, 1991 supports our position.

I’m only reproducing this in order to celebrate our full agreement! It does sometimes happen! And as there are a few people out there who actually follow our discussions, let me once more reassure them that despite the fierce battles we wage on this website, David and I are actually the best of friends! :-)

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: After almost 70 years of research no one is any closer to figuring out the first steps, and my sneaking suspicion is we will never know.

More agreement, and a very apt comment for the AgnosticWeb.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 16:39 (146 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My point: survival as used by Darwinists is not necessary to drive evolution. God does it.

dhw: Please forget your antipathy towards Darwin and Darwinists. If your God provides organisms with adaptability, and adaptability is what enables organisms to survive, how can you say that survival is an “empty concept” and is not a motive (= a driving force) for whatever adaptive changes your God preprogrammes or dabbles?

God advances evolution according to his plan; He is the driving force, not survival. He has made sure the 'process of living' survives as shown by extremophiles.


cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Through me you are stuck with answering Adler's impeccable logic.

dhw: Adler, as I pointed out in the part of my reply that you have omitted, does not cover your illogical theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: You can't struggle with his impeccable logic about human brains.

dhw: That does not justify the illogicality of your own theory of evolution, which you tell us he does not deal with.

DAVID: Another distorted twist. Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

dhw: And I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but you keep telling me that Adler does not deal with your theory that your God directly designed every life form, and 99% had no connection with humans, although humans were your God’s only goal. We should not be arguing about what Adler says and doesn’t say. It’s another red herring. Please deal with the issues.

Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.


Neanderthal research

dhw: Since Neanderthals clearly had a wide range of activities, I have no hesitation in agreeing with your guess. Of course they would have had the language to match their behaviour, technology etc.

DAVID: We fully agree. My quotes (first book) from "The Ape That Spoke", John MacCrone, 1991 supports our position.

I’m only reproducing this in order to celebrate our full agreement! It does sometimes happen! And as there are a few people out there who actually follow our discussions, let me once more reassure them that despite the fierce battles we wage on this website, David and I are actually the best of friends! :-)

Theoretical origin of life

DAVID: After almost 70 years of research no one is any closer to figuring out the first steps, and my sneaking suspicion is we will never know.

dhw: More agreement, and a very apt comment for the AgnosticWeb.

Horrors!!! More agreement.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 04, 2021, 11:50 (145 days ago) @ David Turell

cetaceans get much less cancer

DAVID: Adler recognized we evolved for no good Darwin reason. My theories take his position about human exceptionalism into account.

dhw: And I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but you keep telling me that Adler does not deal with your theory that your God directly designed every life form, and 99% had no connection with humans, although humans were your God’s only goal. We should not be arguing about what Adler says and doesn’t say. It’s another red herring. Please deal with the issues.

DAVID: Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.

The red herring is that we are talking about the illogicalities in your theory of evolution, and all you want to talk about is Adler’s agreement with you that humans are exceptional, which I have also accepted over and over again.


Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.
"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 04, 2021, 17:35 (145 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.

dhw: The red herring is that we are talking about the illogicalities in your theory of evolution, and all you want to talk about is Adler’s agreement with you that humans are exceptional, which I have also accepted over and over again.

Your illogicalities represent your confusion about my beliefs as to how God ran evolution as a part of His creations.>


Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.
"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

They just follow a series of God given instructions.


Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 05, 2021, 12:10 (144 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your red herring. Adler used our evolution for His exposition about human exceptionality.

dhw: The red herring is that we are talking about the illogicalities in your theory of evolution, and all you want to talk about is Adler’s agreement with you that humans are exceptional, which I have also accepted over and over again.

DAVID: Your illogicalities represent your confusion about my beliefs as to how God ran evolution as a part of His creations.

Your stated belief is that your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he designed millions of life forms, econiches, strategies, lifestyles and natural wonders, 99% of which had no connection with humans. That is the illogicality I challenge. What is my “confusion” and what are my "illogicalities"?

Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.

"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

DAVID: They just follow a series of God given instructions.

So every single interchange between the billions of bacteria inside the almost infinite number of individual humans (not to mention other life forms) was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or possibly dabbled at various intervals in history. Curiouser and curiouser.

Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 05, 2021, 15:48 (144 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your illogicalities represent your confusion about my beliefs as to how God ran evolution as a part of His creations.

dhw: Your stated belief is that your God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, and so he designed millions of life forms, econiches, strategies, lifestyles and natural wonders, 99% of which had no connection with humans. That is the illogicality I challenge. What is my “confusion” and what are my "illogicalities"?

To repeat: God fully intended to design all forms on the way to a final production of the unique human form, through a process we call evolution. The bold is total distortion as I've always said God chose to evolve us from bacteria.


Your gut has a big brain

QUOTE: Research (mostly in the laboratory, but some in humans) suggests that emotions can affect the gut microbiota, and that, conversely, certain gut microbes can be mind-altering," Dan Gordon wrote in U Magazine.

"'We have been cohabiting with these bacteria for hundreds of thousands of years, and we have developed a relationship we haven’t even started to understand.”

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

DAVID: They just follow a series of God given instructions.

dhw: So every single interchange between the billions of bacteria inside the almost infinite number of individual humans (not to mention other life forms) was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or possibly dabbled at various intervals in history. Curiouser and curiouser.

Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.


Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 13:31 (143 days ago) @ David Turell

The first entry on this thread concerned the illogicality of David’s theory of evolution, which we have already covered ad nauseam on other threads.

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: Fascinating, and yet further evidence of the intelligent cell communities which cooperate in forming all organisms including ourselves.

DAVID: They just follow a series of God given instructions.

dhw: So every single interchange between the billions of bacteria inside the almost infinite number of individual humans (not to mention other life forms) was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or possibly dabbled at various intervals in history. Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

Multiverses

QUOTE: What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The “multiverse” theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive."

DAVID: We've been over all of this before. The conjecture is unproveable and therefore worthless.

dhw: I agree completely, but this is the AgnosticWeb, and we specialize in balanced arguments. What theists have done is invoke a concept of a being that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible and unobservable being is convenient for theists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine tuning without providing a shred of evidence or logic. The “God” theory frees theists from real science, which is the only condition in which theism can survive.

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 15:46 (143 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

dhw: What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

Cells do communicate in just that way following God's instructions.


Multiverses

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

dhw: And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

Agreed

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 07, 2021, 17:16 (142 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

dhw: What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: Cells do communicate in just that way following God's instructions.

Nothing to do with the biome, then, So we are back to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions for all future forms of behaviour, or alternatively your God popping in to give bacteria the relevant lessons when something new crops up. Hard to swallow.

Multiverses

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

dhw: And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

DAVID: Agreed

Thank you. It’s good to have a balanced view, isn’t it?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 08, 2021, 01:19 (142 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Lack of understanding. We are discussing gut cells, not the biome.

dhw: What has the biome got to do with it? We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: Cells do communicate in just that way following God's instructions.

dhw: Nothing to do with the biome, then, So we are back to a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions for all future forms of behaviour, or alternatively your God popping in to give bacteria the relevant lessons when something new crops up. Hard to swallow.

It is so logic all if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing


Multiverses

DAVID: Only a mind can create fine tuning, which is why atheists have to invent unproveable multiverses. And agnostics follow their tune, dhw admits to be hung up on the need for design.

dhw: No they don't follow the atheists' tune. Agnostics can’t commit themselves to the tunes of the unscientific, unprovable, unintelligible, unobservable theories of atheists and theists alike. You are right, though: the need for design counterbalances the incredibility of a designer who didn’t have to be designed. One way or another, I am left acknowledging that there are mysteries which cannot be solved.

DAVID: You will never have absolute proof of God. But logic says He must exist.

dhw: And your equally rigid atheist will say you will never have absolute proof that life was the product of a chance combination formed from a virtually infinite number of combinations, but logic says it must have happened. Pots and kettles.

DAVID: Agreed

dhw: Thank you. It’s good to have a balanced view, isn’t it?

Yes, their view is certainly not mine.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 08, 2021, 14:12 (141 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain

dhw: I found the second half of the article far from instructive, and indeed very confusing, not to say misleading (and in the context, I thought dualism and materialism were in fact irrelevant). Since currently you and I are the only contributors to the forum, and disagree on so many of our topics, it is doubly important for me to know your views – especially since in this case the author was dealing with medical matters on which you are our resident expert. :-)

DAVID: The main ns only point of the article for me is most brain studies are limited to areas and miss the point that the whole brain is always at work, so in a way thestudies are distorted in the impressions they present.

She also misses out the fact that it is not just the brain that contributes to our behaviour but the whole body, as illustrated in the “gut” article, though our discussion of that has changed direction..

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: It is so logic all if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing.

It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

ID explained: are cells intelligent

QUOTE: To be clear, most researchers do not think that white blood cells or bacteria are conscious, like dogs or cats. They are, however, often thought to be sentient (capable of feeling).
"At the very least, like complex machines, they are full of critical, interacting information. And sometimes, also like complex machines, they spookily manage to behave as if they were conscious.

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter.

Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 08, 2021, 15:51 (141 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: The main ns only point of the article for me is most brain studies are limited to areas and miss the point that the whole brain is always at work, so in a way the studies are distorted in the impressions they present.

dhw: She also misses out the fact that it is not just the brain that contributes to our behaviour but the whole body, as illustrated in the “gut” article, though our discussion of that has changed direction..

She was making one point.


Your gut has a big brain

dhw: We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: It is so logical if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing.

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

They communicate because of His programming.


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter.

Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

They believe God is in charge as designer, no more.


C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

dhw: This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

dhw: The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

I appreciate this comment.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 11:59 (140 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: We are talking about the cell communities that contribute to our behaviour! According to you, the gut cells communicate with the brain cells – and no doubt with other cell communities – by following God’s instructions, which can only have been issued 3.8 billion years ago or dabbled whenever he felt like dabbling. I am sceptical. I think it more likely that if your God exists, he would have given ALL cells/cell communities the autonomous ability to communicate and cooperate in making their contributions to their host’s behaviour.

DAVID: It is so logical if you accept God, and it doesn't need sword swallowing.

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

DAVID: They communicate because of His programming.

I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: They believe God is in charge as designer, no more.

Just to make it clear: are you saying they do NOT propose that all cellular activities are governed by instructions that God issued 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of individual courses he delivers when necessary?

C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

dhw: This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

DAVID: I appreciate this comment.

I particularly value your appreciation of this, because if by chance anyone else happens to read it, it might help to remove some of the prejudices against Darwin arising out of both theistic and atheistic interpretations of his work. Thank you.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 09, 2021, 20:15 (140 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

DAVID: They communicate because of His programming.

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design orhelp


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Once again, I must thank you for your integrity in presenting us with such an article. I’m tempted to quote all of it, but the above will do. Behaving “as if they were conscious” involves far more than sentience, because cells also appear to work out strategies and take decisions. But I don’t suppose even Shapiro would argue that they have the same sort of consciousness as dogs or cats, let alone humans. I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.


C. elegans feels colour

DAVID: Elegans had to have the ability to sense color to learn to avoid them. Where did that come from? Perhaps God.

dhw: This rang a bell in my generally fading memory, and I scurried through the pages of my well-worn Origin of Species. In Chapter VI, Difficulties on Theory, Darwin wrote: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that nerves sensitive to touch may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

dhw: The article makes me suspect that our researchers are following the same line of thought. And I also suspect that the agnostic Darwin would not object to the proposal that there is a God who designed the mechanism which eventually evolved into sight, touch and hearing.

DAVID: I appreciate this comment.

dhw: I particularly value your appreciation of this, because if by chance anyone else happens to read it, it might help to remove some of the prejudices against Darwin arising out of both theistic and atheistic interpretations of his work. Thank you.

True agnostics recognize design implicates a need for a designer. They stop at naming one.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 11:48 (139 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: It seems far more logical to me that your God would have provided the means for all the billions of cells and cell communities to do their own communicating and cooperating than for him to provide 3.8-billion-year-old programmes or personal tuition for every single form of behaviour throughout life’s history.

DAVID: They communicate because of His programming.

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design or help.

The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

Bioluminescence

QUOTE: The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis.

DAVID: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It appears designed to me.

Of course it’s designed. The whole of life depends on symbiotic relationships, as cells learn to cooperate in different ways. However, I find it difficult to imagine that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for the bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria to help one another, or that he popped in to give them a special course, or indeed that this example of symbiosis was “a part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that these organisms design their own form of symbiosis, using their perhaps God-given intelligence?

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: [...] I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

Defining life

QUOTE: “We don’t want to know what the word life means to us,” Cleland said. “We want to know what life is.” And if we want to satisfy our desire, Cleland argues, we need to give up our search for a definition."

Hilarious! I wonder how much people get paid for concluding that their research is pointless.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 10, 2021, 15:23 (139 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design or help.

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.


Bioluminescence

QUOTE: The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis.

DAVID: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It appears designed to me.

dhw: Of course it’s designed. The whole of life depends on symbiotic relationships, as cells learn to cooperate in different ways. However, I find it difficult to imagine that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for the bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria to help one another, or that he popped in to give them a special course, or indeed that this example of symbiosis was “a part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that these organisms design their own form of symbiosis, using their perhaps God-given intelligence?

I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: [...] I am happy with your 50/50. That should be enough for anyone to take the possibility very seriously indeed – especially when considering the alternative, which boils down to one of two options: that there is a God who 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every decision taken for the rest of history, or who steps in to give cells and bacteria courses on what to do whenever new problems arise. I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

I've always told yoou they don't.


Defining life

QUOTE: “We don’t want to know what the word life means to us,” Cleland said. “We want to know what life is.” And if we want to satisfy our desire, Cleland argues, we need to give up our search for a definition."

dhw: Hilarious! I wonder how much people get paid for concluding that their research is pointless.

Cleland is right. Exact definitions of life are of no matter. Understanding living biochemistry is.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 11, 2021, 09:38 (139 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: I would have thought they communicated because they had something to tell one another. I view the theory that your God gave them the ABILITY to do so as a possibility. Could this be what you mean? Or do you mean that every single communication was programmed 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: I know cells can communicate with God-given mechanisms that occur today without new design or help.

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

DAVID: We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.

That is not an agreement. Nothing can be autonomous if it is following instructions! If cells act without new design or help, they are using the old design, which (theistic version) is the mechanism they were given by your God to enable them to communicate and act without new design or help.

Bioluminescence

QUOTE: The relationship between the Hawaiian bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria living in its light organ has been studied for decades as a model of symbiosis.

DAVID: I wonder how this cooperation happened. All organisms are born with some general immunity. For this cooperation to come about the immunity has to be stopped. It appears designed to me.

dhw: Of course it’s designed. The whole of life depends on symbiotic relationships, as cells learn to cooperate in different ways. However, I find it difficult to imagine that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for the bobtail squid and the bioluminescent bacteria to help one another, or that he popped in to give them a special course, or indeed that this example of symbiosis was “a part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that these organisms design their own form of symbiosis, using their perhaps God-given intelligence?

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: Since we are on the outside of cells our answer is a 50/50 probability as to which interpretation is correct, that is, primary intelligent activity or following intelligent instructions?. All ID folks side with the latter. (dhw's bold)

dhw: I wonder how many ID folks subscribe to these two explanations [“intelligent instructions” from 3.8 billion years ago or divine dabbling] of what looks like intelligent behaviour.

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

DAVID: I've always told you they don't.

Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

Photosynthesis

QUOTE: These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.
'What's interesting about this result is that we are seeing the protein turn the vibronic coupling on and off in response to environmental changes in the cell," said Jake Higgins, a graduate student in the Department of Chemistry and the lead author of the paper. "The protein uses the quantum effect to protect the organism from oxidative damage." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the billion before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 11, 2021, 15:45 (138 days ago) @ dhw

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

DAVID: We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.

dhw: That is not an agreement. Nothing can be autonomous if it is following instructions! If cells act without new design or help, they are using the old design, which (theistic version) is the mechanism they were given by your God to enable them to communicate and act without new design or help.

Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.


Bioluminescence

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

dhw: You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?


ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

DAVID: I've always told you they don't.

dhw: Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

They find Shapiro as producing evidence of design.


Photosynthesis

QUOTE: These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.
'What's interesting about this result is that we are seeing the protein turn the vibronic coupling on and off in response to environmental changes in the cell," said Jake Higgins, a graduate student in the Department of Chemistry and the lead author of the paper. "The protein uses the quantum effect to protect the organism from oxidative damage." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

dhw: You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the billion before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

God sees to it they minimize damage because God designs the various complex parts of photosynthesis. Concentration of oxygen requires protective mechanism present at the same time. Simultaneous development required. Only design works.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 12, 2021, 08:03 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

dhw: The basis of the whole theory of cellular intelligence is that cells act autonomously. If they can communicate without new design or help, then (theistic version) the mechanisms your God gave them has made them autonomous.

DAVID: We agree. They are autonomous following God's instructions.

dhw: That is not an agreement. Nothing can be autonomous if it is following instructions! If cells act without new design or help, they are using the old design, which (theistic version) is the mechanism they were given by your God to enable them to communicate and act without new design or help.

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

An autonomous being is free to control itself. It does not follow instructions, just as – in your own words - it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

Bioluminescence

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

dhw: You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

DAVID: How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?

Not one encounter! Millions of encounters, whether by chance or by intention. Where do you get ONE encounter from?

ID explained: are cells intelligent

DAVID: ID doesn't discuss how God works His designs. God is not mentioned, only the need for a designer.

dhw: And so ID folks do NOT side with your theory that your God issued instructions 3.8 billion years ago, or keeps popping in to give courses.

DAVID: I've always told you they don't.

dhw: Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

DAVID: They find Shapiro as producing evidence of design.

Fair enough. But if they don’t mention God, and they don’t mention your anthropocentric theory of evolution, and they don't oppose Shapiro's theory of cellular intelligence, it seems that although you say “All ID folk side with the latter” (i.e. cells follow your God’s intelligent instructions), in fact the only common point between you and them is that they and you believe in intelligent design.

Photosynthesis

QUOTE: These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.[…]

DAVID: […] There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

dhw: You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the million before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

DAVID: God sees to it they minimize damage because God designs the various complex parts of photosynthesis. Concentration of oxygen requires protective mechanism present at the same time. Simultaneous development required. Only design works.

Yes, the protection only works when the protective mechanism is in place. That doesn’t mean millions of bacteria didn’t die before the protective mechanism came into place. The article says “they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.” This suggests that the protective mechanism only developed in response to the fatal encounter with oxygen. Same problem for bacteria as when they have to respond to new antibacterial medications.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 12, 2021, 18:43 (137 days ago) @ dhw

Bioluminescence

DAVID: I know what you find hard to imagine. Getting two organism together in a symbiotic relationship requires a cooperation between both in which they conceptualize the future benefits. Not likely. God designs the pairing.

dhw: You seem to be obsessed with the concept of conceptualization and planning for the future. Maybe the relationship develops from a chance encounter, and both parties are intelligent enough to recognize the mutual benefit. Nobody knows for sure, but the three theories outlined above (planned 3.8 billion years ago, directly dabbled, all part of the goal of evolving humans) seem to me less likely than intelligent recognition of the benefits of cooperation.

DAVID: How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?

dhw: Not one encounter! Millions of encounters, whether by chance or by intention. Where do you get ONE encounter from?

Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.


ID explained: are cells intelligent

dhw: Just clarifying: ID folks do not support your theory that cells obey instructions issued by God 3.8 billion years ago, or by means of direct dabbling. In fact, I seem to remember you saying that they liked Shapiro’s ideas, which of course favour design by intelligent cells (which in turn could have been designed by your God). As a matter of interest, do they explicitly reject this theory?

DAVID: They find Shapiro as producing evidence of design.

dhw: Fair enough. But if they don’t mention God, and they don’t mention your anthropocentric theory of evolution, and they don't oppose Shapiro's theory of cellular intelligence, it seems that although you say “All ID folk side with the latter” (i.e. cells follow your God’s intelligent instructions), in fact the only common point between you and them is that they and you believe in intelligent design.

True


Photosynthesis

DAVID: […] There is no way this could develop stepwise by chance. Why? The produced oxygen is too dangerous, if not controlled from the beginning. Try to deny the designer in this case. This is the best evidence for God, as designer, I've ever found.

dhw: You always assume that when confronted with a new problem, bacteria immediately come up with the solution. But we know that when confronted with new problems, bacteria die by the million before eventually they find a solution. Not by chance, but as the article says: “they must develop ways to minimize the damage”.

DAVID: God sees to it they minimize damage because God designs the various complex parts of photosynthesis. Concentration of oxygen requires protective mechanism present at the same time. Simultaneous development required. Only design works.

dhw: Yes, the protection only works when the protective mechanism is in place. That doesn’t mean millions of bacteria didn’t die before the protective mechanism came into place. The article says “they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.” This suggests that the protective mechanism only developed in response to the fatal encounter with oxygen. Same problem for bacteria as when they have to respond to new antibacterial medications.

If they all died from oxygen poisoning, nothing would develop as protection. God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 13:22 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

dhw: An autonomous being is free to control itself. It dos not follow instructions, just as – in your own words – it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

I hope your silence indicates that you now agree that if cells communicate without new design or help, they are autonomous and do not follow instructions.

Bioluminescence

DAVID: How does one encounter cause millions of symbiosis arrangements in various species?

dhw: Not one encounter! Millions of encounters, whether by chance or by intention. Where do you get ONE encounter from?

DAVID: Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.

Successful strategies are passed on to other members of the species and to their descendants, and of course there is communication. Even bacteria communicate. What “arrangements” are you talking about? Does your God go round explaining the process to every organism involved in every form of symbiosis?

Photosynthesis

dhw: Yes, the protection only works when the protective mechanism is in place. That doesn’t mean millions of bacteria didn’t die before the protective mechanism came into place. The article says “they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen.” This suggests that the protective mechanism only developed in response to the fatal encounter with oxygen. Same problem for bacteria as when they have to respond to new antibacterial medications.

DAVID: If they all died from oxygen poisoning, nothing would develop as protection.

But obviously they didn’t all die, just as they don’t all die when we discover a new means of killing them! The survivors develop the protection.

DAVID: God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

Please stop putting the word “natural” into my mouth. I am not hoping but am putting forward a theory, which (theistic version) is that your God endowed bacteria with the intelligence to design their own protective processes. The difference between this and your own theory is that you have your God designing, planning, overseeing absolutely everything that every organism ever does in order to protect itself. I propose that he has given them the means to do it themselves.

Lemurs

DAVID: We all know what hibernation looks like. Maybe they'll find out how it works. If it is their DNA as a special code, how did that happen? How did they learn to hibernate? Or did God adjust their code?

Since the only two methods for “code-adjusting” that you have offered us are a 3.8-billion-year-old programme or direct dabbling (all part of the goal of designing humans), may I suggest that perhaps (theistic version) your God gave to all cells/cell communities the intelligence to adapt themselves to the conditions in which they live. Just a suggestion. :-)

New proteins

QUOTE: The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.

DAVID: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer.

As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial? Are you sure the researchers are lying? Incompetent? Just supposing they are right, what might be the theistic explanation? God experimenting, perhaps? Or God creating a system whereby an infinite number of combinations produces an infinite variety of cell communities? As far as I know, your only objection to either of these “guesses” is that they do not fit in with your own guess that God knows everything in advance and always wants to maintain total control over evolution. This is why you continually enmesh yourself in a theory of evolution that defies all logic: method not matching purpose, agreeing that survival is the purpose of adaptation but insisting that survival plays no part in evolution, and getting your God to directly design “bad” bacteria and viruses for some unknown “good” reason.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 18:33 (136 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, March 13, 2021, 18:42

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

dhw: An autonomous being is free to control itself. It does not follow instructions, just as – in your own words – it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

dhw: I hope your silence indicates that you now agree that if cells communicate without new design or help, they are autonomous and do not follow instructions.

I don't change. Not worth a response.


Bioluminescence

DAVID: Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.

dhw: Successful strategies are passed on to other members of the species and to their descendants, and of course there is communication. Even bacteria communicate.

Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.


Photosynthesis

DAVID: God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

dhw: Please stop putting the word “natural” into my mouth. I am not hoping but am putting forward a theory, which (theistic version) is that your God endowed bacteria with the intelligence to design their own protective processes. The difference between this and your own theory is that you have your God designing, planning, overseeing absolutely everything that every organism ever does in order to protect itself. I propose that he has given them the means to do it themselves.

Same difference between us.

New proteins

QUOTE: The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.

DAVID: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer.

dhw:As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial?

I don't think multiple useless proteins are produced. I didn't quote the following, which you might have read:

"They then used evolutionary methods to reconstruct the likely structure of Goddard ~50 million years ago when the protein first arose. What they found was quite a surprise: "The ancestral Goddard protein looked already very much like the ones which exist in fly species today," Erich Bornberg-Bauer explains. "Right from the beginning, Goddard contained some structural elements, so called alpha-helices, which are believed to be essential for most proteins." (my bold)

The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 14, 2021, 12:07 (135 days ago) @ David Turell

Your gut has a big brain

DAVID: Autonomous actions can be from following onboard instructions.

dhw: An autonomous being is free to control itself. It does not follow instructions, just as – in your own words – it does not require “new design or help”. Please stop playing with language.

dhw: I hope your silence indicates that you now agree that if cells communicate without new design or help, they are autonomous and do not follow instructions.

DAVID: I don't change. Not worth a response.

I don’t understand how an organism can communicate without new design and help, can act autonomously, and yet has to follow instructions. But I can understand why you don’t wish to explain it.

Bioluminescence

DAVID: Does each encounter organism explain the process to other organisms to create the automatic process that appears. You want some sort of communication . I say God makes the arrangements.

dhw: Successful strategies are passed on to other members of the species and to their descendants, and of course there is communication. Even bacteria communicate.

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

Photosynthesis

DAVID: God has to design the mechanism and the protective processes all at once. You want natural mechanisms and keep hoping they appear naturally.

Dealt with on the theodicy thread.

New proteins

QUOTE: The vast majority of these de novo proteins are useless, or even slightly deleterious, as they can interfere with existing proteins in the cell. Such new proteins are quickly lost again after several generations, as organisms carrying the new gene encoding the protein have impaired survival or reproduction. However, a select few de novo proteins prove to have beneficial functions. These proteins integrate into the molecular components of cells and eventually, after millions of years of minor modifications, become indispensable.

DAVID: Fascinating, because it is a Darwinian attempt to explain how useful proteins appear by chance. They assume it takes many chance attempts over millions of years. They used computer simulations based on Darwin theories. What it doesn't explain is how the requirement for two simultaneously necessary proteins would appear together. I'm still with God as the designer.

dhw: As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial?

DAVID: I don't think multiple useless proteins are produced. I didn't quote the following, which you might have read:
"They then used evolutionary methods to reconstruct the likely structure of Goddard ~50 million years ago when the protein first arose. What they found was quite a surprise: "The ancestral Goddard protein looked already very much like the ones which exist in fly species today," Erich Bornberg-Bauer explains. "Right from the beginning, Goddard contained some structural elements, so called alpha-helices, which are believed to be essential for most proteins."
(DAVID’s bold)

You have quoted a successful example. May I please ask why you reject the researchers’ claim that there were multiple useless proteins.

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 14, 2021, 15:19 (135 days ago) @ dhw

Bioluminescence

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

dhw: Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

He designs it into each new species He creates


New proteins

dhw: As always, you seem to think that the word Darwinian automatically disqualifies any theory and any observation. Are you challenging the researchers’ findings that the majority of these proteins are useless, but some prove to be beneficial?


