Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, 10:42 (39 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 (38 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 (38 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 (37 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 (37 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 (36 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 (36 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 (35 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 (35 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 (34 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 (34 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 (33 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 (33 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 (32 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 (32 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 (31 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 (31 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 (30 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 (29 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 (28 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 (28 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 (27 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 (27 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 (26 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 (26 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 (25 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 (25 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 (24 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 (24 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 (23 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 (23 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 (22 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 (22 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 (21 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 (21 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 (20 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 (20 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 (19 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 (19 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 (18 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 (18 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 (17 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 (17 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 (16 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 (16 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 (15 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 (15 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 (14 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 (14 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 (13 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 (13 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 (12 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 (12 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 (11 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 (11 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 (10 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 (10 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 (9 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 (9 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 (8 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 (8 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 (7 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 (7 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 (6 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 (6 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 (5 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 (5 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 (4 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 (4 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 (3 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 (3 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 (2 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 (1 day, 16 hours, 19 min. 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 (1 day, 6 hours, 24 min. 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 (12 hours, 58 minutes 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 (6 hours, 52 minutes 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..

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum