Let's study ID (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 24, 2021, 16:28 (91 days ago)

A complete passage explaining design from the ID viewpoint:

https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-design-argument-from-a-mechanics-perspective/

"Inspiring conversations with fellow ID folks has made me think about what constitutes a good argument for ID, and more importantly to whom. It has come to my attention that arguments I find so compelling, that I actually need no further evidence to make a design inference, is far from convincing to others Having renovated, modified and maintained engines for historic car racing, seeing the drawing or an animation of a flagellum motor is sufficient for me to infer design. I don’t find it slightly convincing, I find the flagellum motor so convincing that no doubt is left in my mind, that nature is intelligently designed.

"It has dawned on me that this is far from the experience others are having. I recently was met with the argument, that if the flagellum motor or equal machine like objects from nature were that convincing as I claim, the discussion would be over and ID declared winner. “The facts do not speak for themselves” was repeated several times in one particular conversation I had, – the “facts” being that the flagellum motor has design like features.

"The disagreement circled around my claim that the flagellum motor is absolute proof of ID. My interlocutor justifiably claimed that if it were absolute proof everybody would be convinced, and since everybody is not convinced the flagellum motor as evidence for ID is simply not good enough. Now then my reply was and is, that it’s not the argument lacking quality, it’s people’s ability to appreciate the argument’s weight that constitutes the problem. The argument for design alone from the flagellum motor is so overwhelming that in fact everybody ought to be convinced.

"So why aren’t they? The problem here is, I’ll argue, that it requires real world experience with machinery to acquire the ability to appreciate the huge weight of the argument from the flagellum motor including Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity. A friend of mine who happens to be both a theologian and an electronics engineer recently had this amusing comment when we were talking about why the evolutionists don’t get it, he said:

"We can’t talk with these people until they have spent time in the shed disassembling and assembling a moped! He was referring to what we did as teenagers. And yes, this is the problem in a nut shell. If you haven’t had hands-on experience with assembling complex functional systems like a moped, you cannot, and I’m sorry to offend all you great thinkers out there, evaluate the argument around the flagellum and irreducible complexity. Why? Because machinery, functional systems and their inherent irreducible complexity are real world phenomena!

"The word “empirical” refers to having had experience (in German “Erfahrung”). The only true way to acquire experience is through physical interaction. Experience does not come through theoretical knowledge. In the world of abstraction all sorts of scenarios could be true, you can simply yourself decide what is true and what is not. Actual physical experience is the only thing that keeps thought constructions in check and can weed out wrong theories.

"If you understand through bodily experience how reality works, you will come to the conclusion that evolution is an unrealistic idea. In the realm of thought though, evolution works brilliantly because in the abstract you can choose the bits and pieces which make your theory work and ignore anything that contradicts. This is actually how Darwin’s theory is kept alive.

"Evaluating Behe's IC concept [irreducible complexity] is simply not possible on a theoretical level. You need hands-on experience with complex functional systems to fully understand that evolution is a thought experiment which could never work in reality.

"When Ken Miller purportedly debunked Behe’s mousetrap analogy he did so in the world of abstraction with no reference to how real stuff in the real world works. Evolutionist disciples bought it hook line and sinker because in the realm of thought everything you want to work works. Behe’s IC proves (yes proves!) that evolution is false, but the chance is that you aren’t able to realize it because you operate solely on a theoretical level and have no real world experience working on complex machinery. (my bold)

Comment: The reason this view appeals to me so much is my own experienced creation I've mentioned to you: 1) complex architectural flow design for medical and dialysis offices that worked! 2) household plumbing and electrical repair and new designs at the journeyman's level, as attested by a licensed plumber and an electrician. Unless you can fully appreciate the points in my bold in the last paragraph and the point of that last paragraph itself, the theoretical level at which you obviously analyze the ID arguments, you will never see the underlying ID reasons for their conclusions. Your Darwinist theory outburst in the 'possible God thread' today demonstrated your problem of buying unproven wishful thinking.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, July 25, 2021, 14:01 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "When Ken Miller purportedly debunked Behe’s mousetrap analogy he did so in the world of abstraction with no reference to how real stuff in the real world works.

DAVID: The reason this view appeals to me so much is my own experienced creation I've mentioned to you: 1) complex architectural flow design for medical and dialysis offices that worked! 2) household plumbing and electrical repair and new designs at the journeyman's level, as attested by a licensed plumber and an electrician. Unless you can fully appreciate the points in my bold in the last paragraph and the point of that last paragraph itself, the theoretical level at which you obviously analyze the ID arguments, you will never see the underlying ID reasons for their conclusions. Your Darwinist theory outburst in the 'possible God thread' today demonstrated your problem of buying unproven wishful thinking.

Once again, I accept and have always accepted the argument for design, which is a major reason for my agnosticism (the other being psychic experiences). The acceptable designer theory, however, is counterbalanced by the difficulty I have in accepting the argument that complex life and consciousness require a designer, and so there must be a complex, conscious mind that did not require a designer. I accept that there must have been a first cause, and the alternative to the sourceless conscious mind is sourceless materials which chanced to produce the combination that has led to one habitable planet in countless billions, and to rudimentary life and intelligence that gradually evolved into the complexities we know today. I find both explanations equally unsatisfactory, and so my mind remains open to both. You can call this open-mindedness rigid if you like.

There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs. Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID? I find the theistic version of this theory far more convincing than your theory that your God preprogrammed every innovation etc. 3.8 billion years ago, or that he constantly dabbled with all the millions of organisms to engineer every single improvement (plus econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder) in life’s history, let alone that he did so with the one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food. And please don’t tell me that your theory is based on science.

Taken from: Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!

dhw: Stated with your usual authority, as if you knew that for some reason your God could not or would not provide cells with the intelligence to join together in communities and produce increasingly complex designs, building on the designs of their predecessors (= common descent, which you sometimes believe in and sometimes don’t).

DAVID: I accept the appearance of common descent. Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.

Why suddenly the “appearance”? Do you or do you not believe that all life forms except the first have descended from earlier life forms? And over and over again you harp on about design needing to foresee the future. You accept the human analogy, and even quote your own experience of design. So are you telling us that your designs were made to solve unknown problems that did not exist at that time? The new ID entry makes no reference to clairvoyance of any kind. The reasoning – with which I agree - is based purely on complexity. Like every other designer, you would have used your accumulated knowledge of PAST designs and problems, marrying this knowledge to current requirements, and anticipating the kind of problems which you knew about. But I doubt if your designs were meant to solve a non-existent problem. If all your experience was confined to living in permanent desert, you would never dream of taking precautions against floods, would you? But cell communities throughout evolution have been confronted by NEW problems, and even now what we see is their intelligent response to these. Once again: the ID case is built on complexity, not on clairvoyance.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 25, 2021, 15:14 (90 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "When Ken Miller purportedly debunked Behe’s mousetrap analogy he did so in the world of abstraction with no reference to how real stuff in the real world works.

dhw: Once again, I accept and have always accepted the argument for design, which is a major reason for my agnosticism (the other being psychic experiences). The acceptable designer theory, however, is counterbalanced by the difficulty I have in accepting the argument that complex life and consciousness require a designer, and so there must be a complex, conscious mind that did not require a designer. I accept that there must have been a first cause, and the alternative to the sourceless conscious mind is sourceless materials which chanced to produce the combination that has led to one habitable planet in countless billions, and to rudimentary life and intelligence that gradually evolved into the complexities we know today. I find both explanations equally unsatisfactory, and so my mind remains open to both. You can call this open-mindedness rigid if you like.

The bold is very unsatisfactory to me: if nothing existed before the BB, what MATERIALS? These materials became our minds? Wishful thinking. Design requires a designing mind, a statement you can't counter.


dhw: There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs. Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID? I find the theistic version of this theory far more convincing than your theory that your God preprogrammed every innovation etc. 3.8 billion years ago, or that he constantly dabbled with all the millions of organisms to engineer every single improvement (plus econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder) in life’s history, let alone that he did so with the one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food. And please don’t tell me that your theory is based on science.

The bold is more unproven wishful thinking. and my theory is taken from pure science and reason.


Taken from: Specific organs protection:
DAVID: The cells do not have the capacity to create new species!!

dhw: Stated with your usual authority, as if you knew that for some reason your God could not or would not provide cells with the intelligence to join together in communities and produce increasingly complex designs, building on the designs of their predecessors (= common descent, which you sometimes believe in and sometimes don’t).

DAVID: I accept the appearance of common descent. Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.

dhw: Why suddenly the “appearance”? Do you or do you not believe that all life forms except the first have descended from earlier life forms? And over and over again you harp on about design needing to foresee the future. You accept the human analogy, and even quote your own experience of design. So are you telling us that your designs were made to solve unknown problems that did not exist at that time? The new ID entry makes no reference to clairvoyance of any kind. The reasoning – with which I agree - is based purely on complexity. Like every other designer, you would have used your accumulated knowledge of PAST designs and problems, marrying this knowledge to current requirements, and anticipating the kind of problems which you knew about. But I doubt if your designs were meant to solve a non-existent problem. If all your experience was confined to living in permanent desert, you would never dream of taking precautions against floods, would you? But cell communities throughout evolution have been confronted by NEW problems, and even now what we see is their intelligent response to these. Once again: the ID case is built on complexity, not on clairvoyance.

You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! And the complexity. you see only a part of, is built to easily handle variations of circumstances. It has flexibility.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 25, 2021, 18:20 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

I'm going to use an article as an example of what Darwinist's do to bring in purpose, but no idea how it was really achieved:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2284426-tomatoes-have-a-kind-of-nervous-system-tha...

"Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.

"The messages seem to help the plant muster defences such as releasing hydrogen peroxide, a reactive chemical that combats microbial infections of damaged tissues, a study has found.

***

"Previous work found that leaves that are physically damaged send electrical signals to other leaves. In a new study, Gabriela Niemeyer Reissig at the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil and her colleagues investigated if this could happen with fruit.

"They studied small cherry tomato plants (tomatoes are a fruit, botanically speaking) by placing them inside Faraday cages, which block external electric fields, and confined caterpillars of the moth Helicoverpa armigera on the surface of fruit within plastic bags.

"Electrodes placed in the fruit stalks showed that the patterns of electrical activity changed during and after the caterpillars started eating. They also varied depending on whether the fruits were ripe or green. “The electrical activity of the fruit is constantly changing every second,” says Niemeyer Reissig. “We can find a [distinct] pattern in the electrical activity when an insect attacks.”


"There was also a rise in levels of hydrogen peroxide produced by untouched fruit and leaves all over an attacked plant. “This is probably to avoid microbial infections of damaged plant tissue or as a strategy to cause cell death in the affected region, preventing the spread of pathogens,” says Niemeyer Reissig."

Comment: Note all the assumptions in the final paragraph. Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, July 26, 2021, 06:50 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [...] the alternative to the sourceless conscious mind is sourceless materials which chanced to produce the combination that has led to one habitable planet in countless billions, and to rudimentary life and intelligence that gradually evolved into the complexities we know today. I find both explanations equally unsatisfactory, and so my mind remains open to both. You can call this open-mindedness rigid if you like.

DAVID: The bold is very unsatisfactory to me: if nothing existed before the BB, what MATERIALS? These materials became our minds? Wishful thinking. Design requires a designing mind, a statement you can't counter.

I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts. Let me repeat: I FIND BOTH EXPLANATIONS EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY. You focus on the unsatisfactory alternative to your fixed belief, and do not even respond to the illogicality of claiming that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and the source is therefore a conscious being that does not have a source.

dhw: There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs.Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID?

DAVID: The bold is more unproven wishful thinking. and my theory is taken from pure science and reason.

You claimed that my post contradicted ID. The fact that you regard commonsense natural selection as “unproven” has nothing whatsoever to do with ID. I have no idea why you regard it as pure science and reason to claim that there is a God who either individually dabbled or 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every single life form, strategy, solution, natural wonder for the rest of life’s history. This becomes even less scientific and reasonable when you insist that every one was part of his sole goal of designing humans plus food, though the vast majority had no connection with humans and our food.

Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.

dhw: [...] over and over again you harp on about design needing to foresee the future. You accept the human analogy, and even quote your own experience of design. So are you telling us that your designs were made to solve unknown problems that did not exist at that time? The new ID entry makes no reference to clairvoyance of any kind. The reasoning – with which I agree - is based purely on complexity […] not on clairvoyance.

DAVID: You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! And the complexity. you see only a part of, is built to easily handle variations of circumstances. It has flexibility.

You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers. (My proposal: conditions changed, and when pre-whales entered the water, the result over time was that legs changed to flippers). Now, though, foreseeing the future apparently means avoiding the problems that might be caused by poor design. Nothing to do with future needs at all! Meanwhile, please point out where in the article you have discovered that ID is based on foreseeing the future and not on complexity.

DAVID: I'm going to use an article as an example of what Darwinist's do to bring in purpose, but no idea how it was really achieved:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2284426-tomatoes-have-a-kind-of-nervous-system-tha...

QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.

DAVID: Note all the assumptions in the final paragraph. Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.

The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, July 26, 2021, 19:08 (89 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts. Let me repeat: I FIND BOTH EXPLANATIONS EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY. You focus on the unsatisfactory alternative to your fixed belief, and do not even respond to the illogicality of claiming that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and the source is therefore a conscious being that does not have a source.

Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?


dhw: There is absolutely nothing in my post of yesterday that contradicts the theory of ID! I keep promulgating the theory of the intelligent cell, which is a theory of DESIGN, and I keep reiterating that this allows for God as the designer of the intelligent cell. Common descent would entail cell communities improving on earlier designs.Natural selection simply tells us that an improved model is likely to replace the model it improves. How does this contradict ID?

DAVID: The bold is more unproven wishful thinking. and my theory is taken from pure science and reason.

dhw: You claimed that my post contradicted ID. The fact that you regard commonsense natural selection as “unproven” has nothing whatsoever to do with ID.

Common sense, your crutch, proves nothing. Middle Age Europe thought the world was flat. Teh older Greeks knew better.

dhw: I have no idea why you regard it as pure science and reason to claim that there is a God who either individually dabbled or 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every single life form, strategy, solution, natural wonder for the rest of life’s history.

That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!


Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.

DAVID: You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! And the complexity. you see only a part of, is built to easily handle variations of circumstances. It has flexibility.

dhw: You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers.

Glad you made the admission. The point is God had to consider the proper anatomy to allow those changes, as well as consider how they would breathe in a new way, have sex in a new way, give birth underwater, and handle predators that would be new to them, as very partial examples of the many considerations a designer must think about in advance of actual production.

DAVID: I'm going to use an article as an example of what Darwinist's do to bring in purpose, but no idea how it was really achieved:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2284426-tomatoes-have-a-kind-of-nervous-system-tha...

QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.

DAVID: Note all the assumptions in the final paragraph. Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.

dhw: The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.

You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, July 27, 2021, 13:46 (88 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read my posts. Let me repeat: I FIND BOTH EXPLANATIONS EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY. You focus on the unsatisfactory alternative to your fixed belief, and do not even respond to the illogicality of claiming that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and the source is therefore a conscious being that does not have a source.

DAVID: Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?

That is one of the alternatives that I find unsatisfactory, the other being the theory that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and therefore the source must be a conscious being without a source.

dhw: You claimed that my post contradicted ID. The fact that you regard commonsense natural selection as “unproven” has nothing whatsoever to do with ID.

DAVID: Common sense, your crutch, proves nothing. Middle Age Europe thought the world was flat. Teh older Greeks knew better.

See “A possible God” on natural selection and survival.

dhw: I have no idea why you regard it as pure science and reason to claim that there is a God who either individually dabbled or 3.8 billion years ago preprogrammed every single life form, strategy, solution, natural wonder for the rest of life’s history.

DAVID: That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!

I’m surprised that there are science books which make the above claims plus the rest of your anthropocentric theory of God's roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Or do you mean that you have read lots of science books and have come up with this theory all by yourself?

Taken from: Specific organs protection
DAVID: Design requires an ability to foresee future needs. See new ID entry.

DAVID: You totally do not understand designing for future use. My designs were made to void problems that might have occurred if I did not anticipate the proper flow patterns necessary in the architecture. Of course clairvoyance isn't mentioned. One is imagining real problems that could occur from poor design. One avoids inventing problems!!!! […]

dhw: You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers.

DAVID: Glad you made the admission. The point is God had to consider the proper anatomy to allow those changes, as well as consider how they would breathe in a new way, have sex in a new way, give birth underwater, and handle predators that would be new to them, as very partial examples of the many considerations a designer must think about in advance of actual production.

So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?

TOMATOES
QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.”

DAVID: Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.

dhw: The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.

DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.

What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 27, 2021, 15:53 (88 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?

dhw: That is one of the alternatives that I find unsatisfactory, the other being the theory that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and therefore the source must be a conscious being without a source.

Do you believe in any first cause and do you accept a first cause must exist?


DAVID: That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!

dhw: I’m surprised that there are science books which make the above claims plus the rest of your anthropocentric theory of God's roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Or do you mean that you have read lots of science books and have come up with this theory all by yourself?

All by myself


Taken from: Specific organs protection

dhw: You’re right. I’m bewildered. Design, you say, requires the ability to foresee future needs. Your pet example of this would be your God anticipating that a bunch of pre-whales asleep on the land would one day need to live in the water, and so he popped in and changed their legs to flippers.

DAVID: Glad you made the admission. The point is God had to consider the proper anatomy to allow those changes, as well as consider how they would breathe in a new way, have sex in a new way, give birth underwater, and handle predators that would be new to them, as very partial examples of the many considerations a designer must think about in advance of actual production.

dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?

I can't imagine a pre-whale landlubber floundering around in the water happily thinking to himself, "I'm going to be a whale". My God made each stage all at once at the start of each stage, fully prepared for a new style of life.


TOMATOES
QUOTE: "Tomatoes that are being eaten by insects use electrical signals to send an alert to the rest of the plant, similar to the way our nervous systems warn of damage.”

DAVID: Purpose is proposed and solved. How, really? But what mechanism? Darwinism is all magic. This was designed and required thought to do it.

dhw: The authors are simply describing what happens and why. What does this have to do with Darwin? You are welcome to add that you think this proves that God popped in and tinkered with tomatoes in order to help them survive such an attack (though you don’t think survival has anything to do with it), or he had to pop in because otherwise the insects he had designed would have stopped us from enjoying tomatoes with our bacon and egg. Offer any theory you like. I would suggest that tomato cells used their (perhaps God-given) intelligence to develop this means of survival. I have no idea how all this is supposed to prove that ID means your God foresaw future needs and therefore designed the defence strategy before tomatoes came under attack.

DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.

dhw: What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?

How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article, and please note I said nothing about Darwin, himself, who didn't know what he didn't know. My dislike is for his acolytes.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 10:25 (88 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Do you deny a first cause that for you includes mindless material somehow resulting in the human mind?

dhw: That is one of the alternatives that I find unsatisfactory, the other being the theory that conscious beings like ourselves must have a source, and therefore the source must be a conscious being without a source.

DAVID: Do you believe in any first cause and do you accept a first cause must exist?

For the thousandth time, I accept that a first cause must exist, and I have suggested two first causes but believe in neither of them, which is why I am an agnostic.

DAVID: That is my reasoned conclusion from reading science books!!!

dhw: I’m surprised that there are science books which make the above claims plus the rest of your anthropocentric theory of God's roundabout method of achieving his sole purpose. Or do you mean that you have read lots of science books and have come up with this theory all by yourself?

DAVID: All by myself.

And judging by the illogicality of your theory of evolution, I strongly suspect that you will remain all by yourself.

Taken from: Specific organs protection
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?

DAVID: I can't imagine a pre-whale landlubber floundering around in the water happily thinking to himself, "I'm going to be a whale". My God made each stage all at once at the start of each stage, fully prepared for a new style of life.

I imagine the pre-whale thinking to himself: “If I stay on land, I’m gonna starve to death. There’s food in the water, and I’m gonna get it.” Although not the best of swimmers, he could swim well enough to survive, and as time went by, the cell communities – as they so often do – restructured the legs of the increasingly maritime animal in order to adapt them to the new way of life. Ditto every other recorded stage in the evolution of the whale. I don’t know what you mean by “all at once at the start of each stage”. How can stages mean all at once? And how can each stage make the animal “fully” prepared if there are more stages to come?

TOMATOES
DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.

dhw: What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?

DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article, and please note I said nothing about Darwin, himself, who didn't know what he didn't know. My dislike is for his acolytes.

I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 18:57 (87 days ago) @ dhw

Taken from: Specific organs protection
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems?

DAVID: I can't imagine a pre-whale landlubber floundering around in the water happily thinking to himself, "I'm going to be a whale". My God made each stage all at once at the start of each stage, fully prepared for a new style of life.

dhw: I imagine the pre-whale thinking to himself: “If I stay on land, I’m gonna starve to death. There’s food in the water, and I’m gonna get it.” Although not the best of swimmers, he could swim well enough to survive, and as time went by, the cell communities – as they so often do – restructured the legs of the increasingly maritime animal in order to adapt them to the new way of life. Ditto every other recorded stage in the evolution of the whale. I don’t know what you mean by “all at once at the start of each stage”. How can stages mean all at once? And how can each stage make the animal “fully” prepared if there are more stages to come?

Remember I have god is charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full function al whales.


TOMATOES
DAVID: You are still blind to the Darwinism magic solutions. In my view those tomatoes arrived with defense mechanisms.

dhw: What magic solutions? Did Darwin even know about these tomatoes? Do tell us the point of defense mechanisms if it is not to defend organisms against threats to their SURVIVAL? And tell us why your God found it necessary to design the insects to attack the tomatoes and to defend the tomatoes against them, when all he wanted to do was design humans and their lunch. Couldn’t he have found a better way to feed the insects than to threaten our salad through a shortage of tomatoes? May I suggest that only when organisms’ survival is threatened to do they design counter-measures?

DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article, and please note I said nothing about Darwin, himself, who didn't know what he didn't know. My dislike is for his acolytes.

dhw: I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?

Not ignored. Elsewhere I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember? Once insects are here, God didn't make them choose to eat tomatoes. They did it on their own. What God did was give the tomatoes some protection .

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, July 29, 2021, 06:59 (87 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken from: Specific organs protection
dhw: So now you have your God popping in every few thousand years to change legs to flippers, and reorganize breathing, sex, birth and defence mechanisms – all BEFORE the poor creatures had any problem with their breathing, sex, birth and enemies. And each pop was part of his goal to design humans who weren’t even there! May I suggest that when whales entered the water, all these changes came about in stages to improve the animals’ chances of survival and NOT as advance operations even before there were any problems? […]

DAVID: Remember I have god is charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full functional whales.

I do indeed remember, and I remember that you have your God performing all these operations in anticipation of new problems – e.g. he changes legs to flippers before the pre-whale enters the water. So as I said above, he keeps popping in before they have any trouble breathing, copulating, giving birth and fighting new enemies. And he had to do all that before he could fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans plus lunch. And all these improvements (e.g. in ways of producing offspring and fighting enemies) apparently had nothing to do with the survival of the species. So please remember the alternative: that all these changes took place because each of them was a RESPONSE to existing conditions and enabled successive pre-whales to survive more efficiently in their watery home.

TOMATOES

DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article […]

dhw: I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?

DAVID: Not ignored. Elsewhere I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember?

And why do they have to eat/have energy, if the reason is not to survive? And when food is short, why do you think they look elsewhere, and develop new means of acquiring food, and why do you think their potential foods devise ways of defending themselves, if not to survive? Do you really think God says to himself: “I gotta change all these organisms ‘cos otherwise I shan’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch?”

DAVID: Once insects are here, God didn't make them choose to eat tomatoes. They did it on their own. What God did was give the tomatoes some protection.

And God said: “Them insects is out of my control – though I have total control over everything – so I’m gonna protect them tomatoes, because otherwise I won’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch.”

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 29, 2021, 17:03 (86 days ago) @ dhw

Taken from: Specific organs protection

DAVID: Remember I have God in charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full functional whales.

dhw: I do indeed remember, and I remember that you have your God performing all these operations in anticipation of new problems – e.g. he changes legs to flippers before the pre-whale enters the water. So as I said above, he keeps popping in before they have any trouble breathing, copulating, giving birth and fighting new enemies. And he had to do all that before he could fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans plus lunch. And all these improvements (e.g. in ways of producing offspring and fighting enemies) apparently had nothing to do with the survival of the species. So please remember the alternative: that all these changes took place because each of them was a RESPONSE to existing conditions and enabled successive pre-whales to survive more efficiently in their watery home.

I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do. Your approach is that old species can make new ones on their own. I view it as a weak theory since design must have extensive mental work.


TOMATOES

DAVID: How do the tomato plants learn to produce noxious chemicals? My point is still the Darwinist magical solutions as in the article […]

dhw: I can’t answer your question, and I don’t suppose anyone else can. Please tell me what is the “Darwinist” magical answer, and why is it more magical than an unknown, sourceless intelligent mind popping in to give tomatoes courses in noxious chemical production? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the questions I have asked above?

DAVID: Not ignored. Elsewhere I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember?

dhw: And why do they have to eat/have energy, if the reason is not to survive? And when food is short, why do you think they look elsewhere, and develop new means of acquiring food, and why do you think their potential foods devise ways of defending themselves, if not to survive? Do you really think God says to himself: “I gotta change all these organisms ‘cos otherwise I shan’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch?”

Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.


DAVID: Once insects are here, God didn't make them choose to eat tomatoes. They did it on their own. What God did was give the tomatoes some protection.

dhw: And God said: “Them insects is out of my control – though I have total control over everything – so I’m gonna protect them tomatoes, because otherwise I won’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch.”

God doesn't design how we all eat each other. He had provided meals for all, as required.

Let's study ID: death is built in

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 29, 2021, 18:26 (86 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival is necessary to live long enough, but death is primarily built in to all organisms:

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-small-proteins-aging.html

"Scientists have discovered that the protein ubiquitin plays an important role in the regulation of the aging process. Ubiquitin was previously known to control processes such as signal transduction and metabolism. Prof. Dr. David Vilchez and his colleagues at the CECAD Cluster of Excellence for Aging Research at the University of Cologne performed a comprehensive quantitative analysis of ubiquitin signatures during aging in the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode worm broadly used for aging research. This method—called ubiquitin proteomics—measures all changes in ubiquitination of proteins in the cell.

"The resulting data provide site-specific information and define quantitative changes in ubiquitin changes across all proteins in a cell during aging. A comparison with the total protein content of a cell (proteome) showed which changes have functional consequences in protein turnover and actual protein content during aging. The scientists thus discovered new regulators of lifespan and provide a comprehensive dataset that helps to understand aging and longevity. The article, "Rewiring of the ubiquitinated proteome determines aging in C. elegans," has now been published in Nature.

***

"'We discovered that aging leads to changes in the ubiquitination of thousands of proteins in the cell, whereas longevity measures such as reduced food intake and reduced insulin signaling prevent these changes." Specifically, the researchers found that aging causes a general loss of ubiquitination. This is caused by the enzymes that remove ubiquitin from proteins become more active during aging. Normally, ubiquitinated proteins are recognized and destroyed by the proteasome, the cell's garbage truck. The scientists showed that the longevity of organisms is determined by age-related changes in the degradation of structural and regulatory proteins by the proteasome.

***

"In addition to providing a comprehensive data set, the investigators showed that defining changes in the ubiquitin-modified proteome can lead to the discovery of new regulators of lifespan and aging traits. They focused their follow-up analyses on two specific proteins that lacked ubiquitin labeling during aging. IFB-2, a protein important for cell structure, and EPS-8, a modulator of a signaling pathway that regulates a variety of cellular processes. These proteins, which are no longer adequately labeled in aged organisms, affect longevity in a variety of tissues. Increased protein levels of IFB-2, for example, cause the intestine to fail to digest properly or absorb nutrients and also make it more susceptible to bacterial infections, which is a characteristic of aging animals.

"'Remarkably, knockdown of IFB-2 in adult C. elegans was enough to restore normal gut function," Koyuncu says. Too much EPS-8 in cells over-activates a specific signaling pathway (RAC) in muscle and brain cells. The team discovered here that the RAC signaling pathway determines longevity, muscle integrity and motility."

Comment: Makes my survival view quite clear. Death is built in for all life, although longevity varies. Of course all organisms have protective measures. It seems to me very short life spans would not allow for adaptive mechanism to have a role and then perhaps reduce the chances for evolution designs to appear from God. He may need a specific time table.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, July 30, 2021, 13:56 (85 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Remember I have God in charge of all stages of evolution. Each stage is fully prepared to handle living at that particular stage of evolutionary development. Think of eight/nine whale stages we know, each living at that stage of development into full functional whales.

dhw: I do indeed remember, and I remember that you have your God performing all these operations in anticipation of new problems – e.g. he changes legs to flippers before the pre-whale enters the water. So as I said above, he keeps popping in before they have any trouble breathing, copulating, giving birth and fighting new enemies. And he had to do all that before he could fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans plus lunch. And all these improvements (e.g. in ways of producing offspring and fighting enemies) apparently had nothing to do with the survival of the species. So please remember the alternative: that all these changes took place because each of them was a RESPONSE to existing conditions and enabled successive pre-whales to survive more efficiently in their watery home.

DAVID: I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do.

You have no sense of when, and yet you know it’s before any changes are needed. You now have your God, who on alternate days is not human in any way, designing like humans, and you have him and all human designers needing a crystal ball to gaze into the future. In your own designing career, did your work only relate to unknown future events that had never happened before, or were your designs for current use to tackle existing problems?

Transferred from “Miscellany”:
DAVID: Go back and look at all the entries on the amazing immune system. we are born with general protections and are designed to learn about every invader with newly developed responses we create. We are designed for future problem's by making new answers de novo.`

dhw: Thank you for this excellent summary of the process I have been describing. […] At last you have cottoned on.

DAVID: Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.

Will you never realize that there is no design “in advance of existence”. As you so rightly explain, we learn, we retain the protections invented in the past, and we create new responses to every new invasion. We make our new answers “de novo” when the problem is there – not before it is there!

dhw: ...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. bbThis autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.

Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.

DAVID: Your approach is that old species can make new ones on their own. I view it as a weak theory since design must have extensive mental work.

Of course design requires mental work. That is the basis of Shapiro’s theory that cells are intelligent. And the theistic version of this theory would be that your God gave them their intelligence.

TOMATOES
DAVID: I've said survival doesn't drive evolution. Insects have to eat. All of living folks have to have energy, remember?

dhw: And why do they have to eat/have energy, if the reason is not to survive? And when food is short, why do you think they look elsewhere, and develop new means of acquiring food, and why do you think their potential foods devise ways of defending themselves, if not to survive? Do you really think God says to himself: “I gotta change all these organisms ‘cos otherwise I shan’t be able to design David Turell & Co plus lunch?”

DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.

You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Friday, July 30, 2021, 16:28 (85 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do.

dhw: You have no sense of when, and yet you know it’s before any changes are needed. You now have your God, who on alternate days is not human in any way, designing like humans, and you have him and all human designers needing a crystal ball to gaze into the future. In your own designing career, did your work only relate to unknown future events that had never happened before, or were your designs for current use to tackle existing problems?

I designed with an understanding of current usages, but also of possible new adaptive uses. In our current house which exactly fits our current needs and desires the back hallway ends at a closet for Susan's study. A future owner (which must happen) can extend the hallway and add extra rooms easily, if he desires. To directly answer, both current needs and future possible needs were considered and provided for. God design and human design must use the same considerations. Until you understand the needs for a designer, ID will be Greek to you.


Transferred from “Miscellany”:

DAVID: Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.

dhw: Will you never realize that there is no design “in advance of existence”. As you so rightly explain, we learn, we retain the protections invented in the past, and we create new responses to every new invasion. We make our new answers “de novo” when the problem is there – not before it is there!

But how to respond is already information in the genome of the anticipatory immune system.


dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.

dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.

You really get it!!!


TOMATOES

DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.

dhw: You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.

Same lame comment. A simple concept you refuse to accept. God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes. I might ask, assuming your theologian's hat is on, how does hour God produce humans?

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, July 31, 2021, 11:21 (85 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I still have no sense of when God does what. I am sure He does all designs for anticipated future needs and use. That is what designers do.

dhw: You have no sense of when, and yet you know it’s before any changes are needed. You now have your God, who on alternate days is not human in any way, designing like humans, and you have him and all human designers needing a crystal ball to gaze into the future. In your own designing career, did your work only relate to unknown future events that had never happened before, or were your designs for current use to tackle existing problems?

DAVID: I designed with an understanding of current usages, but also of possible new adaptive uses. In our current house which exactly fits our current needs and desires the back hallway ends at a closet for Susan's study. A future owner (which must happen) can extend the hallway and add extra rooms easily, if he desires. To directly answer, both current needs and future possible needs were considered and provided for. God design and human design must use the same considerations. Until you understand the needs for a designer, ID will be Greek to you.

You designed your house for current purposes, and for purposes that you knew already existed – a future owner might want to build additional rooms. Do you really think additional rooms are a step into the unknown, comparable, say, to pre-whales encountering and having to adapt to a new habitat they have never known before? Until you understand that changes to existing life forms occur as RESPONSES to new conditions (admirably illustrated by your account of how the immune system works) and not as anticipations of conditions not yet known or existing, your interpretation of ID will indeed be Greek to me.

Transferred from “Miscellany”:
DAVID: Will you never realize design in advance of existence requires anticipating future needs and uses? Our immune system fits that requirement exactly.

dhw: Will you never realize that there is no design “in advance of existence”. As you so rightly explain, we learn, we retain the protections invented in the past, and we create new responses to every new invasion. We make our new answers “de novo” when the problem is there – not before it is there!

DAVID: But how to respond is already information in the genome of the anticipatory immune system.

HOW to respond is the solution to each new problem! As you keep agreeing, we create NEW responses to every new invasion. What is already there is the ABILITY to create new responses.

dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.

dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.

DAVID: You really get it!!!

Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.

TOMATOES
DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.

dhw: You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Same lame comment. A simple concept you refuse to accept. God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes.

And you continue to ignore the very heart of your theory, which is that humans plus their food were his one and only purpose, and yet according to you, in countless series of designed steps he “evolved” (= designed) millions of now extinct life forms, econiches (food supplies), strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. And you have no idea why. Please stop playing this dodging game.

DAVID: I might ask, assuming your theologian's hat is on, how does hour God produce humans?