DAVID: I don't think multiple useless proteins are produced. I didn't quote the following, which you might have read:
"They then used evolutionary methods to reconstruct the likely structure of Goddard ~50 million years ago when the protein first arose. What they found was quite a surprise: "The ancestral Goddard protein looked already very much like the ones which exist in fly species today," Erich Bornberg-Bauer explains. "Right from the beginning, Goddard contained some structural elements, so called alpha-helices, which are believed to be essential for most proteins."
(DAVID’s bold)

dhw: You have quoted a successful example. May I please ask why you reject the researchers’ claim that there were multiple useless proteins.

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 15, 2021, 11:54 (134 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and Bioluminescence

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

dhw: Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

DAVID: He designs it into each new species He creates.

So 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme for possums to evolve out of pre-possums, and a programme for possums to pretend to be dead. Alternatively, when he stepped in to operate on the pre-possum, he inserted a programme that would switch itself on and make all possums lie down and pretend to be dead when necessary. For you it is out of the question that at some point in history, possums, migrating birds and ants might have worked out strategies to improve their chances of survival, and these successful strategies eventually became standard behaviour, having been passed on through generations of possums, birds and ants.

New proteins

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

DAVID: God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

There is no problem with the proposal that useless proteins would be discarded by natural selection, but please tell us what reasons you have for rejecting the researchers’ claim that there were large numbers of useless proteins. If their claim is true, and if your God doesn’t produce useless proteins, then maybe your God didn’t produce them directly but they arose out of his invention of a free-rein system which also produced harmful bacteria and viruses and nasty diseases.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 15, 2021, 17:05 (134 days ago) @ dhw

Possums and Bioluminescence

DAVID: Your usual platitude. "Communication" does not explain how the experience is transmitted among thousands of individual in a species.

dhw: Since we know that successful strategies are passed on, perhaps you’d better give us your own explanation. How exactly does your God teach every possum to play dead, every migrating bird to migrate, every ant to build bridges etc. etc.?

DAVID: He designs it into each new species He creates.

dhw: So 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a programme for possums to evolve out of pre-possums, and a programme for possums to pretend to be dead. Alternatively, when he stepped in to operate on the pre-possum, he inserted a programme that would switch itself on and make all possums lie down and pretend to be dead when necessary. For you it is out of the question that at some point in history, possums, migrating birds and ants might have worked out strategies to improve their chances of survival, and these successful strategies eventually became standard behaviour, having been passed on through generations of possums, birds and ants.

How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?


New proteins

DAVID: The usual Darwin assumption a new vital protein component simply evolved. My view is God carefully plans for the future by creating elements such as 'alpha helices' which make advance design easier to code.

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

DAVID: God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

dhw: There is no problem with the proposal that useless proteins would be discarded by natural selection, but please tell us what reasons you have for rejecting the researchers’ claim that there were large numbers of useless proteins. If their claim is true, and if your God doesn’t produce useless proteins, then maybe your God didn’t produce them directly but they arose out of his invention of a free-rein system which also produced harmful bacteria and viruses and nasty diseases.

Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 16, 2021, 12:07 (133 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: For you it is out of the question that at some point in history, possums, migrating birds and ants might have worked out strategies to improve their chances of survival, and these successful strategies eventually became standard behaviour, having been passed on through generations of possums, birds and ants.

DAVID: How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?

I don’t understand your question. Possums don’t cover the instincts of ants and migrating birds! Every new species develops its own strategies! And successful strategies are passed on to succeeding generations. Why is this so difficult to understand?

New proteins

dhw: I am in no position to challenge the researchers’ claim that there were vast numbers of useless proteins. If there were, then the question would be why – if your God designed the useful protein – he also designed so many useless proteins.

DAVID: God doesn't produce useless proteins. It is a Darwinian theoretical assumption in the article as I interpreted it, as they believe in chance evolution. Chance formation of useless proteins are discarded by natural selection.

dhw: There is no problem with the proposal that useless proteins would be discarded by natural selection, but please tell us what reasons you have for rejecting the researchers’ claim that there were large numbers of useless proteins. If their claim is true, and if your God doesn’t produce useless proteins, then maybe your God didn’t produce them directly but they arose out of his invention of a free-rein system which also produced harmful bacteria and viruses and nasty diseases.

DAVID: Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

I can’t take sides on this because I have no knowledge of the field, but how do you know that their experiments were invalid? You are prejudging their findings because you don’t believe your God could possibly have produced anything useless. And yet, amazingly, you do believe that your God could deliberately design bad bugs and viruses, and that he could inadvertently design a system containing fatal errors which he would try (sometimes in vain) to correct.

Talbott and Shapiro

dhw: I don’t think Shapiro sets out to explain origins. As I understand it, his theory explains how evolution works – not through random mutations and not through your God personally programming or dabbling every innovation, strategy, lifestyle etc., but through the intelligence of cells. If, as you tell us, Shapiro is a practising Jew, then presumably he would believe that God is the inventor of the intelligent cell – but I suspect that he is wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs.

DAVID: Not from me. Known fact: Shapiro was president of his Temple. He never has discussed God's role as a practicing scientist. For Shapiro bacteria modify DNA with purpose, source of purposeful activity is a black box to Shapiro, which is what I implied above.

I don’t know how he could become president of his Temple without being a practising Jew, but it doesn’t matter. That’s why I suggested that he was wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, please stop trying to restrict his evolutionary theory to bacteria modifying DNA when I keep reproducing from your own book the quotes in which he explicitly says that cells are cognitive entities that produce evolutionary novelties. This theory concerns Chapter 2 in life’s history, and like Darwin he obviously steers clear of discussing origins.

Fingerprints

QUOTE: "Scientists have suspected that our circular, winding fingerprints might have evolved to improve our ability to grip objects by creating better friction, says Jarocka. But she says others have suggested they might contribute to our “very refined sense of touch”.

DAVID: We do not know when fingerprints appeared on our evolution. We are now learning their usefulness. Is this another 'stasis problem' appearing long before we developed fine use like violin playing? I would think so. Another special attribute in advance designed by God.

We do not know when or why fingerprints appeared, but it not a “stasis” problem. I do not for one moment believe that your God would have designed them so that later on we would be able to play the violin etc. If he exists and did design them, or if they were the product of the relevant cell communities, I would suggest that the reason might have been “to improve our ability to grip objects”, or some other situation in which a “refined sense of touch” gave us an extra advantage in coping with whatever tasks we wished to accomplish at that time.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 16, 2021, 18:59 (133 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?

dhw: I don’t understand your question. Possums don’t cover the instincts of ants and migrating birds! Every new species develops its own strategies! And successful strategies are passed on to succeeding generations. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You do understand the question. We humans can communicate and quickly educate ourselves for new activities. How do possums do it? Show and tell involves being killed. You have no answer. And that applies to birds migrating, ants activities or termites air conditioning mounds for that matter. God handles it by giving instructions.


New proteins

DAVID: Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

dhw: I can’t take sides on this because I have no knowledge of the field, but how do you know that their experiments were invalid?

I presented the article only to point out the difficulty for natural evolution to find new necessary proteins. They had valid results with Darwinian interpretations.


Talbott and Shapiro

DAVID: Known fact: Shapiro was president of his Temple. He never has discussed God's role as a practicing scientist. For Shapiro bacteria modify DNA with purpose, source of purposeful activity is a black box to Shapiro, which is what I implied above.

dhw: I don’t know how he could become president of his Temple without being a practising Jew, but it doesn’t matter. That’s why I suggested that he was wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, please stop trying to restrict his evolutionary theory to bacteria modifying DNA when I keep reproducing from your own book the quotes in which he explicitly says that cells are cognitive entities that produce evolutionary novelties. This theory concerns Chapter 2 in life’s history, and like Darwin he obviously steers clear of discussing origins.

All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.


Fingerprints

QUOTE: "Scientists have suspected that our circular, winding fingerprints might have evolved to improve our ability to grip objects by creating better friction, says Jarocka. But she says others have suggested they might contribute to our “very refined sense of touch”.

DAVID: We do not know when fingerprints appeared on our evolution. We are now learning their usefulness. Is this another 'stasis problem' appearing long before we developed fine use like violin playing? I would think so. Another special attribute in advance designed by God.

dhw: We do not know when or why fingerprints appeared, but it not a “stasis” problem. I do not for one moment believe that your God would have designed them so that later on we would be able to play the violin etc. If he exists and did design them, or if they were the product of the relevant cell communities, I would suggest that the reason might have been “to improve our ability to grip objects”, or some other situation in which a “refined sense of touch” gave us an extra advantage in coping with whatever tasks we wished to accomplish at that time.

You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 13:26 (132 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS

DAVID: How do possums communicate to each other their individual experimental 'playing dead' successful events to cover new species instincts?

dhw: I don’t understand your question. Possums don’t cover the instincts of ants and migrating birds! Every new species develops its own strategies! And successful strategies are passed on to succeeding generations. Why is this so difficult to understand?

DAVID: You do understand the question. We humans can communicate and quickly educate ourselves for new activities. How do possums do it? Show and tell involves being killed. You have no answer. And that applies to birds migrating, ants activities or termites air conditioning mounds for that matter. God handles it by giving instructions.

What do you mean by “show and kill”? The strategy worked, and so it was passed on. Migrating birds and mound-building termites found routes to warmer territories and building methods which worked, and so they passed them on. Every strategy must have started somewhere and at some time, and all organisms – not just humans – have the ability to communicate and learn. Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

New proteins

DAVID: Don't you realize the so-called useless proteins do not exist in our time? There are none now. The article is theory based on evolution by chance mutation. 'Junk' DNA is disappearing with new research.

dhw: I can’t take sides on this because I have no knowledge of the field, but how do you know that their experiments were invalid?

DAVID: I presented the article only to point out the difficulty for natural evolution to find new necessary proteins. They had valid results with Darwinian interpretations.

If you are now saying that they did indeed find useless proteins, perhaps it might raise the question why your God would have created useless proteins. The question is not answered by your complaint that useless proteins would support Darwin’s theory of random mutations!

Talbott and Shapiro

DAVID: Known fact: Shapiro was president of his Temple. He never has discussed God's role as a practicing scientist. For Shapiro bacteria modify DNA with purpose, source of purposeful activity is a black box to Shapiro, which is what I implied above.

dhw: I don’t know how he could become president of his Temple without being a practising Jew, but it doesn’t matter. That’s why I suggested that he was wise enough to separate his scientific work from his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, please stop trying to restrict his evolutionary theory to bacteria modifying DNA when I keep reproducing from your own book the quotes in which he explicitly says that cells are cognitive entities that produce evolutionary novelties. This theory concerns Chapter 2 in life’s history, and like Darwin he obviously steers clear of discussing origins.

DAVID: All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.

I have not blown it up into fact! Yes, it is a theory, but you keep pretending that Shapiro does not say what he says, although I keep repeating the quotes: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation.” “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions”.

Fingerprints

QUOTE: "Scientists have suspected that our circular, winding fingerprints might have evolved to improve our ability to grip objects by creating better friction, says Jarocka. But she says others have suggested they might contribute to our “very refined sense of touch”.

DAVID: We do not know when fingerprints appeared on our evolution. We are now learning their usefulness. Is this another 'stasis problem' appearing long before we developed fine use like violin playing? I would think so. Another special attribute in advance designed by God.

dhw: We do not know when or why fingerprints appeared, but it not a “stasis” problem. I do not for one moment believe that your God would have designed them so that later on we would be able to play the violin etc. If he exists and did design them, or if they were the product of the relevant cell communities, I would suggest that the reason might have been “to improve our ability to grip objects”, or some other situation in which a “refined sense of touch” gave us an extra advantage in coping with whatever tasks we wished to accomplish at that time.

DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

I am proposing that evolutionary developments must have come into existence for a reason (namely to improve chances of survival), and that – theistic version – your God would have designed the mechanisms that enabled organisms to do their own designing instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single development. You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 16:41 (132 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

DAVID: You do understand the question. We humans can communicate and quickly educate ourselves for new activities. How do possums do it? Show and tell involves being killed. You have no answer. And that applies to birds migrating, ants activities or termites air conditioning mounds for that matter. God handles it by giving instructions.

dhw: What do you mean by “show and kill”?

Show and tell involves another possum watching the prey possum timing his stillness. It may work or not (gets killed). Now two possums know the trick. To have this spread throughout the possum population, it takes lots of time and lots of killed possums to work that way if it ever does.

dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

Remember the weaverbirds!!!


New proteins

DAVID: I presented the article only to point out the difficulty for natural evolution to find new necessary proteins. They had valid results with Darwinian interpretations.

dhw: If you are now saying that they did indeed find useless proteins, perhaps it might raise the question why your God would have created useless proteins. The question is not answered by your complaint that useless proteins would support Darwin’s theory of random mutations!

You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.


Talbott and Shapiro

DAVID: All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.

dhw: I have not blown it up into fact! Yes, it is a theory, but you keep pretending that Shapiro does not say what he says, although I keep repeating the quotes: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation.” “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions”.

And I have shown you when he faced the Royal society his conclusions were softened from his book quotes.


Fingerprints

DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

dhw: I am proposing that evolutionary developments must have come into existence for a reason (namely to improve chances of survival), and that – theistic version – your God would have designed the mechanisms that enabled organisms to do their own designing instead of him preprogramming or dabbling every single development. You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

The God you entertain does not relate the God I accept. We've been over all of this.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 11:23 (131 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS
DAVID: Show and tell involves another possum watching the prey possum timing his stillness. It may work or not (gets killed). Now two possums know the trick. To have this spread throughout the possum population, it takes lots of time and lots of killed possums to work that way if it ever does.