Do you really want me to repeat all my alternative theistic theories (experimentation, learning as he goes along, new ideas, part of the great free-for-all – although he can dabble if he chooses). You have already acknowledged that all of them are logical, whereas you have no idea how to explain your own bolded theory above.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 31, 2021, 15:15 (84 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I designed with an understanding of current usages, but also of possible new adaptive uses. In our current house which exactly fits our current needs and desires the back hallway ends at a closet for Susan's study. A future owner (which must happen) can extend the hallway and add extra rooms easily, if he desires. To directly answer, both current needs and future possible needs were considered and provided for. God design and human design must use the same considerations. Until you understand the needs for a designer, ID will be Greek to you.

dhw: You designed your house for current purposes, and for purposes that you knew already existed – a future owner might want to build additional rooms. Do you really think additional rooms are a step into the unknown, comparable, say, to pre-whales encountering and having to adapt to a new habitat they have never known before? Until you understand that changes to existing life forms occur as RESPONSES to new conditions (admirably illustrated by your account of how the immune system works) and not as anticipations of conditions not yet known or existing, your interpretation of ID will indeed be Greek to me.

You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory


Transferred from “Miscellany”:

dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.

dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.

DAVID: You really get it!!!

dhw: Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.

No you don't with this response. At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?


TOMATOES
DAVID: Of course species must survive long enough for God to move forward to the next level of design.

dhw: You still have every innovation etc. geared to survival, much though you hate to admit it. So all non-human species must survive long enough for your God to move forward to the next level of designing them so that he can move on to the next level of designing the only thing he wants to design – namely, humans and their lunch. And you still have no idea why he had to design all those that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Same lame comment. A simple concept you refuse to accept. God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes.

dhw: And you continue to ignore the very heart of your theory, which is that humans plus their food were his one and only purpose, and yet according to you, in countless series of designed steps he “evolved” (= designed) millions of now extinct life forms, econiches (food supplies), strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. And you have no idea why. Please stop playing this dodging game.

Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, August 01, 2021, 11:02 (84 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Until you understand that changes to existing life forms occur as RESPONSES to new conditions (admirably illustrated by your account of how the immune system works) and not as anticipations of conditions not yet known or existing, your interpretation of ID will indeed be Greek to me.

DAVID: You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory.

I “fully do not understand” why you have suddenly switched from your theory that your God provides all solutions before the problems occur to the subject of missing fossils and gradualism. First of all, back to your theory: I have coupled adaptations and innovations together, because it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between them. Our prime example has been whale legs changing to whale flippers (adaptation or innovation?). You insist that your God performed an operation on pre-whales BEFORE they entered the water, and that is your so-called “design theory” – that your God either preprogrammed every single adaptation/innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to perform operations or to give courses for every innovation, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., ranging from whale flippers to the weaverbird’s nest (thank you for the latest "Kalahari" post referring to the latter). My design theory is that pre-whale legs turned into flippers AS A RESULT of the animals using their legs for different purposes, with the various cell communities RESPONDING to the new requirements. I extend these examples to the whole of evolution: it advances through new designs which cope with or exploit new conditions. Gould’s theory has nothing to do with how the flippers and nests are designed, but it explains why there are gaps – because there are long periods of stasis when nothing changes, and speciation only occurs when conditions change. I find this perfectly logical. The time scale of change, however, remains open: how sudden is sudden, how gradual is gradual?

The immune system
dhw:...we are designed to learn about new problems (invaders) and then create/develop new responses (de novo) to new problems. We are not preprogrammed to do so, or offered courses. This autonomous ability of ours may have been designed by your God.

DAVID: The bold is so wrong. Our basic design by God has the cells respond as needed to new invaders.

dhw: Correct. If God exists, he designed the cells in such a way that they would RESPOND to new invaders. Not that they would create new responses before they even knew about the invaders.

DAVID: You really get it!!!

dhw: Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.

DAVID: No you don't with this response. At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?

I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.

TOMATOES
DAVID: God wanted to produce humans so He evolved them from bacteria in a series of designed steps. God can chose any method He wishes.

dhw: And you continue to ignore the very heart of your theory, which is that BBBhumans plus their food were his one and only purpose, and yet according to you, in countless series of designed steps he “evolved” (= designed) millions of now extinct life forms, econiches (food supplies), strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. And you have no idea why. Please stop playing this dodging game.

DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.

Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 01, 2021, 16:14 (83 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory.

dhw:....My design theory is that pre-whale legs turned into flippers AS A RESULT of the animals using their legs for different purposes, with the various cell communities RESPONDING to the new requirements. I extend these examples to the whole of evolution: it advances through new designs which cope with or exploit new conditions. Gould’s theory has nothing to do with how the flippers and nests are designed, but it explains why there are gaps – because there are long periods of stasis when nothing changes, and speciation only occurs when conditions change. I find this perfectly logical. The time scale of change, however, remains open: how sudden is sudden, how gradual is gradual?

It is only theory that changes in conditions causes speciation. Again no proof. It is a weak branch of survival of the fittest empty theory. Gould did recognize huge gaps in gradualform changes in the fossil record, still most notably the Cambrian and the appearance of blooming plants is also totally unexplained by fossils. I'll stick with teh need for a designing ind running the show


The immune system

dhw: Yes, I do, and I wish you would acknowledge it. The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.

DAVID: No you don't with this response. At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?

dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.

That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.


TOMATOES

DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.

dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.

Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, August 02, 2021, 10:24 (83 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You fully do not understand the adaptation of design theory to biological speciation. we are looking at large gaps in the fossil series we see. You stick to the Darwinist view of tiny adaptations to current requirements will lead to speciation. We can't find that 150+ years after Darwin. I started years ago with your approach and left it after my studies. Gould really helped when he described and accepted the gaps, causing him to try puncinc as a theory.

dhw:....My design theory is that pre-whale legs turned into flippers AS A RESULT of the animals using their legs for different purposes, with the various cell communities RESPONDING to the new requirements. I extend these examples to the whole of evolution: it advances through new designs which cope with or exploit new conditions. Gould’s theory has nothing to do with how the flippers and nests are designed, but it explains why there are gaps – because there are long periods of stasis when nothing changes, and speciation only occurs when conditions change. I find this perfectly logical. The time scale of change, however, remains open: how sudden is sudden, how gradual is gradual?

DAVID: It is only theory that changes in conditions causes speciation. Again no proof.

That applies to every theory, including yours, because nobody knows the truth.

DAVID: It is a weak branch of survival of the fittest empty theory. Gould did recognize huge gaps in gradualform changes in the fossil record, still most notably the Cambrian and the appearance of blooming plants is also totally unexplained by fossils. I'll stick with teh need for a designing mind running the show.

It is only theory that a designing mind runs the show. Again no proof. It is a weak branch of the God runs everything empty theory. (But NB, the theory that speciation is caused by organisms responding to changing conditions does not exclude the theory that God exists and engineered the whole process.)

The immune system
dhw: The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.

DAVID: […] At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?

dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.

DAVID: That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.

It “fits” major modifications theoretically, since each stage in the whale series improves the whale’s chances of survival by creating a more efficient way to cope with the requirements of life in the water. Your version raises the question of why your all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t perform all the operations straight away, since he knew they would one day be necessary. Your theoretical answer?

TOMATOES
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.

dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.

DAVID: Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?

There you go again, ignoring both my answer (first bold) and the anomaly that makes your theory totally illogical (second bold).

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, August 02, 2021, 16:02 (82 days ago) @ dhw

The immune system
dhw: The changes take place IN RESPONSE to the new conditions, not in advance of them. And you can apply this process to the whole of evolution, so please stop telling us that design requires knowledge of future needs.

DAVID: […] At our current level of development our immune system recognizes anything new and can respond. Has nothing to do with how does speciation works?

dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.

DAVID: That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.

dhw: It “fits” major modifications theoretically, since each stage in the whale series improves the whale’s chances of survival by creating a more efficient way to cope with the requirements of life in the water. Your version raises the question of why your all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t perform all the operations straight away, since he knew they would one day be necessary. Your theoretical answer?

God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.


TOMATOES
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.

dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.

DAVID: Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?

dhw: There you go again, ignoring both my answer (first bold) and the anomaly that makes your theory totally illogical (second bold).

You constantly ignore the error in your illogical complaint. If 'all He wanted was humans', your complaint, that infers He should have directly done just that. But that is not history You are inferring a tunnel-visioned God, who could see nothing but humans. You imagine weird Gods constantly. Thinking of God as having a goal of humans after periods of time is quite reasonable. And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply. Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population. Do you see your tunnel vision of God?

Let's study ID: retinal design allows prediction of movement

by David Turell @, Monday, August 02, 2021, 19:50 (82 days ago) @ David Turell

How the study shows this:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08-retina-hardwired-path.html

"Neural circuits in the primate retina can generate the information needed to predict the path of a moving object before visual signals even leave the eye, UW Medicine researchers demonstrate in a new paper.

"'The ability to predict where moving objects will go is so important for survival that it's likely hardwired into all sighted animals," said Michael Manookin, an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He led the research team with Fred Rieke, professor of physiology and biophysics.

***

"To evaluate how effectively the cells were transmitting predictive information, the researchers compared the performance of the ganglion cells to computer programs created to solve such problems. They found that the ganglion cells were nearly as effective at transmitting this predictive information as the best performing computer programs.

"'That the retina, with such simple hardware, is doing these calculations so efficiently is just remarkable," Manookin said.

***

"The researchers found that the circuits can extract this information because of crosstalk between the bipolar cells. Bipolar cells are in close contact with adjacent bipolar cells. If one becomes excited by signals from its photoreceptor cells, in addition to sending a signal to the ganglion cell, it also passes some of that excitement along to its neighboring bipolar cells.

"The neighboring cells are then "primed" so that, if they also receive signals from their photoreceptor cells, they are more likely to send a strong signal to the ganglion cell. In this way, as a moving object passes over the visual field, the information about that movement "ripples" through the network of bipolar cells.

"The ganglion cell ultimately collects the incoming information from the bipolar cells and encodes it in signals that provides the brain with information about the motion of the object. With information from many thousands of these ganglion cells about the path of the object, the brain can then quickly predict its trajectory.

"'A 90 or 100 mile per hour fastball can travel more than seven feet before the signals gets out of your retina," Manookin said. "To hit the baseball, you have to be able to predict where it will be in the future. This ability to predict the movement of objects in our environment is also needed in everyday activities like driving a car or even walking. It's an ability so important to survival that evolution has hardwired it into our nervous system.'"

Comment: pure initial design. If this required stepwise development over massive amounts of time, hunting animals would not have survived to evolve the process.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, August 03, 2021, 10:18 (82 days ago) @ David Turell

The immune system
dhw: I propose that the immune system mirrors the process of speciation, whereby the cell communities recognize anything new and RESPOND to the new requirements, as opposed to your God doing a dabble before the new requirements are known. Speciation comes about when changes are made to existing cell structures as they RESPOND to new requirements.

DAVID: That only fits minor modifications within species, not the whale series with major changes in each mew stage.

dhw: It “fits” major modifications theoretically, since each stage in the whale series improves the whale’s chances of survival by creating a more efficient way to cope with the requirements of life in the water. Your version raises the question of why your all-knowing, all-powerful God didn’t perform all the operations straight away, since he knew they would one day be necessary. Your theoretical answer?

DAVID: God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.

We agree that the history is that all living things developed in stages. It is your theory that your God chose to design each and every stage individually (although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food). I asked WHY you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God chose this method, rather than design each species straight away, but you can’t give me a reason. You just expect me to accept your theory as a fact, and I have offered a number of alternative theistic explanations, all of which you accept as logical but reject because they offer a different view of God from your own.

TOMATOES
DAVID: Can God what He wants or not? Your reply doesn't recognize the type of God I believe in. I don't dodge. I stick to my concept of God hand His abilities. I have always told you your objection is entirely illogical from my viewpoint.

dhw: Of course God – if he exists – can do what he wants. And you simply go on ignoring the totally illogical gap in your theory, which is that all he WANTED was humans and their food, but he designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders, the huge majority of which had no connection with humans and their food. And you admit that you have no idea why, and then you return to dodging the whole anomaly.

DAVID: Totally illogical. If God can do what He wants, He can evolve humans from bacteria can't He?

dhw: There you go again, ignoring both my answer (first bold) and the anomaly that makes your theory totally illogical (second bold).

DAVID: You constantly ignore the error in your illogical complaint. If 'all He wanted was humans', your complaint, that infers He should have directly done just that. But that is not history.

No, it’s not history, and that is why I ask you to provide a logical reason why he chose not to fulfil directly what you believe to have been his one and only reason for creating life.

DAVID: You are inferring a tunnel-visioned God, who could see nothing but humans.

But that is your tunnel vision. It is you who insist that his one and only purpose was humans plus their food! I have proposed different reasons for the vast bush of life, all of which you accept as being logical.

DAVID: You imagine weird Gods constantly. Thinking of God as having a goal of humans after periods of time is quite reasonable.

Thank you. That is one of my various explanations: that God learned from his experiences, and “after periods of time” had new ideas as he went along. What is weird about that?

DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.

Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.

DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.

What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?

DAVID: Do you see your tunnel vision of God?

No. I have offered several visions of your God and of evolution, all of which you agree fit in logically with the history. Only your tunnel vision (your all-powerful God’s only goal was humans plus food, and therefore he designed lots of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their food) remains inexplicable.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 03, 2021, 17:32 (81 days ago) @ dhw

The immune system

DAVID: God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.

We agree that the history is that all living things developed in stages. It is your theory that your God chose to design each and every stage individually (although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food). I asked WHY you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God chose this method, rather than design each species straight away, but you can’t give me a reason.

The bold is yo0ur totally illogical thought. History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.


TOMATOES

DAVID: You constantly ignore the error in your illogical complaint. If 'all He wanted was humans', your complaint, that infers He should have directly done just that. But that is not history.

dhw: No, it’s not history, and that is why I ask you to provide a logical reason why he chose not to fulfil directly what you believe to have been his one and only reason for creating life.

History shows us that every aspect of our reality evolved from a start. Therefore God prefers to evolve His goals. I can't explain His preference, can you?


DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.

dhw: Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.

You are still denying we evolved, so that is what God did.


DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.

dhw: What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?

Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.


DAVID: Do you see your tunnel vision of God?

dhw: No. I have offered several visions of your God and of evolution, all of which you agree fit in logically with the history. Only your tunnel vision (your all-powerful God’s only goal was humans plus food, and therefore he designed lots of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their food) remains inexplicable.

Inexplicable to only you. God used stepwise evolution as a method, obviously.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Wednesday, August 04, 2021, 09:04 (81 days ago) @ David Turell

This post is a glaring example of how to dodge the subject. Each exchange is a variation on the same dodge.


DAVID: God chose to evolve all living things in stages of development, which fits the history.

dhw:We agree that the history is that all living things developed in stages. It is your theory that your God chose to design each and every stage individually (although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food). I asked WHY you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God chose this method, rather than design each species straight away, but you can’t give me a reason.

DAVID: The bold is your totally illogical thought. History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.

I am not questioning evolution! I am questioning your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose!

DAVID: History shows us that every aspect of our reality evolved from a start. Therefore God prefers to evolve His goals. I can't explain His preference, can you?

There can be no doubt that if God exists, he chose evolution to achieve his goals, and I am not questioning his preference. I am questioning your interpretation of his goal (according to you, he only had one, which was humans and their food supply) and his method of achieving that goal (to individually design vast numbers of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and their food supply). I have offered you several alternative explanations of why and how God used evolution to achieve his goal(s), you have agreed that they are all logical, you cannot explain the combination of goal and method that you believe in, and so you continue to dodge.

DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.

dhw: Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.

DAVID: You are still denying we evolved, so that is what God did.

Of course I’m not denying that we evolved!

DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.

dhw: What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?

DAVID: Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.

How can every single extinct life branch have led to our current food supply? Why do you constantly ignore your own observations? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.

If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food) and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 04, 2021, 16:27 (80 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is your totally illogical thought. History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.

dhw: I am not questioning evolution! I am questioning your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose!

How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal..


DAVID: History shows us that every aspect of our reality evolved from a start. Therefore God prefers to evolve His goals. I can't explain His preference, can you?

dhw: There can be no doubt that if God exists, he chose evolution to achieve his goals, and I am not questioning his preference. I am questioning your interpretation of his goal (according to you, he only had one, which was humans and their food supply) and his method of achieving that goal (to individually design vast numbers of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and their food supply). I have offered you several alternative explanations of why and how God used evolution to achieve his goal(s), you have agreed that they are all logical, you cannot explain the combination of goal and method that you believe in, and so you continue to dodge.

I don't see a difference between us except your strange ideas in the red parentheses which describes evolutionary history. I fully believe humans are so different and exceptional we are God's goal. Adler's point.


DAVID: And you have never denied the observation that approaching eight billion humans requires a huge evolutionary bush of food supply.

dhw: Of course not. But that does not explain why your God individually designed vast numbers of now extinct life forms and their food which had no connection with humans and their food supply.

DAVID: You are still denying we evolved, so that is what God did.

dhw: Of course I’m not denying that we evolved!

DAVID: Any thinking God could see that big brained humans would develop that type of huge population.

dhw: What does that have to do with your God designing vast numbers of now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans or their food supply?

DAVID: Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.

dhw: How can every single extinct life branch have led to our current food supply? Why do you constantly ignore your own observations? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

It is amazing how much you distort those logical points about timing of evolutionary events, which is exactly what those comments state. You know evolution is a continuum, or not?.


Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.

dhw: If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food) and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.

If you accept the exceptionality of humans, which philosophically makes us the goal, it is all logical.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, August 05, 2021, 11:14 (80 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: History tells us evolution advanced over time in stages. so that is what God did.

dhw: I am not questioning evolution! I am questioning your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose!

DAVID: How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal.

If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, why did he specially design vast numbers of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food? THAT is the question you cannot answer and therefore keep dodging, and you have rejected all my alternative theistic interpretations of God’s possible purpose and method (all of which are based on our joint belief that evolution happened) on the grounds that my “humanizing” views of a possible God are different from your own “humanizing” views of your God.

DAVID: I don't see a difference between us except your strange ideas in the red parentheses which describes evolutionary history. I fully believe humans are so different and exceptional we are God's goal. Adler's point.

The red parenthesis is your claim that your God designed all the individual life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only goal. Their existence is evolutionary history. It is not evolutionary history that your all-powerful God designed them all individually, and it makes no sense to say that he designed them all individually although the only life forms and foods that he wanted to design were us humans and our foods.

DAVID: Those extinct branches lead to the huge current bush with food for all.

dhw: How can every single extinct life branch have led to our current food supply? Why do you constantly ignore your own observations? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

DAVID: It is amazing how much you distort those logical points about timing of evolutionary events, which is exactly what those comments state. You know evolution is a continuum, or not?

Dealt with over and over again. Evolution is a continuum in so far as all life forms except the first are descended from earlier life forms. It is NOT a single continuum from the first life forms to humans and their food. There were vast numbers of branches that did NOT lead to humans and their foods. As you so rightly say, the foods of the past were for past forms, not for humans, and extinct life has no role in current time. The only distortion here is your attempt to gloss over the great gap between your interpretation of your God’s purpose (humans plus food) and your interpretation of evolution’s history: namely, that all life forms and foods were ”part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”, although the vast majority had no connection with humans.

Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.

dhw: If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.

DAVID: If you accept the exceptionality of humans, which philosophically makes us the goal, it is all logical.

How on earth do you come to the “philosophical”, “logical” conclusion that our exceptional brains mean that your all-powerful God specially designed all forms of life and food in order to design us, although the vast majority of them had no connection with us?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 05, 2021, 22:13 (79 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal.

dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, why did he specially design vast numbers of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food? THAT is the question you cannot answer and therefore keep dodging,

I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.


Privileged planet
DAVID: The Earth evolved to its present state over time. The universe evolved to its present state after the BB. Life evolved from simple Archaea. Our reality has appeared to reach its present state by processes of evolution. If God is in charge He uses evolution to reach His goals.

dhw: If God exists, your logic is impeccable. It is only when you start telling us your version of his goal (only one according to you: humans plus their food and then trying to link that goal with your version of the history of evolution (special design of every single life form and food form that had no connection with his goal) that your logic falls apart.

DAVID: If you accept the exceptionality of humans, which philosophically makes us the goal, it is all logical.

dhw: How on earth do you come to the “philosophical”, “logical” conclusion that our exceptional brains mean that your all-powerful God specially designed all forms of life and food in order to design us, although the vast majority of them had no connection with us?

As above, your brain is refusing to accept our logic derived from recognizing how very special we are compared to everything else alive or dead. Bed on Darwin-think evolution we don't belong here. We had to be specially designed.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, August 06, 2021, 11:17 (79 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How can you question my interpretation? Simply, God is on charge of creating everything. Humans evolved from bacteria, therefore God evolved humans from bacteria. No one can possibly know why God chose to evolve us as His method of achieving that goal.

dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, why did he specially design vast numbers of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food? THAT is the question you cannot answer and therefore keep dodging.

DAVID: I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.

You simply WILL not face up to "my" problem. First of all, you do not say that humans are “a main goal or purpose”. You consistently tell us that humans are THE goal, as in your statement that all life forms were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. Secondly, yet again, you persist in leaving out your belief that your God individually designed every life form and food supply that ever existed, and so “my problem” is why would he specially design all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food supply? You have said that you have no idea why, and it’s not surprising, because it is totally illogical. And so now you pretend that the only issue is whether God’s sole purpose (which keeps changing to “a” purpose) was to design humans, and you leave out the part of your theory that does not fit in with this sole purpose.

You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.

Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.

You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Friday, August 06, 2021, 20:40 (78 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.

dhw: You simply WILL not face up to "my" problem. First of all, you do not say that humans are “a main goal or purpose”. You consistently tell us that humans are THE goal, as in your statement that all life forms were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. Secondly, yet again, you persist in leaving out your belief that your God individually designed every life form and food supply that ever existed, and so “my problem” is why would he specially design all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food supply?

I've faced your problem and find your reasoning totally confused. Let's try once again. God, in charge of creating our reality wished to have humans exist. He chose to evolve them by designing many increasingly complex stages from Archaea to humans. That is a completely satisfactory answer to your bolded question. God is allowed, as you have admitted previously, to chose any method He wishes to create us. That theory is exactly what history tells us.

dhw: You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.

I fully reject your vision of the God you imagine.


Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.

dhw: You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.

You are still totally muddled about God's use of an evolutionary process to finally form humans by His design. Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, August 07, 2021, 12:31 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'm sorry, but please understand, I've answered fully to my satisfaction, if not yours. Your problem is the issue of humans as a main goal or purpose. Adler wrote a whole book taken from his talks on the subject, and is/was accepted by hoards of believers, one of whom gave me the book as a gift. So to repeat, it is your problem, not mine. And not worth answering further, as no progress can be made to make you see that interpretation from the facts.

dhw: You simply WILL not face up to "my" problem. First of all, you do not say that humans are “a main goal or purpose”. You consistently tell us that humans are THE goal, as in your statement that all life forms were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. Secondly, yet again, you persist in leaving out your belief that your God individually designed every life form and food supply that ever existed, and so “my problem” is why would he specially design all those life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food supply?

DAVID: I've faced your problem and find your reasoning totally confused. Let's try once again. God, in charge of creating our reality wished to have humans exist. He chose to evolve them by designing many increasingly complex stages from Archaea to humans. That is a completely satisfactory answer to your bolded question. God is allowed, as you have admitted previously, to chose any method He wishes to create us. That theory is exactly what history tells us.

This is getting beyond a joke. According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.

dhw: You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.

DAVID: I fully reject your vision of the God you imagine.

There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.

Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.

You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and
Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.

DAVID: You are still totally muddled about God's use of an evolutionary process to finally form humans by His design.

The muddle is entirely yours, since your version of God uses an evolutionary process to design countless extinct life forms and foods that have no connection with the only life forms and foods he wants to design.

DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting. This whole discussion can end if you simply repeat what you have told us in earlier posts: you have no idea why your God would choose the method you believe in (specially designing every single life form plus food) in order to fulfil the one and only goal you believe in (to specially design one life form plus food).

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 07, 2021, 16:32 (77 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've faced your problem and find your reasoning totally confused. Let's try once again. God, in charge of creating our reality wished to have humans exist. He chose to evolve them by designing many increasingly complex stages from Archaea to humans. That is a completely satisfactory answer to your bolded question. God is allowed, as you have admitted previously, to chose any method He wishes to create us. That theory is exactly what history tells us.

dhw: This is getting beyond a joke. According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.

I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.


dhw: You also reject even those theories in which I do give humans a special place (experimenting/new ideas), because although you find the theories totally logical, they do not conform to your personal image of how God thinks and acts.

DAVID: I fully reject your vision of the God you imagine.

dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.

Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.>


Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: This cement-headed Darwinist is insanely confused. He doesn't recognize Haldane's timing dilemma. He thinks a random beneficial mutation can simply appear and every design will be just fine in the time allotted. What he does recognize is death, and I might add extinctions, as a high important part of the process of evolution from simple to complex. dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.

dhw: You and I have long since turned our backs on random mutations, and your God theory and
Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence both make the time scale irrelevant. Your final comment is plain silly. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.

It is your illogical absurdity. God chose to evolve everything He wished to create. A simple concept which explains every question, just as your humanized God fits reality or different reasons.


DAVID: You are still totally muddled about God's use of an evolutionary process to finally form humans by His design.

dhw: The muddle is entirely yours, since your version of God uses an evolutionary process to design countless extinct life forms and foods that have no connection with the only life forms and foods he wants to design.

One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.


DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting. This whole discussion can end if you simply repeat what you have told us in earlier posts: you have no idea why your God would choose the method you believe in (specially designing every single life form plus food) in order to fulfil the one and only goal you believe in (to specially design one life form plus food).

I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, August 08, 2021, 08:17 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you, your God chose to design all the increasingly complex stages from Archaea to every single life form that ever existed, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans and their food, although humans and their food were his one and only purpose. You refuse to answer the bolded question, because – as you have admitted in the past – you have no idea why he would fulfil his one and only goal by designing life forms and foods that had no connection with that one and only goal.

DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.

We both believe that all life evolved from its earliest forms. Since you believe in God, then obviously you believe that God chose evolution as his method of producing all that exists. But you also believe that his one and only purpose was to create humans and their food, and you also believe that he specially designed every single life form that ever existed. And you are twisted all out of shape because you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.

dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.

Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.

Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: dhw doesn't seem to understand all those necessary extinctions led to humans.

dhw: If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, there would have no need for him in the first place to individually design and then kill off all the life forms that had no connection with humans. You simply go on and on dodging the logical absurdity of your theory.

DAVID: It is your illogical absurdity. God chose to evolve everything He wished to create. A simple concept which explains every question, just as your humanized God fits reality or different reasons.

Once again you have left out the logical absurdity of your combined theories: your God only wanted to evolve (= design) humans and their food, and therefore he evolved (= designed) countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.

Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.

DAVID: I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.

Not quite. You have no idea why your God would have made the methodology choices you insist he made (individual design of every life form) in order to fulfil what you insist was his one and only purpose (humans and their food). You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 08, 2021, 15:21 (76 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to evolve everything He created. I showed He prefers to evolve all that exists. And you are twisted all out of shape because I have no answer as to God's reasons.

dhw: We both believe that all life evolved from its earliest forms. Since you believe in God, then obviously you believe that God chose evolution as his method of producing all that exists. But you also believe that his one and only purpose was to create humans and their food, and you also believe that he specially designed every single life form that ever existed. And you are twisted all out of shape because you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.

You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.


dhw: There are different visions (a God who experiments, learns, gets new ideas, or creates a free-for-all), each of which you agree logically explains the existence of the whole bush, but does not conform to your vision of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who for some unknown reason fulfils his one and only purpose (humans plus food) by specially designing vast numbers of life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.

dhw: Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.

When have you ever explained your God? You don't.


Haldane’s dilemma

DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.

dhw: Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.

One stage led to the next.


DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.

DAVID: I've said over and over I have no idea why God made the methodology choices He made. Why is it important that you have me confirm my position again? My position is the same.

dhw: Not quite. You have no idea why your God would have made the methodology choices you insist he made (individual design of every life form) in order to fulfil what you insist was his one and only purpose (humans and their food). You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.

We don't know which theory is correct, but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, August 09, 2021, 09:16 (76 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: …you cannot explain why, if his only purpose was to design humans and their food, he proceeded to design every other life form and food, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. It is not “God’s reasons” that you can’t explain. It is your theory concerning God’s reasons and methods that you can’t explain.

DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.

You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.

DAVID: Yes, it all depends upon one's vision of God.

dhw: Yours leads to a theory you cannot explain, whereas you have accepted the logic of all my alternatives. This should alert you to the possibility that your illogical theory might be wrong.

DAVID: When have you ever explained your God? You don't.

What do you mean by “explaining” God? I have offered you logical theistic explanations of evolution that present God as having different purposes/methods from those you believe in.

Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.

dhw: Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: One stage led to the next.

Yes, on all branches of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so it is absurd to argue that all stages of all life forms were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.

dhw: […] You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.

DAVID: We don't know which theory is correct……

Then please stop pretending that your theory is the only possible truth.

DAVID:…but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.

All my theories present God as purposeful, and I have no idea why you sarcastically dismiss as “bumbling” a God who wants and deliberately creates a free-for-all, or a God who experiments, or who – like any creative artist – gets new ideas as he goes along. Please stick to the fact that you do not know which theory is correct, stop pretending that your own theory is the only truth, and stop imposing your preconceptions on my alternatives. Then we can end this discussion.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, August 09, 2021, 14:52 (75 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.

dhw: You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.

You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants


Haldane’s dilemma
DAVID: One new stage dependent upon the past stage is pure connectivity.

dhw: Correct. But the stages that led to the vast majority of the extinct organisms and foods had no connection with the stages that led to humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: One stage led to the next.

Yes, on all branches of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so it is absurd to argue that all stages of all life forms were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your muddle is you admit seeing design, and deny the need for a designing mind. Design requires a designer.

dhw: The final absurdity, since every single one of the alternative theories I have proposed includes your designer. Please stop dodging and distorting.

dhw: […] You reject all my logical alternative proposals and insist that only your inexplicable theory can possibly be correct.

DAVID: We don't know which theory is correct……

dhw: Then please stop pretending that your theory is the only possible truth.

DAVID:…but I see a very purposeful God whose results of creation can be explained by a God who knows exactly what He is doing compared to your bumbling character.

dhw: All my theories present God as purposeful, and I have no idea why you sarcastically dismiss as “bumbling” a God who wants and deliberately creates a free-for-all, or a God who experiments, or who – like any creative artist – gets new ideas as he goes along. Please stick to the fact that you do not know which theory is correct, stop pretending that your own theory is the only truth, and stop imposing your preconceptions on my alternatives. Then we can end this discussion.

I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of courses we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

Let's study ID; leaving atheism

by David Turell @, Monday, August 09, 2021, 23:54 (75 days ago) @ David Turell

Egnor did:

Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
“My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”

Let's study ID; leaving atheism

by David Turell @, Friday, September 24, 2021, 18:59 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Another person:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/atheists-need-faith-christianity-science-reason-physics-ma...

"Atheism’s central conceit is that it is a worldview grounded in logic and scientific evidence. That it has nothing to do with faith, which it associates with weakness. In reality, faith is central to atheism, logic and even science.

***

"...I set off to explore alternatives—beginning with Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism. This turned into a decades-long intellectual-spiritual journey. Ultimately I became a Christian, but along the way I discovered fascinating differences and similarities among humanity’s many religions and philosophies. I learned that all views of the world differ in three essential ways.

"First, foundation. All worldviews are built on core beliefs that cannot be proved. Axioms from which everything else about a person’s perception of reality is derived. They must be accepted on faith.

"Even reason itself—the vaunted foundation of atheism—depends on faith. Every logical argument begins with premises that are assumed to be true. Euclid’s geometry, the epitome of logical reasoning, is based on no fewer than 33 axiomatic, unprovable articles of faith.

"Second, size. Every worldview—that is, every person’s bubble of reality—has a certain diameter. That of atheism is relatively small, because it encompasses only physical reality. It has no room for other realities. Even humanity’s unique spirituality and creativity—all our emotions, including love—are reduced to mere chemistry.

"Third, deity. Without exception, every worldview is ruled over by a god or gods. It’s the who or what that occupies its center stage. Everything in a person’s life revolves around this.

***

"When I learned that 95% of the cosmos is invisible, consisting of “dark matter” and “dark energy,” names for things we don’t understand, that core assumption became untenable. As a scientist, I had to believe in a universe I mostly could not see. My core axiom became “believing is seeing.” Because what we hold to be true dictates how we understand everything—ourselves, others and our mostly invisible universe, including its origin. Faith precedes knowledge, not the other way around.

***

"Atheists commonly believe that science will ultimately demystify everything. But science’s worldview is becoming more mystical, not less. Witness supernatural-like concepts such as virtual particles, imaginary time and quantum entanglement. Even atheist Sam Harris admits: “I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, ‘not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.’ But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as ‘atheists,’ tend to represent while advocating atheism.”

"The overwhelming evidence, I’ve discovered, makes it crystal clear: Faith is the foundation of the entire human experience—the basis of both science and religion. Our faith in physical reality drives us to seek treatments for deadly diseases like Covid-19, to explore the depths of the sea, to invent the perfect source of energy. Our faith in spiritual reality drives us to create breathtaking works of art, music, and architecture; to see life as a divine creation, not an accident of nature; to be curious about things that are not of this world.

"For all those reasons and more, I’ve come to learn that atheists are greatly mistaken: Faith is anything but a weakness. It is the mightiest power in the universe.

"Mr. Guillen is author of “Believing is Seeing: A Physicist Explains How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith,” just out from Tyndale Refresh."

Comment: So where does this place agnosticism? Faith in not knowing? How does he become a Christian , which requires faith in miracles? I am puzzled. I accept, as he does that science has found more puzzles in the reality of the universe than answers, but also amazing complexity in living biochemistry that he does not address. That is where I find God must exist.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 09:01 (75 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You ignore the obvious. I accept what God has done. I don't need to know why He chose the obvious methods He used. I repeat, it is your problem.

dhw: You “accept” your own belief that your God individually designed every life form that ever existed, whereas it is perfectly possible that he invented a mechanism which enabled life forms to do their own designing. You “accept” your own belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, although it is perfectly possible that he had other purposes in mind. You “accept” your own belief that your God is all-powerful and is incapable of conducting experiments, or getting new ideas, or designing things just for the pleasure of creation. Please don’t pretend that what you “accept” is the objective truth about your God’s purpose and method. It is not. You only accept your own beliefs.

DAVID: You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants.

Your imagined version of God is an all-powerful being who has only one purpose: to design humans and their food. But he spends 3.X billion years designing life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food. This is illogical. When have I ever suggested that if God exists, he does NOT have a brilliant mind? Experimenting does not mean stupid or “bumbling” or not knowing what he wants. And maybe he wanted a free-for-all, which clearly explains ALL the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of non-human life forms, AND explains the mystery of theodicy – two problems which your imagined version of God cannot even begin to explain. As far as “other purposes” are concerned, my theories encompass your purpose of humans (experimentation), and the enjoyment of creation and watching his creations with interest, both of which you yourself have proposed; this means that he creates for the purpose of enjoyment, and for the purpose of having something interesting to watch, and this applies to ALL his creations, including humans, who would almost certainly be the most interesting of all to watch. (You don’t like to tell us his purpose for creating humans, except for the very human one of having them admire his work and forming a relationship with him).

DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.

Let's study ID; leaving atheism
DAVID: Egnor did:

QUOTE: Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”

I followed the same course - but turned from atheism to agnosticism – partly because of the sheer complexity of living things, and partly because of psychic experiences. But I’m afraid I find certain theistic arguments extremely hard to swallow, as you will have gathered from our own discussions and from my response to some of Egnor’s articles (e.g. on time).

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 15:26 (74 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are correct. All your imagined versions of God do not fit mine. I find yours quite unreasonable. Designing requires a brilliant mind. What other purposes does your God have? My God, as creator, doesn't need experimentation. He knows exactly what He wants.

dhw: Your imagined version of God is an all-powerful being who has only one purpose: to design humans and their food. But he spends 3.X billion years designing life forms and foods that have no connection with humans and their food. This is illogical. When have I ever suggested that if God exists, he does NOT have a brilliant mind? Experimenting does not mean stupid or “bumbling” or not knowing what he wants. And maybe he wanted a free-for-all, which clearly explains ALL the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of non-human life forms, AND explains the mystery of theodicy – two problems which your imagined version of God cannot even begin to explain. As far as “other purposes” are concerned, my theories encompass your purpose of humans (experimentation), and the enjoyment of creation and watching his creations with interest, both of which you yourself have proposed; this means that he creates for the purpose of enjoyment, and for the purpose of having something interesting to watch, and this applies to ALL his creations, including humans, who would almost certainly be the most interesting of all to watch. (You don’t like to tell us his purpose for creating humans, except for the very human one of having them admire his work and forming a relationship with him).

You have reviewed all your imagined humanizing forms of God. What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans. In my view God creates the history and does it His way for His reasons. I cannot debate them, but just accept them, a vast difference from your approach, in which God should follow your human logic.


DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

dhw: Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.

Same illogical questioning of God's history.


Let's study ID; leaving atheism
DAVID: Egnor did:

QUOTE: Why Neurosurgeon Mike Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist
My problems with materialism go back a long ways,” said Michael Egnor on Arjuna Das’s podcast. “I felt early on, even when I was an atheist, that materialism had a tough time explaining biology. That there were so many examples of incredibly elegant purposes in biology…”

dhw: I followed the same course - but turned from atheism to agnosticism – partly because of the sheer complexity of living things, and partly because of psychic experiences. But I’m afraid I find certain theistic arguments extremely hard to swallow, as you will have gathered from our own discussions and from my response to some of Egnor’s articles (e.g. on time).

Notice taken.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, August 12, 2021, 08:16 (73 days ago) @ David Turell

MY COMPUTER KEEPS BREAKING DOWN. I WILL TRY TO KEEP UP, BUT MY POSTS MAY BE SPORADIC UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS SORTED OUT.


DAVID: You have reviewed all your imagined humanizing forms of God.

No point in repeating them here, but it’s worth reminding you of your agreement that ALL of them provide a logical explanation for the course of evolution, unlike your own imagined humanizing form of God.

DAVID: What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans.

You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.

DAVID: In my view God creates the history and does it His way for His reasons. I cannot debate them, but just accept them, a vast difference from your approach, in which God should follow your human logic.

Of course if God exists he created the history and did it his way for his reasons. But what you “accept” is your own illogical theory of how and why he created the history we both accept. I have no idea why you think your human illogicality, as summarized above but continually distorted by you, must be the truth, whereas my human logicality (accepted by you) must be wrong.

DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

dhw: Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.

DAVID: Same illogical questioning of God's history.

Same illogical assumption that your illogical view of God’s history is the only possible view.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 12, 2021, 18:11 (72 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans.

dhw: You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.

What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful. My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.


DAVID: I have my logical truths and you have your imagination. Of course we won't agree and can stop this discussion.

dhw: Firstly, your imagined version of God is not a truth but a belief. Secondly, your imagined version of God leaves you with two totally illogical premises: he specially designs countless life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and he is all-good but specially designs bad things.

DAVID: Same illogical questioning of God's history.

dhw: Same illogical assumption that your illogical view of God’s history is the only possible view.

Your wild imagination continues. My belief is based upon the appearance of most unusual humans with consciousness, not by accident. We are unique, and you deny the most logical reason. We are here on purpose, by design..

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, August 13, 2021, 10:33 (72 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What is totally illogical is that you question God's logic in waiting 3.8 billion years from start of life to the appearance of humans.

dhw: You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.

DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.

And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.

DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.

How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Your wild imagination continues. My belief is based upon the appearance of most unusual humans with consciousness, not by accident. We are unique, and you deny the most logical reason. We are here on purpose, by design.

Yes, we are unusual, and I have no problem with your design theory. But you claim that every single life form was individually designed, and so every single life form must have been designed on purpose, but you insist that even all those life forms which had no connection with humans were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That doesn’t make sense, and you know it.

Denisovan DNA in Southeast Asia

DAVID: Found in Siberia and now everywhere in Asia. Hum an evolution is a large complex bush. To forestall dhw, I have no idea why God wanted so many forms before we conquered all.

And you have no idea why your God wanted (and specially designed) all the other life forms that had no connection with sapiens. If you have no idea, it means you cannot find any logical reason for what you believe to have been your God’s way of fulfilling what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Regardless of my alternatives, the fact that you cannot find any logic in your theory ought to alert you to the possibility that your theory might be wrong.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Friday, August 13, 2021, 17:39 (71 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You simply continue to dodge the issue by ignoring what you yourself find inexplicable in your own theory. Once again: no, I am not questioning the FACT that it took 3.8 billion years for humans to appear, whether God engineered it all or not. I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food. It is the logic of YOUR THEORY that I am questioning.

DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.

dhw: And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.

Your wandering God theories only fit a very humanized version of God. As usual, you have forgotten we all eat. Without the huge bush humans would be starving. Your narrow vision of facts is confusing you.


DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.

dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?

Once again you have created an image of very humanized God. I don't accept that image as reasonable. And as usual you want mean to explain God's choices. It is obvious from facts you well know that every aspect of our reality has appeared through a process of evolution. It is easy to see God prefers to evolve His projects. Look at His works


DAVID: Your wild imagination continues. My belief is based upon the appearance of most unusual humans with consciousness, not by accident. We are unique, and you deny the most logical reason. We are here on purpose, by design.

dhw: Yes, we are unusual, and I have no problem with your design theory. But you claim that every single life form was individually designed, and so every single life form must have been designed on purpose, but you insist that even all those life forms which had no connection with humans were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That doesn’t make sense, and you know it.

With God in charge, knowing exactly what He wants, it all is logical. I'm sorry you are so confused about images of God that fit the evidence from His works.


Denisovan DNA in Southeast Asia

DAVID: Found in Siberia and now everywhere in Asia. Hum an evolution is a large complex bush. To forestall dhw, I have no idea why God wanted so many forms before we conquered all.

dhw: And you have no idea why your God wanted (and specially designed) all the other life forms that had no connection with sapiens. If you have no idea, it means you cannot find any logical reason for what you believe to have been your God’s way of fulfilling what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Regardless of my alternatives, the fact that you cannot find any logic in your theory ought to alert you to the possibility that your theory might be wrong.

I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, August 14, 2021, 06:57 (71 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am questioning YOUR logic in your theory (NOT a fact) that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, but he spent 3.8 billion years specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: What is totally illogical is your constant complaint: I put God in charge and look at the current result and Adler's analysis. You wander off and invent other reasons why God might have evolved us. I accept your reasons if one considers a very humanized God, unsure of Himself, experimenting, enjoying a free-f-or-all, and especially non-purposeful.

dhw: And so yet again you try to dodge the illogical premises bolded above. My alternative theistic theories all explain why there have been so many life forms that have no connection with us. None of them suggest a God without a purpose or even a God who is unsure of himself, but in any case these distorted versions of my alternative theories do not provide an explanation for the sheer illogicality of the bolded theory , which is why you continue to dodge.

DAVID: Your wandering God theories only fits a very humanized version of God. As usual, you have forgotten we all eat. Without the huge bush humans would be starving. Your narrow vision of facts is confusing you.

You are determined to flit from one discredited dodge to another rather than face up to the illogicality of the bolded theory. All our theories “humanize” God, and that fits in with your repeated acknowledgement that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you are “sure we mimic Him in many ways.” The huge bush of past foods has no connection with the present huge bush of foods, as you have acknowledged repeatedly: “The current bush of foods is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “extinct life has no role in present time”. Please stop trotting out these silly, discredited irrelevancies, as if they somehow justify the illogicality of your theory bolded above.:-(

DAVID: My view of God is totally different and we cannot narrow the gap. My God is logical for me. I cannot reply to your imagination which runs wild as you try to imagine all sorts of Gods.

dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Once again you have created an image of very humanized God.

Who is different from your humanized God. Dealt with above and at least a hundred times before that.

DAVID: I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.

According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 14, 2021, 21:15 (70 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How can your version of your God’s evolution be logical for you if you can’t explain why he would specially design countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food, although his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food? What is “wild” about a God who experiments, or who has new ideas as he goes along, or who creates a free-for-all because he wants to create a free-for-all, or who watches his creation with interest and therefore may have designed his creation because he wanted something he could watch with interest?

DAVID: I've shown you God evolves His results. Do you deny that? Why He evolves instead of direct creations is His choice which I accept. I don't need His reasoning, only you do for your own strange logic.

dhw: According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.

I've boiled down this aspect of our discussion to end it once and for all from my viewpoint. I view God as an all-powerful creator. I view all we know about our reality as a direct result of His intentions for creation. I view Him as fully purposeful and never meandering from His goals. I cannot know (but I can guess if I wished to do so) why He chose the methods He chose to reach His intended goals. But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it.

You can imagine all the dithering humanized Gods you wish to imagine, and I admit they fit the history of evolution in a general way generally from your God's standpoint. We see totally different Gods. As for your contrived boded query about past evolution, you are simply complaining about past real stages in earlier evolution. why you don't accept that view is really beyond my comprehension. Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage. My position is quite clear and firm. I don't accept your puzzling over different God's personalities, but go on puzzling all you want..

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, August 15, 2021, 09:21 (70 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you, evolution means that your God directly creates every species. And according to you, he evolved (directly created) every single one of them for the sole purpose of evolving (directly creating) humans and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food. Please explain why you consider this logical.

DAVID: I've boiled down this aspect of our discussion to end it once and for all from my viewpoint. I view God as an all-powerful creator. I view all we know about our reality as a direct result of His intentions for creation. I view Him as fully purposeful and never meandering from His goals. I cannot know (but I can guess if I wished to do so) why He chose the methods He chose to reach His intended goals.

If God exists, this is exactly how I see him. But already you have introduced your first dodge. You do not say he has “goals”. You say he has one goal, which is to create humans and their food. This is what leads to the subsequent illogicality.

DAVID: But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it. (dhw' bold)

And so once more you gloss over the fact that ALL species are not just from bacteria to the latest species (humans). ALL species encompass the vast range of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. And so you are faced with the question: why, if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, did he specially design all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food?

DAVID: You can imagine all the dithering humanized Gods you wish to imagine, and I admit they fit the history of evolution in a general way generally from your God's standpoint.

There is no dithering. All my alternatives explain the bolded illogicality which you continually dodge.

DAVID: We see totally different Gods. As for your contrived bolded query about past evolution, you are simply complaining about past real stages in earlier evolution. why you don't accept that view is really beyond my comprehension.

I am not complaining about all the real life forms that have made up the ever changing bush of life! I am pointing out that they contradict your theory, and if the logical clash between these aspects of your theory is beyond your comprehension, then why don’t you accept that there may be something wrong with your theory?

DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.

It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.

DAVID: My position is quite clear and firm. I don't accept your puzzling over different God's personalities, but go on puzzling all you want.

Your position is firm, and what is clear from this post is that you remain determined to ignore the illogicality of your theory. Even if you disagree with my different explanations, that still doesn’t provide you with any defence of your own belief, which you cannot explain. I’m not sure what you mean by “puzzling” here. I offer different theistic interpretations of evolution, all of which explain what you cannot explain.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 15, 2021, 15:38 (69 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've boiled down this aspect of our discussion to end it once and for all from my viewpoint. I view God as an all-powerful creator. I view all we know about our reality as a direct result of His intentions for creation. I view Him as fully purposeful and never meandering from His goals. I cannot know (but I can guess if I wished to do so) why He chose the methods He chose to reach His intended goals.

dhw: If God exists, this is exactly how I see him. But already you have introduced your first dodge. You do not say he has “goals”. You say he has one goal, which is to create humans and their food. This is what leads to the subsequent illogicality.

DAVID: But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it. (dhw' bold)

dhw: And so once more you gloss over the fact that ALL species are not just from bacteria to the latest species (humans). ALL species encompass the vast range of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. And so you are faced with the question: why, if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, did he specially design all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food?

And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.


DAVID: We see totally different Gods. As for your contrived bolded query about past evolution, you are simply complaining about past real stages in earlier evolution. why you don't accept that view is really beyond my comprehension.

dhw: I am not complaining about all the real life forms that have made up the ever changing bush of life! I am pointing out that they contradict your theory, and if the logical clash between these aspects of your theory is beyond your comprehension, then why don’t you accept that there may be something wrong with your theory?

As above, you create clashes that exist only in your mind.


DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.

dhw: It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.

Back to your view of a tunnel-visioned God. Humans and the huge bush of food are an historical fact showing God's intentions.


DAVID: My position is quite clear and firm. I don't accept your puzzling over different God's personalities, but go on puzzling all you want.

dhw: Your position is firm, and what is clear from this post is that you remain determined to ignore the illogicality of your theory. Even if you disagree with my different explanations, that still doesn’t provide you with any defence of your own belief, which you cannot explain. I’m not sure what you mean by “puzzling” here. I offer different theistic interpretations of evolution, all of which explain what you cannot explain.

By 'puzzling' I am referring to your various interpretations of what God is as a personage. I have fully explained my belief in the God I've described above and how I interpret the history He has created. You may say so, but you do not see the God I see.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, August 16, 2021, 09:04 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: But it is obvious He evolves all stages from the BB to humans. Evolution gives the appearance of a natural common descent, but the extent of the required exquisite biochemical designs forces the conclusion God's designing mind created all species from bacteria to the endpoint, humans with consciousness. Since humans are in total control of the Earth, the only further evolution can only be confined to humans, if we allow it. (dhw' bold)

dhw: And so once more you gloss over the fact that ALL species are not just from bacteria to the latest species (humans). ALL species encompass the vast range of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. And so you are faced with the question: why, if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, did he specially design all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food?

DAVID: And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.

Of course if he exists, he can do anything he wants and his works reflect his intentions. My objection is to the fact that if his one and only intention was to create humans and their food, as you claim, it makes no sense that he should also have wanted to create countless branches of life forms that had no connection with humans! Either humans were NOT his one and only intention, or if they were, there has to be a reason for all the countless other forms that had no connection with humans. You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue. I offer you explanations for all the other forms, two of which even allow for humans being “very special and a desired goal” (experimentation, and God getting new ideas as he goes along), plus the theory that he wanted a free-for-all (but reserved the right to dabble). You accept that these theories solve the problem you cannot solve, and your only objection to all of them is that any such “humanized” view of God does not correspond to your own humanized view.

DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.

dhw: It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.

DAVID: Back to your view of a tunnel-visioned God. Humans and the huge bush of food are an historical fact showing God's intentions.

It is YOUR vision that is tunnelled: God has one purpose, and so he creates forms that are irrelevant to his one purpose. Humans and their food, and countless life forms and their foods are also historical facts, but you have no idea why he would have specially designed all of the latter if his one and only purpose was the former.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, August 16, 2021, 18:11 (68 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.

dhw: Of course if he exists, he can do anything he wants and his works reflect his intentions. My objection is to the fact that if his one and only intention was to create humans and their food, as you claim, it makes no sense that he should also have wanted to create countless branches of life forms that had no connection with humans! Either humans were NOT his one and only intention, or if they were, there has to be a reason for all the countless other forms that had no connection with humans.

You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated. I view humans as His final goal in creation, giving them control of the Earth. But everything we see on Earth is obviously required and must be created before they arrive in dominance. You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes.

dhw: You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue.

There is no dodge in the statement above. Your objections are illogical inventions by distorting the view of God I have given over the years here. To briefly repeat, I see a very purposeful God who knows what He wants and creates it by evolving it.

DAVID: Evolution is a single long process in time, 3.8 byo it seams With giant gaps, each stage leading to the next more complex stage.

dhw: It is a single long process in which the bush of life has branched out into countless forms undergoing countless stages, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and their food, which you insist were your God's one and only purpose.

DAVID: Back to your view of a tunnel-visioned God. Humans and the huge bush of food are an historical fact showing God's intentions.

dhw:It is YOUR vision that is tunnelled: God has one purpose, and so he creates forms that are irrelevant to his one purpose. Humans and their food, and countless life forms and their foods are also historical facts, but you have no idea why he would have specially designed all of the latter if his one and only purpose was the former.

Same repeated distortion. God has created what is absolutely required before humans appear.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 10:21 (68 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And once again you gloss over the concept, which you accepted above, that God can do anything He wants. God created the evolutionary history we know. Yes, it branches in all directions, so that is what He wanted on the way to creating humans. That is the exact concept about God you adamantly deny. Your main objection is to the concept of humans as very special and therefore a desired goal. All of this is a very connected theory which you slice into various parts that you illogically claim have no connections. It is all connected by accepting that God's works reflect His intentions.

dhw: Of course if he exists, he can do anything he wants and his works reflect his intentions. My objection is to the fact that if his one and only intention was to create humans and their food, as you claim, it makes no sense that he should also have wanted to create countless branches of life forms that had no connection with humans! Either humans were NOT his one and only intention, or if they were, there has to be a reason for all the countless other forms that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated.

Once again you use plural goals, whereas your theory has always been that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. For those who believe in God and who also believe in the theory of evolution, of course his works show that he used evolution for his goals. How does that come to mean that his one and only goal was humans and their food, when the vast majority of his “works” (you say he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder) had no connection with humans?

DAVID: I view humans as His final goal in creation, giving them control of the Earth. But everything we see on Earth is obviously required and must be created before they arrive in dominance.
And later:
God has created what is absolutely required before humans appear.

Please explain why your God absolutely had to create all the extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with humans before he could create humans and their foods, which were his one and only purpose.

DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)

Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.

dhw: You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue.

DAVID: There is no dodge in the statement above. Your objections are illogical inventions by distorting the view of God I have given over the years here. To briefly repeat, I see a very purposeful God who knows what He wants and creates it by evolving it.

If God exists, then that is precisely the God I would see. All of my alternative theories have him knowing what he wants and creating it by means of evolution, and all of them explain what you cannot explain: namely, the past existence of countless life forms that had no connection with humans.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 14:51 (67 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated.

dhw: Once again you use plural goals, whereas your theory has always been that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. For those who believe in God and who also believe in the theory of evolution, of course his works show that he used evolution for his goals. How does that come to mean that his one and only goal was humans and their food, when the vast majority of his “works” (you say he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder) had no connection with humans?

Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.

DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.

All connected in the concept of a continuous evolution from simple to complex.


dhw: You cannot find any such reason, and so you continue to dodge the issue.

DAVID: There is no dodge in the statement above. Your objections are illogical inventions by distorting the view of God I have given over the years here. To briefly repeat, I see a very purposeful God who knows what He wants and creates it by evolving it.

dhw: If God exists, then that is precisely the God I would see. All of my alternative theories have him knowing what he wants and creating it by means of evolution, and all of them explain what you cannot explain: namely, the past existence of countless life forms that had no connection with humans.

You distort the concept of evolving to create your totally illogical criticism.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 12:42 (66 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have decided to make my concept of God as singularly tunnel-visioned. It is a total distortion of my view of God. God works by evolving His goals as His works show, and I have previously demonstrated.

dhw: Once again you use plural goals, whereas your theory has always been that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. For those who believe in God and who also believe in the theory of evolution, of course his works show that he used evolution for his goals. How does that come to mean that his one and only goal was humans and their food, when the vast majority of his “works” (you say he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder) had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.

I'm not sure how my unanswered questions concerning the logic of your tunnel view can become my tunnel view! “All is connected” by the fact that all life forms descended from the first. But all life forms are not connected with one another, because life branched out into countless different forms, the vast majority of which, by your own admission, had no connection with humans and their food. It is therefore illogical to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” and their food. You have continued to dodge this issue for what seems like years.

DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: All connected in the concept of a continuous evolution from simple to complex.

But not “all connected” with your God’s one and only goal of specially designing humans and their food.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 18:05 (66 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.

dhw: I'm not sure how my unanswered questions concerning the logic of your tunnel view can become my tunnel view! “All is connected” by the fact that all life forms descended from the first. But all life forms are not connected with one another, because life branched out into countless different forms, the vast majority of which, by your own admission, had no connection with humans and their food. It is therefore illogical to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” and their food. You have continued to dodge this issue for what seems like years

Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life. And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch. All life must have new energy so necessary food supply is present as God planned it. You just don't like God's planning for the huge present human population He saw coming. Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments


DAVID: You sneer at the need for food, why? Many of the current animals and plants serve our needs in many other ways besides food and you should recognize that. No need to list them. Plants serve the same food and other obvious purposes. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Yes, the “current ones”, but as you have said yourself and continue to ignore: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stop pretending that current necessities explain past necessities which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: All connected in the concept of a continuous evolution from simple to complex.

dhw: But not “all connected” with your God’s one and only goal of specially designing humans and their food.

My God knows what He is doing and His plan is obvious to me.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, August 19, 2021, 11:44 (66 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your tunnel view is unchanged. God's endpoint is humans, and all is connected by the concept of evolution in which simple leads to complexity in stages, which you separate as non-connected.

dhw: I'm not sure how my unanswered questions concerning the logic of your tunnel view can become my tunnel view! “All is connectedby the fact that all life forms descended from the first. But all life forms are not connected with one another, because life branched out into countless different forms, the vast majority of which, by your own admission, had no connection with humans and their food. It is therefore illogical to claim that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [by which you mean specially designing] humans” and their food. You have continued to dodge this issue for what seems like years

DAVID: Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life.

Thank you for agreeing with my first bold.

DAVID: And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch.

Where do you get that from? Have you forgotten that the history of life comprises countless branches, most of which are extinct? Are you once more trying to twist language to show that every branch in life’s history provided food for humans? Please don’t even try.

DAVID: All life must have new energy so necessary food supply is present as God planned it. You just don't like God's planning for the huge present human population He saw coming.

How does planning food for all the life forms that had no connection with humans suddenly become planning food for humans? FOOD FOR THE PAST WAS FOR THE PAST, AND EXTINCT LIFE HAS NO ROLE IN CURRENT TIME. How often must I repeat your own statements? Please stop playing these silly games.

DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.

Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 19, 2021, 15:19 (65 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing with my first bold.

DAVID: And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch.

dhw: Where do you get that from? Have you forgotten that the history of life comprises countless branches, most of which are extinct? Are you once more trying to twist language to show that every branch in life’s history provided food for humans? Please don’t even try.

Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.


DAVID: All life must have new energy so necessary food supply is present as God planned it. You just don't like God's planning for the huge present human population He saw coming.

dhw: How does planning food for all the life forms that had no connection with humans suddenly become planning food for humans? FOOD FOR THE PAST WAS FOR THE PAST, AND EXTINCT LIFE HAS NO ROLE IN CURRENT TIME. How often must I repeat your own statements? Please stop playing these silly games.

My statement is correct. From above: " We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms."


DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.

dhw: Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.

You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, August 20, 2021, 12:01 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Yes bushes branch off and we are the end point of a specific branch. However all branches are connected at the roots, the start of life.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing with my first bold.

DAVID: And all the branches are providing food for everyone in every branch.

dhw: Where do you get that from? Have you forgotten that the history of life comprises countless branches, most of which are extinct? Are you once more trying to twist language to show that every branch in life’s history provided food for humans? Please don’t even try.

DAVID: Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.

It is YOU who keep trying to dodge the past! There is no dispute over the fact that current branches feed current forms. The dispute, which you continue to gloss over, concerns your claim that ALL forms of life and food, extant and extinct, were specially designed by your God in order to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans and their food, although the vast majority of past life forms and foods had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.

dhw: Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.

DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.

It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans? (I’m not going to forecast what evolution will come up with in the next few billion years.)

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Friday, August 20, 2021, 18:31 (64 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.

dhw: It is YOU who keep trying to dodge the past! There is no dispute over the fact that current branches feed current forms. The dispute, which you continue to gloss over, concerns your claim that ALL forms of life and food, extant and extinct, were specially designed by your God in order to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans and their food, although the vast majority of past life forms and foods had no connection with humans and their food.

The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it..


DAVID: Oh, I forgot, your God is not sure of where he is going so He experiments.

dhw: Experimenting is only one of my alternatives, but at least it explains why your God might have specially designed all the life forms and foods which you keep telling us were part of his one and only goal of designing humans although they had no connection with humans.

DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.

dhw: It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans? (I’m not going to forecast what evolution will come up with in the next few billion years.)

Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, August 21, 2021, 13:08 (63 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why don't you recognize evolution has a past, a present, and perhaps a future? We are discussing the useful presence of current branches that feed all living forms.

dhw: It is YOU who keep trying to dodge the past! There is no dispute over the fact that current branches feed current forms. The dispute, which you continue to gloss over, concerns your claim that ALL forms of life and food, extant and extinct, were specially designed by your God in order to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans and their food, although the vast majority of past life forms and foods had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it.

What do you mean by “the past created the future”? According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to design (create) sapiens and his food, but he designed (created) countless life forms and foods in the past which had no connection with present sapiens and his food. Please stop this endless dodging.

DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.

dhw: It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.

More obfuscation. Since you now want to compare God’s pursuit of his goal(s) to our human pursuit (yippee for your “humanization”!), supposing I tell you that my one and only goal is to write a book about agnosticism and I then proceed to write twenty books about gardening, wouldn’t you find that “strange”? According to you, your God’s one and only goal was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food. Don’t you find that “strange”?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 21, 2021, 16:07 (63 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it.

dhw: What do you mean by “the past created the future”? According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to design (create) sapiens and his food, but he designed (created) countless life forms and foods in the past which had no connection with present sapiens and his food. Please stop this endless dodging.

I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.


DAVID: You distort God's goal as singular. Humans are/were the planned endpoint. In my view evolution has ended. The current bush is the final bush.

dhw: It is YOU who have constantly claimed that God’s goal is singular! And you claim that all life forms etc. were/are “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. That is the nub of the whole endless dispute. How can they possibly have been part of that one goal if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.

dhw: More obfuscation. Since you now want to compare God’s pursuit of his goal(s) to our human pursuit (yippee for your “humanization”!), supposing I tell you that my one and only goal is to write a book about agnosticism and I then proceed to write twenty books about gardening, wouldn’t you find that “strange”? According to you, your God’s one and only goal was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food. Don’t you find that “strange”?

God has goals in that He knows what He wishes to produce. We are forced to make Him seem human because of the verbiage we are forced to employ in discussing Him. We in no sense ever try to humanize Him as you do.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, August 22, 2021, 09:17 (63 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The past created the future by God's designs. That is my firm belief, but not yours. So be it.

dhw: What do you mean by “the past created the future”? According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to design (create) sapiens and his food, but he designed (created) countless life forms and foods in the past which had no connection with present sapiens and his food. Please stop this endless dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.

How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.

DAVID: Endless strange interpretation. You set goals and reach them. I set goals and reach them. So does God. All of us accomplish lots of necessary things/events along the way, all a continuous journey from start to finish. Only you wan to to chop it into segments so nothing is related. Strange.

dhw: More obfuscation. Since you now want to compare God’s pursuit of his goal(s) to our human pursuit (yippee for your “humanization”!), supposing I tell you that my one and only goal is to write a book about agnosticism and I then proceed to write twenty books about gardening, wouldn’t you find that “strange”? According to you, your God’s one and only goal was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food. Don’t you find that “strange”?

DAVID: God has goals in that He knows what He wishes to produce.

You say he only has one goal. But of course he knows what he wishes to produce. And according to you, he spends 3.X billion years producing what he does not wish to produce.

DAVID: We are forced to make Him seem human because of the verbiage we are forced to employ in discussing Him. We in no sense ever try to humanize Him as you do.

Your usual non-argument against the logic of my alternative theories. At various times you have him interested in and enjoying his creations, and you insist that he is all good, wants to be in total control, is all-knowing (and therefore never learns or experiments), and you try desperately to avoid the fact that you have stated categorically that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we mimic him in many ways. And in any case, neither your humanizing nor mine can explain why your all-powerful God would have fulfilled his one and only goal (creating humans plus food) by spending 3.X billion years not fulfilling his one and only goal (specially designing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans). Don't you ever get tired of dodging?:-(

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 22, 2021, 15:24 (62 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.

dhw: How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.

Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise. Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history. It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria. Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion. From your humanized God viewpoint, you are blind to the obvious.


DAVID: God has goals in that He knows what He wishes to produce.

dhw: You say he only has one goal. But of course he knows what he wishes to produce. And according to you, he spends 3.X billion years producing what he does not wish to produce.

You same God-blind humanizing reasoning.


DAVID: We are forced to make Him seem human because of the verbiage we are forced to employ in discussing Him. We in no sense ever try to humanize Him as you do.

dhw: Your usual non-argument against the logic of my alternative theories. At various times you have him interested in and enjoying his creations, and you insist that he is all good, wants to be in total control, is all-knowing (and therefore never learns or experiments), and you try desperately to avoid the fact that you have stated categorically that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we mimic him in many ways. And in any case, neither your humanizing nor mine can explain why your all-powerful God would have fulfilled his one and only goal (creating humans plus food) by spending 3.X billion years not fulfilling his one and only goal (specially designing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans). Don't you ever get tired of dodging?:-(

Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do? I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, August 23, 2021, 13:09 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't dodge like you do. Your repeated mantra objection above is completely illogical, and is totally based on your very humanized God as the only one you can accept. God created the appearance of common descent by making/designing each new stage from the previous.

dhw: How does my very humanized God or your God’s design of every new stage of every life form that ever existed explain why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, he designed every stage of every life form that had no connection with humans and their food? Please stop dodging. I would ask you to explain the logic, but you have already admitted repeatedly that you can’t – though then you go on to tell me that the theory is perfectly logical.

DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.

Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.

DAVID: Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history.

No problem so far, assuming God exists.

DAVID: It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria.

But it is perfectly logical that if God designed every species, he wanted EVERY species to appear and did it starting with bacteria. What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion.

No, this is the point which I have constantly made and which you constantly try to dodge. Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?

When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)

DAVID: I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.

Your descriptions of him are preconceptions (always in control, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and your insistence that humans were his one and only purpose for creating life is inconsistent with your belief that he proceeded to create millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Your conclusions are therefore based on the ways YOU have him act, and you are then forced to tell us that God doesn’t reason as we humans do – apart from one dear friend of mine, who firmly believes that his view of God’s reasoning is incomprehensibly illogical but we must accept it.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, August 23, 2021, 15:20 (61 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.

dhw: Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.

I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.


DAVID: Just accept that God creates by evolving, as I have shown, the universe from the BB, the Earth from its appearance, life from its origin. All reflected in known history.

dhw: No problem so far, assuming God exists.

DAVID: It is then perfectly logical to accept that God wanted us to appear and did it starting with bacteria.

dhw: But it is perfectly logical that if God designed every species, he wanted EVERY species to appear and did it starting with bacteria. What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!

You just left the logic above. Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.


DAVID: Your objection is an entirely human objection, which fully implies if He wanted something why not directly do it? I've constantly made this same point over the years of our discussion.

dhw: No, this is the point which I have constantly made and which you constantly try to dodge. Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.

Your discussion is using a human example and fails. Gardening has certainly nothing to do with agnosticism. I agree. That God chose to evolve us is fact if one believes in God as I do.


DAVID: Your same totally human complaint about my view of God, which can never be like your view of a human-level-reasoning God. When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?

dhw: When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)

All I admit is I have no idea why He chose evolution as his means of all progress, but history tells us the universe evolved after the BB, the Earth evolved, and after life started it evolved. You remain confused as you deal with your very human form of God.


DAVID: I don't dodge your unacceptable illogical thoughts about God in the way you attempt to imply. I wish you could see your God as I see Him, but you resent my previous descriptions of Him, although I view them as an honest set of conclusions based on the ways you have Him act.

dhw: Your descriptions of him are preconceptions (always in control, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing) and your insistence that humans were his one and only purpose for creating life is inconsistent with your belief that he proceeded to create millions of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Your conclusions are therefore based on the ways YOU have him act, and you are then forced to tell us that God doesn’t reason as we humans do – apart from one dear friend of mine, who firmly believes that his view of God’s reasoning is incomprehensibly illogical but we must accept it.

Again we are back to having to review your very humanized concept of God. Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 14:11 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Perfectly logical if you accept God has the right to create everything by any method He wishes, and you have accepted that premise.

dhw: Of course he has the right. I am only questioning the logic of the goal and method you impose on him.

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.

And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).

dhw: What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: You just left the logic above. Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.

Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.

dhw: Last time you wanted to draw a parallel with humans and our goals, and I did so. All I want to do is write a book about agnosticism, and so first of all I write 20 books about gardening. You have skipped over the parallel you wanted to draw. Why? Because of course it illustrates precisely the same illogicality as your theory of evolution. So please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your discussion is using a human example and fails. Gardening has certainly nothing to do with agnosticism. I agree. That God chose to evolve us is fact if one believes in God as I do.

It was you who tried to draw comparisons between humans and God pursuing their goal, and so I gave you the analogy. You have agreed with it. And what you call a fact leaves out the “fact” that your God also chose to evolve (= specially design) countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans (= 20 books on gardening).

DAVID: […] When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?

dhw: When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)

DAVID: All I admit is I have no idea why He chose evolution as his means of all progress, but history tells us the universe evolved after the BB, the Earth evolved, and after life started it evolved. You remain confused as you deal with your very human form of God.

Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.

DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.

I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 29, 2021, 15:49 (55 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.

dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).

Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary


dhw: What is not logical is that he only wanted humans plus their food to appear, and therefore designed lot of species and food that had no connection with humans and their food. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: You just left the logic above. Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.

dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.

Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.


DAVID: […] When will you realize God doesn't reason as you do?

dhw: When will you realize that maybe God does not reason as you do, since your own interpretation of his reasoning makes no sense even to you! (You have no idea why he would have chosen to design all the life forms etc. that had no connection with humans and their food. So maybe he didn't design them. Or maybe he did, but their purpose was not to enable him to design us.)

DAVID: All I admit is I have no idea why He chose evolution as his means of all progress, but history tells us the universe evolved after the BB, the Earth evolved, and after life started it evolved. You remain confused as you deal with your very human form of God.

dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.

Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.


DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.

dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.

Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, August 30, 2021, 11:01 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.

dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).

DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary

The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?

DAVID: […] Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.

dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.

DAVID: Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.

How can I have misinterpreted your constantly repeated belief that humans and their food were your God’s goal in creating life? If humans and their food were his one and only goal, why do you think all the life forms and foods which you say he wanted to create “had to come before”, if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? You simply cannot face the fact that it is totally illogical to claim that your God only had one purpose but wanted to create life forms and food that had no connection with his one purpose. And you know it.

dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.

DAVID: Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.

For the sake of argument, I am accepting the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate the illogicality of your theistic interpretation of evolution. I have also offered alternative theistic explanations, which you agree are logical.

DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.

dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.

DAVID: Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.

Food supply for all the life forms that had no connection with your God’s one and only purpose! Hence the countless irrelevant characters and stories that would make sheer nonsense of the play in your analogy.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, August 30, 2021, 14:34 (54 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wised to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.

dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).

DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary

dhw: The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?

The bold is your illogical thought that runs in circles. Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.


DAVID: […] Your inference is why didn't God just go to direct creation of us if that is all He wanted? That is you illogical humanizing objection. What He created is what He wanted to create over time.

dhw: Correct, except that you call it “illogical”. Quite clearly, if he wanted to create all the life forms that had no connection with humans and their food, then it makes no sense to claim that all he wanted to create was humans and their food. He must have wanted to create all the other life forms as well.

DAVID: Common sense at last. Of course His intent was to create all the rest. You have finally recovered from your misinterpretation of my point that humans were the desired final step. all that came before had to come before.

dhw: How can I have misinterpreted your constantly repeated belief that humans and their food were your God’s goal in creating life? If humans and their food were his one and only goal, why do you think all the life forms and foods which you say he wanted to create “had to come before”, if the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? You simply cannot face the fact that it is totally illogical to claim that your God only had one purpose but wanted to create life forms and food that had no connection with his one purpose. And you know it.

Again denying God the privilege of evolving humans from bacteria. They were a final goal while making sure of a huge food supply. Please stick to your correct bolded interpretation un less you didn't really mean it.


dhw: Our disagreement begins with your interpretation of why he created life.

DAVID: Our disagreement starts as to whether God exists.

dhw: For the sake of argument, I am accepting the premise that God exists in order to demonstrate the illogicality of your theistic interpretation of evolution. I have also offered alternative theistic explanations, which you agree are logical.

Same distortion. Your theistic explanations only fit an extremely humanized God.


DAVID: Try to accept that history tells us what God decided to do and how He did it. Humans appear at the final curtain in the play of reality. Perhaps my dear playwright friend can understand it in his terms.

dhw: I can. And my play would never be performed if I introduced countless characters and story lines that had nothing whatsoever to with the situation at the end. Plays have to make sense. If God exists, I suspect that his "play" would also make sense.

DAVID: Agreed, which is what the bush of life looks like, making perfect sense as food supply.

dhw: Food supply for all the life forms that had no connection with your God’s one and only purpose! Hence the countless irrelevant characters and stories that would make sheer nonsense of the play in your analogy.

Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 14:28 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on God. I think God created our known historical facts. Evolution occurred and humans appeared at the end. Conclusion: God wished to create Humans and did it by evolving them from bacteria. There is no false logic involved.

dhw: And you also have him evolving (which for you means specially designing) every other life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, so clearly according to the above, he must also have wished to create them as well as humans (and their food), but the vast majority of them had no connection with humans, and so the false logic is your claim that his only purpose was to create humans (and their food).

DAVID: Same dichotomy of thought. All the rest become the food that is necessary

dhw: The food that is necessary for WHAT? All life forms need food. How does that come to mean that all life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” and their food?

DAVID: The bold is your illogical thought that runs in circles. Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.

But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.

dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.

DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.

The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. How can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply? That’s four dodges (three of them “food”) in one post!

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 16:17 (53 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is your illogical thought that runs in circles. Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.

dhw: But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!

No dodge. God in charge evolved humans from bacteria. I don't know why you have accepted that premise in the past and then become so confused when I state I think humans were God's intended final endpoint of His management of the process of evolution.


DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.

dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.

DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.

dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. How can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply? That’s four dodges (three of them “food”) in one post!

You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 10:18 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [...] Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.

dhw: But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: No dodge. God in charge evolved humans from bacteria. I don't know why you have accepted that premise in the past and then become so confused when I state I think humans were God's intended final endpoint of His management of the process of evolution.

There is no confusion on my part. According to you, God in charge evolved humans and every other life form, natural wonder, econiche, lifestyle etc. from bacteria. But by “evolve” you mean specially design. And so it makes no sense to claim, as you do, that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve humans and their food, if he also specially designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. In your attempt to sow confusion, you then pretend that all the past life forms etc. were part of the necessary food supply for current humans, as below:

DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.

dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.

DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.

dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. Once again: how can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.

Your final dodge is to ignore the question.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 01, 2021, 20:20 (52 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: [...] Humans need lots of food that must be present now with our huge population.

dhw: But that does not explain why he specially designed countless PAST life forms and their foods if his only goal was to design the present us and our present foods. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: No dodge. God in charge evolved humans from bacteria. I don't know why you have accepted that premise in the past and then become so confused when I state I think humans were God's intended final endpoint of His management of the process of evolution.

dhw: There is no confusion on my part. According to you, God in charge evolved humans and every other life form, natural wonder, econiche, lifestyle etc. from bacteria. But by “evolve” you mean specially design. And so it makes no sense to claim, as you do, that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve humans and their food, if he also specially designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. In your attempt to sow confusion, you then pretend that all the past life forms etc. were part of the necessary food supply for current humans, as below:

DAVID: […] all that came before had to come before.

dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.

DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.

dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. Once again: how can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.

dhw: Your final dodge is to ignore the question.

You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent. Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now. It is all connected through God's actions/ designs. This is no dodge. You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 12:05 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] I am questioning your claim that the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans “had to come before” humans and their food. Why, if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food? You simply go on and on dodging the issue.

DAVID: Once again distorting my God into extreme tunnel-vision to sit your debating purposes which devolves into a totally illogical view of the necessary human food supply.

dhw: The extreme tunnel vision is yours, when you claim that all life forms “were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food supply. Once again: how can they all have been part of that goal if the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food supply?

DAVID: You have no argument if you accept that God evolved humans from bacteria, discussing at the theistic level where God exists.

dhw: Your final dodge is to ignore the question.

DAVID: You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent.

So far, so good.

DAVID: Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now.

In your theory, each huge bush was necessary for the countless OTHER past life forms which he designed while designing the one line from bacteria to humans, and the question which you continue to ignore (because you know you can’t answer it) is: why did he specially design all the OTHER past life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans if humans were his one and only purpose?

DAVID: It is all connected through God's actions/ designs. This is no dodge.

Of course it’s a dodge! The only connection you are offering is that God designed them all! You cannot answer the bolded question above, and so you go on dodging it.

DAVID: You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.

(Made humans plus their food.) If your theory is correct, then of course he should! And according to the Bible that’s what he did. But – assuming he even exists – evolution shows that he didn’t, and that’s why Darwin’s theory caused such an uproar and why you have to keep dodging the bolded question above. You can’t find an answer, which clearly suggests that there is something wrong with your theory. Maybe he DIDN’T design all the other life forms. Or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design humans.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 02, 2021, 18:12 (51 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent.

dhw: So far, so good.

DAVID: Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now.

dhw: In your theory, each huge bush was necessary for the countless OTHER past life forms which he designed while designing the one line from bacteria to humans, and the question which you continue to ignore (because you know you can’t answer it) is: why did he specially design all the OTHER past life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans if humans were his one and only purpose?

Same nutty argument. Why do you switch gears from your agreement above? Evolution from bacteria can only work in one way, one stage at a time, and food supply is necessary all along the way.


DAVID: It is all connected through God's actions/ designs. This is no dodge.

dhw: Of course it’s a dodge! The only connection you are offering is that God designed them all! You cannot answer the bolded question above, and so you go on dodging it.

It is your invented dodge.


DAVID: You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.

dhw: (Made humans plus their food.) If your theory is correct, then of course he should! And according to the Bible that’s what he did. But – assuming he even exists – evolution shows that he didn’t, and that’s why Darwin’s theory caused such an uproar and why you have to keep dodging the bolded question above. You can’t find an answer, which clearly suggests that there is something wrong with your theory. Maybe he DIDN’T design all the other life forms. Or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design humans.

You are stuck with my theology: in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent. And His purpose was to finally create us by that process. It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. You have every right to your opinion. You are not dodging and neither am I.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, September 03, 2021, 10:41 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You refuse to follow my reasoning: God, in charge, designed humans starting with bacteria (Archaea) and designed each subsequent more complex stage until current humans were formed. This looks like what we call evolution with common descent.

dhw: So far, so good.

DAVID: Each huge bush is necessary food supply, smaller in size earlier and very large now to accommodate the population now.

dhw: In your theory, each huge bush was necessary for the countless OTHER past life forms which he designed while designing the one line from bacteria to humans, and the question which you continue to ignore (because you know you can’t answer it) is: why did he specially design all the OTHER past life forms and food bushes that had no connection with humans if humans were his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Same nutty argument. Why do you switch gears from your agreement above? Evolution from bacteria can only work in one way, one stage at a time, and food supply is necessary all along the way.

Correct, but that applies to EVERY LIFE FORM THAT EVER LIVED. And that leads to the bolded question above, which once more you attempt to dodge.

DAVID: You simply suggest God should have gone straight away and made humans. That is obviously what you suggest by your illogical questions.

dhw: (Made humans plus their food.) If your theory is correct, then of course he should! And according to the Bible that’s what he did. But – assuming he even exists – evolution shows that he didn’t, and that’s why Darwin’s theory caused such an uproar and why you have to keep dodging the bolded question above. You can’t find an answer, which clearly suggests that there is something wrong with your theory. Maybe he DIDN’T design all the other life forms. Or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design humans.

DAVID: You are stuck with my theology: in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.

If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.

DAVID: And His purpose was to finally create us by that process.

Hence your claim that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. But that leaves the bolded question unanswered.

DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. You have every right to your opinion. You are not dodging and neither am I.

I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question. And so I will repeat it: why do you think your God specially designed all the life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 00:16 (50 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same nutty argument. Why do you switch gears from your agreement above? Evolution from bacteria can only work in one way, one stage at a time, and food supply is necessary all along the way.

dhw: Correct, but that applies to EVERY LIFE FORM THAT EVER LIVED. And that leads to the bolded question above, which once more you attempt to dodge.

No dodge. Each population with each proper food supply at each stage finally leads to our stage. The dodge is we are discussing past each other. I think your complaint is totally irrational while I am convinced my interpretation fits history and makes perfect sense especially when our exceptionality is accepted.


DAVID: You are stuck with my theology: in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.

We differ on how design appears. I prefer direct hands-on while you propose God offering second-hand instructions making cells appear intelligent.


DAVID: And His purpose was to finally create us by that process.

Hence your claim that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. But that leaves the bolded question unanswered.

DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. You have every right to your opinion. You are not dodging and neither am I.

dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question. And so I will repeat it: why do you think your God specially designed all the life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans?

Because He used the process of evolution by design of stages, creating the illusion of a natural common descent. Fits history.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 09:16 (50 days ago) @ David Turell

Transferred from “Theodicy”, as the argument culminates in the same question.

dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Each population with each proper food supply at each stage finally leads to our stage.

You are forgetting that we both believe ALL life forms descended from bacteria, and the vast majority of extinct life forms and food supplies had no connection with humans. And so each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.

DAVID: […] in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.

DAVID: We differ on how design appears. I prefer direct hands-on while you propose God offering second-hand instructions making cells appear intelligent.

One of my alternative theistic proposals is that your God created cellular intelligence to do its own first-hand designing. This would explain all the life forms that had no connection with humans – and that is the problem you continue to dodge if you insist that all life forms were “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans”.

DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. […]

dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.

DAVID: Because He used the process of evolution by design of stages, creating the illusion of a natural common descent. Fits history.

We agree that he used evolution, which takes place by stages. I don’t know why you call common descent an “illusion”, and “because he used evolution” does not explain why he used it to create life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of producing humans and their food!

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 18:20 (49 days ago) @ dhw

Transferred from “Theodicy”, as the argument culminates in the same question.

dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?

Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.


DAVID: Each population with each proper food supply at each stage finally leads to our stage.

dhw: You are forgetting that we both believe ALL life forms descended from bacteria, and the vast majority of extinct life forms and food supplies had no connection with humans. And so each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.

Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.


DAVID: […] in my view God ran evolution by design, creating a pattern we interpret as common descent.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he designed the mechanisms for evolution. That does not mean he directly designed every life form plus food supply.

DAVID: We differ on how design appears. I prefer direct hands-on while you propose God offering second-hand instructions making cells appear intelligent.

dhw: One of my alternative theistic proposals is that your God created cellular intelligence to do its own first-hand designing. This would explain all the life forms that had no connection with humans – and that is the problem you continue to dodge if you insist that all life forms were “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans”.

That is your proposal, that I have countered by explaining secondhand design is cumbersome, inefficient, and as I result, I think you are wrong about how God decided to create things..


DAVID: It is my firm belief. That He prefers to create by evolving each stage is obvious. His only direct creations are the BB and starting life. The bold is a statement about evolution that denies my theology. […]

dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.

I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.


DAVID: Because He used the process of evolution by design of stages, creating the illusion of a natural common descent. Fits history.

dhw: We agree that he used evolution, which takes place by stages. I don’t know why you call common descent an “illusion”, and “because he used evolution” does not explain why he used it to create life forms and foods that had no connection with his one and only purpose of producing humans and their food!

Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, September 05, 2021, 09:16 (49 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.

That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.

dhw: […] each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.

DAVID: Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.

So the reason your God created the countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans was that in all forms of life, one step leads to another. The logic is rather hard to follow.

[See “Miscellany” on the subject of “secondhand design”]

dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.

DAVID: I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.

Let us not forget that by “evolve” you mean specially design, but thank you for repeating the premise which makes nonsense of your theory: why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” humans (plus food), would he have “evolved” ALL his creations, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.

Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong. After all, as you once wrote: “We can only know his logic is like ours.”

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 05, 2021, 15:14 (48 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.

dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.

Our exceptionality is why I say humans ere God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.


dhw: […] each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.

DAVID: Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.

dhw: So the reason your God created the countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans was that in all forms of life, one step leads to another. The logic is rather hard to follow.

So is yours. The logic is God chose to evolve us.


[See “Miscellany” on the subject of “secondhand design”]

dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.

DAVID: I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.

dhw: Let us not forget that by “evolve” you mean specially design, but thank you for repeating the premise which makes nonsense of your theory: why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” humans (plus food), would he have “evolved” ALL his creations, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans?

Because God prefers stepwise design.


DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.

dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong. After all, as you once wrote: “We can only know his logic is like ours.”

Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, September 06, 2021, 09:01 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.

dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.

DAVID: Our exceptionality is why I say humans were God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.

That IS the problem. I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.

dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.

You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, September 06, 2021, 16:03 (47 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.

DAVID: Our exceptionality is why I say humans were God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.

dhw: That IS the problem. I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.

dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.

dhw: You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!

It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, September 07, 2021, 11:14 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.[…]

dhw: You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!

DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.

No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 07, 2021, 15:41 (46 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I understand why you think we were God’s goal. The theory of experimentation allows for that. We know that he DIDN’T create us directly, and so I ask why, if his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, he first of all designed countless life forms plus foods that had no connection with humans. One or other of your two premises makes the combination illogical, and yet you believe “His logic is like ours.” […]

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.[…]

dhw: You have tried to read his mind, and you have concluded that his one and only purpose in creating life was to create humans plus their food, and his method was to create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. That is illogical, and so you invite me to ask God to explain your illogical theory!

DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.

dhw: No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?

It needs no explanation. He chose to evolve us in designed stages as history shows. Your complaint has no basis assuming God in action.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 12:42 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.

dhw: No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?

DAVID: It needs no explanation. He chose to evolve us in designed stages as history shows.

That is not what needs to be explained. What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.:-(

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 15:26 (45 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is only your opinion my theory is illogical. I see it as perfectly logical. I cannot read God's mind, just as you can't. I must judge god from His works and you know my judgement.

dhw: No, none of us can read God’s mind, but when I ask you why, if his only purpose was to create humans plus their food, he first created countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you say it’s “perfectly logical” but you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be “perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it?

DAVID: It needs no explanation. He chose to evolve us in designed stages as history shows.

dhw: That is not what needs to be explained. What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.:-(

I have answered many times: God chose the method of sequential design from Archaea to humans as His way of finally creating us. I cannot know His underlying thoughts/reasons for doing it that way. It is a perfectly logical assumption about an all-powerful God. Why does the inability to read His mind make my conclusion illogical? As usual your bolded query implies He should have directly created us. ;-)

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, September 09, 2021, 11:47 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.

DAVID: I have answered many times: God chose the method of sequential design from Archaea to humans as His way of finally creating us. I cannot know His underlying thoughts/reasons for doing it that way. It is a perfectly logical assumption about an all-powerful God. Why does the inability to read His mind make my conclusion illogical? As usual your bolded query implies He should have directly created us.

You have dodged the question the same way countless times, and I suppose you think the more times you do so, the more convincing it becomes. Anyone who believes in evolution will accept that humans evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. And they will also believe that all other multicellular organisms evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. But if God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [by which you mean design] humans plus food, why would he have evolved [= designed] countless life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Of course one would have expected an all-powerful God who has a single purpose to fulfil it directly, but he didn't, so where is the logic in your answer that you don’t know why, and I should ask God? If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours,then maybe your theory is wrong.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 09, 2021, 16:26 (44 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: What needs to be explained is why, if your all-powerful God’s one and only goal was to evolve [=design] us plus our food, he first evolved [designed] countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You have said you don’t know why and I should ask him. How can it be ”perfectly logical” if you can’t explain it? I have a feeling I have asked this question before, but I don’t seem to have had an answer.

DAVID: I have answered many times: God chose the method of sequential design from Archaea to humans as His way of finally creating us. I cannot know His underlying thoughts/reasons for doing it that way. It is a perfectly logical assumption about an all-powerful God. Why does the inability to read His mind make my conclusion illogical? As usual your bolded query implies He should have directly created us.

dhw: You have dodged the question the same way countless times, and I suppose you think the more times you do so, the more convincing it becomes. Anyone who believes in evolution will accept that humans evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. And they will also believe that all other multicellular organisms evolved “sequentially” from bacteria. But if God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [by which you mean design] humans plus food, why would he have evolved [= designed] countless life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Of course one would have expected an all-powerful God who has a single purpose to fulfil it directly, but he didn't, so where is the logic in your answer that you don’t know why, and I should ask God? If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours,then maybe your theory is wrong.

Once again you demand a tunnel-visioned God who must leap to producing us simple because He wants us. Maybe in your human way, if you were God, you would jump immediately to creating us. But my God who creates everything created a history which fits my thinking, not what you suggest. I don't need to know God's reasoning in how He went about His creating job. Having a goal doesn't make your strange complaint about God in any way realistic. All I do is look at God's works (creation history). Repeat your strange bolded complaint countless times, I won't change my very logical view of how God did it. I'll turn it around. You tell me how you would have God produce us. If you don't like how my God works, give us your version confined to making humans, nothing more.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, September 10, 2021, 12:21 (43 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours, then maybe your theory is wrong.

DAVID: Once again you demand a tunnel-visioned God who must leap to producing us simple because He wants us. Maybe in your human way, if you were God, you would jump immediately to creating us. But my God who creates everything created a history which fits my thinking, not what you suggest.

But the history does not fit your thinking! You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!

DAVID: I don't need to know God's reasoning in how He went about His creating job. Having a goal doesn't make your strange complaint about God in any way realistic. All I do is look at God's works (creation history).

You agree that your God’s work is a history containing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.

DAVID: I'll turn it around. You tell me how you would have God produce us. If you don't like how my God works, give us your version confined to making humans, nothing more.

If God exists, I am perfectly happy with the way he works. I am not complaining about all the species that lived and died and had no connection with humans! I’m a fan of evolution, with all its vast variety of life forms. I just don’t like your theory that he only had one purpose and therefore spent all those billions of years designing all those life forms etc. that had nothing to do with his purpose! However, if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Friday, September 10, 2021, 17:29 (43 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If you can't find any logic in this theory, and you think your God's logic is like ours, then maybe your theory is wrong.

DAVID: Once again you demand a tunnel-visioned God who must leap to producing us simple because He wants us. Maybe in your human way, if you were God, you would jump immediately to creating us. But my God who creates everything created a history which fits my thinking, not what you suggest.

dhw: But the history does not fit your thinking! You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!

What are you smoking? My theory follows history exactly. It is obvious God chose to evolve/design us starting with bacteria. That resulted in the present food supply and countless forms alive and extinct.


DAVID: I don't need to know God's reasoning in how He went about His creating job. Having a goal doesn't make your strange complaint about God in any way realistic. All I do is look at God's works (creation history).

dhw: You agree that your God’s work is a history containing life forms and foods that had no connection with humans,

God's designed evolution means each new stage comes from the last stage. Evolution is a continuum in which all parts are connected even if many branchings occurred..

dhw: you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.

I cannot know why God chose to do it this way. I simply accept His works as presented.


DAVID: I'll turn it around. You tell me how you would have God produce us. If you don't like how my God works, give us your version confined to making humans, nothing more.

dhw: If God exists, I am perfectly happy with the way he works. I am not complaining about all the species that lived and died and had no connection with humans! I’m a fan of evolution, with all its vast variety of life forms. I just don’t like your theory that he only had one purpose and therefore spent all those billions of years designing all those life forms etc. that had nothing to do with his purpose! However, if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.

In Genesis humans came last and everything else first day by day. But we know Hebrew scholars translate 'day' as meaning a length of time. It is exactly how our science says it happened.
Your complaint is baseless. Humans were His eventual goal is how I view it and will not change because you complain.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, September 11, 2021, 13:12 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!

DAVID: What are you smoking? My theory follows history exactly. It is obvious God chose to evolve/design us starting with bacteria. That resulted in the present food supply and countless forms alive and extinct.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

DAVID: God's designed evolution means each new stage comes from the last stage. Evolution is a continuum in which all parts are connected even if many branchings occurred.

All parts are connected to the first root, but that does not mean that all branches are connected to one another! Yet again: Why did your God need to design all the extinct branches that did NOT lead to humans and their food, if the only branch he wanted to design was humans and their food?

dhw: you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.

DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to do it this way. I simply accept His works as presented.

But you don’t “know” that your God chose to design humans by first designing all the forms that had no connection with humans, and you don’t even know that your God designed every life form. That is your theory. His works as presented are open to different interpretations of his purpose and his method, and you can see the logic behind each of the theistic alternatives I have suggested. It’s only your own that leaves you clueless – hence your proposal that I go and ask your God to explain it!

DAVID: You tell me how you would have God produce us.

dhw: […] if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.

DAVID: In Genesis humans came last and everything else first day by day. But we know Hebrew scholars translate 'day' as meaning a length of time. It is exactly how our science says it happened.

Genesis does not say God created every animal including humans stage by stage, or that we ourselves descended from earlier forms of animal. And we’re not arguing about the translation of a word. You asked me how I would have your God produce us, and I have answered: in a word, directly, as in Genesis.

DAVID: Your complaint is baseless. Humans were His eventual goal is how I view it and will not change because you complain.

I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 11, 2021, 15:40 (42 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You think your God is all-powerful, and had only one purpose for creating life (humans plus food), but the history shows countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans!

DAVID: What are you smoking? My theory follows history exactly. It is obvious God chose to evolve/design us starting with bacteria. That resulted in the present food supply and countless forms alive and extinct.

dhw: Dodge, dodge, dodge. You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.


dhw: you have no idea why he designed them if his one and only purpose was to design us, and so you tell me to ask God for the logical explanation you cannot find.

DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to do it this way. I simply accept His works as presented.

dhw: But you don’t “know” that your God chose to design humans by first designing all the forms that had no connection with humans, and you don’t even know that your God designed every life form. That is your theory. His works as presented are open to different interpretations of his purpose and his method, and you can see the logic behind each of the theistic alternatives I have suggested. It’s only your own that leaves you clueless – hence your proposal that I go and ask your God to explain it!

Answer the issue: are we evolved from bacteria? If God is in charge, didn't He do it? If God is in charge, what He produces are evidence of His purpose?


DAVID: You tell me how you would have God produce us.

dhw: […] if I were your all-powerful God, and humans and their food were my purpose, I would proceed exactly as he proceeds in Genesis: create the food first, and then create the humans. Just like that. But you and I don’t believe that it happened that way, do we? And so you are left with the question you cannot answer, and you tell me to ask God to explain your theory to me.

DAVID: In Genesis humans came last and everything else first day by day. But we know Hebrew scholars translate 'day' as meaning a length of time. It is exactly how our science says it happened.

dhw: Genesis does not say God created every animal including humans stage by stage, or that we ourselves descended from earlier forms of animal. And we’re not arguing about the translation of a word. You asked me how I would have your God produce us, and I have answered: in a word, directly, as in Genesis.

DAVID: Your complaint is baseless. Humans were His eventual goal is how I view it and will not change because you complain.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.

And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population, fueled by intricate ecosystems populated by the branched diversity created by God's evolution. Do you ever consider all the ramifications of God's planned designed evolution? To me a beautifully thought through example of planning, all from the evidence at hand..

Let's study ID

by dhw, Sunday, September 12, 2021, 11:18 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.

Your evasions are becoming increasingly desperate. For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.

DAVID: Answer the issue: are we evolved from bacteria? If God is in charge, didn't He do it? If God is in charge, what He produces are evidence of His purpose?

Yes to all three. All life forms are evolved from bacteria. If your God exists, he did it possibly by direct design, possibly through inventing a free-for-all process. What he produced through evolution was a vast variety of life forms, the latest of which is humans, but the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Therefore what he produced must have had some purpose other than the production of humans, unless he was experimenting to find the combination he was looking for.

dhw: I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.

DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population, fueled by intricate ecosystems populated by the branched diversity created by God's evolution.

Yet another repeat of another of your irrelevant dodges. Yes, we need a huge food supply. So did the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

DAVID: Do you ever consider all the ramifications of God's planned designed evolution? To me a beautifully thought through example of planning, all from the evidence at hand.

Do you ever consider all the ramifications of your God’s beautifully planned free-for-all, with its vast variety of life forms and all its unpredictable twists and turns, comings and goings, and almost infinite potentials (including those of humans), all “from the evidence at hand”?

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 12, 2021, 15:40 (41 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.

dhw: Your evasions are becoming increasingly desperate. For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.

Good idea to ask God. I'm not desperate, only your constant badgering seems to be. Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.


DAVID: Answer the issue: are we evolved from bacteria? If God is in charge, didn't He do it? If God is in charge, what He produces are evidence of His purpose?

dhw: Yes to all three. All life forms are evolved from bacteria. If your God exists, he did it possibly by direct design, possibly through inventing a free-for-all process. What he produced through evolution was a vast variety of life forms, the latest of which is humans, but the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Therefore what he produced must have had some purpose other than the production of humans, unless he was experimenting to find the combination he was looking for.

All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth. The bold is your imagination of a floundering God. It all depends upon one's vision of an all-powerful God. We differ in our views, a difference that cannot be solved. Since we have no solid proofs, God's personality must be deduced from His works by each person who thinks about it.


dhw: I have no objection to the theory that humans might have been his eventual goal. I only object to your illogical theory that he designed every single life form as part of that goal, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with that goal.

DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population, fueled by intricate ecosystems populated by the branched diversity created by God's evolution.

dhw: Yet another repeat of another of your irrelevant dodges. Yes, we need a huge food supply. So did the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans. Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.


DAVID: Do you ever consider all the ramifications of God's planned designed evolution? To me a beautifully thought through example of planning, all from the evidence at hand.

dhw: Do you ever consider all the ramifications of your God’s beautifully planned free-for-all, with its vast variety of life forms and all its unpredictable twists and turns, comings and goings, and almost infinite potentials (including those of humans), all “from the evidence at hand”?

A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans

Let's study ID

by dhw, Monday, September 13, 2021, 12:15 (40 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.

dhw: For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.

DAVID: Good idea to ask God. I'm not desperate, only your constant badgering seems to be. Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.

We are not debating the existence of God here. In case you’ve forgotten – as you seem to do every day! – the subject is the bolded question above.

DAVID: All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth.

How do all the extinct life forms that had no connection with humans become connected to humans?

DAVID: It all depends upon one's vision of an all-powerful God. We differ in our views, a difference that cannot be solved. Since we have no solid proofs, God's personality must be deduced from His works by each person who thinks about it.

The all-powerful personality you’ve come up with is one who has a single purpose, but when we think about his works, we find that the vast majority of them are extinct and had no connection with the single purpose you attribute to him. You find your own view so incomprehensible that you tell me to go and ask God to explain it.

DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population […]

dhw: […] Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

DAVID: Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.

The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.

It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Monday, September 13, 2021, 16:08 (40 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

DAVID: It is not a dodge if you can accept, as I do, that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. You dodge that concept constantly.

dhw: For the thousandth time, if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms (including humans) from bacteria. But that does not mean his only purpose was humans, or that he specially designed every single life form. You have no idea why, if his only purpose was humans, he “evolved” [= specially designed] all the life forms that had no connection with humans, and so you tell me to ask God.

DAVID: Good idea to ask God. I'm not desperate, only your constant badgering seems to be. Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.

dhw: We are not debating the existence of God here. In case you’ve forgotten – as you seem to do every day! – the subject is the bolded question above.

That is you persistent constant badger that is illogical and makes no sense to me.


DAVID: All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth.

dhw: How do all the extinct life forms that had no connection with humans become connected to humans?

Through the continuity of the stepwise evolutionary process with each earlier design ledading to teh next more advanced design.


DAVID: It all depends upon one's vision of an all-powerful God. We differ in our views, a difference that cannot be solved. Since we have no solid proofs, God's personality must be deduced from His works by each person who thinks about it.

dhw: The all-powerful personality you’ve come up with is one who has a single purpose, but when we think about his works, we find that the vast majority of them are extinct and had no connection with the single purpose you attribute to him. You find your own view so incomprehensible that you tell me to go and ask God to explain it.

Still badgering illogically. Humans are a goal achieved by evolving them from bacteria


DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population […]

dhw: […] Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.

DAVID: Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.

dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.

Thank you.


DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.

dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.

Back to a God not in complete control.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 10:48 (40 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have left out the key question: if his only purpose was to design us, why did his design of us include countless extinct life forms THAT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH US?

DAVID: […] Our consciousness is so unusual God must exist and we were His goal in His designed evolution. Sorry it is so obvious to me and a black box to you.

dhw: We are not debating the existence of God here. In case you’ve forgotten – as you seem to do every day! – the subject is the bolded question above.

DAVID: That is you persistent constant badger that is illogical and makes no sense to me.

It is your own bolded theory that makes no sense to you, which is why you tell me to ask God to answer the bolded question.

DAVID: All of evolution connects humans to the whole process since we are the current endpoint, running the Earth.

dhw: How do all the extinct life forms that had no connection with humans become connected to humans?

DAVID: Through the continuity of the stepwise evolutionary process with each earlier design leading to the next more advanced design.

But there have been stepwise evolutionary processes with each design leading to new designs that have no connection with humans. Hence the bolded question, and your reply that I should ask God. Stop dodging!

DAVID: And you ignore the obvious need for a huge food supply for the current huge human population […]

dhw: […] Yet again, in your own words: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”.[/b]

DAVID: Perfectly logical statements allowing for the continuum of the evolutionary process over time. Your dodge is to chop it up as if unrelated.

dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: Thank you.

Why are you thanking me? If extinct life and food have no role in current life, and had no connection with humans, it is clearly absurd to claim that extinct life and food were part of your God’s one and only goal to create humans and their food (= current life).

DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.

dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.

DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.

Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 16:45 (39 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: Thank you.

dhw: Why are you thanking me? If extinct life and food have no role in current life, and had no connection with humans, it is clearly absurd to claim that extinct life and food were part of your God’s one and only goal to create humans and their food (= current life).

If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.


DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.

dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.

DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.

dhw: Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.

Of course I do. All you wish is a concept of a God who is not in control of His own goals, because they don't seem to have existed in your concept of Him. Thus we are a lucky accident.

Let's study ID: how a ribosome is assembled

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 14, 2021, 18:52 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

Be sure to see the one minute video:

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-reveals-ribosomes-human-cells.html

"All cells need ribosomes to make the proteins necessary for life. These multi-component molecular machines build complex proteins by stitching building blocks together according to instructions encoded in the cell's messenger RNAs. But ribosomes are themselves composed of small and large subunits, each of which is made up of ribosomal proteins and RNA. Before they can manufacture proteins, these subunits must be manufactured themselves.

"In a new study, scientists in the lab of Sebastian Klinge provide the most detailed view of how human small ribosomal subunits are put together by capturing their 3D portraits at three different stages of the assembly process. The findings are published in Science.

"'The assembly of a ribosome is like an origami," says Klinge, associate professor and head of the Laboratory of Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry. "Segments of RNA and other proteins have to be accurately folded in precise steps. The fundamental problem we are trying to understand is how proteins known as assembly factors work in concert to control each step of the assembly." 

***

"The findings detail how some 70 assembly factors come together to create a scaffolding for the construction of the small subunit, and to guide each step of its maturation. Once their job is done, the assembly factors break apart, liberating the mature small subunit they held inside. 