We don’t know precisely how any form of behaviour gets relayed to the whole species until it becomes the norm, but your explanation seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Maybe Pete Possum was the great inventor of the strategy. When it worked, Pete went home and told his family and all his mates, and they told their families and all their mates, and all the families and all the mates passed it on, and over the course of a few generations, lots and lots of possums knew about it and passed it on.

dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

DAVID: Remember the weaverbirds!!!

I can hardly forget them. Same idea: Willie Weaverbird invented a new nest-building technique, and passed on his knotty knowledge to family and friends etc., as above. (They might even have added their own knots to his prototype.) And your theory: divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago (as part of the goal of designing humans), or personal tutorials, though even then, your God would have relied on his students to pass on the information – or do you think he’s still giving lessons?

New proteins
DAVID: You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.

What IS your point? If their findings are correct, then there were useless proteins. There is certainly no point in complaining that their research supports Darwin. If it does, then, it’s up to you to find an explanation that doesn’t support Darwin!

Talbott and Shapiro
DAVID: All Shapiro says is bacteria can modify their DNA. The rest is pure theory that you have blown up into something else as fact.

dhw: I have not blown it up into fact! Yes, it is a theory, but you keep pretending that Shapiro does not say what he says, although I keep repeating the quotes: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation.” “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions”.

DAVID: And I have shown you when he faced the Royal society his conclusions were softened from his book quotes.

I asked you before to point out any indication that he has rescinded his theory. You could not do so. In any case, I did not blow up his theory into fact.

Fingerprints
DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

dhw: […] You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

DAVID: The God you entertain does not relate the God I accept. We've been over all of this.

That is no reason to imply that my theory excludes God as designer.

Giraffes
These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. The dual effects of the strongly selected FGFRL1 gene are compatible with the phenomenon that one gene can affect several different aspects of the phenotype, so called evolutionary pleiotropy. Pleiotropy is particularly relevant for explaining unusually large phenotypic changes, because such changes often require that a suite of traits are changed within a short evolutionary time. Therefore, pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe." (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold above describes the problem perfectly. How so many complex physiological changes so coordinated appear so quickly? Of course, the authors think a Darwin style gene did the job all by itself like an octopus with all its arms in action. How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

Chimps \'r\' not us: 3-D DNA shows vast differences

I don’t actually know of anybody who thinks that chimps ARE us. However, this opens up an almost infinite field for research, and in my constant quest for knowledge, I am now applying for a grant to prove that ants \’r’\ not us. I plan to follow this with the duck-billed platypus \is\not us (I don’t want to be accused of repetition) and so forth. I hope you will support my application.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 18, 2021, 17:46 (131 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

dhw: We don’t know precisely how any form of behaviour gets relayed to the whole species until it becomes the norm, but your explanation seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Maybe Pete Possum was the great inventor of the strategy. When it worked, Pete went home and told his family and all his mates, and they told their families and all their mates, and all the families and all the mates passed it on, and over the course of a few generations, lots and lots of possums knew about it and passed it on.

Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.


dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

DAVID: Remember the weaverbirds!!!

dhw: I can hardly forget them. Same idea: Willie Weaverbird invented a new nest-building technique, and passed on his knotty knowledge to family and friends etc., as above.

Same non-answer. The first weaver who invented the knots has to show them to the next bird. The nests provide survival. With your view of very slow spread how did that happen?


New proteins

DAVID: You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.

dhw: What IS your point? If their findings are correct, then there were useless proteins. There is certainly no point in complaining that their research supports Darwin. If it does, then, it’s up to you to find an explanation that doesn’t support Darwin!

I fully doubt their invented ancient useless proteins ever existed! Their whole position is based on belief those invented proteins really existed.


Fingerprints
DAVID: You still favor all natural developments to explain evolution. I have God as the designer.

dhw: […] You keep using “natural” in order to pretend that this theory does not allow for a designing God. Please stop it. A God who designs an autonomous mechanism is just as much a designing God as a God who designs every individual product of the mechanism.

DAVID: The God you entertain does not relate the God I accept. We've been over all of this.

dhw: That is no reason to imply that my theory excludes God as designer.

Giraffes
These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. The dual effects of the strongly selected FGFRL1 gene are compatible with the phenomenon that one gene can affect several different aspects of the phenotype, so called evolutionary pleiotropy. Pleiotropy is particularly relevant for explaining unusually large phenotypic changes, because such changes often require that a suite of traits are changed within a short evolutionary time. Therefore, pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe." (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold above describes the problem perfectly. How so many complex physiological changes so coordinated appear so quickly? Of course, the authors think a Darwin style gene did the job all by itself like an octopus with all its arms in action. How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

It does.


Chimps \'r\' not us: 3-D DNA shows vast differences

dhw: I don’t actually know of anybody who thinks that chimps ARE us. However, this opens up an almost infinite field for research, and in my constant quest for knowledge, I am now applying for a grant to prove that ants \’r’\ not us. I plan to follow this with the duck-billed platypus \is\not us (I don’t want to be accused of repetition) and so forth. I hope you will support my application.

I do. We are not 98% chimps as the identification of bases alone implies.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 19, 2021, 12:37 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS
dhw: We don’t know precisely how any form of behaviour gets relayed to the whole species until it becomes the norm, but your explanation seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Maybe Pete Possum was the great inventor of the strategy. When it worked, Pete went home and told his family and all his mates, and they told their families and all their mates, and all the families and all the mates passed it on, and over the course of a few generations, lots and lots of possums knew about it and passed it on.

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

dhw: Pretty soon you will have your God popping in to give tutorials to every individual possum, bird and ant.

DAVID: Remember the weaverbirds!!!

dhw: I can hardly forget them. Same idea: Willie Weaverbird invented a new nest-building technique, and passed on his knotty knowledge to family and friends etc., as above.

DAVID Same non-answer. The first weaver who invented the knots has to show them to the next bird. The nests provide survival. With your view of very slow spread how did that happen?

It’s not a non-answer. Every invention and strategy has to start somewhere. That doesn’t mean the rest of the species died before Willie came up with his invention! We have no idea how fast improvements can spread, but once you realize that organisms actually communicate with one another, you may join the whale researchers in discovering that “there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated”. Your blinkered view of communications reminds me of Shapiro’s complaint about “large organisms chauvinism”. Our fellow animals do not have to speak English or any other human language in order to pass on information.

New proteins
DAVID: You miss the point. Their study with computer simulation found probable useless proteins. This is just like junk DNA proving the randomness of Darwin chance mutations driving evolution.

dhw: What IS your point? If their findings are correct, then there were useless proteins. There is certainly no point in complaining that their research supports Darwin. If it does, then, it’s up to you to find an explanation that doesn’t support Darwin!

DAVID: I fully doubt their invented ancient useless proteins ever existed! Their whole position is based on belief those invented proteins really existed.

So now you are questioning their research, which a moment ago “found probably useless proteins”. Either they did or they didn’t. I’m in no position to judge. If they did find them, you have a problem which for some reason you blame on Darwin. If they didn’t find them, there is nothing to discuss except the integrity or competence of the researchers. Please ensure that your comments do not lead to a prosecution for libel!


Giraffes
QUOTE: These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. […] pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe." (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold above describes the problem perfectly. How so many complex physiological changes so coordinated appear so quickly? Of course, the authors think a Darwin style gene did the job all by itself like an octopus with all its arms in action. How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 19, 2021, 15:42 (130 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?


Giraffes

QUOTE: These findings provide insights into basic modes of evolution. […] pleiotropy could provide one solution to the riddle of how evolution could achieve the many co-dependent changes needed to form an animal as extreme as a giraffe." (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold above describes the problem perfectly. How so many complex physiological changes so coordinated appear so quickly? Of course, the authors think a Darwin style gene did the job all by itself like an octopus with all its arms in action. How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."


Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

dhw: And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

Ah, full agreement.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 20, 2021, 09:21 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

DAVID: Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?

The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

Giraffes
DAVID: […] How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

dhw: And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

DAVID: Ah, full agreement.

We agnostics tend to maintain a balanced view. We do not have fixed views that force us to minimize the importance of arguments that might cast a doubt on those views. However, to keep the balance, we agnostics must also acknowledge that one set of fixed views must be closer to the truth than the other, and we should respect the different faiths (in some sort of God, or in the creative powers of chance) even if we cannot share them.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 20, 2021, 14:17 (129 days ago) @ dhw

POSSUMS

DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

DAVID: Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?

The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.


Giraffes
DAVID: […] How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

dhw: I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

Your theories do seem logical in some circumstances, especially as your humanized God acts.


Meiosis
DAVID: Mind-blowing complexity. Not presented for full understanding but a glimpse into the intricate dance of these molecules. Only design fits.

dhw: And I must return the above compliment. The complexity of the cell, of which you have given us so many examples, should make even the most hardened atheist question his/her faith in chance as its creator.

DAVID: Ah, full agreement.

dhw: We agnostics tend to maintain a balanced view. We do not have fixed views that force us to minimize the importance of arguments that might cast a doubt on those views. However, to keep the balance, we agnostics must also acknowledge that one set of fixed views must be closer to the truth than the other, and we should respect the different faiths (in some sort of God, or in the creative powers of chance) even if we cannot share them.

Yes, a finely tuned balance om the picket fence. I'm sure when you fall off you immediately bounce back on.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 12:25 (128 days ago) @ David Turell

POSSUMS
DAVID: Wow: possums talk!!! My point is exactly about communication, and possums don't speak. It must be spread by exact example. Thank you for an obvious non-answer.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. All life forms have means of communication – how else could they survive? By coincidence, an article in yesterday’s Times: “Whales schooled one another in how to avoid harpoons”. The researchers concluded that “whales learnt new behaviours…that must have been rapidly shared….It does suggest that there is a capacity for social learning on a much larger scale than anticipated…” You have presented us with hundreds of examples of communication, even between cells, and yet you still seem to think that communication is confined to humans.

DAVID: Don't you recognize your non-answer? The whales demonstrated to teach. Fine. Now tell us how the possums did it with the timing issue risk of dying?

dhw: The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

Giraffes
DAVID: […] How did a naturally occurring chance set of mutations find the perfect gene? It is much easier for me to propose the designer did it.

dhw: Alternatively (theistic version), your God gave cell communities the intelligence to cooperate in changing structures. The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory.

DAVID: It does.

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

dhw: I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

DAVID: Your theories do seem logical in some circumstances, especially as your humanized God acts.

You have never yet come up with a single flaw in the logic of my theories, which is why you go on desperately trying to avoid the implications of your own acknowledgement that your God possibly (and earlier it was probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. You even repeated this just over a month ago: “His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires”. I would certainly agree that he is unlikely to have human desires for sex, money, chocolate etc, but you later wrote: “He seems to me to be full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creation themselves”. I can well imagine him desiring to create, and have no idea why even though you are certain that he has that desire, he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he had the desire to create.

Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 21, 2021, 15:25 (128 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

dhw: The whales actually used various methods, including long-distance “clicks”, “communicating danger within the social group”, groups meeting and then dispersing….but that is not the point. What is this “timing issue risk of dying”? Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer.


Giraffes

dhw: Thank you. It is always heartening to have you agreeing that my theory fits in with the facts!

DAVID: Sorry, in my short reply I didn't agree with your whole theory, but with the sole fact that "The process of “pleiotropy” fits in very neatly with this theory."

dhw: I was only welcoming your acknowledgement that my theory fits in with the facts. All I ever ask is for you to acknowledge the logic and feasibility of the explanations I propose as alternatives to your own theories.

DAVID: Your theories do seem logical in some circumstances, especially as your humanized God acts.

dhw: You have never yet come up with a single flaw in the logic of my theories, which is why you go on desperately trying to avoid the implications of your own acknowledgement that your God possibly (and earlier it was probably) has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. You even repeated this just over a month ago: “His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give Him human desires”. I would certainly agree that he is unlikely to have human desires for sex, money, chocolate etc, but you later wrote: “He seems to me to be full of purposeful activity to create what he desires to create with no other motive than the creation themselves”. I can well imagine him desiring to create, and have no idea why even though you are certain that he has that desire, he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he had the desire to create.

I'm glad you alone have the ability to find my old quotes so easily. Your logic has no flaw once you have established primarily how human God seems to be to you. I start with a totally different image of my God and I'm also fully logical following that established image. I can't allow you to change my image of God or challenge my logic. Please try to remember we have no common ground when it comes to thinking abut God's personality.


Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations?

Still obsessed with human specialness. How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 22, 2021, 12:20 (127 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
dhw: Pete started it. The little genius lay there till the coast was clear (maybe he opened his left eye and peeped to see if the eagle had flown away), and told his family and mates, who passed it on to their family and mates, and it was passed on to generation after generation, just as all organisms pass on information concerning strategies and lifestyles and most of the natural wonders you tell us about. Why are you suddenly convinced that our fellow creatures are incapable of communication? This is “large organisms chauvinism” run riot.

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

DAVID: A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer.

I don’t see how the ability of animals to communicate constitutes a non-answer, but I’m quite happy to include demonstration as a means of communication. We use it ourselves. What’s the problem? We know that modern possums perform the trick, though we have no idea how long or how many dead possums it took for the modern possum to make it a set piece in the great struggle for survival. Why does this have to mean that your God preprogrammed the first cells with possums and with their play-dead strategy, or that he popped in to give possums play-dead instructions which presumably they would have passed on just as my possums did?

Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations? [David's bold]

DAVID: Still obsessed with human specialness.

That is your obsession. My comment merely highlights your insistence that every life form, lifestyle, strategy etc. is/was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

How? Please answer my bolded questions. And yes, you may be surprised to hear that migrating birds do indeed find their way back, year after year. And they give birth to new generations, and no doubt teach them the route and the stopping places and how to find food on the way. As to the details of how our fellow organisms communicate, you are asking me to write a book! You know as well as I do that they communicate at all levels, using their voices (didn’t you know that birds had voices and their different calls are known to have different meanings?), bodies, gestures, chemicals, smells etc.