"The three stages captured in the study provide a better understanding of the key molecular mechanisms that bring about the formation of the small subunit. The findings also provide new insights into rare human diseases that result from mutations in ribosomal proteins or assembly factors during the assembly of ribosomes."

Comment: Not by chance. Note the recognition of possible errors.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Wednesday, September 15, 2021, 12:15 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The continuum of the evolutionary process involves the bush of life constantly expanding into new branches, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans. Hence your perfectly logical statement that extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: Thank you.

dhw: Why are you thanking me? If extinct life and food have no role in current life, and had no connection with humans, it is clearly absurd to claim that extinct life and food were part of your God’s one and only goal to create humans and their food (= current life).

DAVID: If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.

Being all-powerful, wanting only one life form plus food, but designing countless other life forms and foods that have no connection with that one purpose makes perfect sense, but you can’t explain it so I should go and ask God!

DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.

dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.

DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.

dhw: Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.

DAVID: All you wish is a concept of a God who is not in control of His own goals, because they don't seem to have existed in your concept of Him. Thus we are a lucky accident.

I wish nothing. I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 15, 2021, 15:47 (38 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.

dhw: Being all-powerful, wanting only one life form plus food, but designing countless other life forms and foods that have no connection with that one purpose makes perfect sense, but you can’t explain it so I should go and ask God!

You asked the impossible question as to why God chose to evolve us over time. I have no way to answer, so I asked you if you could.


DAVID: A free-for-all control of evolution could only accidently produce humans.

dhw: It is possible that every species is indeed “accidental”. That’s one theory. But nothing is “accidental” if you accept the theory that intelligent cells do their own designing. And another alternative is that – if God exists – he created a free-for-all, but left himself the option to dabble when he felt like it.

DAVID: Back to a God not in complete control.

dhw: Yes of course. If God decided NOT to control evolution, he was not in complete control. You have understood the meaning of “free-for-all”.

DAVID: All you wish is a concept of a God who is not in control of His own goals, because they don't seem to have existed in your concept of Him. Thus we are a lucky accident.

dhw: I wish nothing. I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.

As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose, when we see the amazing accomplishments of God, who produced this universe, fine-tuned for life, started life itself and put life on a life-supporting planet with very precise mechanisms. Suddenly when He evolves us, He bumbles long. Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you. All we know about God must fit together as a whole, m y approach, but not yours.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Thursday, September 16, 2021, 11:41 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If God creates evolution it makes perfect sense.

dhw: Being all-powerful, wanting only one life form plus food, but designing countless other life forms and foods that have no connection with that one purpose makes perfect sense, but you can’t explain it so I should go and ask God!

DAVID: You asked the impossible question as to why God chose to evolve us over time. I have no way to answer, so I asked you if you could.

That is not the question I asked, though you keep pretending that it is. The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.

dhw: I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.

DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…

Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.

DAVID: ….when we see the amazing accomplishments of God, who produced this universe, fine-tuned for life, started life itself and put life on a life-supporting planet with very precise mechanisms.

If he exists, I have no hesitation in endorsing this view.

DAVID: Suddenly when He evolves us, He bumbles long.

No he doesn’t. See above for two precise goals.

DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.

There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.

DAVID: All we know about God must fit together as a whole, m y approach, but not yours.

You have agreed that my proposals are logical, which means they fit together with the history of life as we know it. Your approach, yet again, is that he had one purpose (us) and proceeded to design countless life forms that had no connection with us. These two premises do not fit together, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation!

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 16, 2021, 17:54 (37 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You asked the impossible question as to why God chose to evolve us over time. I have no way to answer, so I asked you if you could.

dhw: That is not the question I asked, though you keep pretending that it is. The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.

My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.


dhw: I offer different theories to explain the course of evolution. One, based on one of your guesses, is that his goal was to create life because he enjoys creating and wants something he can watch with interest. That goal would be best served by creating an unpredictable free-for-all (i.e. not controlling every move). Why do you say that is not a goal? We may be a lucky accident, or he might have dabbled, or he might have guessed that eventually the intelligence he had planted in the first cells would later evolve to our level, or he may have wanted to produce such an intelligence and experimented in order to find the right form. All logical “guesses” that fit in with the history of life as we know it. It’s only your “guess” that makes no logical sense and requires your God to explain it.

DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…

dhw: Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.

Only if you envision a God who starts without purposes.


DAVID: ….when we see the amazing accomplishments of God, who produced this universe, fine-tuned for life, started life itself and put life on a life-supporting planet with very precise mechanisms.

dhw: If he exists, I have no hesitation in endorsing this view.

Good.


DAVID: Suddenly when He evolves us, He bumbles long.

No he doesn’t. See above for two precise goals.

DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.

dhw: There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.

A God without controls or plans is not the God I see.


DAVID: All we know about God must fit together as a whole, my approach, but not yours.

dhw: You have agreed that my proposals are logical, which means they fit together with the history of life as we know it. Your approach, yet again, is that he had one purpose (us) and proceeded to design countless life forms that had no connection with us. These two premises do not fit together, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation!

Yes please, ask god. I don't know why He chose to evolve us. History tells me He did.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Friday, September 17, 2021, 13:44 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.

DAVID: My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.

It is unacceptable because it does not answer the bolded question!

DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…

dhw: Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.

DAVID: Only if you envision a God who starts without purposes.

I have just given you two purposes, and you say I envision a God without purposes!

DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.

dhw: There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.

DAVID: A God without controls or plans is not the God I see.

There is no wandering. In your piece on theodicy you have him losing control (“Errors are spontaneous. Not God’s doing”), and if what he plans is a free-for-all, clearly he WANTS to cede control!

Let's study ID

by David Turell @, Friday, September 17, 2021, 15:36 (36 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.

DAVID: My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.

dhw: It is unacceptable because it does not answer the bolded question!

The bolded question is a totally unreasonable request. I can't read God's mind but history is obvious. God evolved us, so He must have chosen to do that for His own unknown reasons.


DAVID: As usual you have presented your views of a God who wanders along without direct purpose…

dhw: Your usual total distortion of what I offer. A free-for-all that he can enjoy creating and watching is a direct purpose. Experimenting to find the right formula for a creature that could mimic himself is a direct purpose.

DAVID: Only if you envision a God who starts without purposes.

dhw: I have just given you two purposes, and you say I envision a God without purposes!

Experimentation and free-for-all says your imagined God had no specific goals, so where is the purpose in creation? My God has goals to produce.


DAVID: Your humanized God makes your theories logical, but you split up God's works into two unrelated forms: precise and wandering. How inconsistent of you.

dhw: There is no wandering. Both free-for-all and experimentation are precise.

DAVID: A God without controls or plans is not the God I see.

dhw: There is no wandering. In your piece on theodicy you have him losing control (“Errors are spontaneous. Not God’s doing”), and if what he plans is a free-for-all, clearly he WANTS to cede control!

Go look at that thread for my answer, God's system is full of editing mechanisms to prevent errors. You have trouble reading God's mind and intentions. Your skewed approach shows.

Let's study ID

by dhw, Saturday, September 18, 2021, 08:17 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The question is why, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, did he design all the extinct life forms that had no connection with our food? You have no answer, and so you advised me to ask God.


DAVID: My answer is unacceptable to you, but entirely logical to me. God chose to evolve us over time.

dhw: It is unacceptable because it does not answer the bolded question!

DAVID: The bolded question is a totally unreasonable request. I can't read God's mind but history is obvious. God evolved us, so He must have chosen to do that for His own unknown reasons.

History tells us that ALL life forms, including humans, evolved. It does not tell us that they were all individually designed, and it does not tell us that even those that had no connection with humans were designed as part of the plan to design humans. You can’t find a reason why he would pursue his single goal by not pursuing his single goal. So maybe we weren’t his single goal, and maybe he didn’t specially design all life forms. And maybe the fact that you can’t think of any reasons is due to the fact that there aren’t any, because your God thinks logically and you don’t! :-(

DAVID: […] you envision a God who starts without purposes.

dhw: I have just given you two purposes, and you say I envision a God without purposes!

DAVID: Experimentation and free-for-all says your imagined God had no specific goals, so where is the purpose in creation? My God has goals to produce.

According to you, your God only had one goal: to produce us and our food, and you’d rather not discuss the purpose of that or of all the other life forms that had no connection with us. My God (one version) could experiment in order to produce a life form that would recognize him, admire his work, have a relationship with him etc., as you have proposed. Have you never heard of inventors who try different experiments to achieve their goal? The purpose of a free-for-all follows your very reasonable guess that your God enjoys creating and watches us with interest. The purpose could therefore be to create something he would enjoy creating and could watch with interest. And don’t forget you are sure that we mimic him over and over again with our own activities.

DAVID: You have trouble reading God's mind and intentions. Your skewed approach shows.

At least my approach makes sense. I don’t know why you call it “skewed”, since you have just admitted under "theodicy" that in the context of your own theories, you can’t read God’s mind, and he did what you think he did “for unknown reasons”.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 18, 2021, 15:19 (35 days ago) @ dhw

From the review of a book: Pump. Pump,....:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pump-review-the-pulse-of-life-natural-history-heart-116312...

"Animal circulations vary enormously in their operating pressures. Giraffes have the highest blood pressures of any mammal, running around 280/180 mm Hg. (Ideal blood pressures in humans are around 110/80 mmHg.) This propulsive energy would wreck human brains and kidneys, but it is essential for giraffes, who need it “to force blood up to their treetop-level heads.” The long necks of giraffes enable them to feast on high vegetation, but also create hydraulic headaches. When giraffes stoop to drink, blood may pool in their heads from the effects of gravity. Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.

"Giraffe limbs are also under severe hemodynamic stress, and must withstand pressures as high as 350 mmHg. The reason that giraffes don’t get varicose veins is that their legs have taut sleeves of skin that act like compression stockings, and prevent them from swelling up."

Comment: I've mentioned most of this before. There is no way this can be developed stepwise. It must be designed. And as in all fossil gap stories, no precursors

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Sunday, September 19, 2021, 08:41 (35 days ago) @ David Turell

Giraffe plumbing

QUOTE: Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.

DAVID: I've mentioned most of this before. There is no way this can be developed stepwise. It must be designed. And as in all fossil gap stories, no precursors.

Apparently fossils are rare,but there are enough to piece together the evolution of the species.

How Giraffes Evolved Such a Large Neck - This View Of Life
thisviewoflife.com/how-giraffes-evolved-such-a-large-neck/

QUOTES: The evolutionary history of the giraffe brings us back to approximately 50 million years ago. An animal similar to antelopes evolved into two species that are extant today. Many of these animals roamed across Eurasia and Africa until they went extinct or evolved into animals we see today. These surviving members of the Giraffidae family are the okapi and the giraffe, both of which (Whom?) inhabit Africa. Many other extinct predecessors of the giraffe existed, and their fossils remain. By using these fossils scientists were able to figure out how their necks evolved anatomically.

[…] If we compare vertebrae of the modern giraffe to its extinct ancestors we can begin to see when and where this elongation began to take place.

I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 19, 2021, 15:52 (34 days ago) @ dhw

Giraffe plumbing

QUOTE: Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.

DAVID: I've mentioned most of this before. There is no way this can be developed stepwise. It must be designed. And as in all fossil gap stories, no precursors.

dhw: Apparently fossils are rare,but there are enough to piece together the evolution of the species.

How Giraffes Evolved Such a Large Neck - This View Of Life
thisviewoflife.com/how-giraffes-evolved-such-a-large-neck/

QUOTES: The evolutionary history of the giraffe brings us back to approximately 50 million years ago. An animal similar to antelopes evolved into two species that are extant today. Many of these animals roamed across Eurasia and Africa until they went extinct or evolved into animals we see today. These surviving members of the Giraffidae family are the okapi and the giraffe, both of which (Whom?) inhabit Africa. Many other extinct predecessors of the giraffe existed, and their fossils remain. By using these fossils scientists were able to figure out how their necks evolved anatomically.

[…] If we compare vertebrae of the modern giraffe to its extinct ancestors we can begin to see when and where this elongation began to take place.

dhw: I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)

As you might expect I went back to the Darwinist-very-slanted article:

"These two ancestral families both had the beginnings of the extreme neck lengthening that is seen in the modern Giraffidae." Yes anatomically, lengthening must have happened at some point, but the discussion about the plumbing-production problems is totally unanswered!!! Your amazing skew is showing. With the giant gap in precursor neck length the problem is unanswered. Even if intermediate forms appeared with one-foot increases in neck size, the plumbing adaptations had to have been in place simultaneously. As a cardiologist the giraffe is dear to my heart. You have no answer as there is none known to man.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Monday, September 20, 2021, 07:42 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)

DAVID: As you might expect I went back to the Darwinist-very-slanted article:

As if somehow the very mention of Darwin means it couldn’t be true!

DAVID: "These two ancestral families both had the beginnings of the extreme neck lengthening that is seen in the modern Giraffidae." Yes anatomically, lengthening must have happened at some point, but the discussion about the plumbing-production problems is totally unanswered!!! Your amazing skew is showing. With the giant gap in precursor neck length the problem is unanswered. Even if intermediate forms appeared with one-foot increases in neck size, the plumbing adaptations had to have been in place simultaneously. As a cardiologist the giraffe is dear to my heart. You have no answer as there is none known to man.

Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Monday, September 20, 2021, 14:42 (33 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have no idea why you discount a stepwise development, since every ancestor of every species must have survived until it changed its form. Since you believe in common descent, your theory is presumably that your God preprogrammed the development of the long neck 3.8 billion years ago, along with every other innovation and strategy [see the opossum article], or popped in to perform operations on each successive ancestor (and we shouldn’t forget that according to you, every step was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food). An alternative might be that the intelligent cell communities of each ancestor produced the changes in response to conditions which made long necks an aid to survival. (And of course cellular intelligence may have been designed by your God.)

DAVID: As you might expect I went back to the Darwinist-very-slanted article:

As if somehow the very mention of Darwin means it couldn’t be true!

DAVID: "These two ancestral families both had the beginnings of the extreme neck lengthening that is seen in the modern Giraffidae." Yes anatomically, lengthening must have happened at some point, but the discussion about the plumbing-production problems is totally unanswered!!! Your amazing skew is showing. With the giant gap in precursor neck length the problem is unanswered. Even if intermediate forms appeared with one-foot increases in neck size, the plumbing adaptations had to have been in place simultaneously. As a cardiologist the giraffe is dear to my heart. You have no answer as there is none known to man.

dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?

I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously. And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 08:54 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?

DAVID: I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously.

And I have agreed.

DAVID: And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!

Thank you for “platitudinous”. A platitude is something that is so obviously true that it’s not worth stating. I did not say “if God gave them the ability”. I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 14:57 (32 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?

DAVID: I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously.

dhw: And I have agreed.

DAVID: And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!

dhw: Thank you for “platitudinous”. A platitude is something that is so obviously true that it’s not worth stating. I did not say “if God gave them the ability”. I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.

Still championing second-hand designing.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, 15:12 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody knows how evolution works anyway, and that is why we can only offer theories.But of course the “plumbing” would have changed as the neck length changed – otherwise the pre-giraffe would not have survived. If 3.8 billion years ago your God could provide the first cells with a programme to be passed on for the future lengthening and plumbing (along with every other evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), or if he stepped in to perform the complete operation on a few sleeping pre-giraffes (as you think he did with every other unprogrammed evolutionary change plus lifestyle plus strategy), then why couldn’t he have given the respective cell communities the wherewithal (intelligence and flexibility) to cooperate in doing the same?

DAVID: I have presented a very complex plumbing problem for the long giraffe neck that required very many coordinated biological alterations, all which must be acquired simultaneously.

dhw: And I have agreed.

DAVID: And your platitudinous response is smart cells can do it, if God gave them the ability. So your real answer is God is required!!!!

dhw: Thank you for “platitudinous”. A platitude is something that is so obviously true that it’s not worth stating.

I was referring to your constant smart cell mantra that becomes your platitude over time.

dhw: I did not say “if God gave them the ability”. I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?

However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.


Still championing second-hand designing.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 11:36 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.

DAVID: Still championing second-hand designing.

I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?

Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.

As above, I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?

Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis
."

Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 15:34 (31 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am tackling your theory of evolution from a theistic perspective, because you are a theist. If you believe your God is capable of drawing up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary change and strategy and lifestyle for the whole of life’s history, or that he keeps popping in to perform operations and deliver instructions for every single one, why can’t you believe he is capable of designing “smart cells” that can do their own designing?
However, you know very well that I accept the logic of the design argument, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic, as opposed to being an atheist.

DAVID: Still championing second-hand designing.

dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?

I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.


Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.

dhw: As above, I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?

Or, as always presented, the cooperating cells are simply following design instructions.


Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis
."

Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 08:37 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?

DAVID: I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.

“Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions. For example, pre-whales do not suddenly find themselves lying on the beach with a set of flippers that have replaced their legs overnight, and they do not say to themselves: “Let’s go into the water now.” In my theory, they go into the water – almost certainly to look for food – and as food is more plentiful there, the cells restructure themselves (over the requisite amount of time) into flippers, which improve their chances of survival in the water. In my theory, evolution is a process of responses to new conditions, not of preparations for the future. And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.

Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.

dhw: [...] I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?

Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis.
"

Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.

DAVID: Or, as always presented, the cooperating cells are simply following design instructions.

At the very least, such examples of intelligence should open your mind to the possibility that your God may have given cells autonomous intelligence instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled change.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 15:03 (30 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?

DAVID: I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.

dhw: “Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions. For example, pre-whales do not suddenly find themselves lying on the beach with a set of flippers that have replaced their legs overnight, and they do not say to themselves: “Let’s go into the water now.” In my theory, they go into the water – almost certainly to look for food – and as food is more plentiful there, the cells restructure themselves (over the requisite amount of time) into flippers, which improve their chances of survival in the water. In my theory, evolution is a process of responses to new conditions, not of preparations for the future. And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.

Asking cells to do what I can do makes the process secondhand. It is a fine term. Your last sentence is answered in the part of my original response above, now bolded. Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design


Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.

dhw: [...] I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?

All we can say is they show intelligent activity


Your gut has a big brain
"The Gulbransen lab studies enteric glial cells and how they regulate processes in the gut."
"Lately researchers have noticed glia have active signaling roles—they talk to other glia, to neurons and to immune cells to regulate homeostasis.
"

Controlling 3-D DNA relationships
DAVID: it shows the point that DNA is not just a protein-producing code but by having its shape adjusted many possible results are produced.

DAVID: Or, as always presented, the cooperating cells are simply following design instructions.

dhw: At the very least, such examples of intelligence should open your mind to the possibility that your God may have given cells autonomous intelligence instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled change.

I'll stick with cells following intelligently designed instructions

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Friday, September 24, 2021, 11:08 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am championing the theistic theory that your God could have created intelligent cells that can do their own designing. Why do you think he is incapable of doing so, and has to preprogramme or dabble every individual evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, and natural wonder himself?

DAVID: I think God can supply a set of instructions for new species, but asking cells to do it secondhand implies God must give the cells a vision of the future so that cells can plan for the new species needs as hey will exist in the future.

dhw: “Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions […] And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.

DAVID: Asking cells to do what I can do makes the process secondhand. It is a fine term.

Since you believe you can do what you want to do, you clearly believe that your God is perfectly capable of creating a cellular combination that will lead to autonomous (not "second-hand") thought. So please answer my question: why do you think your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells?

DAVID: Your last sentence is answered in the part of my original response above, now bolded.

It only tells me that he is capable of supplying instructions. It doesn’t tell me why he is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells/cell communities in other forms than ours. (NB I am not comparing their intelligence to ours, which of course is vastly greater.)

DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.

Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form! And we are not arguing about design but about your theory – totally unsupported by the history of life - that your God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single evolutionary innovation, lifestyle, econiche, strategy and natural wonder, as opposed to creating a mechanism enabling cells to do their own designing.

Fine tuning specifics
DAVID: A single cell is so fine-tuned its origin requires a designer. At what point of demonstrated complexity of design does one have to accept a designer exists? It is a logical next step in reasoning.

dhw: [...] I have always accepted the logic of the design argument. At what point of demonstrated intelligence does one have to accept that communities of cells which are able to cooperate, communicate and change their shape in order to regulate homeostatis or alternatively produce many different possible results – as in the next two quotes – may actually BE intelligent?

DAVID: All we can say is they show intelligent activity.

If that is all we can say, why do you go on and on about your God giving them instructions?

dhw: At the very least, such examples of intelligence should open your mind to the possibility that your God may have given cells autonomous intelligence instead of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every undabbled change.

DAVID: I'll stick with cells following intelligently designed instructions.

See what I mean?

Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.

DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.

But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Friday, September 24, 2021, 15:32 (29 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: “Secondhand” is a meaningless term, reverting back to your old definition of “autonomy” as obeying instructions, so please drop it. God does not have to give autonomous cells a vision of the future, because in my theory cells REACT to new conditions […] And you still haven’t told me why your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells.

DAVID: Asking cells to do what I can do makes the process secondhand. It is a fine term.

dhw: Since you believe you can do what you want to do, you clearly believe that your God is perfectly capable of creating a cellular combination that will lead to autonomous (not "second-hand") thought. So please answer my question: why do you think your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells?

I never said God is incapable of creating autonomous intelligent cells. I said He would not choose to do so.

DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.

dhw: Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form!

A non-answer. New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.


Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.

DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.

dhw: But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.

All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Saturday, September 25, 2021, 07:08 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [..] why do you think your God is incapable of creating autonomously intelligent cells?

DAVID: I never said God is incapable of creating autonomous intelligent cells. I said He would not choose to do so.

Why not? Why do you think he would choose to provide the first cells with a programme for every single undabbled evolutionary change, econiche, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the whole of life’s history, rather than design a single mechanism that will go on and on producing new designs of its own? Especially bearing in mind that you think he actually only wanted to design one life form plus its food!

DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.

dhw: Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form!

DAVID: non-answer. New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.

Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!

Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.

DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.

dhw: But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.


DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 25, 2021, 15:48 (28 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I never said God is incapable of creating autonomous intelligent cells. I said He would not choose to do so.

dhw:Why not? Why do you think he would choose to provide the first cells with a programme for every single undabbled evolutionary change, econiche, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the whole of life’s history, rather than design a single mechanism that will go on and on producing new designs of its own? Especially bearing in mind that you think he actually only wanted to design one life form plus its food!

I've explained progressively complex design is best done firsthand. Designing a system to replace one's self mental inputs is way more complex than simply doing it yourself. The bold is you constant misinterpretation of my theory. God had humans as His ultimate goal. We were not 'his only want'. Everything He produced from our BB onward was part of His overall plan.


DAVID: Your gradual response to environment needs is a totally unsupported theory, since all fossil species appear fully formed. You should be able to show multiple progressive intermediates. The gaps support design.

dhw: Of course all fossils were once fully formed. You couldn’t have a fossil of a life form that never lived! Every fossil find is an event, but you expect to find a continuous fossil record of every stage of every life form!

DAVID: non-answer. New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.

dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!

Same old non-answer. Even Gould accepted the gaps as real!!! And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?


Immunity system complexity
QUOTE: During an infection or after a vaccination, mature B cells form germinal centers, a sort of pop-up training facility. There, the cells mutate and rearrange their antibody-encoding genes, until they either produce an improved antibody or die trying.

DAVID: These B cells are designed to act quickly, no actual thought involved. It is an irreducibly complex system designed all at once. It cannot be evolved by chance or step-by-step.

dhw: But these cells rearrange themselves during an infection, and infections are ongoing. The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.


DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

dhw: Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?

He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Sunday, September 26, 2021, 11:11 (28 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would choose to provide the first cells with a programme for every single undabbled evolutionary change, econiche, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. in the whole of life’s history, rather than design a single mechanism that will go on and on producing new designs of its own? Especially bearing in mind that you think he actually only wanted to design one life form plus its food!

DAVID: I've explained progressively complex design is best done firsthand.

And I’ve explained that progressively complex design, including that of our progressively complex, autonomously intelligent brain, is “best done” firsthand by autonomously intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God). That would save you all the trouble of having to explain why he specially designed all the life forms unconnected with humans, and all the “mistakes” that lead to disease and death (as discussed under “Theodicy”).

DAVID: Designing a system to replace one's self mental inputs is way more complex than simply doing it yourself. The bold is you constant misinterpretation of my theory.

See the “Theodicy” thread.

DAVID: New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.

dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!

DAVID: Same old non-answer. Even Gould accepted the gaps as real!!! And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?

Of course the gaps are real! How could you possibly NOT have gaps in the fossil record? The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted millions of years – ample time for intelligent cells to adapt to or exploit new conditions, and thereby design the same innovations you believe your God dabbled, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. This is not a Darwinian castle. He never thought of intelligent cells doing their own designing.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

(NB Good to see you acknowledging that cells change IN RESPONSE to new challenges, as opposed to your usual anticipation of them.)

dhw: Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?

DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.

So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 26, 2021, 15:41 (27 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've explained progressively complex design is best done firsthand.

dhw: And I’ve explained that progressively complex design, including that of our progressively complex, autonomously intelligent brain, is “best done” firsthand by autonomously intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God). That would save you all the trouble of having to explain why he specially designed all the life forms unconnected with humans, and all the “mistakes” that lead to disease and death (as discussed under “Theodicy”).

And what you don't seem to realize is your imagined God created an uncontrolled system which resulted in all the unwanted errors God wouldn't want. Not rational. My God created the only working system He could, recognized it was open to errors and built in editing systems.


DAVID: New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.

dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!

DAVID: Same old non-answer. Even Gould accepted the gaps as real!!! And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?

dhw: Of course the gaps are real! How could you possibly NOT have gaps in the fossil record? The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted millions of years – ample time for intelligent cells to adapt to or exploit new conditions, and thereby design the same innovations you believe your God dabbled, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. This is not a Darwinian castle. He never thought of intelligent cells doing their own designing.

Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species. Same non-answer. Gaps demonstrate large design changes intelligent cells can not create.


Immunity system complexity
dhw: The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

dhw: (NB Good to see you acknowledging that cells change IN RESPONSE to new challenges, as opposed to your usual anticipation of them.)

Strange misinterpretation. Cells don't 'change'. They are prepared in advance by design to to respond to all challenges as they appear.


dhw: Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?

DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.

dhw: So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.

Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms. FYI: Current man-made vaccines are a shorthand way of helping us by showing our cells the cell-damaging spike Covid-19 uses. It is actually not as good as presenting the whole attenuated virus body itself. That style vaccine takes much longer to develop and prove.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Monday, September 27, 2021, 11:50 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

I’ve transferred the “errors” discussion to “Theodicy”.

DAVID: New species appear as new developments and thus the gaps in the fossil record. Even intermediate forms have gaps before and after in the series.

dhw: Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. You yourself have emphasized over and over again that evolution is a continuous process, but do you honestly think that every single stage of every single life form for the last three thousand million years should have left a specimen behind? Every stage of every species was once a fully formed organism, but dead bodies disintegrate in time!

DAVID: […] And then there is the Cambrian. Open your mind!!! Or will your Darwinian castle crumble?

dhw: […] The Cambrian “Explosion” lasted millions of years – ample time for intelligent cells to adapt to or exploit new conditions, and thereby design the same innovations you believe your God dabbled, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. This is not a Darwinian castle. He never thought of intelligent cells doing their own designing.

DAVID: Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species. Same non-answer. Gaps demonstrate large design changes intelligent cells can not create.

Gaps demonstrate the absence of fossils, or a period when there were no new species (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). How itty-bitty is itty-bitty? It might take many generations for large design changes to perfect themselves (I’m thinking of legs becoming flippers), but even the Cambrian offers millions of years and generations for such changes to take place. And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: The immune system typifies the whole process: cells respond to new conditions. You can argue that the cell is “irreducibly complex”, but cells combine, cooperate, communicate, restructure themselves, take decisions etc., and the result of these combined activities is the vast variety of life forms etc. that make up the history of evolution.

DAVID: All the result of God's designed instructions to quickly respond to new challenges.

dhw: (NB Good to see you acknowledging that cells change IN RESPONSE to new challenges, as opposed to your usual anticipation of them.)

DAVID: Strange misinterpretation. Cells don't 'change'. They are prepared in advance by design to respond to all challenges as they appear.

Of course they change! How else could you get new species? And if they change in response to challenges, I'd have thought that meant the challenges come before the changes. Of course you are free to believe that your God looks into his crystal ball and changes the cells beforehand – but please don’t tell me that cells don’t ‘change’.

dhw: (RE God’s “instructions”): Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?

DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.

dhw: So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.

DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.

I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Monday, September 27, 2021, 15:03 (26 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species. Same non-answer. Gaps demonstrate large design changes intelligent cells can not create.

dhw: Gaps demonstrate the absence of fossils, or a period when there were no new species (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). How itty-bitty is itty-bitty? It might take many generations for large design changes to perfect themselves (I’m thinking of legs becoming flippers), but even the Cambrian offers millions of years and generations for such changes to take place.

Strange illogical point in bold: the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.

dhw: And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.

Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.


Immunity system complexity

dhw: (RE God’s “instructions”): Please be more precise. Did your God leave them a note to say: RESPOND QUICKLY. Or did he leave them a list of instructions on what changes to make to themselves in order to meet every new challenge for the rest of life’s history? Or did he simply leave them with the autonomous ability to work out how to respond to new challenges as and when they arose?

DAVID: He gave them ability to recognize invaders and how to stop/kill them by implanting full instructions for the methodology. Cells don't/can't think.

dhw: So they autonomously recognize invaders, and then what? They have a library of instructions on how to kill every new invader for the rest of history, and all they have to do is choose the booklet that says: COVID-19? I wonder what went wrong.

DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.

dhw: I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.

Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 11:15 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Darwin thought itty-bitty steps evolved species.

dhw: Gaps demonstrate the absence of fossils, or a period when there were no new species (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). How itty-bitty is itty-bitty? It might take many generations for large design changes to perfect themselves (I’m thinking of legs becoming flippers), but even the Cambrian offers millions of years and generations for such changes to take place.

DAVID: Strange illogical point in bold: the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.

Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”? Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.

CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

QUOTES: “Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record."

“Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian.”
“The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.”

“Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).”

Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.

dhw: And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.

DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

“Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.

dhw: I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.

DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 28, 2021, 14:59 (25 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Strange illogical point in bold: the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.

dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”? Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.

CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

QUOTES: “Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record."

“Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian.”
“The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.”

“Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).”

Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.

Only if you purposely avoid the obvious, which Darwin recognized, and now you and the article ignore. The line between Edicaran and Cambrian is obviously blurred geologically, but the early advanced forms at end Edicaran had NO obvious close-in-form precursors and are the gradual start of the explosion. Of course anyone can find Darwinist articles written to blur the obvious.


dhw: And please remember that each stage will still be a fully formed organism - pre-whales could still have swum with legs that had become less leggy. I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.

DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?

By God's design


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immune cells are built/designed to automatically make new antibodies against newly-appearing invading organisms.

dhw: I know what immune cells do. I’m asking you how your God “instructs” them to do it. With a library of instructions to choose from, or does he keep popping in to tell them what to do as and when each new invader arrives on the scene? Please answer.

DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?

Once a system evolves/is designed, no dabbling necessary.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 09:00 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.

dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”?

You have not answered this question.

dhw: Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.

dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.

DAVID: Only if you purposely avoid the obvious, which Darwin recognized, and now you and the article ignore. The line between Edicaran and Cambrian is obviously blurred geologically, but the early advanced forms at end Edicaran had NO obvious close-in-form precursors and are the gradual start of the explosion. Of course anyone can find Darwinist articles written to blur the obvious.

It is not unreasonable to propose that instead of your God preprogramming every new organ and organism 3.8 billion years ago (plus the changing conditions which presumably switched on the relevant programmes), or popping in to create brand new species from scratch (what happened to common descent?), the absence of precursors from 570+ million years ago is due to the fact that dead bodies tend to disintegrate over time, leaving no trace behind!

dhw: I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.

DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?

AVID: By God's design.

Are you saying that, despite your belief in common descent (except for when you don’t believe in it) your God does not design new species by changing the jobs that existing cells do?

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?

DAVID: Once a system evolves/is designed, no dabbling necessary.

Once again you dodge my question. No dabbling would be necessary once your God had designed the system of the intelligent cell which autonomously works out how to deal with new invaders.But you say your God issued the cells with instructions on how to deal with every new invader. Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 29, 2021, 15:47 (24 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.

dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”?

dhw: You have not answered this question.

Yes I did. In the Grand Canyon layers were precisely demarked. New fossils do not follow that preciseness. The new phyla (as quoted below) appear around the rock change. The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?


dhw: Here is an interesting account of the Cambrian, rather different from your sensationalized version.
CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.

dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.

DAVID: Only if you purposely avoid the obvious, which Darwin recognized, and now you and the article ignore. The line between Edicaran and Cambrian is obviously blurred geologically, but the early advanced forms at end Edicaran had NO obvious close-in-form precursors and are the gradual start of the explosion. Of course anyone can find Darwinist articles written to blur the obvious.

dhw: It is not unreasonable to propose that instead of your God preprogramming every new organ and organism 3.8 billion years ago (plus the changing conditions which presumably switched on the relevant programmes), or popping in to create brand new species from scratch (what happened to common descent?), the absence of precursors from 570+ million years ago is due to the fact that dead bodies tend to disintegrate over time, leaving no trace behind!

You keep ignoring the new discoveries. In China many soft forms, even brains and eyes, are newly found. The gap never narrows!!! Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.


dhw: I don’t know what special knowledge you have that makes you so certain about the potential capabilities of cells.

DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place?

DAVID: By God's design.

dhw: Are you saying that, despite your belief in common descent (except for when you don’t believe in it) your God does not design new species by changing the jobs that existing cells do?

Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: Of course it appeared during evolution, and of course it evolved during evolution. Now please tell us how your God “instructs” the cells: a library for them to choose from, or constant dabbling?

DAVID: Once a system evolves/is designed, no dabbling necessary.

dhw: Once again you dodge my question. No dabbling would be necessary once your God had designed the system of the intelligent cell which autonomously works out how to deal with new invaders. But you say your God issued the cells with instructions on how to deal with every new invader. Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?

A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors..

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Thursday, September 30, 2021, 10:49 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms without precursors. The start is the gap. The million of years afterward are window dressing.

dhw: Some say the Cambrian lasted for about 55 million years. Please tell us how many millions of those years do you regard as being the “start”?

dhw: You have not answered this question.

DAVID: Yes I did. In the Grand Canyon layers were precisely demarked. New fossils do not follow that preciseness. The new phyla (as quoted below) appear around the rock change. The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?

Of course I accept the gaps! But the Grand Canyon is not the only source of fossils, as you point out below, and there are two problems: 1) the absence of fossils to fill the gaps, and 2) the apparent suddenness of the appearance of some new species. I am proposing that 1) it is unreasonable to expect a full fossil record of every species, and 2) “suddenness” is relative. You say the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms (the article I quoted made it sound rather less prolific), and I asked a simple question: how many millions of years do you regard as being the “start”?

CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

dhw: No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.
dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.

DAVID: You keep ignoring the new discoveries. In China many soft forms, even brains and eyes, are newly found. The gap never narrows!!! Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.

As I understand it, Gould’s gaps are the long periods of stasis in which species remain unchanged, and instead of Darwin’s gradualism, he argues for sudden bursts of creativity. What is there not to accept? I don’t know his views on the mechanisms, but it seems reasonable to propose that new species came into being – possibly just locally (hence the different sites of discovery) – through responses to changes in the environment. If you add Shapiro’s theory that these changes are made by intelligent cells, you have a complete explanation of how evolution happens. I would add that your God may have designed cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place? […]

DAVID: Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.

So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?

Magic embryology
QUOTE: "A system with many switches ensures that the system does not easily fail," says Zuniga. "And it gives evolution room for change." Therefore, individual switches have been able to change without significant pressure, and this has played a part in the development of a wide range of extremities during the history of evolution."

DAVID: This system keeps errors to an extreme minimum. The study fits my theory that God sets up programs early in anticipation of future designs of future evolutionary stages.

This is another way of saying that the system allows for both stability and flexibility. Stability preserves species, and flexibility allows for the production of new species. Please tell us if by “programs” you mean your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old individual programmes for every single undabbled evolutionary change (plus econiche, natural wonder etc.) for the whole history of life, or could the system and its many switches refer to a mechanism whereby cell communities could autonomously maintain themselves (stasis) or restructure themselves (speciation)?

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?

DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)

So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 30, 2021, 15:57 (23 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes I did. In the Grand Canyon layers were precisely demarked. New fossils do not follow that preciseness. The new phyla (as quoted below) appear around the rock change. The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?

dhw: Of course I accept the gaps! But the Grand Canyon is not the only source of fossils, as you point out below, and there are two problems: 1) the absence of fossils to fill the gaps, and 2) the apparent suddenness of the appearance of some new species. I am proposing that 1) it is unreasonable to expect a full fossil record of every species, and 2) “suddenness” is relative. You say the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms (the article I quoted made it sound rather less prolific), and I asked a simple question: how many millions of years do you regard as being the “start”?

The Grand Canyon is just a geology example. The true gap is bolded above in my comment. It is the key point you continue avoid and talk around.


CC300: Cambrian Explosion
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

dhw: No need for me to repeat the quotes, which emphasize the uncertainty surrounding the length of the Cambrian, the fact that many of the phyla appear both pre- and post the Cambrian, and the ongoing complexification that took place from the beginning of the Cambrian onwards.
dhw: Nothing is as clear-cut as you like to make it seem.

DAVID: You keep ignoring the new discoveries. In China many soft forms, even brains and eyes, are newly found. The gap never narrows!!! Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.

dhw: As I understand it, Gould’s gaps are the long periods of stasis in which species remain unchanged, and instead of Darwin’s gradualism, he argues for sudden bursts of creativity. What is there not to accept?

The large changes show new complex designs. Th at is my point abut gaps.


DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place? […]

DAVID: Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.

dhw: So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?

Same cells do many things, others just one, all assigned


Magic embryology
QUOTE: "A system with many switches ensures that the system does not easily fail," says Zuniga. "And it gives evolution room for change." Therefore, individual switches have been able to change without significant pressure, and this has played a part in the development of a wide range of extremities during the history of evolution."

DAVID: This system keeps errors to an extreme minimum. The study fits my theory that God sets up programs early in anticipation of future designs of future evolutionary stages.

This is another way of saying that the system allows for both stability and flexibility. Stability preserves species, and flexibility allows for the production of new species. Please tell us if by “programs” you mean your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old individual programmes for every single undabbled evolutionary change (plus econiche, natural wonder etc.) for the whole history of life,

Answered above. Programs for the future are set in advance.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?

DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)

dhw: So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.

The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Friday, October 01, 2021, 12:14 (22 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The new phyla without precursors are the gap. Why can't you accept it if your hero Darwin did?

dhw: Of course I accept the gaps! But the Grand Canyon is not the only source of fossils, as you point out below, and there are two problems: 1) the absence of fossils to fill the gaps, and 2) the apparent suddenness of the appearance of some new species. I am proposing that 1) it is unreasonable to expect a full fossil record of every species, and 2) “suddenness” is relative. You say the start of the Cambrian had all sorts of new forms (the article I quoted made it sound rather less prolific), and I asked a simple question: how many millions of years do you regard as being the “start”?

DAVID: The Grand Canyon is just a geology example. The true gap is bolded above in my comment. It is the key point you continue avoid and talk around.

When I say I accept the gaps, and then try to explain them as being due to a possible absence of fossils and also to a misconception of “suddenness” (i.e. there is plenty of time for new phyla to evolve during the Cambrian), I am not avoiding or talking round the subject of the gaps. As regards “suddenness”, I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.

DAVID: […] Base your thinking on what is known, not theoretical absences to cover your unwillingness to accept Gould's gaps.

dhw: As I understand it, Gould’s gaps are the long periods of stasis in which species remain unchanged, and instead of Darwin’s gradualism, he argues for sudden bursts of creativity. What is there not to accept?

DAVID: The large changes show new complex designs. That is my point abut gaps.

And I don’t dispute it. You think your God popped in to dabble the changes, and I suggest that intelligent communities may have designed the changes themselves.

DAVID: Cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs.

dhw: “Assigned” in what way? Cells potential is quite clearly to change the jobs they do! How else could evolution have taken place? […]

DAVID: Of course cells have new jobs when God does advanced design.

dhw: So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?

DAVID: Same cells do many things, others just one, all assigned.

Same problem: you have your God preprogramming, manipulating or instructing cells to change, and I suggest that if he exists, he gave them the power to change themselves. Either way, they clearly have potential to do different jobs.

Magic embryology
DAVID: The study fits my theory that God sets up programs early in anticipation of future designs of future evolutionary stages.

dhw: This is another way of saying that the system allows for both stability and flexibility. Stability preserves species, and flexibility allows for the production of new species. Please tell us if by “programs” you mean your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old individual programmes for every single undabbled evolutionary change (plus econiche, natural wonder etc.) for the whole history of life,

DAVID: Answered above. Programs for the future are set in advance.

So either these are the 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for every change throughout life’s history, or every time your God foresees a change in conditions, he pops in and inserts a programme for all the different organisms to cope with or exploit the change (apart from those he doesn’t want to survive). But see below.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?

DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)

dhw: So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.

DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.

But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Friday, October 01, 2021, 14:46 (22 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The Grand Canyon is just a geology example. The true gap is bolded above in my comment. It is the key point you continue avoid and talk around.

When I say I accept the gaps, and then try to explain them as being due to a possible absence of fossils and also to a misconception of “suddenness” (i.e. there is plenty of time for new phyla to evolve during the Cambrian), I am not avoiding or talking round the subject of the gaps. As regards “suddenness”, I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.

It is not years of geology!!! When they look at the layers the early Cambrians are suddenly there on both sides of the demarcation. The gap is in the massive jump in forms. This is what you avoid discussing.


DAVID: The large changes show new complex designs. That is my point abut gaps.

dhw: And I don’t dispute it. You think your God popped in to dabble the changes, and I suggest that intelligent communities may have designed the changes themselves.

Creating the gaps in form?


dhw: So why do you say “cells only potential is to do their assigned jobs” if your God uses the same cells to perform different jobs?

DAVID: Same cells do many things, others just one, all assigned.

dhw: Same problem: you have your God preprogramming, manipulating or instructing cells to change, and I suggest that if he exists, he gave them the power to change themselves. Either way, they clearly have potential to do different jobs.

God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions. Some cells may have more than one assigned function.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Immunity appeared during evolution, or there would not have been any evolution. The immune cells have all the instructions they need to meet new invaders.

dhw: […] Please tell us what form these instructions take – a 3.8-billion-year-old library to choose from, or direct dabbling?

DAVID: A baby starts without its own personal antibodies, just those in Mother's colostrum and some general God-given ones. The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along with exceptions like HIV which destroy the ability. From evolution of sapiens, their cells followed fixed instructions to accomplish the tasks. Covid 19 was no unanswerable surprise. The system is more recent in designed evolution than 3.8 byo, and not dabbled based on our knowledge of homo precursors. (dhw’s bolds)

dhw: So if the cells have the ABILITY to create their own library as and when new invaders appear, what “fixed instructions” do they follow? You have now dispensed with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme AND with dabbling. Please answer, or please acknowledge that the cells’ ABILITY to create new antibodies in response to new invasions means that they function autonomously, as opposed to following instructions.

DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.

dhw: But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?

At some point in evolution immune cells were created in multicellular organisms to act as I have described.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Saturday, October 02, 2021, 10:42 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.

DAVID: It is not years of geology!!! When they look at the layers the early Cambrians are suddenly there on both sides of the demarcation. The gap is in the massive jump in forms. This is what you avoid discussing.

Please explain what you mean by “both sides of the demarcation”. (Are you just talking about the Grand Canyon?) Of course the gap is the massive jump in forms, but why “suddenly” if the appearance of all the different forms covers, let’s say, a million years? “Geological time” masks the fact that we are dealing with biology. Even if each generation needs, say, twenty years between reproductions (most need far fewer), you have 50,000 generations, and do we know precisely how stable local conditions were 550 million years ago? And how many fossils do you expect to have survived from 550 million years ago? This is what you “avoid discussing”. I’m not saying that this solves the Cambrian mystery. Nobody has solved it. But for those of us who believe in common descent, these factors alone – without even considering the possibility that cell communities respond intelligently to new conditions (i.e. they may well have produced comparatively sudden innovations) – make the mystery a little less mysterious. This explanation is certainly no more mysterious than that of an unknown and sourceless conscious mind “suddenly” popping in specially to invent new forms of life, the majority of which had no connection with humans although its only goal was to design humans.

DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.

How do you know?

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.

dhw: But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?

DAVID: At some point in evolution immune cells were created in multicellular organisms to act as I have described.

I have suggested that cells have an autonomous intelligence which recognizes new invaders and (sometimes) works out how to combat them. What you have described is cells being able to build up a library of antibodies throughout the life of the organism (which fits in with my suggestion), and yet your God has provided the cells with a “set of instructions to recognize each invader and to devise antibodies to fit that invader”. You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 02, 2021, 15:18 (21 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I keep asking you how many million years you regard as being the “start” of the Cambrian, because even one million years is a huge period of time – ample for the development of new species once you accept the principle that organisms can change in response to different environments.

DAVID: It is not years of geology!!! When they look at the layers the early Cambrians are suddenly there on both sides of the demarcation. The gap is in the massive jump in forms. This is what you avoid discussing.

dhw: Please explain what you mean by “both sides of the demarcation”. (Are you just talking about the Grand Canyon?) Of course the gap is the massive jump in forms, but why “suddenly” if the appearance of all the different forms covers, let’s say, a million years? “Geological time” masks the fact that we are dealing with biology. Even if each generation needs, say, twenty years between reproductions (most need far fewer), you have 50,000 generations, and do we know precisely how stable local conditions were 550 million years ago? And how many fossils do you expect to have survived from 550 million years ago? This is what you “avoid discussing”. I’m not saying that this solves the Cambrian mystery. Nobody has solved it. But for those of us who believe in common descent, these factors alone – without even considering the possibility that cell communities respond intelligently to new conditions (i.e. they may well have produced comparatively sudden innovations) – make the mystery a little less mysterious. This explanation is certainly no more mysterious than that of an unknown and sourceless conscious mind “suddenly” popping in specially to invent new forms of life, the majority of which had no connection with humans although its only goal was to design humans.

The various geological ages are sharply demarcated all over the world. The key point that you palaver around is the sharp sudden appearance of the Cambrians without any type of even partial precursors. China has revealed many new Edicaran forms, nothing close to the first Cambrians. And yes, the biological forms don't adhere exactly to the demarcations. Doesn't change the obvious huge gap in form and function.


DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.

dhw: How do you know?

Todays' cells don't change.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.

dhw: But if he didn’t preprogramme them 3.8 billion years ago, and he doesn’t dabble, when and how does he pass each new set of instructions on to the cells?

DAVID: At some point in evolution immune cells were created in multicellular organisms to act as I have described.

dhw: I have suggested that cells have an autonomous intelligence which recognizes new invaders and (sometimes) works out how to combat them. What you have described is cells being able to build up a library of antibodies throughout the life of the organism (which fits in with my suggestion), and yet your God has provided the cells with a “set of instructions to recognize each invader and to devise antibodies to fit that invader”. You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.

In a general way I view immune systems as starting with bacteria and their CRISPR defense. As evolution advanced in designed stages the multicellular immune systems developed also. Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific. Our responses to various vaccines is in the same general way. Reactions to whole body live attenuated vaccines match natural events. (Polio). Pfizer RNA is totally manmade and unnatural but the same automatic response with antibodies occurs. God's immune cell system is a generalized response. No Britannica of different ways to do it!!! All the same and very direct.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Sunday, October 03, 2021, 08:41 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The various geological ages are sharply demarcated all over the world. The key point that you palaver around is the sharp sudden appearance of the Cambrians without any type of even partial precursors. China has revealed many new Edicaran forms, nothing close to the first Cambrians. And yes, the biological forms don't adhere exactly to the demarcations. Doesn't change the obvious huge gap in form and function.

I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions). 4) It is perfectly conceivable that intelligent cell communities are capable of making major as well as minor changes to their anatomy. Nobody knows how speciation took place, but this theory is at least as plausible as your own “palaver”, which has an unknown and sourceless conscious mind “suddenly” popping in specially to invent new forms of life, the majority of which had no connection with humans although its only goal was to design humans.

DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: Todays' cells don't change.

There is no new speciation happening today, and nobody knows how it happened in the past. But scientists keep revealing how certain cells, e.g. stem cells, are capable of an almost infinite variety of changes to their structure and function.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.[…]

dhw: […] You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.

DAVID: In a general way I view immune systems as starting with bacteria and their CRISPR defense. As evolution advanced in designed stages the multicellular immune systems developed also.

If the systems developed stage by stage, the process was ongoing, i.e. accumulative. And yet your God did NOT dabble, and instructions were not programmed 3.8 bya.

DAVID: Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific.

So your God did not issue specific instructions on how to recognize every new invader and how to devise the necessary antibodies. He just told the cells that they must recognize the invader and add XYZ to one of their proteins, then left it to them to do the necessary. And how would they know which XYZ to add, in order to fight an enemy they had never seen before, with “no thought involved”?

DAVID: […] God's immune cell system is a generalized response. No Britannica of different ways to do it!!! All the same and very direct.

Hardly direct if you have an unknown number of unknown invaders, and all your God has done is tell the cells to find the right solution to the problem! You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 03, 2021, 16:23 (20 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The various geological ages are sharply demarcated all over the world. The key point that you palaver around is the sharp sudden appearance of the Cambrians without any type of even partial precursors. China has revealed many new Edicaran forms, nothing close to the first Cambrians. And yes, the biological forms don't adhere exactly to the demarcations. Doesn't change the obvious huge gap in form and function.

dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions).

Your explanation for sudden appearance, which you say you accept, then devolves into a mish mosh of why it can't be sudden. You have not explained Darwin's gap, because it hasn't gone away. The gap in form and function from simple Edicarans to the first Cambrians is entirely unexplained and quite real. Active research in the very complete Chinese shale beds has not reduced the gap.


DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: Todays' cells don't change.

dhw: There is no new speciation happening today, and nobody knows how it happened in the past. But scientists keep revealing how certain cells, e.g. stem cells, are capable of an almost infinite variety of changes to their structure and function.

Stem cells are designed with a purposeful function to create cells with purposeful function. Without them there is no embryology from fertilized egg. What is your point, if any?


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The cells have one set of instructions to recognize every new invader and devise antibodies to fit that invader. No thought involved.[…]

dhw: […] You have said that these instructions were not preprogrammed 3.8 bya, but were not dabbled either. Please explain when and how you think your God passed on the instructions, and how cells are able to choose - “no thought involved” - the correct volume from the library of instructions you say he has provided them with.

DAVID: In a general way I view immune systems as starting with bacteria and their CRISPR defense. As evolution advanced in designed stages the multicellular immune systems developed also.

dhw: If the systems developed stage by stage, the process was ongoing, i.e. accumulative. And yet your God did NOT dabble, and instructions were not programmed 3.8 bya.

DAVID: Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific.

dhw: So your God did not issue specific instructions on how to recognize every new invader and how to devise the necessary antibodies. He just told the cells that they must recognize the invader and add XYZ to one of their proteins, then left it to them to do the necessary. And how would they know which XYZ to add, in order to fight an enemy they had never seen before, with “no thought involved”?

The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. Your immune system recognized Covid vaccine just like all the vaccines you took in the past. Yet they are nothing like any previous vaccines invented by man. Same natural response to an unnatural vaccine. All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary


DAVID: […] God's immune cell system is a generalized response. No Britannica of different ways to do it!!! All the same and very direct.

dhw: Hardly direct if you have an unknown number of unknown invaders, and all your God has done is tell the cells to find the right solution to the problem! You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?

Again, the cells recognize a foreign protein, simply because it is foreign, and add a killer segment to it. Always the same segment. It is a complexly designed system that keeps it
simple!!! That is how immunity works

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Monday, October 04, 2021, 11:25 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions). [You left out the fourth factor, which is the theory of cellular intelligence.]

DAVID: Your explanation for sudden appearance, which you say you accept….

I did NOT say I accepted it! I described it as “a possible explanation”, and went on to say that “nobody knows how speciation took place, but this theory is at least as plausible as your own “palaver”.

DAVID: ...then devolves into a mish mosh of why it can't be sudden.

It is the sudden appearance of new species that constitutes your major argument!

DAVID: You have not explained Darwin's gap, because it hasn't gone away. The gap in form and function from simple Edicarans to the first Cambrians is entirely unexplained and quite real. Active research in the very complete Chinese shale beds has not reduced the gap.

The gap is the sudden appearance of new forms without any known precursors. I have agreed that no one knows the answer, but I have offered a 4-point list of factors that might explain it, and your only response is to say that it is a “mish mosh”. Why don’t you respond to the points themselves?

DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: Todays' cells don't change.

dhw: There is no new speciation happening today, and nobody knows how it happened in the past. But scientists keep revealing how certain cells, e.g. stem cells, are capable of an almost infinite variety of changes to their structure and function.

DAVID: Stem cells are designed with a purposeful function to create cells with purposeful function. Without them there is no embryology from fertilized egg. What is your point, if any?

Cells do change their form and functions. If they didn’t, there could be no evolution. If your God can change their form and functions, then he is perfectly capable of giving them the means to do it themselves.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Pre-programming and dabbling are generalized descriptive terms, not exact as the designed stages concept. Instructions to make antibodies are in the general: if any invader comes along, add XYZ to one of its proteins to make it die. Nothing is in the specific.

dhw: So your God did not issue specific instructions on how to recognize every new invader and how to devise the necessary antibodies. He just told the cells that they must recognize the invader and add XYZ to one of their proteins, then left it to them to do the necessary. And how would they know which XYZ to add, in order to fight an enemy they had never seen before, with “no thought involved”?

DAVID: The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. […] All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary.

How can the XYZ additions all be the same if the invaders are different? What is there to develop if the solution to the problem is always the same? If the cells obey instructions which were not preprogrammed from the very beginning, how can your God develop his design without dabbling? Yes, the PROCESS is the same: new invader, new antibodies. But the details have to change, and if your God has not issued instructions for every single detail and does not dabble, then the cell community has to work out the details by itself. Impossible without thought.

dhw […] You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?

DAVID: Again, the cells recognize a foreign protein, simply because it is foreign, and add a killer segment to it. Always the same segment. It is a complexly designed system that keeps it simple!!! That is how immunity works.

In order to recognize something as foreign, you have to be aware of the difference between it and you. Sometimes cells make mistakes. Isn’t that often the problem with transplants? Recognition is a cognitive process. And as I understand it, the immune system must produce a specific new antibody to kill each specific new antigen. So what do you mean by the same killer segment?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Monday, October 04, 2021, 18:55 (19 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species! Once more: 1) What you call the “start” of the Cambrian may cover tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. This is not “sudden”. 2) We cannot expect a step-by-step fossil record of species that lived 550+ million years ago. 3) We cannot know all the changes that took place in local conditions 550+ million years ago (and I suggest that speciation takes place in response to changing conditions). [You left out the fourth factor, which is the theory of cellular intelligence.]

DAVID: ...then devolves into a mish mosh of why it can't be sudden.

dhw: It is the sudden appearance of new species that constitutes your major argument!

DAVID: You have not explained Darwin's gap, because it hasn't gone away. The gap in form and function from simple Edicarans to the first Cambrians is entirely unexplained and quite real. Active research in the very complete Chinese shale beds has not reduced the gap.

dhw: The gap is the sudden appearance of new forms without any known precursors. I have agreed that no one knows the answer, but I have offered a 4-point list of factors that might explain it, and your only response is to say that it is a “mish mosh”. Why don’t you respond to the points themselves?

Each point avoids the obvious gap in precursors, not recognizing the 50+ years of new findings in Chinese shale all of which reinforce the gap. It is Darwin's gap, unchanged since he noted it.


DAVID: Stem cells are designed with a purposeful function to create cells with purposeful function. Without them there is no embryology from fertilized egg. What is your point, if any?

dhw: Cells do change their form and functions. If they didn’t, there could be no evolution. If your God can change their form and functions, then he is perfectly capable of giving them the means to do it themselves.

True without an evidence, just supposition of impractical secondhand design


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. […] All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary.

dhw: How can the XYZ additions all be the same if the invaders are different? What is there to develop if the solution to the problem is always the same? If the cells obey instructions which were not preprogrammed from the very beginning, how can your God develop his design without dabbling? Yes, the PROCESS is the same: new invader, new antibodies. But the details have to change, and if your God has not issued instructions for every single detail and does not dabble, then the cell community has to work out the details by itself. Impossible without thought.

Don't believe me if that is your opinion. Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades. No new instructions from God are required to have the system work from birth onward. The system is built in to recognize all new invasions, like Covid 19, which never existed more than three + years ago. Yet we all make antibodies against it!!! God dabble not required.


dhw […] You wrote that “cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along”. How does a “generalized response” turn into a library of specific responses with no specific instructions from your God and yet with “no thought involved”?

DAVID: Again, the cells recognize a foreign protein, simply because it is foreign, and add a killer segment to it. Always the same segment. It is a complexly designed system that keeps it simple!!! That is how immunity works.

dhw: In order to recognize something as foreign, you have to be aware of the difference between it and you. Sometimes cells make mistakes. Isn’t that often the problem with transplants? Recognition is a cognitive process. And as I understand it, the immune system must produce a specific new antibody to kill each specific new antigen. So what do you mean by the same killer segment?

What immune cells add to recognized foreign protein is a killer protein, always by the same process. Knowing self from non-self is built in. Transplants are always foreign if genetically close in HLA, so anti-immune drugs must be used to protect the transplant. I see you floundering to find objections to the idea our immune cells know exactly what to do each and every time. Fabulous design!!! No cell thought required

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 10:54 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species!

DAVID: Each point avoids the obvious gap in precursors, not recognizing the 50+ years of new findings in Chinese shale all of which reinforce the gap. It is Darwin's gap, unchanged since he noted it.

Each point contributes to a possible explanation of the gap. We are talking about a period that could cover vast numbers of generations, and about innovations that took place in different locations where changing conditions could trigger different responses. Most importantly, the possibility of cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God) allows for the jumps that Darwin considered impossible, and we cannot expect to find fossils of every innovation from 550+ million years ago. I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).

DAVID: God did not give cells the power to change their form or functions.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID Today’s cells don’t change.

dhw: Cells do change their form and functions. If they didn’t, there could be no evolution. If your God can change their form and functions, then he is perfectly capable of giving them the means to do it themselves.

DAVID: True without an evidence, just supposition of impractical secondhand design.

So you agree that cells do change their form and function, and your only objection is that you happen to know that your God didn’t give them the power to do it themselves.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The XYZ additions are all the same. When added they kill. There is not the complexity of a dictionary of differences. […] All provided by God's design developed during evolution, no dabble necessary.

dhw: How can the XYZ additions all be the same if the invaders are different? What is there to develop if the solution to the problem is always the same? If the cells obey instructions which were not preprogrammed from the very beginning, how can your God develop his design without dabbling? Yes, the PROCESS is the same: new invader, new antibodies. But the details have to change, and if your God has not issued instructions for every single detail and does not dabble, then the cell community has to work out the details by itself. Impossible without thought.

DAVID: Don't believe me if that is your opinion. Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades.

I have just stated (now bolded) that the process is the same! It’s the details that change.

DAVID: No new instructions from God are required to have the system work from birth onward. The system is built in to recognize all new invasions, like Covid 19, which never existed more than three + years ago. Yet we all make antibodies against it!!! God dabble not required.

Thank you for confirming that cells recognize invasions and make NEW antibodies without any dabbling from your God. How they can possibly do so without thought is beyond me. And still we wait to hear exactly what your God’s “instructions” consist of, if they do not specify what new XYZs are required to kill off the new invaders. Meanwhile, please note that millions of people have died from Covid-19. The system failed.

DAVID: Knowing self from non-self is built in.

What does “built in” mean, if it is not the cognitive faculty of recognition?

DAVID: I see you floundering to find objections to the idea our immune cells know exactly what to do each and every time. Fabulous design!!! No cell thought required.

They don’t know what to do each and every time. They have to work it out! Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders? “I see you floundering” to find objections to the idea that if your God has not preprogrammed or dabbled specific antibodies to counter specific invaders, then the only possibility left is that (if he exists) he has given cells the ABILITY to work out how to do it themselves – and that requires thought. (Not, of course, to be confused or compared with human thought.) In your own words, referring to a baby: “The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along.” You have agreed that the cells make the library without "instructions" from your God, in which case they must autonomously compile each volume as and when it is needed.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 15:49 (18 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 05, 2021, 16:19

dhw: I keep repeating a possible explanation for the “sudden appearance” of new species, and your only response so far has been that I ignore the “sudden appearance” of new species!

DAVID: Each point avoids the obvious gap in precursors, not recognizing the 50+ years of new findings in Chinese shale all of which reinforce the gap. It is Darwin's gap, unchanged since he noted it.

dhw: Each point contributes to a possible explanation of the gap. We are talking about a period that could cover vast numbers of generations, and about innovations that took place in different locations where changing conditions could trigger different responses...I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).

A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal. Your hopeful theories about the gap does not get rid of its current unexplained state.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: Don't believe me if that is your opinion. Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades.

dhw: I have just stated (now bolded) that the process is the same! It’s the details that change.

Automatically by the cells singular process.


DAVID: No new instructions from God are required to have the system work from birth onward. The system is built in to recognize all new invasions, like Covid 19, which never existed more than three + years ago. Yet we all make antibodies against it!!! God dabble not required.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that cells recognize invasions and make NEW antibodies without any dabbling from your God. How they can possibly do so without thought is beyond me. And still we wait to hear exactly what your God’s “instructions” consist of, if they do not specify what new XYZs are required to kill off the new invaders. Meanwhile, please note that millions of people have died from Covid-19. The system failed.

What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required


DAVID: I see you floundering to find objections to the idea our immune cells know exactly what to do each and every time. Fabulous design!!! No cell thought required.

dhw: They don’t know what to do each and every time. They have to work it out!

Just respond according it plan.

dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?

Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

dhw: “I see you floundering” to find objections to the idea that if your God has not preprogrammed or dabbled specific antibodies to counter specific invaders, then the only possibility left is that (if he exists) he has given cells the ABILITY to work out how to do it themselves – and that requires thought. (Not, of course, to be confused or compared with human thought.) In your own words, referring to a baby: “The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along.” You have agreed that the cells make the library without "instructions" from your God, in which case they must autonomously compile each volume as and when it is needed.

Your fertile mind distorts what I tell you constantly as the bold. The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory. You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system. Read it for yourself on Google, your usual attempt to learn outside of me.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Wednesday, October 06, 2021, 08:58 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

Yesterday, I repeated a four-point theory concerning the “gap” between species.

dhw: I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).

DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.

Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.

DAVID: Your hopeful theories about the gap does not get rid of its current unexplained state.

If we had a definitive explanation, we would not need to theorize. Your own “hopeful theories about the gap” do not “get rid of its current unexplained state”. Perhaps you could now explain any logical flaws you find in the argument.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Making new antibodies is always the same process no matter who or what invades.

dhw: I have just stated [...] that the process is the same! It’s the details that change.

DAVID: Automatically by the cells singular process.

So you agree that the details change. Thank you.

DAVID: What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required.

First you agree that the details change, but they do so automatically, and now you say no extra details are required. So when a new invader arrives, you think the immune system produces exactly the same antibody as for every previous invader!

dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?

DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.

dhw: In your own words, referring to a baby: “The rest of his life his cells are able to make an entire library of antibodies to all that come along.” You have agreed that the cells make the library without "instructions" from your God, in which case they must autonomously compile each volume as and when it is needed.

DAVID: Your fertile mind distorts what I tell you constantly as the bold. The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.

So now you agree that extra details (appropriate antibodies) are required, but although from birth onwards the cells build their own memory and are able to make a library of antibodies, there are no new volumes to add, because all we need is God to say: “Make appropriate antibodies for this new invader”. (Or can you tell us what other instructions he delivers without dabbling?) The cells automatically know exactly how to make the new antibody because no extra details are required beyond those it already has in the library which it builds up from birth onwards, as and when it creates new (but exactly the same) antibodies to fight off new invaders.

DAVID: You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system.

No, I don’t. I find them full of contradictions.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 06, 2021, 15:36 (17 days ago) @ dhw

Yesterday, I repeated a four-point theory concerning the “gap” between species.

dhw: I suggest that the above combination of factors is at least as feasible as the theory that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation - not just the Cambrian - and that he did so with the sole purpose of producing humans plus their food).

DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.

dhw: Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.

We have covered all of the possible reasons God wanted to produce life that recognized He existed. No need to repeat the guesswork as you have the facility to quote the guesses.


DAVID: Your hopeful theories about the gap does not get rid of its current unexplained state.

dhw: If we had a definitive explanation, we would not need to theorize. Your own “hopeful theories about the gap” do not “get rid of its current unexplained state”. Perhaps you could now explain any logical flaws you find in the argument.

All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required.

dhw: First you agree that the details change, but they do so automatically, and now you say no extra details are required. So when a new invader arrives, you think the immune system produces exactly the same antibody as for every previous invader!

No, each new antibody is conformed to attack the new invader recognizing the invader as such.


dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?

DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.

You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!

DAVID: Your fertile mind distorts what I tell you constantly as the bold. The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.

dhw: So now you agree that extra details (appropriate antibodies) are required, but although from birth onwards the cells build their own memory and are able to make a library of antibodies, there are no new volumes to add, because all we need is God to say: “Make appropriate antibodies for this new invader”. (Or can you tell us what other instructions he delivers without dabbling?) The cells automatically know exactly how to make the new antibody because no extra details are required beyond those it already has in the library which it builds up from birth onwards, as and when it creates new (but exactly the same) antibodies to fight off new invaders.

DAVID: You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system.

dhw: No, I don’t. I find them full of contradictions.

Comment: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference. Or read it on your own and learn.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Thursday, October 07, 2021, 09:03 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.

dhw: Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.

DAVID: We have covered all of the possible reasons God wanted to produce life that recognized He existed. […]

I was not asking about his reasons for producing humans who would recognize his existence. You implied that humans were not your God’s sole purpose, so I asked for other reasons why he would have designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.

Your whole point about the Cambrian is negative: there are no known precursors. How does that prove that there were no precursors, and that there is a God who stepped in and created new species out of nothing? Now let us consider the implications of this theory for your overall theory of evolution. You believe your God created life with the purpose of creating humans (plus our food). And you believe he “evolved” us (by which you mean designed us) in stage after stage, starting with bacteria. But all of a sudden, he started designing species from scratch – not descended from bacteria at all. So now what do you believe? 3+ billion years of special designs, all wasted, since the human line only began with brand new species designed 550 million years ago? Food? Was every single species he designed before the Cambrian, including all those that had no connection with humans and our food, part of the goal of designing humans and our food? Your theory about the Cambrian directly contradicts your theory about our descent from bacteria – unless you now wish to argue that the new species were NOT the precursors of humans, in which case, why did he bother to design them?

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: What is beyond you is the system to make antibodies works automatically by recognizing non-self and adding always the same killer proteins to the non-self. No extra details required.

dhw: First you agree that the details change, but they do so automatically, and now you say no extra details are required. So when a new invader arrives, you think the immune system produces exactly the same antibody as for every previous invader!

DAVID: No, each new antibody is conformed to attack the new invader recognizing the invader as such.

Thank you. New extra details are required.

dhw: Why do you think people fall ill or even die before the process produces the new antibodies to fight off the new invaders?

DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.

DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!

So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.

DAVID: […] The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.

dhw: So now you agree that extra details (appropriate antibodies) are required, but although from birth onwards the cells build their own memory and are able to make a library of antibodies, there are no new volumes to add, because all we need is God to say: “Make appropriate antibodies for this new invader”. (Or can you tell us what other instructions he delivers without dabbling?) The cells automatically know exactly how to make the new antibody because no extra details are required beyond those it already has in the library which it builds up from birth onwards, as and when it creates new (but exactly the same) antibodies to fight off new invaders.

DAVID: You obviously don't believe my explanations of the immune system.

dhw: No, I don’t. I find them full of contradictions.

DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.

Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 07, 2021, 18:44 (16 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A sole purpose is not the same as a final goal.

dhw: Back we go. According to you, all life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. So please, yet again, tell us what other goals you think your God had for designing life.

DAVID: We have covered all of the possible reasons God wanted to produce life that recognized He existed. […]

I was not asking about his reasons for producing humans who would recognize his existence. You implied that humans were not your God’s sole purpose, so I asked for other reasons why he would have designed all the life forms that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.

dhw: Your whole point about the Cambrian is negative: there are no known precursors. How does that prove that there were no precursors, and that there is a God who stepped in and created new species out of nothing? Now let us consider the implications of this theory for your overall theory of evolution. You believe your God created life with the purpose of creating humans (plus our food). And you believe he “evolved” us (by which you mean designed us) in stage after stage, starting with bacteria. But all of a sudden, he started designing species from scratch – not descended from bacteria at all. So now what do you believe?