Spider hearing and net slinging

DAVID: The same old problem, how did this behaviour evolve? It is a neat trick. The prey sneaks up in back not realizing the spider hears them. I believe God gave them the trick and dhw will claim one of them figured it out and 'told' the others, when like the possum it requires demonstrations to the species of the nets construction and the special backward thrust at the right moment to create the right technique. At the human level we coach to teach others. Do spiders?

It seems that this particular trick is performed in Florida. Nobody knows how this behaviour originated, though why your God should have popped into Florida and given courses in net slinging to whole groups of spiders when all he ever wanted to do was design H. sapiens and his food supply, is beyond my understanding. However, I really don’t have a problem with your proposal that the inventor demonstrated it and it got passed on by others who also demonstrated it. Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 22, 2021, 16:37 (127 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

DAVID: A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer.

dhw: I don’t see how the ability of animals to communicate constitutes a non-answer, but I’m quite happy to include demonstration as a means of communication... Why does this have to mean that your God preprogrammed the first cells with possums and with their play-dead strategy, or that he popped in to give possums play-dead instructions which presumably they would have passed on just as my possums did?

You have answered the point that the way the possum-playing is taught must by demonstration.


Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: The full article is not fully on line, so I cannot copy some of the other journeys described, but the problem for me remains, how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: Thank you for more truly amazing wonders. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? If they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations? [David's bold]

DAVID: Still obsessed with human specialness.

dhw: That is your obsession. My comment merely highlights your insistence that every life form, lifestyle, strategy etc. is/was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

And we are improbably here, not explained at all by Darwin theory of survival.


DAVID: How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

dhw: How? Please answer my bolded questions.

Usual answer. God designs. Bird migration has to be demonstrated by first bird to others if he survives. God has all birds of a species do it.

Spider hearing and net slinging

DAVID: The same old problem, how did this behaviour evolve? It is a neat trick. The prey sneaks up in back not realizing the spider hears them. I believe God gave them the trick and dhw will claim one of them figured it out and 'told' the others, when like the possum it requires demonstrations to the species of the nets construction and the special backward thrust at the right moment to create the right technique. At the human level we coach to teach others. Do spiders?

dhw: It seems that this particular trick is performed in Florida. Nobody knows how this behaviour originated, though why your God should have popped into Florida and given courses in net slinging to whole groups of spiders when all he ever wanted to do was design H. sapiens and his food supply, is beyond my understanding. However, I really don’t have a problem with your proposal that the inventor demonstrated it and it got passed on by others who also demonstrated it. Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

Finally, yes demonstration is required if speech doesn't exist. Apply to possums.

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 11:53 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: You continue, quite absurdly, to deny that our fellow animals communicate. Do you honestly think I meant that Pete used human language?

DAVID: A non-answer. Obviously possums must demonstrate what they do to fool predators. Please answer. […]

I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: […] how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: […]. I would suggest that the first birds to do it would have been trying to escape from inhospitable conditions. Of course they wouldn’t have known where they were heading. But eventually they found a suitable place, and the information was passed on to other birds and later generations. I reckon if your God had planned anything, he’d have directed them to somewhere closer, but if that is indeed where he told the first birds to go, what happened later? bbbIf they were incapable of passing on the information, is he still giving them all instructions, or are you saying that in order to design humans, he had to insert a flight schedule and route map into the genes of every individual migrating bird to be passed on to subsequent generations? [David's bold] […]

DAVID: […] How was the information for a 7,000 miles flight told to the other birds back home, if the first bird found his way back somehow? Flapping his wings in code? Your usual suppositions with a usual non-answer result. God implants these instincts.

dhw: How? Please answer my bolded questions.

DAVID: Usual answer. God designs. Bird migration has to be demonstrated by first bird to others if he survives. God has all birds of a species do it.

You asked how birds learned to migrate, and concluded “I would offer God’s instructions”. My proposal for all these wonders is that once they had been initiated (whether by luck or skill), the respective organisms were able to communicate the strategy to others of their species. Now all of a sudden you have fixed on one mode of communication – demonstration - as if somehow that negated birds’ ability to teach their young! You apply the same weird comment to spider nets:

dhw: Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

DAVID: Finally, yes demonstration is required if speech doesn't exist. Apply to possums.

Of course they use demonstration. Our fellow animals also use other forms of communication, including sounds. The point here is you now agree that once the first wonder has been performed – whether through intelligence, luck, new discovery, experimentation etc. – the information will be passed on. So why does your God have to preprogramme the wonders, or give instructions?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, 18:06 (126 days ago) @ dhw

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher wo has to time it just right..


Bird migration
QUOTE: "Many birds routinely migrate across half the globe or more. Godwits, for instance, can fly up to 7,200 miles nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand."

DAVID: […] how do birds learn how to do this? The first bird to try any of this had no idea of his destination if nature is the only source of guidance. I would offer God's instructions.

dhw: You asked how birds learned to migrate, and concluded “I would offer God’s instructions”. My proposal for all these wonders is that once they had been initiated (whether by luck or skill), the respective organisms were able to communicate the strategy to others of their species. Now all of a sudden you have fixed on one mode of communication – demonstration - as if somehow that negated birds’ ability to teach their young! You apply the same weird comment to spider nets:

dhw: Demonstration is just one of many forms of communication used by us and our fellow organisms. Spiders have offspring, you know, and they’ve been around for well over 300 million years, so who knows how many other tricks they might have invented and passed on?

DAVID: Finally, yes demonstration is required if speech doesn't exist. Apply to possums.

dhw: Of course they use demonstration. Our fellow animals also use other forms of communication, including sounds. The point here is you now agree that once the first wonder has been performed – whether through intelligence, luck, new discovery, experimentation etc. – the information will be passed on. So why does your God have to preprogramme the wonders, or give instructions?

A very poor answer. Just what info do animal sounds really convey? We have sounds of alarm, attention, bird mating calls, pheromones' scents, but instructional sounds? Language helps us. God provides instincts.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 09:05 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

DAVID: Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher wo has to time it just right..

This is getting really silly. When Pete the possum played dead and survived, do you honestly think he then asked the family to come and watch (perhaps even leaving themselves exposed), while the next eagle circled the sky above? We don’t know exactly how our fellow creatures pass on information – we only know that they do, through methods that include demonstration, sounds, gestures, chemicals etc. We don’t speak their “languages”. But I really wonder how many of your fellow ID-ers believe that animals are incapable of devising and disseminating their strategies of survival, and that God must have preprogrammed possums and the play-dead trick 3.8 billion years ago, or that he gave possums courses in how to play dead and has gone on doing so because they are incapable of passing the information on to others. But do please tell us how else you think your God might get the message to all possums. (The rest of this section deals with the same subject, so I’ll move on.)

Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, 17:36 (125 days ago) @ dhw

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

DAVID: Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher wo has to time it just right..

dhw: This is getting really silly. When Pete the possum played dead and survived, do you honestly think he then asked the family to come and watch (perhaps even leaving themselves exposed), while the next eagle circled the sky above? We don’t know exactly how our fellow creatures pass on information – we only know that they do, through methods that include demonstration, sounds, gestures, chemicals etc. We don’t speak their “languages”. But I really wonder how many of your fellow ID-ers believe that animals are incapable of devising and disseminating their strategies of survival, and that God must have preprogrammed possums and the play-dead trick 3.8 billion years ago, or that he gave possums courses in how to play dead and has gone on doing so because they are incapable of passing the information on to others. But do please tell us how else you think your God might get the message to all possums. (The rest of this section deals with the same subject, so I’ll move on.)

I'm seriously putting myself in the possum's position and my questions are entirely valid. Did the possums do it naturally to create the instinct? Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.


Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

dhw: My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

My God designed the penguin changes including the new biochemistry of hemoglobin.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, March 25, 2021, 12:38 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: The bold still has possums talking. Dead possum trick still has to be taught by demonstration.

dhw: I’m quite happy to include demonstration as one means of communication whereby the trick eventually became standard practice. So why do you think your God had to preprogramme the trick or teach it?

DAVID: Individual demonstration takes time and is dangerous to the teacher who has to time it just right..

dhw: This is getting really silly. When Pete the possum played dead and survived, do you honestly think he then asked the family to come and watch (perhaps even leaving themselves exposed), while the next eagle circled the sky above? We don’t know exactly how our fellow creatures pass on information – we only know that they do, through methods that include demonstration, sounds, gestures, chemicals etc. We don’t speak their “languages”. […] But do please tell us how else you think your God might get the message to all possums.

DAVID: I'm seriously putting myself in the possum's position and my questions are entirely valid. Did the possums do it naturally to create the instinct? Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.

Of course I assume communication. How else can information be passed on? And I assume the strategy came about "naturally", i.e. through the luck or skill of possums themselves. “God arranged the instinct” is no answer to my question! You have given us two possibilities in the past: a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme to be passed on for possums and for the strategy of playing dead, or direct intervention (we have called it dabbling), which must somehow entail direct communication with all possums. What sort of communication would that be? Please answer.

Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

dhw: My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

DAVID: My God designed the penguin changes including the new biochemistry of hemoglobin.

And do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water, or could they have developed their web feet after they had taken to the water?

Introducing the brain
Quote: “He pricked volunteers’ fingers and measured the nerve impulses from the finger to the brain and timed everything. Libet found that it took about a half second for any electrical activity to register in the brain after the finger prick. But the volunteer reported feeling the finger prick the moment it happened. In other words, the volunteers felt the prick a half second before the brain showed any activity corresponding to it.

Frankly, I don’t know how any normal person would feel the difference between “immediately” and after half a second. And if it takes half a second for the pain to travel from finger to brain, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with the “soul”, whether that exists or not.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis.

I’m sorry to say this, but what you have just said would provide the death knell to most of your own theories. And so I will leap to your defence: I do not for one moment accept any claim that science can or one day will be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But that needn’t stop scientists or theologians from “pursuing fantasies”, so long as they don’t claim their imaginings are based on science. And who knows - one of the many fantasies may be the truth.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 25, 2021, 18:52 (124 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: I'm seriously putting myself in the possum's position and my questions are entirely valid. Did the possums do it naturally to create the instinct? Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.

Of course I assume communication. How else can information be passed on? And I assume the strategy came about "naturally", i.e. through the luck or skill of possums themselves. “God arranged the instinct” is no answer to my question! You have given us two possibilities in the past: a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme to be passed on for possums and for the strategy of playing dead, or direct intervention (we have called it dabbling), which must somehow entail direct communication with all possums. What sort of communication would that be? Please answer.

I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.


Penguins
DAVID: When penguins took to water for food, they had to develop webbed feet and other characteristics. My thought is God helped with these designs.

dhw: My thought is that just like the whales, when penguins took to water, the cell communities used their perhaps God-given intelligence to cooperate in restructuring parts of the body. I’m delighted to see that you think they “had to develop webbed feet” etc. Very different from your theory that your God operated on pre-whale legs to turn them into flippers BEFORE the pre-whale entered the water.

DAVID: My God designed the penguin changes including the new biochemistry of hemoglobin.

dhw: And do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water, or could they have developed their web feet after they had taken to the water?

I haven't changed. God designs adaptations for major environmental requirements in an new form of living style such as birds getting into ocean water and mammals into far ranging ocean travels


Introducing the brain
Quote: “He pricked volunteers’ fingers and measured the nerve impulses from the finger to the brain and timed everything. Libet found that it took about a half second for any electrical activity to register in the brain after the finger prick. But the volunteer reported feeling the finger prick the moment it happened. In other words, the volunteers felt the prick a half second before the brain showed any activity corresponding to it.

dhw: Frankly, I don’t know how any normal person would feel the difference between “immediately” and after half a second. And if it takes half a second for the pain to travel from finger to brain, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with the “soul”, whether that exists or not.

You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected. Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain. When I prick a finger the pain seems instantaneous to me with no noticeable brief delay. Libet's finding surprised me, but thinking of the axon transmission times I know the time required is not instantaneous, like it would seem over electric wires. I accept that Egnor has a definite point, and no surprise your mind is closed.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis.

dhw: I’m sorry to say this, but what you have just said would provide the death knell to most of your own theories. And so I will leap to your defence: I do not for one moment accept any claim that science can or one day will be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But that needn’t stop scientists or theologians from “pursuing fantasies”, so long as they don’t claim their imaginings are based on science. And who knows - one of the many fantasies may be the truth.

Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, March 26, 2021, 12:53 (123 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: Your hopeful answer is not an answer but filled with suppositions that assume some sort of communication. I think God arranged the instinct, as the weaver bird nest.

dhw: Of course I assume communication. How else can information be passed on? “God arranged the instinct” is no answer to my question! You have given us two possibilities in the past: a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme to be passed on for possums and for the strategy of playing dead, or direct intervention (we have called it dabbling), which must somehow entail direct communication with all possums. What sort of communication would that be? Please answer.

DAVID: I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.

So when I suggest that organisms communicate by demonstration, gestures, sounds, chemicals, it doesn’t count as an answer, whereas your God “somehow” preprogramming or dabbling or instructing is an answer you can accept and stick with.

Penguins
dhw: And do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water, or could they have developed their web feet after they had taken to the water?

DAVID: I haven't changed. God designs adaptations for major environmental requirements in an new form of living style such as birds getting into ocean water and mammals into far ranging ocean travels.

So do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water? And how do you think he “designed” migration and passed the information to every migrating bird for the rest of their time on Earth?

Introducing the brain
QUOTE: “He pricked volunteers’ fingers and measured the nerve impulses from the finger to the brain and timed everything. Libet found that it took about a half second for any electrical activity to register in the brain after the finger prick. But the volunteer reported feeling the finger prick the moment it happened. In other words, the volunteers felt the prick a half second before the brain showed any activity corresponding to it.

dhw: Frankly, I don’t know how any normal person would feel the difference between “immediately” and after half a second. And if it takes half a second for the pain to travel from finger to brain, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with the “soul”, whether that exists or not.

DAVID: You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected.

No I’m not. I’m simply asking what the half-second “gap” has to do with the soul.

DAVID: Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain.

Not in the least. I can completely understand why the sensation of pain might take half a second to travel from the finger to the brain and why people should actually think half a second = immediately.

DAVID: […] I accept that Egnor has a definite point, and no surprise your mind is closed.

My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like the multiverse string theory that has no physical basis.

dhw: I’m sorry to say this, but what you have just said would provide the death knell to most of your own theories. And so I will leap to your defence: I do not for one moment accept any claim that science can or one day will be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But that needn’t stop scientists or theologians from “pursuing fantasies”, so long as they don’t claim their imaginings are based on science. And who knows - one of the many fantasies may be the truth.

DAVID: Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

You refuse to be saved!!! God is an unprovable conjecture. We need to leave this Earth to prove any of it, and even then it can only be proved if we do not die when we die. So should we stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof? If so, farewell to the AgnosticWeb….:-(

Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

DAVID: As the complexity is explored at sub-microscopic levels the evidence for a required designer grows.

As always, I accept your logic as a powerful response to atheism. I wish we had a committed resident atheist contributing to the forum, as happily you are here to defend the case for God against my scepticism, but in the context of complexity and design, I cannot in turn provide a defence for atheism.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, March 26, 2021, 15:11 (123 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.

dhw: So when I suggest that organisms communicate by demonstration, gestures, sounds, chemicals, it doesn’t count as an answer, whereas your God “somehow” preprogramming or dabbling or instructing is an answer you can accept and stick with.

Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.


Penguins

dhw: So do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water? And how do you think he “designed” migration and passed the information to every migrating bird for the rest of their time on Earth?

God speciates to anticipate use for new needs


Introducing the brain

DAVID: You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected.

No I’m not. I’m simply asking what the half-second “gap” has to do with the soul.

DAVID: Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain.

dhw: Not in the least. I can completely understand why the sensation of pain might take half a second to travel from the finger to the brain and why people should actually think half a second = immediately.

For me the pinprick is instantaneous. Libet's subjects thought so also which created the gap in time.

dhw: My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

Egnor did. The soul recognizes the immediate pain.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: We should stick to solid realistic research, rather than pursuing fantasies like

DAVID: Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

dhw: You refuse to be saved!!! God is an unprovable conjecture. We need to leave this Earth to prove any of it, and even then it can only be proved if we do not die when we die. So should we stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof? If so, farewell to the AgnosticWeb….:-(

I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)


Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

dhw: This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

And who built in the flexibility? Natural chance?


DAVID: As the complexity is explored at sub-microscopic levels the evidence for a required designer grows.

dhw: As always, I accept your logic as a powerful response to atheism. I wish we had a committed resident atheist contributing to the forum, as happily you are here to defend the case for God against my scepticism, but in the context of complexity and design, I cannot in turn provide a defence for atheism.

Fair enough.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, March 27, 2021, 11:59 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: I can't answer the natural communication question, nor can you or did you. I'll stick with God pre-programming or dabbling or somehow instructing or designing origin of instincts.

dhw: So when I suggest that organisms communicate by demonstration, gestures, sounds, chemicals, it doesn’t count as an answer, whereas your God “somehow” preprogramming or dabbling or instructing is an answer you can accept and stick with.

DAVID: Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.

May I humbly suggest that the possum himself does not know how long it will take, and if he has one grain of sense, he will very cautiously open one eye and very cautiously look around and very cautiously adjust his position until he is sure that the coast is clear, and then run like mad for safety. Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

Penguins
dhw: So do you think he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water? And how do you think he “designed” migration and passed the information to every migrating bird for the rest of their time on Earth?

DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: You are disagreeing with Egnor as I expected.

dhw: No I’m not. I’m simply asking what the half-second “gap” has to do with the soul.

DAVID: Aren't you surprised at Libet's discovery of the time delay by the brain.

dhw: Not in the least. I can completely understand why the sensation of pain might take half a second to travel from the finger to the brain and why people should actually think half a second = immediately.

DAVID: For me the pinprick is instantaneous. Libet's subjects thought so also which created the gap in time.

So what has that got to do with the soul?

dhw: My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

DAVID: Egnor did. The soul recognizes the immediate pain.

How does a half-second gap (which unsurprisingly feels like “immediate”) between finger prick and brain awareness prove the existence of a soul? I simply cannot understand the relevance of Libet’s experiment to the existence or non-existence of the soul. In fact Egnor’s article is on the subject of transplants, which raise all kinds of interesting questions, but as far as I can see, the only conclusion he draws from the gap is that the soul doesn’t live in the brain. But perhaps you could just tell us why you consider Libet’s experiment relevant to the existence of a soul.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism

DAVID: Thanks for saving me!!! String theory has reached no conclusion after 50+ years of frustrating work. It just doesn't work, as Woit and Smolin's books show. Multiverse is an unproveable conjecture. We need to leave this universe to prove any of it. We should stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof.

dhw: You refuse to be saved!!! God is an unprovable conjecture. We need to leave this Earth to prove any of it, and even then it can only be proved if we do not die when we die. So should we stick with thoughts/theories that allow a proof? If so, farewell to the AgnosticWeb…. :-(

DAVID: I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)

Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.

Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

dhw: This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

DAVID: And who built in the flexibility? Natural chance?

How often do you want me to repeat that your God may have designed the intelligent cell? But I’m delighted that you have no objection to the theory that the cells themselves can produce innovations (“new functions”) when required.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 27, 2021, 18:00 (122 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

DAVID: Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that the possum himself does not know how long it will take, and if he has one grain of sense, he will very cautiously open one eye and very cautiously look around and very cautiously adjust his position until he is sure that the coast is clear, and then run like mad for safety. Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

Then the eye-opening gambit must be communicated. How?


Penguins

DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

dhw: So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

Change in genome coding.


Introducing the brain

dhw: My mind is not closed to the concept of a soul. I just don’t understand its relevance to a half-second gap for the feeling of pain to get from finger to brain. Please explain.

DAVID: Egnor did. The soul recognizes the immediate pain.

dhw: How does a half-second gap (which unsurprisingly feels like “immediate”) between finger prick and brain awareness prove the existence of a soul? I simply cannot understand the relevance of Libet’s experiment to the existence or non-existence of the soul...as far as I can see, the only conclusion he draws from the gap is that the soul doesn’t live in the brain. But perhaps you could just tell us why you consider Libet’s experiment relevant to the existence of a soul.

The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism

DAVID: I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)

dhw: Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.

Agreed, but in this world from NDE evidence


Cell division controls of mitochondria
QUOTE: Certain types of cell divide asymmetrically and generate daughter cells with different fates.

dhw: This generally is how I envisage the basis of adaptation and innovation and also brain expansion. When necessary, cells reproduce themselves without change, but there is a built-in flexibility that enables them to produce cells that can serve new functions as and when required.

DAVID: And who built in the flexibility? Natural chance?

dhw: How often do you want me to repeat that your God may have designed the intelligent cell? But I’m delighted that you have no objection to the theory that the cells themselves can produce innovations (“new functions”) when required.

We both strictly agree organisms can make minor adaptations by epigenetics of DNA in those cells required to make the change. God provided the system of methylation.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, March 28, 2021, 09:02 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums
DAVID: Your 'communication' never explains how complex concepts like length of possum playing time is determined.

dhw: May I humbly suggest that the possum himself does not know how long it will take, and if he has one grain of sense, he will very cautiously open one eye and very cautiously look around and very cautiously adjust his position until he is sure that the coast is clear, and then run like mad for safety. Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

DAVID: Then the eye-opening gambit must be communicated. How?

I strongly suspect that all our fellow animals learn very early on to use their eyes to see if there is anything dangerous around. It’s not a “gambit”. I note that you have not responded to my now bolded request.

Penguins
DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

dhw: So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

DAVID: Change in genome coding.

Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

Introducing the brain
dhw: How does a half-second gap (which unsurprisingly feels like “immediate”) between finger prick and brain awareness prove the existence of a soul? I simply cannot understand the relevance of Libet’s experiment to the existence or non-existence of the soul...

DAVID: The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.

Egnor wrote: But then we must drop the implicit belief that the soul “lives” in the brain (somewhere near the pineal gland, according to another philosopher, René Descartes). The soul lives where we live, where we act.
I suspect that you have no more idea than I have why Egnor tried to link Libet’s experiment with the soul.

Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism
DAVID: I know God cannot be fully proved, as you are evidence, but strongly inferred from evidence, all of which confuses you, as you recognize evidence from obvious design. :-)

dhw: Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.:-(

DAVID: Agreed, but in this world from NDE evidence.

I thought NDE evidence suggested that the soul entered a different world. Anyway, we’re still stuck with the fact that the God theory is no more provable than the multiverse theory, so I cordially invite you to go on discussing our conjectures even though all of them are unprovable. ;-)

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Undoubtedly more of this type of transfer will be found, and virus is the best guess as the agent. Horizontal gene transfer is shown again to be a driver of evolutionary change. This may be another answer/reason to why viruses are present at all?

It may indeed. And if so, I think it will become harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy if you argue that your God deliberately designed viruses to be the drivers of both good and bad evolutionary change (unless you think diseases like Covid-19 will turn out to be good for us – especially for those who have died.) If he exists and designed viruses, the different consequences of their behaviour would fit in far more easily with a free-for-all than with the tight control you always insist is exercised by a God who cares enough to try and correct the errors caused by his system.

ID explained
DAVID: ID simply accepts that obvious design in life forms indicates a designer at work. Many will admit in public writings it reinforces their belief in God, but they will never use God in their scientific papers on design. When dhw wonders if ID'ers support my theories, the answer is obviously no. I use their theories and plug God in. I am not limited by their self-imposed restraints about references to God as the designer. They refer to the need for a designing mind. I just give it a name.

I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 28, 2021, 16:20 (121 days ago) @ dhw

Possums

dhw: [Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.[/i]

DAVID: Then the eye-opening gambit must be communicated. How?

dhw: I strongly suspect that all our fellow animals learn very early on to use their eyes to see if there is anything dangerous around. It’s not a “gambit”. I note that you have not responded to my now bolded request.

God coded the instinct into possum DNA


Penguins
DAVID: God speciates to anticipate use for new needs.

dhw: So he operated on penguin feet before they entered the water. And how about his methods of passing information to every possum and every migrating bird?

DAVID: Change in genome coding.

dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

Either or, is all I can state.


Introducing the brain

DAVID: The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.

Egnor wrote: But then we must drop the implicit belief that the soul “lives” in the brain (somewhere near the pineal gland, according to another philosopher, René Descartes). The soul lives where we live, where we act.

dhw: I suspect that you have no more idea than I have why Egnor tried to link Libet’s experiment with the soul.

I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.


Philosophy of science dead? Realism vs. empiricism

dhw: Sorry, but if something can’t be “fully proved”, it can’t be proved. God is an unprovable conjecture, and we’d need to leave this world to prove his existence.:-(

DAVID: Agreed, but in this world from NDE evidence.

dhw: I thought NDE evidence suggested that the soul entered a different world. Anyway, we’re still stuck with the fact that the God theory is no more provable than the multiverse theory, so I cordially invite you to go on discussing our conjectures even though all of them are unprovable. ;-)

Fine.


Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Undoubtedly more of this type of transfer will be found, and virus is the best guess as the agent. Horizontal gene transfer is shown again to be a driver of evolutionary change. This may be another answer/reason to why viruses are present at all?

dhw: It may indeed. And if so, I think it will become harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy if you argue that your God deliberately designed viruses to be the drivers of both good and bad evolutionary change. If he exists and designed viruses, the different consequences of their behaviour would fit in far more easily with a free-for-all than with the tight control you always insist is exercised by a God who cares enough to try and correct the errors caused by his system.

Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.


ID explained
DAVID: ID simply accepts that obvious design in life forms indicates a designer at work. Many will admit in public writings it reinforces their belief in God, but they will never use God in their scientific papers on design. When dhw wonders if ID'ers support my theories, the answer is obviously no. I use their theories and plug God in. I am not limited by their self-imposed restraints about references to God as the designer. They refer to the need for a designing mind. I just give it a name.

dhw: I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

You know, full well, all ID-ers do is claim a designer creates life and evolving species. Repeat your irrational complaint all you wish.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, March 29, 2021, 14:16 (120 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and penguins

dhw: Now please tell us how you think your God informs every possum about the length of time needed to play dead.

DAVID: God coded the instinct into possum DNA

dhw: And how about his methods of passing information to […] every migrating bird?

DAVID: Change in genome coding.

dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

DAVID: Either or, is all I can state.

That does not tell us “how”.

Introducing the brain
DAVID: The soul attached to the brain is doing the immediate feeling, per Egnor.

dhw: Egnor wrote: But then we must drop the implicit belief that the soul “lives” in the brain (somewhere near the pineal gland, according to another philosopher, René Descartes). The soul lives where we live, where we act.
dhw: I suspect that you have no more idea than I have why Egnor tried to link Libet’s experiment with the soul.

DAVID: I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.

So you and Egnor believe in the existence of a soul, and the soul feels the physical pain immediately, while the brain feels it half a second later. Someone who doesn’t believe in a soul will suggest that the brain feels the pain half a second after the finger has been pricked. Please tell me what Egnor is trying to prove with this. Or just drop the subject.

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Undoubtedly more of this type of transfer will be found, and virus is the best guess as the agent. Horizontal gene transfer is shown again to be a driver of evolutionary change. This may be another answer/reason to why viruses are present at all?

dhw: It may indeed. And if so, I think it will become harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy if you argue that your God deliberately designed viruses to be the drivers of both good and bad evolutionary change. If he exists and designed viruses, the different consequences of their behaviour would fit in far more easily with a free-for-all than with the tight control you always insist is exercised by a God who cares enough to try and correct the errors caused by his system.

DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

ID explained

dhw: I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

DAVID: You know, full well, all ID-ers do is claim a designer creates life and evolving species. Repeat your irrational complaint all you wish.

I do know that full well, and I simply wonder if there is ANYONE apart from you who believes in the bolded theory. So far you have agreed that neither ID-ers nor even Adler support it.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, March 29, 2021, 18:52 (120 days ago) @ dhw

Possums and penguins

dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

DAVID: Either or, is all I can state.

dhw: That does not tell us “how”.

Coded in DNA/whole genome as before


Introducing the brain

DAVID: I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.

dhw: So you and Egnor believe in the existence of a soul, and the soul feels the physical pain immediately, while the brain feels it half a second later. Someone who doesn’t believe in a soul will suggest that the brain feels the pain half a second after the finger has been pricked. Please tell me what Egnor is trying to prove with this. Or just drop the subject.

The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.


Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest

DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

dhw: Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.


ID explained

dhw: I have never had a quarrel with the argument for intelligent design, and my objection to your theories has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God (concerning which I remain open-minded) but with the illogicality of your combined premises: that your God’s only purpose was to design humans, but evolution means he directly designed every life form etc, and all of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.I sincerely wonder if you will ever find any support among ID-ers or indeed among any believers for this combination of premises.

DAVID: You know, full well, all ID-ers do is claim a designer creates life and evolving species. Repeat your irrational complaint all you wish.

dhw: I do know that full well, and I simply wonder if there is ANYONE apart from you who believes in the bolded theory. So far you have agreed that neither ID-ers nor even Adler support it.

My thoughts are my thoughts expressed in two books. I don't run a religion and have n o known followers. Do you have some to support agnosticism?

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 14:24 (119 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and penguins
dhw: Since you ask me to explain how my theories work, let me in turn ask you how and when - i.e. 3.8 billion years ago, or with a dabble when he saw his creatures were in trouble - you think he inserted new play-dead genome codes into the first possums, and route maps from A to B into the first migrating birds?

DAVID: Either or, is all I can state.

dhw: That does not tell us “how”.

DAVID: Coded in DNA/whole genome as before.

You keep asking me how the possum communicates his trick to other possums, so I’m asking how your God codes the genome. Do you think he inserted a possum-play-dead programme into the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to perform an operation on the genome of a group of possums?

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I've answered above, the soul working with/through the brain.

dhw: So you and Egnor believe in the existence of a soul, and the soul feels the physical pain immediately, while the brain feels it half a second later. Someone who doesn’t believe in a soul will suggest that the brain feels the pain half a second after the finger has been pricked. Please tell me what Egnor is trying to prove with this. Or just drop the subject.

DAVID: The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.

So we must simply take it for granted that we have a soul, and he is merely proving that the soul feels pain immediately, and the brain feels it half a second later. Oh well, let’s leave it at that then.

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

dhw: Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.

Fair enough. Nobody has a “complete explanation” for any of our main subjects of discussion. All we can do is discuss the possibilities. But I must confess, I prefer possibilities that hang together logically to those that either contradict themselves or rely solely on hopes that future research will confirm their inherent preconceptions.


Seeing patterns
DAVID: reproduced in toto. The real point for me is not eye movement but brain interpretation. Our brain is built to help us see patterns and somewhat ancient sapiens did just that. I would assume with complex language development our forebears began naming star groupings.

I’d have thought that by now it was common knowledge that our perceptions and interpretations of just about everything entail a process of joining up the dots into “Gestalten”, i.e. patterns. Nothing added here.

Tectonics and environment
QUOTE: "The first eukaryote cells – which today make up every plant, animal and fungi today – evolved at the very beginning of the Boring Billion. Then, around 1.6 billion years ago, plants diverged from animals and fungi and 1.5 billion years ago animals and fungi split.”

It’s an amazing thought that all animal and plant life evolved from cooperation between cells, and that we ourselves are built of the same materials.

DAVID: (under “Plant responses to drought”: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

Please note that yet again we have evolutionary development for the purpose of survival (“to use for their own preservation”). Perhaps this is an example of how, over millions of years, every cell community has intelligently selected and used information gathered by other cell communities in the process that has resulted in the vast diversity of living forms past and present, including humans.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 19:45 (119 days ago) @ dhw

Possums and penguins

dhw: You keep asking me how the possum communicates his trick to other possums, so I’m asking how your God codes the genome. Do you think he inserted a possum-play-dead programme into the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to perform an operation on the genome of a group of possums?

Either way is logical for God to code behavior.


Introducing the brain

DAVID: The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.

dhw: So we must simply take it for granted that we have a soul, and he is merely proving that the soul feels pain immediately, and the brain feels it half a second later. Oh well, let’s leave it at that then.

How else to explain the time delay in the brain?


Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: Your comment does not explain God's many corrective editing mechanisms.

dhw: Your comment does not explain why he deliberately designed bacteria and viruses that would cause untold suffering. Earlier, with regard to the errors caused by the system he designed, you also had him unable to correct some of the errors and leaving it to us clever humans to try and do it. For some reason, he wanted to challenge us! I suggest that your insistence on your God’s deliberate creation of disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and the non-correction of errors, make it harder and harder for you to solve the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.

dhw: Fair enough. Nobody has a “complete explanation” for any of our main subjects of discussion. All we can do is discuss the possibilities. But I must confess, I prefer possibilities that hang together logically to those that either contradict themselves or rely solely on hopes that future research will confirm their inherent preconceptions.

As in the past future research clears up problem issues.


Tectonics and environment
QUOTE: "The first eukaryote cells – which today make up every plant, animal and fungi today – evolved at the very beginning of the Boring Billion. Then, around 1.6 billion years ago, plants diverged from animals and fungi and 1.5 billion years ago animals and fungi split.”

dhw: It’s an amazing thought that all animal and plant life evolved from cooperation between cells, and that we ourselves are built of the same materials.

All developed by design from the designer.


DAVID: (under “Plant responses to drought”: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

dhw: Please note that yet again we have evolutionary development for the purpose of survival (“to use for their own preservation”). Perhaps this is an example of how, over millions of years, every cell community has intelligently selected and used information gathered by other cell communities in the process that has resulted in the vast diversity of living forms past and present, including humans.

Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

Miscellany

by dhw, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 11:52 (119 days ago) @ David Turell

Possums and penguins
dhw: You keep asking me how the possum communicates his trick to other possums, so I’m asking how your God codes the genome. Do you think he inserted a possum-play-dead programme into the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or did he pop in to perform an operation on the genome of a group of possums?

DAVID: Either way is logical for God to code behavior.

Thank you. I can’t help feeling that a far simpler procedure would have been for your God to give an autonomous mechanism to the cell communities of which possums and all other life forms are made, enabling them to work out their own strategies for survival. But of course we can agree to differ on this.

Introducing the brain
DAVID: The soul operates as in the bold is what Egnor feels he proves. You don't have to accept it.

dhw: So we must simply take it for granted that we have a soul, and he is merely proving that the soul feels pain immediately, and the brain feels it half a second later. Oh well, let’s leave it at that then.

DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

Horizontal gene transfer: plant to insect pest
DAVID: I've admitted I have no complete explanation or solution for Theodicy problems. I think future research will solve much of it.

dhw: Fair enough. Nobody has a “complete explanation” for any of our main subjects of discussion. All we can do is discuss the possibilities. But I must confess, I prefer possibilities that hang together logically to those that either contradict themselves or rely solely on hopes that future research will confirm their inherent preconceptions.

DAVID: As in the past future research clears up problem issues.

So do you think we should now stop discussing all these issues?

Tectonics and environment
QUOTE: "The first eukaryote cells – which today make up every plant, animal and fungi today – evolved at the very beginning of the Boring Billion. Then, around 1.6 billion years ago, plants diverged from animals and fungi and 1.5 billion years ago animals and fungi split.”

dhw: It’s an amazing thought that all animal and plant life evolved from cooperation between cells, and that we ourselves are built of the same materials.

DAVID: All developed by design from the designer.

Or all designed by cell communities whose talents for design may have been created by your God.

DAVID: (under “Plant responses to drought”: Animals came on Earth first and plants followed. It looks s if plants borrowed an animal protein controller to use for their own preservation. Perhaps God, the designer, makes His job easier by reusing His designs.

dhw: Please note that yet again we have evolutionary development for the purpose of survival (“to use for their own preservation”). Perhaps this is an example of how, over millions of years, every cell community has intelligently selected and used information gathered by other cell communities in the process that has resulted in the vast diversity of living forms past and present, including humans.

DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

Controls for splitting DNA
DAVID: Obviously there is much more to be learned, and my bold above again points to the problems that can happen as molecules are free to make mistakes. It is obvious there are various forms of control, but never 100% perfect. Certainly a complexly designed system.

If the system was “complexly designed” with the freedom to make mistakes, then maybe it was also designed with the freedom to make beneficial changes to itself.

Engulfing adds function
DAVID: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism.

I’m delighted by your acknowledgement of Lynn Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis. You will of course remember that she was also a champion of cellular intelligence.

Power laws
DAVID: It seems patterns guide evolutionary developments. I said before God likes to use and follow patterns.

It makes perfect sense that if life forms build on the “patterns” of their predecessors, the basic patterns will be preserved. That in fact was the basis of Darwin’s theory of common descent, since organisms displayed common patterns.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 18:48 (118 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?


Engulfing adds function
DAVID: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism.

dhw: I’m delighted by your acknowledgement of Lynn Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis. You will of course remember that she was also a champion of cellular intelligence.

I'm quite convinced about Margolis' theory.


Power laws
DAVID: It seems patterns guide evolutionary developments. I said before God likes to use and follow patterns.

dhw: It makes perfect sense that if life forms build on the “patterns” of their predecessors, the basic patterns will be preserved. That in fact was the basis of Darwin’s theory of common descent, since organisms displayed common patterns.

That is Darwin theory I readily accept.

Miscellany

by dhw, Thursday, April 01, 2021, 12:03 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

DAVID: Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

DAVID: Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?

You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions. According to you, 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed every change in the DNA, or he popped in whenever necessary to perform operations on all the creatures affected. I propose that if he exists, he gave cells the powers to change their DNA themselves.

Engulfing adds function
DAVID: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism.

dhw: I’m delighted by your acknowledgement of Lynn Margulis’s theory of endosymbiosis. You will of course remember that she was also a champion of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: I'm quite convinced about Margolis' theory.

I presume you mean the theory of endosymbiosis. But I hope you will also respect Margulis's theory about cellular intelligence.

Nasty butterflies
QUOTES: Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.
"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.”

DAVID: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in.

But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 01, 2021, 17:59 (117 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain
DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

DAVID: Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

dhw: Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

Egnor fudges his knowledge of neurology? You are only sniping. :-(


Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

DAVID: Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?

dhw: You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions.

You always struggle with the concept of information. The DNA code offers information at all times to control organisms actions. With new environment the genome receives sensory new information and the must develop new instructional information for the organism to respond with the proper adaptation. Please recognize the different forms of information required.

Nasty butterflies
QUOTES: Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.
"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.”

DAVID: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in.

dhw: But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

Miscellany

by dhw, Friday, April 02, 2021, 14:25 (116 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: How else to explain the time delay in the brain?

dhw: The tiny time delay (half a second) might just possibly be explained by the fact that the sensation of pain has to travel from the finger to the brain, but the tiny time delay is so tiny that most people would think the sensation was immediate.

DAVID: Funny the trained neurosurgeon didn't understand that!

dhw: Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

DAVID: Egnor fudges his knowledge of neurology? You are only sniping. :-(

There is no fudging of His knowledge of neurology. He simply takes the existence of a soul for granted, and tries to use the half-second gap to show us how the soul works. You asked how else one could explain the time delay of half a second, and I told you. Please tell me why you reject my explanation.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Using information that exists runs the process of living, and new forms are based on new information. The issue the source of the new information, more complex than the old info. I choose God.

dhw: The source of new information would seem to be changes in living conditions which either demand or allow changes in behaviour and/or the anatomy. Plants would not need to develop responses to drought if there was no drought.

DAVID: Living condition changes represent new external information. I'm discussing the source of new internal DNA information to handle the changes. Why dodge the point?

dhw: You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions.

DAVID: You always struggle with the concept of information. The DNA code offers information at all times to control organisms actions. With new environment the genome receives sensory new information and the must develop new instructional information for the organism to respond with the proper adaptation. Please recognize the different forms of information required.

I find its double use confusing and totally unnecessary. Information itself is passive. It achieves nothing. It has to be used. The cells process information from the new environment and work out what changes they need to make in order to adapt. What could be clearer? You believe your God planted instructions which cells automatically switched on. Why do you have to call them “instructional information”?

Nasty butterflies
QUOTES: Take this zebra longwing, Heliconius charithonia. It looks innocent enough.
"But it’s also famously poisonous, and its caterpillars are cannibals that eat their siblings. And that’s hardly shocking compared with its propensity for something called pupal rape.”

DAVID: Who knew? All part of the ecosystems they are in.

dhw: But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

DAVID: God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

Yes, indeed. All the organisms find their own ways of obtaining food, and all their strategies for eating and for avoiding being eaten, are part of a purposeful free-for-all in the quest for survival. Sounds like a convincing theory to me. Thank you for your support.

Chixculub
DAVID: Gerald Schroeder in his books about science and God wondered if God sent Chixculub. So do I.

And I wonder if either of you asks why he would have created the dinosaurs and their habitat in the first place, and then destroyed them all, if his one and only goal was to design sapiens and he was always in total control.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Friday, April 02, 2021, 17:24 (116 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain
dhw: Apparently he didn’t want to understand it because according to you he only wanted to demonstrate how the soul works.

DAVID: Egnor fudges his knowledge of neurology? You are only sniping. :-(

dhw: There is no fudging of His knowledge of neurology. He simply takes the existence of a soul for granted, and tries to use the half-second gap to show us how the soul works. You asked how else one could explain the time delay of half a second, and I told you. Please tell me why you reject my explanation.

I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.


Tectonics and environment

dhw: You see how very confusing it is when you use the term “information” so loosely? I would say that the DNA needs to make changes to itself (we don’t need to use the term “information” here) in order to handle the new information arising out of changes in conditions.

DAVID: You always struggle with the concept of information. The DNA code offers information at all times to control organisms actions. With new environment the genome receives sensory new information and the must develop new instructional information for the organism to respond with the proper adaptation. Please recognize the different forms of information required.

dhw: I find its double use confusing and totally unnecessary. Information itself is passive. It achieves nothing. It has to be used. The cells process information from the new environment and work out what changes they need to make in order to adapt. What could be clearer? You believe your God planted instructions which cells automatically switched on. Why do you have to call them “instructional information”?

Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken .


Nasty butterflies

dhw: But also part of the overall picture, in which you have your God directly designing all the different organisms, strategies and lifestyles. What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

DAVID: God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

dhw: Yes, indeed. All the organisms find their own ways of obtaining food, and all their strategies for eating and for avoiding being eaten, are part of a purposeful free-for-all in the quest for survival. Sounds like a convincing theory to me. Thank you for your support.

I'm only describing the war for eating.


Chixculub
DAVID: Gerald Schroeder in his books about science and God wondered if God sent Chixculub. So do I.

dhw: And I wonder if either of you asks why he would have created the dinosaurs and their habitat in the first place, and then destroyed them all, if his one and only goal was to design sapiens and he was always in total control.

Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

Miscellany

by dhw, Saturday, April 03, 2021, 09:33 (116 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain

dhw: [Egnor] simply takes the existence of a soul for granted, and tries to use the half-second gap to show us how the soul works. You asked how else one could explain the time delay of half a second, and I told you. Please tell me why you reject my explanation.

DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: You always struggle with the concept of information.[…].

dhw: I find its double use confusing and totally unnecessary. Information itself is passive. It achieves nothing. It has to be used. The cells process information from the new environment and work out what changes they need to make in order to adapt. What could be clearer? You believe your God planted instructions which cells automatically switched on. Why do you have to call them “instructional information”?

DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life. Instructions describe actions to be taken. Why do you need to call them instructional information? I am not confused. I am objecting to the unnecessary use of a term which creates the confusion vividly illustrated by the above heading.

Nasty butterflies

dhw: What sort of mind deliberately designs life forms that eat and rape their siblings? Or is it possible that your God DIDN’T deliberately design them, but that they are the product of a free-rein evolution in which all life forms devise their own strategies and lifestyles?

DAVID: God designed "red in tooth and claw". Everyone has to eat. Eating is the purposeful free-for-all.

dhw: Yes, indeed. All the organisms find their own ways of obtaining food, and all their strategies for eating and for avoiding being eaten, are part of a purposeful free-for-all in the quest for survival. Sounds like a convincing theory to me. Thank you for your support.

DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

Chixculub

DAVID: Gerald Schroeder in his books about science and God wondered if God sent Chixculub. So do I.

dhw: And I wonder if either of you asks why he would have created the dinosaurs and their habitat in the first place, and then destroyed them all, if his one and only goal was to design sapiens and he was always in total control.

DAVID: Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he always knows exactly what he is doing. That is why I keep asking why he would have directly designed and then killed off all these life forms that had no connection with humans, if his sole purpose was to design humans. You have no idea why. Whereas I propose a number of theories, all of which have your God knowing exactly what he is doing and why, and all of which fit in logically with Chixculub and the rest of life’s history. Your only objection to all of them is that they entail your God having some of the “thought patterns and emotions similar to ours”, which you think he possibly/probably has.

Genome complexity

DAVID: I do not expect the reader to be able to fully understand this presentation. It requires deep training in the subject. Viewing the illustrations would help. My real point is these molecules have jobs to do and perform them as if each molecule had a mind and had memorized its function in the production line. Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

Introducing the eye

DAVID: Its complexity is equal only to our brain:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-hum...

DAVID: No need to comment on the need for a designer. Not by chance development from ancient eye sports

The human eye is indeed a wonderful instrument, but no more wonderful than the eyes of many of our fellow animals (and birds), whose vision in fact is even better than ours under some conditions. All these different eyes may well be the consequence of the different cell communities adapting the original light-sensitive cells to their own living conditions. Definitely not by chance. Interesting that Darwin also picks on the eye as an organ “of extreme perfection and complication”. And he wisely adds: “How a nerve came to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 03, 2021, 18:41 (115 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

The soul in action.


Tectonics and environment

DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.


Nasty butterflies

DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.


Chixculub

DAVID: Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he always knows exactly what he is doing. That is why I keep asking why he would have directly designed and then killed off all these life forms that had no connection with humans, if his sole purpose was to design humans. You have no idea why. Whereas I propose a number of theories, all of which have your God knowing exactly what he is doing and why, and all of which fit in logically with Chixculub and the rest of life’s history. Your only objection to all of them is that they entail your God having some of the “thought patterns and emotions similar to ours”, which you think he possibly/probably has.

You have again totally twisted what I present. You don't understand how you make God human with you theories of free-for-all with an unknown ending for evolution.


Genome complexity

DAVID: I do not expect the reader to be able to fully understand this presentation. It requires deep training in the subject. Viewing the illustrations would help. My real point is these molecules have jobs to do and perform them as if each molecule had a mind and had memorized its function in the production line. Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

So you are back to accepting design.


Introducing the eye

DAVID: Its complexity is equal only to our brain:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-hum...

DAVID: No need to comment on the need for a designer. Not by chance development from ancient eye spots

dhw: The human eye is indeed a wonderful instrument, but no more wonderful than the eyes of many of our fellow animals (and birds), whose vision in fact is even better than ours under some conditions. All these different eyes may well be the consequence of the different cell communities adapting the original light-sensitive cells to their own living conditions. Definitely not by chance. Interesting that Darwin also picks on the eye as an organ “of extreme perfection and complication”. And he wisely adds: “How a nerve came to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”

Sure, 'don't be concerned' because we will never be able to explain it without God's designs.

Miscellany

by dhw, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 11:10 (115 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

DAVID: The soul in action.

Which presupposes the existence of a soul. Please explain why, without the existence of the soul, it is impossible for a person to believe that he feels the prick immediately even though in fact it has taken half a second for the sensation to travel from fingertip to brain.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

DAVID: Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

Nasty butterflies
DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

DAVID: We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.

It’s never been clear to me where you draw the line between your God’s total control and lack of control. He can’t control the errors that occur in his system of life, he deliberately gives up control in allowing free will, he doesn’t control brain complexification but absolutely has to control brain expansion, and now he has given up control to allow caterpillars to eat one another, but he absolutely has to control the possum’s strategy of playing dead. And to add to the confusion, deliberately giving up control makes him “human”, but maintaining total control (although sometimes not maintaining control) does not make him “human”. Same problem repeated under “Chixculub”. You simply want to pick and choose which human attributes he may or may not have, and you can’t even find any consistency in your own concept of total control.


Genome complexity
DAVID: Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

DAVID: So you are back to accepting design.

I have always accepted the possibility that there is a God who designed cellular intelligence. I am an agnostic.

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 04, 2021, 20:03 (114 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

DAVID: The soul in action.

dhw: Which presupposes the existence of a soul. Please explain why, without the existence of the soul, it is impossible for a person to believe that he feels the prick immediately even though in fact it has taken half a second for the sensation to travel from fingertip to brain to reach a sensory appreciation area.

Because the sensory impulse from the finger tip must travel almost three feet to have the brain receive it and the soulless person feel it.


Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

DAVID: Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

dhw: That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

You are so confused about instructions with your analogy. God's instructions create the dance of the molecules that bring the emergence of life into fruition.


Nasty butterflies
DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

DAVID: We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.

dhw: It’s never been clear to me where you draw the line between your God’s total control and lack of control. He can’t control the errors that occur in his system of life, he deliberately gives up control in allowing free will, he doesn’t control brain complexification but absolutely has to control brain expansion, and now he has given up control to allow caterpillars to eat one another, but he absolutely has to control the possum’s strategy of playing dead. And to add to the confusion, deliberately giving up control makes him “human”, but maintaining total control (although sometimes not maintaining control) does not make him “human”. Same problem repeated under “Chixculub”. You simply want to pick and choose which human attributes he may or may not have, and you can’t even find any consistency in your own concept of total control.

You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.


Genome complexity
DAVID: Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

DAVID: So you are back to accepting design.

dhw: I have always accepted the possibility that there is a God who designed cellular intelligence. I am an agnostic.

I know.

Miscellany

by dhw, Monday, April 05, 2021, 11:47 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

Introducing the brain
DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: Please explain why, without the existence of the soul, it is impossible for a person to believe that he feels the prick immediately even though in fact it has taken half a second for the sensation to travel from fingertip to brain to reach a sensory appreciation area.

DAVID: Because the sensory impulse from the finger tip must travel almost three feet to have the brain receive it and the soulless person feel it.

So why do you think it is impossible for the soulless person to think that half a second = immediately? Is half a second really such a long time? However, if you claim that you yourself really are aware of this gap, (i.e. that the pain is not immediate), all it means is that the brain is the source of awareness! This discussion is pointless.

Tectonics and environment
DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw: I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

DAVID: Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

dhw: That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

DAVID: You are so confused about instructions with your analogy. God's instructions create the dance of the molecules that bring the emergence of life into fruition.

Thank you for using the simple term “instructions” instead of “instructional information”. But you are still “so confused”. Instructions do not create anything. Something has to write the instructions, and something has to obey the instructions before there is a “dance”. According to you, your God wrote the instructions and also designed the molecules. And so it is patently absurd to refer to “information as the source of life”, when by information you mean instructions.

Nasty butterflies
dhw: It’s never been clear to me where you draw the line between your God’s total control and lack of control. He can’t control the errors that occur in his system of life, he deliberately gives up control in allowing free will, he doesn’t control brain complexification but absolutely has to control brain expansion, and now he has given up control to allow caterpillars to eat one another, but he absolutely has to control the possum’s strategy of playing dead. And to add to the confusion, deliberately giving up control makes him “human”, but maintaining total control (although sometimes not maintaining control) does not make him “human”. […] You simply want to pick and choose which human attributes he may or may not have, and you can’t even find any consistency in your own concept of total control.

DAVID: You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.

We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there. In any case, what are your criteria for criticizing God as being “derelict” if he doesn’t do what you think he ought to do? And we shouldn’t forget your agreement that he doesn’t control complexification. I agree that I’m in “total confusion” when I read in one post that your God is in total control, but in another he is not in total control. Perhaps you can sort it all out for me, beginning with caterpillars that work out their own cannibalistic means of survival (by eating) and possums that rely on your God to help them survive (by not being eaten).

Miscellany

by David Turell @, Monday, April 05, 2021, 18:58 (113 days ago) @ dhw

Tectonics and environment

dhw: That means that God is the source of information in the DNA code. How does that make the information into the source of life? You might as well say that the instructions enclosed with your bottle of medicine are the source of your medicine.

DAVID: You are so confused about instructions with your analogy. God's instructions create the dance of the molecules that bring the emergence of life into fruition.

dhw: Thank you for using the simple term “instructions” instead of “instructional information”. But you are still “so confused”. Instructions do not create anything. Something has to write the instructions, and something has to obey the instructions before there is a “dance”. According to you, your God wrote the instructions and also designed the molecules. And so it is patently absurd to refer to “information as the source of life”, when by information you mean instructions.

You have described the way cells must use the information to make life emerge. Without those instructions nothing happens, does it? So what is your objection in the final analysis? The appearance of life depends upon those exact instructions to be followed, and those instructions are information. Stop playing word games please.

Nasty butterflies

DAVID: You are in total confusion as to how and why God uses control. He doesn't control possums more than He controls us. Possums have free will to use his trick as we have free will. My God doesn't control where my dog poops. Don't you see that most creatures have oodles of free will in action and thought. God has given up control in many logical ways. He doesn't have to control brain expansion, He must do that as designer or He would be derelict in His creationing.

dhw: We are not talking about WHEN or WHERE organisms play dead, migrate, build nests or bridges, but about the ORIGIN of all the strategies and lifestyles. You have suddenly decided that strategies relating to the “war for eating” are “simple adaptations” which God leaves to the organisms themselves to design (e.g. caterpillar cannibalism and rape). But the possum can’t design his trick of “playing dead” in order to avoid being a victim in “the war for eating”! All the same, I’m glad you now concede that your God has given up control in many logical ways. This may be a fruitful concession. I’m not sure what your reference to brain expansion means. You say he doesn’t have to control it (thank you for agreeing with me), but the rest of your sentence seems to say that he does have to control it! A bit of confusion there.

The sentence that confuses you simply means God theoretically could give up His enlarging of the homo brain but then sapiens would not appear, so He logically doesn't stop that activity.

dhw: And we shouldn’t forget your agreement that he doesn’t control complexification. I agree that I’m in “total confusion” when I read in one post that your God is in total control, but in another he is not in total control.

In regard to control exercised by God it is to guarantee survival. In the war of eat or be eaten, it must continue as all that survive must eat to survive..

Miscellany

by dhw, Tuesday, April 06, 2021, 13:05 (112 days ago) @ David Turell

Tectonics and environment
dhw: […] it is patently absurd to refer to “information as the source of life”, when by information you mean instructions.

DAVID: You have described the way cells must use the information to make life emerge. Without those instructions nothing happens, does it? So what is your objection in the final analysis? The appearance of life depends upon those exact instructions to be followed, and those instructions are information. Stop playing word games please.

The word games are yours. According to you, it is God who writes the instructions and it is God who designs the cells which follow the instructions. Without your God writing the instructions and designing the cells which follow the instructions, nothing happens, does it? So how does that make instructions “the source of life”? And thank you for using the word “instructions” as opposed to “instructional informati