Not differently. Don't forget God is a designer. What was the precursor for life? The Cambrian is at a point where God was ready for sexual reproduction to appear a much more complex way to evolve more new organisms. The single cells had been designed with perfected processes to be used in the next stages.

Immunity system complexity

DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.

DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!

dhw: So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.

No, a weak response is not enough antibodies to eradicate the invader's reproduction rate.


DAVID: […] The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.

DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.

dhw: Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?

Because the cells don't think. They automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process. Similar with virus in that the ability to take over DNA for reproduction is damaged. The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library. The newborn also comes with generalized defenses that last a lifetime and are early protection before specific antibodies are made. Immunity varies with the attacker: a cold is two months, covid about 3-6 months, measles and polio lifetime.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Friday, October 08, 2021, 08:45 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All your guesses about the reasons for the gap are all in the negative.

dhw: Your whole point about the Cambrian is negative: there are no known precursors. How does that prove that there were no precursors, and that there is a God who stepped in and created new species out of nothing? Now let us consider the implications of this theory for your overall theory of evolution. You believe your God created life with the purpose of creating humans (plus our food). And you believe he “evolved” us (by which you mean designed us) in stage after stage, starting with bacteria. But all of a sudden, he started designing species from scratch – not descended from bacteria at all. So now what do you believe?

DAVID: Not differently. Don't forget God is a designer. What was the precursor for life? The Cambrian is at a point where God was ready for sexual reproduction to appear a much more complex way to evolve more new organisms. The single cells had been designed with perfected processes to be used in the next stages.

You have ignored the problem. Previously you have told us that evolution was a continuous process, and your God “evolved” humans in stage after stage from bacteria. Now you tell us that your God created new species with no precursors. Do you believe that we are descended from the new species with no precursors, or from bacteria? Please answer directly, so that we can discuss the implications.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.

DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!

dhw: So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.

DAVID: No, a weak response is not enough antibodies to eradicate the invader's reproduction rate.

And that’s supposed to be a positive, is it?

DAVID: […] The cells follow God's instructions to automatically make appropriate antibodies for each new non-self invader. One set of simple instructions. No reference library needed, but created for future reuse. Immune cells can build their own memory.

DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.

dhw: Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?

DAVID: Because the cells don't think.

That is your belief. Please don’t state it as a fact

DAVID: They automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process.

You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!

DAVID: The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary. Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library.

You keep repeating what I told you. The process is the same, but the process entails producing ADDITIONS to the library which cells build up AUTONOMOUSLY. You can argue that your God set up the process, but the details change from one invasion to the next, and cells must tailor their response to each new threat. You have agreed that your God does not do it for them. You parrot words like “automatically” and “God’s instructions”, and simply ignore the obvious fact that recognizing something new and then producing something new to counter it requires thought.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Friday, October 08, 2021, 23:36 (15 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not differently. Don't forget God is a designer. What was the precursor for life? The Cambrian is at a point where God was ready for sexual reproduction to appear a much more complex way to evolve more new organisms. The single cells had been designed with perfected processes to be used in the next stages.

dhw: You have ignored the problem. Previously you have told us that evolution was a continuous process, and your God “evolved” humans in stage after stage from bacteria. Now you tell us that your God created new species with no precursors. Do you believe that we are descended from the new species with no precursors, or from bacteria? Please answer directly, so that we can discuss the implications.

You have jumped into a big nothing. Your definition of continuous means every step followed the the last, but always with obvious precursors. I always say the Cambrian is a gap with no precursors. What have you suddenly discovered? Nothing. God is a designer: life has no precursors (BIG DEAL); the universe has no precursor (BIG DEAL). The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. As before, the background underlying living processes had been established sufficient for the jump to the Cambrian.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Every person has an immune system, but some are very weak with poor and therefore deadly responses.

dhw: In other words, they fail to produce the new antibody which is required to fight off the new invader.

DAVID: You are so negative in your responses. No 'fail'. Weak response!!!! Poor new antibody levels.!!!!

dhw: So they fall ill and die, but it’s all positive: their system is weak and can’t produce the necessary new antibodies.

DAVID: No, a weak response is not enough antibodies to eradicate the invader's reproduction rate.

dhw: And that’s supposed to be a positive, is it?

My point which you always deride is some folks are naturally weak. It's standard biology of the bell curve.


DAVID: I'll try again as you totally misunderstand: foreign invader supplies its own proteins to study. The cell recognizes them and adds killer proteins to a subset of the invader's makeup. Each antibody is therefore new and added to the library for future reference.

dhw: Now you’re talking sense. Each antibody is new, i.e. it adds new details and adds to the library of antibodies. And since you have informed us that once the system is in place, whereby cells are able to build up their own library without any intervention from your God, they act autonomously in working out what new details to add in order to defeat the new invader. There are no “instructions” for each and every antibody. There is only the process of autonomous recognition (God doesn’t do it for them) and autonomous, creative response (God doesn’t do it for them). How is this possible without thought?

DAVID: Because the cells don't think.

dhw: That is your belief. Please don’t state it as a fact

You can't tell me they do.


DAVID: They automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process.

dhw: You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!

Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer. As a full invasion the same similar inflammatory process always happens in the same way.


DAVID: The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary. Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library.

dhw: You keep repeating what I told you. The process is the same, but the process entails producing ADDITIONS to the library which cells build up AUTONOMOUSLY. You can argue that your God set up the process, but the details change from one invasion to the next, and cells must tailor their response to each new threat. You have agreed that your God does not do it for them. You parrot words like “automatically” and “God’s instructions”, and simply ignore the obvious fact that recognizing something new and then producing something new to counter it requires thought.

If the producti9n of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Saturday, October 09, 2021, 08:47 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Do you believe that we are descended from the new species with no precursors, or from bacteria?

DAVID: You have jumped into a big nothing. Your definition of continuous means every step followed the the last, but always with obvious precursors. I always say the Cambrian is a gap with no precursors.

Why have you stuck in the word “obvious”? I agree that the Cambrian gap is a mystery, to which I have offered a possible solution, but that is not the problem here. This is the problem:
DAVID: The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. As before, the background underlying living processes had been established sufficient for the jump to the Cambrian.

You have suddenly changed your mind: instead of us humans and our food being descended from bacteria, starting 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God apparently stepped in only 550 million years ago to dabble brand new lines of life (including ours and trilobites) from scratch. So if humans and our food were your God’s sole purpose right from the start, what was the point of all the extinct life forms that preceded the Cambrian (let alone all the extinct Cambrian [e.g. trilobites] and post-Cambrian forms [e.g. brontosaurus]) and had no connection with us and our food? Could it be that your God was experimenting, learning as he went along, getting new ideas? After all, producing brand new creations out of nothing, with no precursors, hardly suggests the continuity which is a constant theme in your assertion that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: They [cells] automatically recognize non-self, and automatically fit a protein shape to attach to the invader with a killing segment which in bacteria attacks their membrane integrity or to disrupt a metabolic process.

dhw: You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!

DAVID: Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.

You’ve got it. I am confronted with a new problem, I recognize it, and I produce the means of dealing with it. I agree that my feeling the pain is automatic. But my recognition of the cause of the pain and my working out a solution to nullify the cause require autonomous THOUGHT.

DAVID: The process is the same for all invaders and the resultant antibody is added to the library for future reuse if necessary. The process is always the same process from birth onward. That is why no thought is necessary. Each baby comes with the process intact to build a future library.

dhw: You keep repeating what I told you. The process is the same, but the process entails producing ADDITIONS to the library which cells build up AUTONOMOUSLY. You can argue that your God set up the process, but the details change from one invasion to the next, and cells must tailor their response to each new threat. You have agreed that your God does not do it for them. You parrot words like “automatically” and “God’s instructions”, and simply ignore the obvious fact that recognizing something new and then producing something new to counter it requires thought.

DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.

How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before? You seem to be going back to your God’s list of instructions for every new problem and solution, and all the cells have to do is pick out the right volume from the vast library God provided 3.8 billion years ago. The PROCESS is the same, but with every new invader, there has to be a new addition to the library that is built up after birth, so please tell us what is added. As with your image of the splinter and the tweezers, there has to be AUTONOMOUS recognition (= conscious cognition) and the AUTONOMOUS finding of a solution, and that requires AUTONOMOUS thought. (Repeat: You have agreed that your God does not have to dabble.)

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 09, 2021, 16:28 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. As before, the background underlying living processes had been established sufficient for the jump to the Cambrian.

dhw: You have suddenly changed your mind: instead of us humans and our food being descended from bacteria, starting 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God apparently stepped in only 550 million years ago to dabble brand new lines of life (including ours and trilobites) from scratch. So if humans and our food were your God’s sole purpose right from the start, what was the point of all the extinct life forms that preceded the Cambrian (let alone all the extinct Cambrian [e.g. trilobites] and post-Cambrian forms [e.g. brontosaurus]) and had no connection with us and our food? Could it be that your God was experimenting, learning as he went along, getting new ideas? After all, producing brand new creations out of nothing, with no precursors, hardly suggests the continuity which is a constant theme in your assertion that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.

Same response: God stated all life from no precursors. The Cambrian is just another example of His powers. Yes we see discontinuity. Your exploration of God's mind constantly humanizes Him in your analysis as in the bold. In my view God knows exactly what to do and does it.


Immunity system complexity

dhw: You are simply repeating your belief that it’s “automatic”, and are totally ignoring the implications of your own description of the process. Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!

DAVID: Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.

dhw: You’ve got it. I am confronted with a new problem, I recognize it, and I produce the means of dealing with it. I agree that my feeling the pain is automatic. But my recognition of the cause of the pain and my working out a solution to nullify the cause require autonomous THOUGHT.

Your brain is not your cells. The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.


DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.

dhw: How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before?

They know non-self!!!

dhw: You seem to be going back to your God’s list of instructions for every new problem and solution, and all the cells have to do is pick out the right volume from the vast library God provided 3.8 billion years ago.

No I haven't, and perhaps my explanations are not clear enough to get through your imposed belief in cell innate intelligence. Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library. The baby starts with no library, only some generalized ones, interferon, IGG, neutrophiles which engulf, etc. which we use all during our lives. B and T cells are born with the instructions to make antibodies when stimulated by recognition of foreign proteins.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Sunday, October 10, 2021, 09:31 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The Cambrian start all of our current phyla. […]

dhw: You have suddenly changed your mind: instead of us humans and our food being descended from bacteria, starting 3.8 thousand million years ago, your God apparently stepped in only 550 million years ago to dabble brand new lines of life (including ours and trilobites) from scratch. So if humans and our food were your God’s sole purpose right from the start, what was the point of all the extinct life forms that preceded the Cambrian (let alone all the extinct Cambrian [e.g. trilobites] and post-Cambrian forms [e.g. brontosaurus]) and had no connection with us and our food? Could it be that your God was experimenting, learning as he went along, getting new ideas? After all, producing brand new creations out of nothing, with no precursors, hardly suggests the continuity which is a constant theme in your assertion that ALL life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food.

DAVID: Same response: God started all life from no precursors.

Of course the very first life would by definition have had no precursors!

DAVID: The Cambrian is just another example of His powers. Yes we see discontinuity.

Just over a week ago, you wrote: “Designed Evolution means we are directly connected to bacteria by progressive designed stages.” But now: “The Cambrian start all of our current phyla” (which must include humans), and there are no precursors. You can’t have it both ways!

DAVID: Your exploration of God's mind constantly humanizes Him in your analysis as in the bold. In my view God knows exactly what to do and does it.

If he exists, then of course he knows what to do and does it. But even he can hardly design humans step by step starting from bacteria, and also design them step by step starting 3.X billion years later from the Cambrian. So maybe there is something wrong with your view of what he wants to do and how he does it.

Immunity system complexity
dhw: Cells recognize NEW invaders and produce NEW antibodies to fight them. And according to you, they do this without any intervention from your God. These two actions require COGNITION!

DAVID: Automatic cognition. They know self from non-self automatically. They know what is foreign. You get a splinter in skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.

dhw: You’ve got it. I am confronted with a new problem, I recognize it, and I produce the means of dealing with it. I agree that my feeling the pain is automatic. But my recognition of the cause of the pain and my working out a solution to nullify the cause require autonomous THOUGHT.

DAVID: Your brain is not your cells.

It was you who gave us the analogy! My brain automatically feels the pain, consciously recognizes the cause (splinter), and consciously produces the antidote (the tweezer)

DAVID: The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.

Yes, the inflammation is automatic. Why have you left out the conscious recognition of the splinter and the conscious use of the tweezer?

DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.

dhw: How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before?

DAVID: They know non-self!!!

Of course they do. Recognizing the non-self (splinter) is itself a conscious act of cognition, but it doesn’t provide the answer to the problem!

dhw: You seem to be going back to your God’s list of instructions for every new problem and solution, and all the cells have to do is pick out the right volume from the vast library God provided 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: No I haven't, and perhaps my explanations are not clear enough to get through your imposed belief in cell innate intelligence. Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library.

You are merely repeating what I keep saying to you! Same process, but matching protein to protein is the addition to the library, and this accumulates throughout life. Each new invader requires a new antibody, and since your God does not intervene, the recognition and the production of the new antibody can only take place through autonomous thought.

DAVID: B and T cells are born with the instructions to make antibodies when stimulated by recognition of foreign proteins.

The “instructions” are the process. Once again: your God did not issue cells with instructions on how to produce every new antibody in anticipation of every new invader throughout life’s history. Hence the need for autonomous thought.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 10, 2021, 16:25 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same response: God started all life from no precursors.

dhw: Of course the very first life would by definition have had no precursors!

Thanks!!! God can create from no precursors, can't He?


DAVID: The Cambrian is just another example of His powers. Yes we see discontinuity.

dhw: Just over a week ago, you wrote: “Designed Evolution means we are directly connected to bacteria by progressive designed stages.” But now: “The Cambrian start all of our current phyla” (which must include humans), and there are no precursors. You can’t have it both ways!

Why not? Life's origin and the Cambrian show God's powers. Outside of these two events my designed evolution fits.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.

dhw: Yes, the inflammation is automatic. Why have you left out the conscious recognition of the splinter and the conscious use of the tweezer?

That is at your brain level. The point I was trying to make is inflammation is the same automatic reaction to all invasion whether you react or your cells do.


DAVID: If the production of antibodies always follows the same biochemical process and uses the same killer syz's, it is always automatic. What they add to kill or neutralize is always the same.
They know non-self and they know the answer before using it.

dhw: How can the immune system already “know” the answer to a problem it has never seen before?

DAVID: They know non-self!!!

dhw: Of course they do. Recognizing the non-self (splinter) is itself a conscious act of cognition, but it doesn’t provide the answer to the problem!

Don't you read my answers? Immune cells recognize non-self and make killer or modifying proteins attached to the foreign antigens; the same answers always are under standard instructions. See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.


DAVID: Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library.

dhw: You are merely repeating what I keep saying to you! Same process, but matching protein to protein is the addition to the library, and this accumulates throughout life. Each new invader requires a new antibody, and since your God does not intervene, the recognition and the production of the new antibody can only take place through autonomous thought.

The response is programmed and always the same, no thought required.


DAVID: B and T cells are born with the instructions to make antibodies when stimulated by recognition of foreign proteins.

dhw: The “instructions” are the process. Once again: your God did not issue cells with instructions on how to produce every new antibody in anticipation of every new invader throughout life’s history. Hence the need for autonomous thought.

The response is always the same for every invasion: inflammation and the same antibodies added to all different foreign protein. My agenda is not to fool you but to teach you and you refuse to understand the facts. See the new entry.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Monday, October 11, 2021, 11:02 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God started all life from no precursors.

dhw: Of course the very first life would by definition have had no precursors!

DAVID: Thanks!!! God can create from no precursors, can't He?

Yes. And that is your first problem: if your God’s only purpose was to produce humans plus food, and he can create whatever he likes from no precursors, why didn’t he do just that (as in Genesis)? Second problem, why did he first design all those other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer to both questions: No idea. Go and ask God.

dhw: Just over a week ago, you wrote: “Designed Evolution means we are directly connected to bacteria by progressive designed stages.” But now: “The Cambrian start all of our current phyla” (which must include humans), and there are no precursors. You can’t have it both ways!

DAVID: Why not? Life's origin and the Cambrian show God's powers. Outside of these two events my designed evolution fits.

The problem is not “God’s powers” but God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose. First you have him evolving humans in a direct line from bacteria, then you have him starting from scratch in the Cambrian. Outside of this blatant contradiction, what does your “designed evolution” fit? See second problem above.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: You get a splinter in your skin. Inflammation always happens, but here only you can solve the problem with your tweezer.

DAVID: The inflammatory reaction is a standard body response to all insults, and is taught in the first day of med school pathology classes. Immune cells appear immediately, recognize non-self and begin automatic responses. Pus is purpose.

dhw: Yes, the inflammation is automatic. Why have you left out the conscious recognition of the splinter and the conscious use of the tweezer?

DAVID: That is at your brain level. The point I was trying to make is inflammation is the same automatic reaction to all invasion whether you react or your cells do.

But unfortunately for you, your analogy went beyond inflammation to the thinking me recognizing that I had a splinter and finding a solution to the problem by using a tweezer. Yes, the inflammation is automatic, but the solution requires conscious recognition and thought in finding the solution.

DAVID: Don't you read my answers? Immune cells recognize non-self and make killer or modifying proteins attached to the foreign antigens; the same answers always are under standard instructions.

I read your answers, which include the following:
DAVID: Immune cells recognize foreign substances (non-self). Antibody response is always to kill or alter the invader by adding the same proteins to proteins in the invader. The library is used only for repeat invaders. Responses to new invaders simply add to the library.

First, recognition is an act of cognition, and second, you have agreed that each new invader requires a NEW antibody, which is then added to the library, which accumulates NEW volumes throughout our lifetime. So why do you keep insisting that the answers are always the same? Please tell us what new volume is added to the library.

DAVID: The response is always the same for every invasion: inflammation and the same antibodies added to all different foreign protein. My agenda is not to fool you but to teach you.

What you teach me is that cells are automatons, as opposed to being “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (James A. Shapiro). I accept that you are not trying to fool me. I just don’t accept that your personal beliefs are the only possible conclusion one can draw from the known facts.

DAVID: See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.

The entry has nothing to do with vaccinations or invasions: it concerns “a neuromuscular disease...triggered by a genetic malfunction “ But even here, we have a thinking analogy: 'You can think of the RNA polymerase as a newspaper reporter and the spliceosomes as a very, very stringent editor that cuts 9 out of 10 paragraphs the reporter writes.” And the author acknowledges a mystery:

The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.

"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics—how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.

DAVID: All of this reads as automatically controlled reactions following instructions. No sign of cell thought involved.

So we still don’t know how cells make their decisions when there’s an error in the system your God designed (genetic malfunction) or nasty invaders attack the system from outside. But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them, or pops in to give them vague “instructions” although he doesn’t intervene. Mystery upon mystery!

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Monday, October 11, 2021, 15:53 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Thanks!!! God can create from no precursors, can't He?

dhw: Yes. And that is your first problem: if your God’s only purpose was to produce humans plus food, and he can create whatever he likes from no precursors, why didn’t he do just that (as in Genesis)? Second problem, why did he first design all those other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer to both questions: No idea. Go and ask God.

God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.


dhw: The problem is not “God’s powers” but God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose. First you have him evolving humans in a direct line from bacteria, then you have him starting from scratch in the Cambrian. Outside of this blatant contradiction, what does your “designed evolution” fit? See second problem above.

God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: The response is always the same for every invasion: inflammation and the same antibodies added to all different foreign protein. My agenda is not to fool you but to teach you.

dhw: What you teach me is that cells are automatons, as opposed to being “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (James A. Shapiro). I accept that you are not trying to fool me. I just don’t accept that your personal beliefs are the only possible conclusion one can draw from the known facts.

DAVID: See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.

dhw: The entry has nothing to do with vaccinations or invasions: it concerns “a neuromuscular disease...triggered by a genetic malfunction “ But even here, we have a thinking analogy: 'You can think of the RNA polymerase as a newspaper reporter and the spliceosomes as a very, very stringent editor that cuts 9 out of 10 paragraphs the reporter writes.” And the author acknowledges a mystery:

The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.

Note the authors, like me, expect tight regulatory controls, i.e., automaticity.


"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics—how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.

DAVID: All of this reads as automatically controlled reactions following instructions. No sign of cell thought involved.

dhw: So we still don’t know how cells make their decisions when there’s an error in the system your God designed (genetic malfunction) or nasty invaders attack the system from outside.

We do know: The protein molecules make a mistake from the proper action required in folding or joining. What is expected automatically turns out wrong.

dhw: But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them,

Yes He has programmed them!!! To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.

dhw: or pops in to give them vague “instructions” although he doesn’t intervene. Mystery upon mystery!

Pure invention of your rigid mind in this area of discussion. See clear statement above repeated for the nth time.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 11:02 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God can create from no precursors, can't He?

dhw: Yes. And that is your first problem: if your God’s only purpose was to produce humans plus food, and he can create whatever he likes from no precursors, why didn’t he do just that (as in Genesis)? Second problem, why did he first design all those other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? Your answer to both questions: No idea. Go and ask God.

DAVID: God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.

Of course if he exists, God can do what he wants. And clearly if all he wanted was humans and their food, then logically he could have directly created humans and their food. It is you who can’t live with history, which shows that logically he must have wanted more than just humans and their food, since according to you he designed countless now extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.

How do you know that yours is the only way to look at God? How do you know that God is not logical? On Monday March 30th 2020 (“David’s theory of evolution Part Two”) I asked you why you were trying to withdraw your earlier statement that your God probably had thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and you replied: “We can only know his logic is like ours.” (You’ve repeated this several times since.) You yourself are a true champion of logic in your examination of life’s complexities, from which you logically conclude that there must be a designer. You only renounce logic when your own theory of evolution falls apart under scrutiny.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: See new entry today about RNA science for vaccinations and corrections of errors.

dhw: The entry has nothing to do with vaccinations or invasions: it concerns “a neuromuscular disease...triggered by a genetic malfunction “ But even here, we have a thinking analogy: 'You can think of the RNA polymerase as a newspaper reporter and the spliceosomes as a very, very stringent editor that cuts 9 out of 10 paragraphs the reporter writes.” And the author acknowledges a mystery:

QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.

DAVID: Note the authors, like me, expect tight regulatory controls, i.e., automaticity.

I note that you have ignored Shapiro’s advocacy of cellular intelligence, and I note that the above statement and the one below both acknowledge that we do not know how the cell exercises control and makes its decisions:

QUOTE: "Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”

DAVID: All of this reads as automatically controlled reactions following instructions. No sign of cell thought involved.

dhw: So we still don’t know how cells make their decisions when there’s an error in the system your God designed (genetic malfunction) or nasty invaders attack the system from outside.
DAVID: We do know: The protein molecules make a mistake from the proper action required in folding or joining. What is expected automatically turns out wrong.

That is the cause of the problem. But we do not know how cells take the decisions to correct the mistakes.

dhw: But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them……

DAVID: Yes He has programmed them!!! To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.

You are again describing the general process, but each antibody is new and requires a new creation which is then added to the library. WHAT, then, has he preprogrammed? You simply throw in the word “automatically” as if it proved there was no thought involved, and you throw in the word “instructions” which, when I ask for clarification, turn out to be God saying “Recognize the invader and make a new antibody to kill it off.” You have said explicitly that he does not dabble, and so you are left with no alternative: the cells make their own decisions. (But your God may have given them the ABILITY to do so.)

dhw: ….or pops in to give them vague “instructions” although he doesn’t intervene. Mystery upon mystery!

DAVID: Pure invention of your rigid mind in this area of discussion. See clear statement above repeated for the nth time.

Not clear. Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 15:31 (11 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 15:48

DAVID: God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.

dhw: Of course if he exists, God can do what he wants. And clearly if all he wanted was humans and their food, then logically he could have directly created humans and their food.

But He didn't!!! Accept the history God created.


DAVID: God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.

dhw: How do you know that yours is the only way to look at God? How do you know that God is not logical?

All we know is God should be logical, but in each case He may differ from our thoughts, as you complain above..


Immunity system complexity

QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.

DAVID: Note the authors, like me, expect tight regulatory controls, i.e., automaticity.

dhw: I note that you have ignored Shapiro’s advocacy of cellular intelligence, and I note that the above statement and the one below both acknowledge that we do not know how the cell exercises control and makes its decisions:

QUOTE: "Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”

The obvious inference is that they are looking for tightly controlled processes, like all the cellular ones found so far.

DAVID: The protein molecules make a mistake from the proper action required in folding or joining. What is expected automatically turns out wrong.

dhw: That is the cause of the problem. But we do not know how cells take the decisions to correct the mistakes.

Yes we do, the discucsed editing system I presented.


dhw: But according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them……

DAVID: Yes He has programmed them!!! To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.

dhw: You are again describing the general process, but each antibody is new and requires a new creation which is then added to the library. WHAT, then, has he preprogrammed? You simply throw in the word “automatically” as if it proved there was no thought involved, and you throw in the word “instructions” which, when I ask for clarification, turn out to be God saying “Recognize the invader and make a new antibody to kill it off.” You have said explicitly that he does not dabble, and so you are left with no alternative: the cells make their own decisions. (But your God may have given them the ABILITY to do so.)

Please read what I write: Antibody creation is always the same automatic process: recognize the invader and add the same killer or modifier proteins. Non-self: if its not me it is foreign. All automatic as presented in medical text books..


dhw: Not clear. Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?

A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library. The immune cells always follow the same instructions to make antibodies, no variation except the finished product is new because each new invader is different. Thus a library is built for future reference if the new invader returns as they do.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Wednesday, October 13, 2021, 10:05 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God can do it any way He wants. History records what happened. Live with it.

dhw: Of course if he exists, God can do what he wants. And clearly if all he wanted was humans and their food, then logically he could have directly created humans and their food.

DAVID: But He didn't!!! Accept the history God created.

It is you who refuse to accept the history! You insist that your God's only purpose was to create us and our food, but although he could have created humans and their food directly, he chose instead to directly design countless other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food. Obvious conclusion: either we were NOT his only purpose, or he had to learn how to get what he wanted, or he did not directly design the countless other life forms.

DAVID: God does not have to be logical. The contradictions are all made up by your misunderstanding of how to look at God.

dhw: How do you know that yours is the only way to look at God? How do you know that God is not logical?

DAVID: All we know is God should be logical, but in each case He may differ from our thoughts, as you complain above.

I have no doubt that if God exists he is logical, as you have frequently said in the past though you have now backtracked. It is YOUR illogical thoughts, not his possible thoughts, that I complain about.

Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.

"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”

DAVID: The obvious inference is that they are looking for tightly controlled processes, like all the cellular ones found so far.

Of course they are, but they don’t know the source of control, i.e. how the cells take their decisions.That is what Kinney calls the “mysteries”.

DAVID: Yes we do, the discussed editing system I presented.

The editing process is what we know. According to the article, we do not know what it is that makes the editorial decisions. That’s what they aim to find out. Whether the “level of molecular biophysics” will provide a complete answer we shall have to wait and see.

dhw: …according to you, in the case of invasion the cells themselves build up a library of responses with each new antibody adding a new volume, but they don’t build it up because your God has already preprogrammed them……

DAVID: Yes He has programmed them!!! [See later.)To each invader the cells automatically recognize the invader (non-self) And add by instructions proteins to some of the invaders proteins which modify or kill the invader, creating the new anti body for the library.

dhw: You are again describing the general process, but each antibody is new and requires a new creation which is then added to the library.[…] You have said explicitly that [God] does not dabble, and so you are left with no alternative: the cells make their own decisions. (But your God may have given them the ABILITY to do so.)

DAVID: Please read what I write: Antibody creation is always the same automatic process: recognize the invader and add the same killer or modifier proteins. Non-self: if its not me it is foreign. All automatic as presented in medical text books.

I have just said that you are describing the general process (bolded), and so you merely repeat the general process, shove in the word “automatic” (as if recognition itself was not an act of cognition) and leave out the question of how cells produce a NEW antibody without thought.

dhw: Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?

DAVID: A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library.

Thank you. The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed – see bold above). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?

DAVID: The immune cells always follow the same instructions to make antibodies, no variation except the finished product is new because each new invader is different. Thus a library is built for future reference if the new invader returns as they do.

Thank you again. Exactly as I have described […]: Your God apparently says: “Recognize the invader and make new antibodies.” That's all. There is no variation in the PROCESS but, hallelujah, the PRODUCT is new, and is added to the library. You say your God does not intervene, the "recipe" must be new or it wouldn't be added to the library, and so how do the cells work out what is required to construct the NEW antibody to fight the NEW invader if they can’t think?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 13, 2021, 15:07 (10 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: But He didn't!!! Accept the history God created.

dhw: It is you who refuse to accept the history! You insist that your God's only purpose was to create us and our food, but although he could have created humans and their food directly, he chose instead to directly design countless other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food. Obvious conclusion: either we were NOT his only purpose, or he had to learn how to get what he wanted, or he did not directly design the countless other life forms.

It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.


Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled by various regulatory programs within the cell.

"Using high-precision experiments, mathematical modeling, and artificial intelligence, Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries at the level of molecular biophysics— how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.”

DAVID: The obvious inference is that they are looking for tightly controlled processes, like all the cellular ones found so far.

dhw: Of course they are, but they don’t know the source of control, i.e. how the cells take their decisions. That is what Kinney calls the “mysteries”.

The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.


DAVID: Yes we do, the discussed editing system I presented.

dhw: The editing process is what we know. According to the article, we do not know what it is that makes the editorial decisions. That’s what they aim to find out. Whether the “level of molecular biophysics” will provide a complete answer we shall have to wait and see.

DAVID: Please read what I write: Antibody creation is always the same automatic process: recognize the invader and add the same killer or modifier proteins. Non-self: if its not me it is foreign. All automatic as presented in medical text books.

dhw: I have just said that you are describing the general process (bolded), and so you merely repeat the general process, shove in the word “automatic” (as if recognition itself was not an act of cognition) and leave out the question of how cells produce a NEW antibody without thought.

That is what automatic means!!!


dhw: Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of, if they are not as I have described above. And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?

DAVID: A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library.

dhw: Thank you. The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed – see bold above). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?

Repeat: By automatically adding killer or modifying proteins to the invader antigen.


DAVID: The immune cells always follow the same instructions to make antibodies, no variation except the finished product is new because each new invader is different. Thus a library is built for future reference if the new invader returns as they do.

dhw: Thank you again. Exactly as I have described […]: Your God apparently says: “Recognize the invader and make new antibodies.” That's all. There is no variation in the PROCESS but, hallelujah, the PRODUCT is new, and is added to the library. You say your God does not intervene, the "recipe" must be new or it wouldn't be added to the library, and so how do the cells work out what is required to construct the NEW antibody to fight the NEW invader if they can’t think?

Because like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes. You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!! Accept it, even if you want cells to think to fit your pet theories. Kinney (above) is looking for what I describe. Many of my 'design entries' here is the result he is looking for: how the molecules do it.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Thursday, October 14, 2021, 08:26 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Accept the history God created.

dhw: It is you who refuse to accept the history! You insist that your God's only purpose was to create us and our food, but although he could have created humans and their food directly, he chose instead to directly design countless other life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food. Obvious conclusion: either we were NOT his only purpose, or he had to learn how to get what he wanted, or he did not directly design the countless other life forms.

DAVID: It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.

If your God can do exactly what he wants when he wants, it makes no sense to say that he wants humans and their food and therefore designs countless life forms and foods that have no connection with what he wants. Hence your unenlightening responses: “Go and ask God”, and “God does not have to be logical”.

Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled […]
"[…] Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries […] — how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions.
” [dhw’s bolds]

DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.

Thank you for acknowledging that HOW the cells take their decisions is a mystery. That is what our discussion is all about. You do not solve the mystery by repeating that recognition of invaders and design of new antibodies automatically follow your God’s instructions.

dhw: Please tell us precisely what these “instructions” consist of. [...] And if they already give the complete “recipe” (= “preprogrammed”) for the new antibody, what exactly is added to the library?

DAVID: A new antibody is automatically made as described above and added to the library.

dhw: The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed […]). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?

DAVID: Repeat: By automatically adding killer or modifying proteins to the invader antigen.

How do unthinking cells know what proteins or modifications will destroy the new invader? […]

DAVID: Because like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes.

But the product changes! If it didn’t, the antigen would have a free run!

DAVID: You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!!

Of course the vast majority of our cells work automatically until something goes wrong. Only then do cells have to take decisions on how to deal with the errors, whether the causes are internal or external. It is the decision-making that is the mystery.

You have posted two more articles on the same subject, also emphasizing the unknown (my bolds):

Controlling gut biome
QUOTE: The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains unknown.[dhw’s bold] […] These natural defense substances are part of the immune system, and recognize an exogenous pathogen very specifically according to the lock-and-key principle. (David’s bold)

We have agreed that cells recognize invaders. But you don’t recognize that recognition entails cognition.

QUOTE: “However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.”

Another mystery which you think you solve by calling the process automatic, thanks to God’s vague programming/instructions.

DAVID: I read the word 'simultaneous' to indicate automaticity of the immune responses. Note the cells can quickly identify the gut bugs and handle them immediately. […] The cells act intelligently because they are programmed that way. Sorry your pet theory doesn't fit this reality.

Another vague “programme”. We should distinguish between old and new threats. If the threat is familiar, no doubt the response will be “simultaneous”. The test comes when the invader is new. You seem to have forgotten that building the library is an on-going process, as immune cells mysteriously succeed in working out how to form NEW antibodies to combat NEW invaders. Once formed, these will become part of the available library. The mystery is how cells produce the NEW antibodies in the first place.

God’s editing system for new protein
DAVID: Molecules don't think. Chaperone molecules are following protein formation and know when it is wrong. How they know based on protein reactions is yet to be discovered. When that is thoroughly researched, there will be automaticity, no thought involved, as in all other studies previously described. (dhw’s bold)

You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share you erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 14, 2021, 18:56 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.

If your God can do exactly what he wants when he wants, it makes no sense to say that he wants humans and their food and therefore designs countless life forms and foods that have no connection with what he wants.

Same foolish response. You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that HOW the cells take their decisions is a mystery. That is what our discussion is all about. You do not solve the mystery by repeating that recognition of invaders and design of new antibodies automatically follow your God’s instructions.

But that is exactly what I believe. All biologic processes are the same. Fertilized egg makes a baby automatically. Homeostasis means automatic controls in liver and kidney, the cells following standard instructions.


dhw: The library does not already contain the new antibodies (so they are not programmed […]). A new antibody is different from former antibodies, so how can it be made "automatically", i.e. without thought?

DAVID: Repeat: By automatically adding killer or modifying proteins to the invader antigen.

dhw: How do unthinking cells know what proteins or modifications will destroy the new invader? […]

Genetic instructions describe the same process for appropriate protein killers added to the foreign proteins (antigens).


DAVID: Because like all cell processes, the output of required product never changes.

dhw: But the product changes! If it didn’t, the antigen would have a free run!

Same killer proteins added to a different antigen. Same process over and over.


DAVID: You eat and your stomach cells produce acid, automatically, every meal!!! Immune cells work the same way!!!

Of course the vast majority of our cells work automatically until something goes wrong. Only then do cells have to take decisions on how to deal with the errors, whether the causes are internal or external. It is the decision-making that is the mystery.

You have posted two more articles on the same subject, also emphasizing the unknown (my bolds):

dhw: We have agreed that cells recognize invaders. But you don’t recognize that recognition entails cognition.

Remember transplant problems. They exist because we/our cells always automatically recognize non-self!!!


QUOTE: “However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.”

DAVID: I read the word 'simultaneous' to indicate automaticity of the immune responses. Note the cells can quickly identify the gut bugs and handle them immediately. […] The cells act intelligently because they are programmed that way. Sorry your pet theory doesn't fit this reality.

dhw: The test comes when the invader is new. You seem to have forgotten that building the library is an on-going process, as immune cells mysteriously succeed in working out how to form NEW antibodies to combat NEW invaders. Once formed, these will become part of the available library. The mystery is how cells produce the NEW antibodies in the first place.

No mystery: the cells are programmed in the genome to always produce the same killer/ modifier proteins added to the antigen of the invader. Just like the automaticity seen in embryology, and liver, kidney homeostatic processes. No thought involved.


God’s editing system for new protein
DAVID: Molecules don't think. Chaperone molecules are following protein formation and know when it is wrong. How they know based on protein reactions is yet to be discovered. When that is thoroughly researched, there will be automaticity, no thought involved, as in all other studies previously described. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share you erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.

God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.

Let's study ID: a demonstration of molecular processes

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 14, 2021, 23:07 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

Working out the stepwise molecular reactions:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba5186

"Control by RNA polymerase II
Evidence indicates that yeast cells initiate DNA synthesis and transition from the G1 to the S phase of the cell cycle when cyclin 3 accumulates and causes phosphorylation of Whi5, a functional equivalent of the mammalian Rb (retinoblastoma) protein. Kõivomägi et al. now present evidence for a different cyclin-dependent kinase target (see the Perspective by Fisher). They found that the cyclin 3–cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk) 1 complex in yeast promoted phosphorylation of RNA polymerase II and thus increased transcription at genes that control entry into the cell cycle. Cdks that regulate the cell cycle can thus act by similar mechanisms to so-called “transcriptional Cdks,” which are known to act as transcriptional regulators but not to function in control of cell division.
—LBR

"Abstract
Cell division is thought to be initiated by cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks) inactivating key transcriptional inhibitors. In budding yeast, the G1 cyclin Cln3-Cdk1 complex is thought to directly phosphorylate the Whi5 protein, thereby releasing the transcription factor SBF and committing cells to division. We report that Whi5 is a poor substrate of Cln3-Cdk1, which instead phosphorylates the RNA polymerase II subunit Rpb1’s C-terminal domain on S5 of its heptapeptide repeats. Cln3-Cdk1 binds SBF-regulated promoters and Cln3’s function can be performed by the canonical S5 kinase Ccl1-Kin28 when synthetically recruited to SBF. Thus, we propose that Cln3-Cdk1 triggers cell division by phosphorylating Rpb1 at SBF-regulated promoters to promote transcription. Our findings blur the distinction between cell cycle and transcriptional Cdks to highlight the ancient relationship between these two processes."

Comment: Don't try to follow the steps. Just note how each step affects the next until a result is achieved. It is all automatic

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Friday, October 15, 2021, 11:55 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is you, who doesn't believe in God, who invents the problem. You are applying human reasons for His delayed choice. My God can do exactly what He wants when He wants. You obviously cannot understand the God I believe in.

dhw: If your God can do exactly what he wants when he wants, it makes no sense to say that he wants humans and their food and therefore designs countless life forms and foods that have no connection with what he wants.

DAVID: Same foolish response. You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.

The known events are all forms of life, including those that had no connection with humans (plus our food). You interpret these as evidence that, although according to you your God designed them all individually, his only "wish" (previously known as purpose) was to design humans (plus our food). Your interpretation makes no sense even to you (“Go and ask God”).

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that HOW the cells take their decisions is a mystery. That is what our discussion is all about. You do not solve the mystery by repeating that recognition of invaders and design of new antibodies automatically follow your God’s instructions.

DAVID: But that is exactly what I believe. All biologic processes are the same. Fertilized egg makes a baby automatically. Homeostasis means automatic controls in liver and kidney, the cells following standard instructions.

Our example is the immune system, so why have you changed the subject? I already answered this point earlier. “Of course the vast majority of our cells work automatically until something goes wrong. Only then do cells have to take decisions on how to deal with the errors, whether the causes are internal or external. It is the decision-making that is the mystery.”

dhw: How do unthinking cells know what proteins or modifications will destroy the new invader? […]

DAVID: Genetic instructions describe the same process for appropriate protein killers added to the foreign proteins (antigens).

You keep harping on about the PROCESS. Yes, the process is recognizing invaders and producing antibodies, but recognizing each NEW foreign invader and concocting each NEW appropriate killer requires thought. Each antibody is NEW, and that is why it added to the existing library.
You now go on to produce lots of examples of automaticity, ignoring the point that it is when things go wrong that new thoughts are required. You even agree that recognition of what is wrong is itself a mystery:

DAVID: Molecules don't think. Chaperone molecules are following protein formation and know when it is wrong. How they know based on protein reactions is yet to be discovered. When that is thoroughly researched, there will be automaticity, no thought involved, as in all other studies previously described. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share your erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.

DAVID: God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.

You have agreed that your God did not preprogramme every single new antibody to kill every single new invader for the whole of life’s history. (Each new antibody is added to the library without your God’s intervention, remember?) If he exists, what he would have designed is the MEANS whereby cells recognize and counter the threat posed by new invaders. It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic. You adopt the same blinkered attitude in the articles “How T-cells kill” and “Molecular processes”:

DAVID: “The bold describes that the T cell knows non-self automatically and adds 'cytotoxic proteins' to kill. These specialized cells follow instructions activated in their DNA…
Don't try to follow the steps. Just note how each step affects the next until a result is achieved. It is all automatic.”

And see also your closing remark below.

dhw (under “Miscellany”): …when scientists in the field such as McLintock, Margulis (“I do think consciousness is a property of all living cells") and Shapiro champion the concept of cellular intelligence, you could perhaps be just a little more cautious in your dismissal of the idea. And once again, please note that it does NOT exclude your God as the possible designer, which was your original objection to my theory.

DAVID: All covered in previous entries. At the organ level all is automatic with intelligently programmed cells doing their work.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Friday, October 15, 2021, 16:18 (8 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same foolish response. You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.

dhw: The known events are all forms of life, including those that had no connection with humans (plus our food). You interpret these as evidence that, although according to you your God designed them all individually, his only "wish" (previously known as purpose) was to design humans (plus our food). Your interpretation makes no sense even to you (“Go and ask God”).

We do not know how many wishes God had. We know of the obvious human one. I am fully happy with my interpretations even if you tell me I don't make sense to myself. The lack of sense is yours.


Immunity system complexity

dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share your erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.

DAVID: God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: You have agreed that your God did not preprogramme every single new antibody to kill every single new invader for the whole of life’s history. (Each new antibody is added to the library without your God’s intervention, remember?) If he exists, what he would have designed is the MEANS whereby cells recognize and counter the threat posed by new invaders.

Exactly. Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.

dhw: It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic.

The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. I can't give you your strawman 'details' of God's antibody programmed process. I can simply tell you the immune system always recognizes invasion and always produces new antibodies in the same way by adding the same proteins to new antigens (invaders). The new difference is only the reference protein of the new invader. All constantly automatic.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Saturday, October 16, 2021, 13:05 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are interpreting God's wishes from known events He produced.

dhw: The known events are all forms of life, including those that had no connection with humans (plus our food). You interpret these as evidence that, although according to you your God designed them all individually, his only "wish" (previously known as purpose) was to design humans (plus our food). Your interpretation makes no sense even to you (“Go and ask God”).

DAVID: We do not know how many wishes God had.

Then please stop telling us that his one and only goal from the very start was to design humans plus their food, and all other life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. (And please don’t mention plural “goals” or “wishes” unless you can tell us what they might have been.)

DAVID: We know of the obvious human one. I am fully happy with my interpretations even if you tell me I don't make sense to myself. The lack of sense is yours.

How can you make such a claim when you openly admit that you have no idea why, if your all-powerful God’s only goal from the start was to design humans plus food, he would design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food? You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!

Immunity system complexity
dhw: You’ve seen the results of all the research in your crystal ball, have you? None of the studies have stated that it is all automatic, no thought involved, although no doubt many researchers share your views on automaticity even if they don’t share your erratic belief that your God did or didn’t preprogramme or give instructions for each new antibody.

DAVID: God did his programming. Your response is wildly erratic to protect your pet cell intelligence theory. I look at whole organ automatic function in which programmed cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: You have agreed that your God did not preprogramme every single new antibody to kill every single new invader for the whole of life’s history. (Each new antibody is added to the library without your God’s intervention, remember?) If he exists, what he would have designed is the MEANS whereby cells recognize and counter the threat posed by new invaders.

DAVID: Exactly. Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.

There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

dhw: It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic.

DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. I can't give you your strawman 'details' of God's antibody programmed process. I can simply tell you the immune system always recognizes invasion and always produces new antibodies in the same way by adding the same proteins to new antigens (invaders). The new difference is only the reference protein of the new invader. All constantly automatic.

If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 16, 2021, 17:24 (7 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We do not know how many wishes God had.

dhw: Then please stop telling us that his one and only goal from the very start was to design humans plus their food, and all other life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. (And please don’t mention plural “goals” or “wishes” unless you can tell us what they might have been.)

God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.


DAVID: We know of the obvious human one. I am fully happy with my interpretations even if you tell me I don't make sense to myself. The lack of sense is yours.

dhw: How can you make such a claim when you openly admit that you have no idea why, if your all-powerful God’s only goal from the start was to design humans plus food, he would design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans plus food? You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!

The concept of God rules how one thinks about Him. I reject your individual concept


Immunity system complexity

DAVID: Exactly. Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.

dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.


dhw: It is your fixed belief that although cells then act ”as if intelligent”, they are not intelligent, and your explanation is that your God provided a programme or “instructions”, but when asked for details you simply repeat the PROCESS and repeat that you know the apparently intelligent behaviour is automatic.

DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. I can't give you your strawman 'details' of God's antibody programmed process. I can simply tell you the immune system always recognizes invasion and always produces new antibodies in the same way by adding the same proteins to new antigens (invaders). The new difference is only the reference protein of the new invader. All constantly automatic.

dhw: If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.

It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Sunday, October 17, 2021, 09:04 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We do not know how many wishes God had.

dhw: Then please stop telling us that his one and only goal from the very start was to design humans plus their food, and all other life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. (And please don’t mention plural “goals” or “wishes” unless you can tell us what they might have been.)

DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.

But that is not the point at issue, and you know it. Why do you persist in ignoring the vocabulary plus those parts of your theory that you yourself cannot explain? “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning (see bold above). God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans. So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)

dhw: You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!

DAVID: The concept of God rules how one thinks about Him. I reject your individual concept.

I do not have an “individual” concept. I have offered you alternative theistic concepts which explain the WHOLE of life’s history, and two of these even allow for the specialness of humans and individual design of all species (i.e. experimentation and new ideas), while the third is the proposal of a free-for-all. You admit that all three fit in logically with life’s history. All three allow for a purposeful God who knows what he is doing – though you obviously consider that setting out to learn something new is “namby-pamby”. Your own concept used to be that your God was logical, but now apparently he doesn’t have to be. That seems to be the only way you can defend your theory!

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.

dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.

Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.

DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
and
DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. [dhw's bolds]

dhw: If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.

DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.

If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?:-)

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 17, 2021, 15:47 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.

dhw: But that is not the point at issue, and you know it. Why do you persist in ignoring the vocabulary plus those parts of your theory that you yourself cannot explain? “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning (see bold above). God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans.

Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.

dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)

'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.


dhw: You have also agreed that my different explanations make perfect sense, but you reject their logic because they differ from your own illogical theory about God’s purpose and method of fulfilling that purpose!

DAVID: The concept of God rules how one thinks about Him. I reject your individual concept.

dhw: I do not have an “individual” concept. I have offered you alternative theistic concepts which explain the WHOLE of life’s history, and two of these even allow for the specialness of humans and individual design of all species (i.e. experimentation and new ideas), while the third is the proposal of a free-for-all. You admit that all three fit in logically with life’s history. All three allow for a purposeful God who knows what he is doing – though you obviously consider that setting out to learn something new is “namby-pamby”. Your own concept used to be that your God was logical, but now apparently he doesn’t have to be. That seems to be the only way you can defend your theory!

My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him.. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: Transplant rejection problems must show you our cells know 'same' from foreign.

dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that our cells recognize what is foreign. The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.

dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.

We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.


DAVID: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
and
DAVID: The brain entry today shows you how difficult it is to know exactly how any process of controls works. [dhw's bolds]

dhw: If we don’t know how the processes of control work, why do you keep insisting that they are automatic, following some vague programme or instructions from your God? Your constant repetition of “automatic” merely glosses over the fact that recognition of the NEW invader and the production of a NEW antibody require thought, and what is added to the library is not the same as everything else that is already in the library.

DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.

dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?:-)

My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught. ;-) ;-)

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Monday, October 18, 2021, 08:58 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God evolved our reality, with many stages along the way. We are His end point, and for some strange reason you won 't accept that concept, as Adler and I do.

dhw: “End point” does not mean one and only goal from the very beginning […]. God, according to your theory, also “evolved” (by which you mean designed) every other reality with many stages along the way, and the vast majority of those realities had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.

Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.

dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)

DAVID: 'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.

It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).

DAVID: My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.

What “altered” version? There is no authenticated version, but we both have him as highly purposeful. “He knows exactly what to do” depends on what he wants to do. If he wants to experiment, then he does it. If he wants to start off a process and see what new ideas it will lead him to, he does it. If he wants a free-for-all, he does it. According to your views on theodicy, he is far from being in full control, and in any case what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?

Immunity system complexity
dhw: The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.

dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.

DAVID: We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.

What else can we use in our discussions, other than words? If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.

dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?

DAVID: My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught.

So although nobody knows how the controls work, your teachers knew that they were preprogrammed to follow instructions, but they just didn’t realize it was your God who drew up the programmes and instructions. I wonder what they said when you told them. :-) Or was this in the days before God told you he’d done it?

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Monday, October 18, 2021, 15:36 (5 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.

dhw: Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.

The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it..


dhw: So what was their point if humans were his only goal? (And I'd better add the usual question: if you now think humans plus their food were NOT his only goal, please tell us what other goals you think he may have had?)

DAVID: 'One and only goal' is your twisted form of humans as an endpoint with the only consciousness besides God's.

dhw: It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).

My opinions about God's intentions are all guesses. Neither of us knows Him better than the other, but I avoid your humanizing approach.


DAVID: My God is not changed except in your altered version of Him as I view him. He is highly purposeful, knows exactly what to do and does it. Your so-called purposes make Him weak and not in full control, not sure of Himself by experimenting, i.e., very humanized.

dhw: What “altered” version? There is no authenticated version, but we both have him as highly purposeful. “He knows exactly what to do” depends on what he wants to do. If he wants to experiment, then he does it. If he wants to start off a process and see what new ideas it will lead him to, he does it. If he wants a free-for-all, he does it. According to your views on theodicy, he is far from being in full control, and in any case what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?

My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.


Immunity system complexity
dhw: The disagreement lies in the fact that you do not accept that such recognition is a sign of cognizance not of automaticity.

DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.

dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.

DAVID: We are now exchanging a discussion of the meaning of words. The cells automatically know foreign from self. I view cognizance as meaning that.

What else can we use in our discussions, other than words? If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.


DAVID: It doesn't require thought, just automatic recognition of 'foreign' and addition of a standardized addition of killer/modifier proteins. Pure medical school teaching.

dhw: If nobody knows how the processes of control work, how can medical schoolteachers know that recognition of ‘foreign’ invaders and the design of new antibodies are automatic, let alone that they are the product of your God’s preprogramming and instructions? In which monastery did you do your medical training?

DAVID: My teachers did not discuss the religious meaning of a medical education. Automaticity, not God was taught.

dhw: So although nobody knows how the controls work, your teachers knew that they were preprogrammed to follow instructions, but they just didn’t realize it was your God who drew up the programmes and instructions. I wonder what they said when you told them. :-) Or was this in the days before God told you he’d done it?

I follow my teaching, God not discussed in med school.;-)

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 11:04 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Splitting our reality into separate parts doesn't work. From the Big Bang on it is one continuous evolutionary process.

dhw: Apart from when you have your God creating new life forms with no precursors. Once more: you have your God continuously producing countless forms of life and food, all of which were apparently part of his goal of evolving humans and our foods, but the majority of which had no connection with humans and our foods. No connection = separate parts. Stop dodging.

DAVID: The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it.

Nobody in his right mind would disagree that all life forms need energy. The disagreement is over your insistence that all life forms and all foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food, although the vast majority had no evolutionary connection with humans. You don’t even have all of them descending from bacteria now, as you once claimed, since you insist that we are descended from life forms that had no precursors.

dhw: It is you who insist that we were his one and only goal. That is the problem. Whenever you try to squirm out of it by talking of plural goals, I ask you what they might have been. You have said you are sure your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, but the moment I propose that this might mean his goal was enjoyment and having interesting things to watch, you dismiss the idea, and scurry back to “humanization”, trying desperately to forget that you have agreed that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns like ours, and we “mimic” him, and “his logic is like ours” (although now apparently he “doesn’t have to be logical”).

DAVID: My opinions about God's intentions are all guesses. Neither of us knows Him better than the other, but I avoid your humanizing approach.

Everyone’s opinions are guesses, but it absurd to dismiss guesses that are actually based on your own, and the “humanizing” moan also runs contrary to your own guesses, as above. You have long since demolished your own food and humanizing arguments, so please stop contradicting yourself.

dhw: […] what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?

DAVID: My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.

Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above. See “theodicy” concerning your gross misrepresentation of errors in relation to that subject.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]

dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.

A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.

DAVID: I follow my teaching, God not discussed in med school

Precisely. Your teachers did not identify your God as the unknown source, so please stop pretending that they all knew the source of the ability.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 19:24 (4 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it.

dhw: Nobody in his right mind would disagree that all life forms need energy. The disagreement is over your insistence that all life forms and all foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food, although the vast majority had no evolutionary connection with humans. You don’t even have all of them descending from bacteria now, as you once claimed, since you insist that we are descended from life forms that had no precursors.

There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need. The Cambrian shows no direct precursors, but a giant leap in forms and functions. Have you abandoned poor Darwin who complained about the gap in form?


dhw: […] what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?

DAVID: My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.

dhw: Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above.

It doesn't fit the all powerful God described yesterday :" "For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (my bold)


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]

dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.

dhw: A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.

We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions.


DAVID: I follow my teaching, God not discussed in med school

dhw: Precisely. Your teachers did not identify your God as the unknown source, so please stop pretending that they all knew the source of the ability.

biochemical professors preach automaticity.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 09:30 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The connection is the giant food supply for all. Life needs a constant input of energy. Accept it and stop your dodge of ignoring it.

dhw: Nobody in his right mind would disagree that all life forms need energy. The disagreement is over your insistence that all past life forms and all foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of designing humans and our food, although the vast majority had no evolutionary connection with humans. You don’t even have all of them descending from bacteria now, as you once claimed, since you insist that we are descended from life forms that had no precursors.

DAVID: There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need. The Cambrian shows no direct precursors, but a giant leap in forms and functions. Have you abandoned poor Darwin who complained about the gap in form?

It is you have abandoned poor Darwin and your own belief that your God “evolved” humans from bacteria. You insist that we are descended from life forms without precursors. So for 3.X billion years your God hadn’t even started to fulfil his one and only purpose. As for food, how long will you to continue to ignore your own demolition of the argument that your God could not have designed humans plus food without first designing life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Yet again I quote you: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

dhw: […] what is “weak” about enjoying creation, experimenting, getting new ideas, deliberately creating an ever changing spectacle? Why are these activities more “humanized” than your version of a God who creates a system he can’t control, though he tried – often in vain – to correct the errors in his design?

DAVID: My God doesn't wander around like your clueless version. "Far from in full control" doesn't understand how living biochemistry works almost flawlessly. For you the problem is errors stand out as total objections to God existing.

dhw: Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above.

DAVID: It doesn't fit the all powerful God described yesterday :" "For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (David's bold)

C.S.Lewis thought that somehow the vastness of the universe proved that God existed, which of course it doesn’t. But whether God exists or not, I too am in awe of the majestic universe and the miracles of life. And if God made life a free-for-all, or he experimented to fulfil a particular purpose, or he experimented to give himself new ideas, I am still in awe, and I have no idea why you think that such a God is clueless, weak or namby-pamby.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]

dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.

dhw: A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.

DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.

You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.

It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 16:35 (3 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need. The Cambrian shows no direct precursors, but a giant leap in forms and functions. Have you abandoned poor Darwin who complained about the gap in form?

dhw: It is you have abandoned poor Darwin and your own belief that your God “evolved” humans from bacteria. You insist that we are descended from life forms without precursors. So for 3.X billion years your God hadn’t even started to fulfil his one and only purpose. As for food, how long will you to continue to ignore your own demolition of the argument that your God could not have designed humans plus food without first designing life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Yet again I quote you: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

You are the one who chopped up evolution into distinct unrelated times by totally misusing my quotes which simply state 'now' is not 'then'. Darwin saw the gap I see. It is you who have abandoned him. What passed in evolution from Edicaran to Cambrian were evolved biochemical processes. In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.

dhw: Your usual scurrilous attempt to defend your illogicality by pretending that my theistic explanations are somehow meant to deny the existence of God. And there is nothing “clueless” or “namby-pamby” or “weak” about the God described in my comment above.

DAVID: It doesn't fit the all powerful God described yesterday :" "For both Jews and Christians, here is the situation: We believe in an omnipotent, infinite God, and modern astronomical discoveries have confirmed that we inhabit a majestic universe befitting just such a creator. The psalmist got it right 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)." (David's bold)

dhw: C.S.Lewis thought that somehow the vastness of the universe proved that God existed, which of course it doesn’t. But whether God exists or not, I too am in awe of the majestic universe and the miracles of life. And if God made life a free-for-all, or he experimented to fulfil a particular purpose, or he experimented to give himself new ideas, I am still in awe, and I have no idea why you think that such a God is clueless, weak or namby-pamby.

Because those are totally human ways of having our God think, and you are clueless about it.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]

dhw: […] If you don’t know the meaning of the words you use, then please don’t blame me. You will never ever find any dictionary that defines “cognizance” as being in any way automatic. It entails conscious understanding.

DAVID: And it comes from the same source as recognize, which is a term we use in biology/medicine that cells can automatically recognize non-self as a built in ability.

dhw: A built-in ability is what facilitates the awareness that underlies recognition and invention. The built-in ability is what we might call conscious intelligence, which enables life forms to recognize things inside and outside themselves and to take decisions on how to deal with them. Please stop inserting the word “automatically” as if somehow biologists and medics had all discovered the source of the cell’s ability to recognize, adjust, make decisions etc.

DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.

You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:
QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.

dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.

Those quotes you searched for to fit your desired view do nothing but that, not that they prove anything. All opinion that each of us has sitting outside the cell and looking in. Cells act intelligently is all you and I will agree to.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by dhw, Thursday, October 21, 2021, 14:41 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is a line of evolution to humans, and many branches for necessary food, that you agree we all need.

dhw: […] how long will you to continue to ignore your own demolition of the argument that your God could not have designed humans plus food without first designing life forms plus food that had no connection with humans? Yet again I quote you: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “Extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: You are the one who chopped up evolution into distinct unrelated times by totally misusing my quotes which simply state 'now' is not 'then'.

They state that past food was for past forms of life, and current food is for current forms of life. They are separate, and it is patently absurd to claim that every single past form and food was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food.

DAVID: Darwin saw the gap I see. It is you who have abandoned him. What passed in evolution from Edicaran to Cambrian were evolved biochemical processes. In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.

But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! Now suddenly, you’re talking about biochemical processes. Yes, all life depends on biological processes, but how does that come to mean that all life was designed specially as part of the goal of designing humans, even though the vast majority of life forms had no connection with humans, and humans descended from life forms that had no precursors? You will stop at nothing to avoid answering the question (except when you admit you have no idea and I should ask God.) As for Darwin, he devotes a whole chapter to the “imperfection of the geological record”, which is his prime explanation for the gap.

dhw: C.S.Lewis thought that somehow the vastness of the universe proved that God existed, which of course it doesn’t. But whether God exists or not, I too am in awe of the majestic universe and the miracles of life. And if God made life a free-for-all, or he experimented to fulfil a particular purpose, or he experimented to give himself new ideas, I am still in awe, and I have no idea why you think that such a God is clueless, weak or namby-pamby.

DAVID: Because those are totally human ways of having our God think, and you are clueless about it.

Nobody knows how God thinks, but since you agree that we mimic your God, and his logic is like ours, and we probably/possibly have thought patterns and emotions similar to his, and you agree that my theories are logical and are therefore based on the “clues” given to us by life’s history, I would suggest that your own version of a God who designs countless life forms which have no connection with humans, although humans were his one and only goal, does not have a clue to stand on!

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]

DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.

dhw: You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:

QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…”
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.

dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Those quotes you searched for to fit your desired view do nothing but that, not that they prove anything.

I didn’t search for them. They were contained in the articles you posted last week in the context of this discussion! This is not my "desired" view, but one which I feel solves the mysteries above, and there are some scientists who "know biochemistry" and support the theory.

DAVID: All opinion that each of us has sitting outside the cell and looking in. Cells act intelligently is all you and I will agree to.

I’m glad you agree that they act intelligently, but that is the opposite of saying that they act automatically! The quotes you yourself posted show that you are wrong to assume that all biologists agree that all the intelligent actions are automatic. They simply don’t know how cells exercise the necessary controls. And nor do you and I, but you keep insisting that you do: your God provides programmes/instructions for every single action! And to add to the absurdity, you agree that cells are cognitive, but you think “cognitive” means without thought!

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 21, 2021, 15:34 (2 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are the one who chopped up evolution into distinct unrelated times by totally misusing my quotes which simply state 'now' is not 'then'.

dhw: They state that past food was for past forms of life, and current food is for current forms of life. They are separate, and it is patently absurd to claim that every single past form and food was “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food.

Of course they are separate in time, but related by evolution.


DAVID: Darwin saw the gap I see. It is you who have abandoned him. What passed in evolution from Edicaran to Cambrian were evolved biochemical processes. In biochemistry evolution was totally continuous.

dhw: But according to you, we are descended from life forms which your God created without any precursors! Now suddenly, you’re talking about biochemical processes. Yes, all life depends on biological processes, but how does that come to mean that all life was designed specially as part of the goal of designing humans,

Wow!!! Life had no precursors either.


dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks, but since you agree that we (may)mimic your God, and his logic is (may be) like ours, and we probably/possibly have thought patterns and emotions similar to his, and you agree that my theories are logical (only if a very humanized form of God is considered) and are therefore based on the “clues” given to us by life’s history, I would suggest that your own version of a God who designs countless life forms which have no connection with humans, although humans were his one and only goal, does not have a clue to stand on!

I have corrected the distortions of my views in bold above.


Immunity system complexity
DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.[…]

DAVID: We who believe we know biochemistry see the automaticity in the protein reactions. […] biochemical professors preach automaticity.

dhw: You post articles and then try to ignore what they say and even what you yourself say:

QUOTE: “The only limiting thing here is our understanding of how the RNA is controlled…”
QUOTE: "Kinney aims to clarify these mysteries [...] how the spliceosome reads the RNA sequence and makes its cutting decisions."
QUOTE: “The way in which the human immune system manages to maintain this delicate balance in the intestine largely remains a mystery."
QUOTE: However, the mystery of the way in which IgA antibodies regulate the consensual coexistence in the intestine has remained unsolved.
DAVID TURELL: The information for the standard cell production of antibodies is in the genome, and as yet a mystery.
DAVID TURELL: How [chaperone molecules] know based on protein reaction is yet to be discovered.

dhw: It appears that you “who know biochemistry” still have a bit to learn about biochemistry. McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler knew/know a bit about biochemistry, and they think cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Those quotes you searched for to fit your desired view do nothing but that, not that they prove anything.

dhw: I didn’t search for them. They were contained in the articles you posted last week in the context of this discussion! This is not my "desired" view, but one which I feel solves the mysteries above, and there are some scientists who "know biochemistry" and support the theory.

None in the present literature. All found by you in much earlier entries years ago: "McClintock, Margulis, Shapiro, Albrecht-Buehler" your favorite go-to's for opinion, not any fact.


DAVID: All opinion that each of us has sitting outside the cell and looking in. Cells act intelligently is all you and I will agree to.

dhw: I’m glad you agree that they act intelligently, but that is the opposite of saying that they act automatically! The quotes you yourself posted show that you are wrong to assume that all biologists agree that all the intelligent actions are automatic. They simply don’t know how cells exercise the necessary controls. And nor do you and I, but you keep insisting that you do: your God provides programmes/instructions for every single action! And to add to the absurdity, you agree that cells are cognitive, but you think “cognitive” means without thought!

As for cognitive, I used the word differently as in the ability to recognize. As for current research, the latest techniques show 'intelligent' cell processes as controlled series of molecular reactions, all obviously automatic.

Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition

by David Turell @, Friday, October 22, 2021, 18:33 (1 day, 6 hours, 21 min. ago) @ dhw

Immunity system complexity

DAVID: That cognizance is automatic is what I was taught.

dhw: Then perhaps you should consult your dictionary instead of believing your teacher. Cognizance: 1. knowledge or understanding of something. 2. Take cognizance of something: to understand something and consider it when you take action or make a decision. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Many definitions even include the word “awareness”. Look it up for yourself.

I've consulted the literature for the biology of cellular cognition:

https://aeon.co/essays/the-study-of-the-mind-needs-a-copernican-shift-in-perspective

"What is cognition? Like many mental concepts, the term has no consensus definition, a fact that infuriated William James 130 years ago and occasional others since. This is my definition: Cognition comprises the means by which organisms become familiar with, value, exploit and evade features of their surroundings in order to survive, thrive and reproduce.

***

"Maturana’s account of cognition focuses on the organism’s need to interact continually with its surroundings to accomplish this amazing feat. This ‘domain of interactions’ between organism and environment is cognition for Maturana, such that ‘living as a process is a process of cognition’ (author’s italics), a claim I have confirmed in bacteria to my satisfaction.

***

"Perception, memory, valence, learning, decision-making, anticipation, communication – all once thought the preserve of humankind – are found in a wide variety of living things, including bacteria, unicellular eukaryotes, plants, fungi, non-neuronal animals, and animals with simple nervous systems and brains.

***

"Complex behaviours coordinated by thousands of interacting, autonomous cells are well studied in bacteria (eg, Bacillus subtilis, Myxococcus xanthus) and social amoeba (Dictyostelium discoideum). The discovery in B subtilis of colonies of long-distance electrical signalling via ion channels – the mechanism of electrical transmission in neurons – provided ‘proof of concept’ that microbes can illuminate cognitive mechanisms ordinarily associated with complex animals. This finding led to further discoveries of previously unknown collective bacterial behaviours that resemble some types of cognitive brain activity, including memory. Studies of bacterial behaviour mediated by electrical signalling are just beginning.

"Network activity among bacterial signal transduction proteins was first described 25 years ago. Today, the network properties of large arrays of signalling proteins, common in bacteria that rely on whip-like flagella to navigate chemical gradients (chemotaxis), are an active area of research. Highly conserved over the course of evolution, this architecture has been compared only slightly tongue-in-cheek to a ‘nanobrain’, because it functions as a network, is capable of processing large amounts of information, is exquisitely sensitive to tiny changes in environmental conditions,

"These arrays might be processing more information than imagined. Escherichia coli recently were found to reject the bacterial equivalent of junk food due to sluggish growth. Chemotaxis, movement toward or away from some states of affairs, is one of E coli’s most energetically costly behaviours; it should be puzzling that bacteria will leave available food (the proverbial bird in the hand) and continue foraging for better nutrition elsewhere – except that the strategy often works.

***

"Second, context and the organism’s internal state proved much more important to behaviour than initially thought. Context and internal state are believed to be signalled by molecules – neuromodulators and their smaller cousins, neuropeptides – although precisely how is unclear. These signalling molecules, many of which are produced by neurons themselves, can alter neural function from seconds to minutes to hours; interact with different targets (other neurons, muscle cells, glands); and activate or silence entire circuits. C elegans produces more than 100 such molecules. (my bold)

"In bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes (cells with a defined nucleus, which bacteria lack), coordinated activity involving thousands of individuals – the equivalent of multicellular behaviour – is also facilitated by signalling molecules, a phenomenon called quorum sensing. Quorum sensing molecules have been compared to hormones because they alter behaviour by similar mechanisms. As hormones do in animals and plants – and the activity of neuromodulators and neuropeptides is not dissimilar – signalling molecules produced by microbial cells induce changes in behaviour in four ways: 1) in the producing cell; 2) in an immediate neighbour via cell-cell contact; 3) within cell neighbourhoods; and 4) in cells at longer distances. Many unicellular signalling molecules exist but far fewer than in multicellular organisms." (my bolds)

Comment: My bolds focus on the fact that molecules alone are in action for this basic form of cognition. Some molecules in bacteria recognize sugar molecules and other food molecules by shape or by electrical signaling from the molecules ionic portions. This is automaticity of cognition, no real thought involved, not dictionary human definition.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum