More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 11:53 (39 days ago)

Chimps \'r\' not us: brain genetics very different

QUOTE: Despite significant similarities in our DNA and few differences in our protein-coding genes, the human forebrain is larger and more complex than that of the chimpanzee.

First of all, the heading is a bit obvious, isn’t it?. I doubt if many people would say chimps are us. Secondly the quote and the article hardly claim that our brain genetics are VERY different.

DAVID: Why should a gene and non-coding DNA that eventually makes us, have appeared way before us at 100 million years ago? Luck or God's purpose?

Of course, no one can answer that question, and it’s a shame that even you can’t ask your all-powerful God why – if his one and only purpose was to design humans – he didn’t just get on with it instead of designing all the little bits and pieces one by one, not to mention designing all the other organismal bits and pieces that led to all those species that had no connection with humans.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

C.S. Lewis: No matter how God might have made the universe and life, skeptics would surely complain about something to the point of disbelief. What we have here isn’t truth-seeking, but rather, game rigging.
"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)

Belief in an omnipotent, infinite God is not based on astronomy! I find it ridiculous to claim that the vastness of the universe in any way proves God’s existence or his non-existence. C.S. Lewis is right about the blinkered sceptics but is totally blind to the fact that the faithful are equally blinkered, since they would claim that whatever anybody discovers will be seen as the work of their God. The vast universe is just that – a vast universe, and no human can explain it, whether theist or atheist.

DAVID: this is same argument as to why did God bothered with the whole evolutionary process of a giant bush if all He wanted was to start off some living humans with big brains? Forget the need for constant food supply.

Food supply is needed for ALL life forms, including those not connected with humans. See “giraffe plumbing.” I thought we’d agreed to drop this silly argument of yours.

DAVID: Atheists have the same God complaints as agnostics as they search for logical reasons to refute God.

Stop there. Agnostics are neutral on the subject. We see logical reasons on both sides and we do not refute either side. It is one of your pet dodges to claim that my criticism of your arguments is due to my not believing in God, whereas they are all directed against your illogical interpretation (bolded above) of your God’s nature, purpose(s) and methods.

DAVID: It starts with a reasonable view of who God is, noting my bold. I don't see dhw ever starting from that position. When he discusses a purposeful God, it is a God filled with human purposes which he clearly describes in free-for-alls, experimenting, changing His mind along the say, enjoying a spectacle. This is not God as we religious see Him.

See “Giraffe” and “Theodicy” on your various unreasonable views. And have you not noticed that you “religious” come up with a vast variety of views of your God, including those who see him as encouraging them to kill anyone who doesn’t share their views of him? And do you yourself believe your God had a son who died an agonizing death which, in some incomprehensible way, is meant to “redeem” us all. (See “Religion” in the Brief Guide for more examples of religious views.) In any case your dislike of my alternative explanations is no defence of your illogical one.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 19:48 (39 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps \'r\' not us: brain genetics very different

QUOTE: Despite significant similarities in our DNA and few differences in our protein-coding genes, the human forebrain is larger and more complex than that of the chimpanzee.

First of all, the heading is a bit obvious, isn’t it?. I doubt if many people would say chimps are us. Secondly the quote and the article hardly claim that our brain genetics are VERY different.

DAVID: Why should a gene and non-coding DNA that eventually makes us, have appeared way before us at 100 million years ago? Luck or God's purpose?

dhw: Of course, no one can answer that question, and it’s a shame that even you can’t ask your all-powerful God why – if his one and only purpose was to design humans – he didn’t just get on with it instead of designing all the little bits and pieces one by one, not to mention designing all the other organismal bits and pieces that led to all those species that had no connection with humans.

I'll stick to my approach that humans were God's goal over a long period of time after starting with the Big Bang and evolving everything including us. History tells us that, as I assume God made our history. So you judge God wrong in what He decided to do. Not my problem, but your strange invention.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

C.S. Lewis: No matter how God might have made the universe and life, skeptics would surely complain about something to the point of disbelief. What we have here isn’t truth-seeking, but rather, game rigging.
"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: Belief in an omnipotent, infinite God is not based on astronomy! I find it ridiculous to claim that the vastness of the universe in any way proves God’s existence or his non-existence. C.S. Lewis is right about the blinkered sceptics but is totally blind to the fact that the faithful are equally blinkered, since they would claim that whatever anybody discovers will be seen as the work of their God. The vast universe is just that – a vast universe, and no human can explain it, whether theist or atheist.

DAVID: this is same argument as to why did God bothered with the whole evolutionary process of a giant bush if all He wanted was to start off some living humans with big brains? Forget the need for constant food supply.

dhw: Food supply is needed for ALL life forms, including those not connected with humans. I thought we’d agreed to drop this silly argument of yours.

What we are able to eat is produced by balanced ecosystems in all branches of the bush of life.


DAVID: Atheists have the same God complaints as agnostics as they search for logical reasons to refute God.

dhw: Stop there. Agnostics are neutral on the subject. We see logical reasons on both sides and we do not refute either side. It is one of your pet dodges to claim that my criticism of your arguments is due to my not believing in God, whereas they are all directed against your illogical interpretation (bolded above) of your God’s nature, purpose(s) and methods.

You always start with illogical thoughts about the God we believe in.


DAVID: It starts with a reasonable view of who God is, noting my bold. I don't see dhw ever starting from that position. When he discusses a purposeful God, it is a God filled with human purposes which he clearly describes in free-for-alls, experimenting, changing His mind along the say, enjoying a spectacle. This is not God as we religious see Him.

dhw: See “Giraffe” and “Theodicy” on your various unreasonable views. And have you not noticed that you “religious” come up with a vast variety of views of your God, including those who see him as encouraging them to kill anyone who doesn’t share their views of him? And do you yourself believe your God had a son who died an agonizing death which, in some incomprehensible way, is meant to “redeem” us all. (See “Religion” in the Brief Guide for more examples of religious views.) In any case your dislike of my alternative explanations is no defence of your illogical one.

Did you look for your quote about a giant universe God created just for us, not a good reason? I can't find it but you wrote it. It fits your constant illogical complaint about the giant bush of life

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 10:03 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

Chimps \'r\' not us: brain genetics very different
DAVID: I'll stick to my approach that humans were God's goal over a long period of time after starting with the Big Bang and evolving everything including us. History tells us that, as I assume God made our history. So you judge God wrong in what He decided to do. Not my problem, but your strange invention.

You believe he designed every life form, including us and including countless life forms that had no connection with us. I do not judge God wrong in what he decided to do. I judge your theory of his goal and method of achieving it to be totally illogical.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: I find it ridiculous to claim that the vastness of the universe in any way proves God’s existence or his non-existence. C.S. Lewis is right about the blinkered sceptics but is totally blind to the fact that the faithful are equally blinkered, since they would claim that whatever anybody discovers will be seen as the work of their God. The vast universe is just that – a vast universe, and no human can explain it, whether theist or atheist.

DAVID: this is same argument as to why did God bothered with the whole evolutionary process of a giant bush if all He wanted was to start off some living humans with big brains? Forget the need for constant food supply.

dhw: Food supply is needed for ALL life forms, including those not connected with humans. I thought we’d agreed to drop this silly argument of yours.

DAVID: What we are able to eat is produced by balanced ecosystems in all branches of the bush of life.

But not all the branches of life that ever existed! See “giraffe plumbing” for your own demolition of this silly attempt to gloss over 3.X billion years of evolution.

dhw: It is one of your pet dodges to claim that my criticism of your arguments is due to my not believing in God, whereas they are all directed against your illogical interpretation [see below] of your God’s nature, purpose(s) and methods.

DAVID: You always start with illogical thoughts about the God we believe in.

You have agreed that all my theories about a possible God’s purpose and method are logical. I wonder how many believers think your God individually designed every life form in history - including all those that had no connection with humans - as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”, and how many believe that he deliberately created bad bacteria and viruses, and that he was incapable of designing a system of life without the errors that cause so much suffering.

DAVID: When [dhw] discusses a purposeful God, it is a God filled with human purposes which he clearly describes in free-for-alls, experimenting, changing His mind along the say, enjoying a spectacle. This is not God as we religious see Him.

dhw: See “Giraffe” and “Theodicy” on your various unreasonable views of God. And have you not noticed that you “religious” come up with a vast variety of views of your God, including those who see him as encouraging them to kill anyone who doesn’t share their views of him? And do you yourself believe your God had a son who died an agonizing death which, in some incomprehensible way, is meant to “redeem” us all. (See “Religion” in the Brief Guide for more examples of religious views.) In any case your dislike of my alternative explanations is no defence of your illogical one.

DAVID: Did you look for your quote about a giant universe God created just for us, not a good reason? I can't find it but you wrote it. It fits your constant illogical complaint about the giant bush of life.

This is hardly a response to my post on religion, but I can see why you wish to dodge it. My argument concerning the vastness of the universe was that I could not understand why your God would create untold billions of coming-and-going stars, planets and solar systems (plus countless coming-and-going life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their foods) if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their foods. You have no idea either, so I don’t know why you are so desperate to find a quote.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 20, 2021, 17:06 (38 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps \'r\' not us: brain genetics very different
DAVID: I'll stick to my approach that humans were God's goal over a long period of time after starting with the Big Bang and evolving everything including us. History tells us that, as I assume God made our history. So you judge God wrong in what He decided to do. Not my problem, but your strange invention.

dhw: You believe he designed every life form, including us and including countless life forms that had no connection with us. I do not judge God wrong in what he decided to do. I judge your theory of his goal and method of achieving it to be totally illogical.

I cannot follow your reasoning, never have.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: I find it ridiculous to claim that the vastness of the universe in any way proves God’s existence or his non-existence. C.S. Lewis is right about the blinkered sceptics but is totally blind to the fact that the faithful are equally blinkered, since they would claim that whatever anybody discovers will be seen as the work of their God. The vast universe is just that – a vast universe, and no human can explain it, whether theist or atheist.

DAVID: this is same argument as to why did God bothered with the whole evolutionary process of a giant bush if all He wanted was to start off some living humans with big brains? Forget the need for constant food supply.

dhw: Food supply is needed for ALL life forms, including those not connected with humans. I thought we’d agreed to drop this silly argument of yours.

DAVID: What we are able to eat is produced by balanced ecosystems in all branches of the bush of life.

dhw: But not all the branches of life that ever existed! See “giraffe plumbing” for your own demolition of this silly attempt to gloss over 3.X billion years of evolution.

Same weird discontinuity in your view of evolution. Everyone ate all during all of evolution


dhw: It is one of your pet dodges to claim that my criticism of your arguments is due to my not believing in God, whereas they are all directed against your illogical interpretation [see below] of your God’s nature, purpose(s) and methods.

DAVID: You always start with illogical thoughts about the God we believe in.

dhw: You have agreed that all my theories about a possible God’s purpose and method are logical.

Only for a highly humanized for of God.

dhw: I wonder how many believers think your God individually designed every life form in history - including all those that had no connection with humans - as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans”, and how many believe that he deliberately created bad bacteria and viruses, and that he was incapable of designing a system of life without the errors that cause so much suffering.

You might take a survey.


DAVID: When [dhw] discusses a purposeful God, it is a God filled with human purposes which he clearly describes in free-for-alls, experimenting, changing His mind along the say, enjoying a spectacle. This is not God as we religious see Him.

dhw: See “Giraffe” and “Theodicy” on your various unreasonable views of God. And have you not noticed that you “religious” come up with a vast variety of views of your God, including those who see him as encouraging them to kill anyone who doesn’t share their views of him? And do you yourself believe your God had a son who died an agonizing death which, in some incomprehensible way, is meant to “redeem” us all. (See “Religion” in the Brief Guide for more examples of religious views.) In any case your dislike of my alternative explanations is no defence of your illogical one.

Misuse of religion is evil, born of human free-will. Some religions have strange story inventions from human free-will minds inventing support for religious belief. I accept only the religious concept of an all powerful all knowing designer as shown by His works


DAVID: Did you look for your quote about a giant universe God created just for us, not a good reason? I can't find it but you wrote it. It fits your constant illogical complaint about the giant bush of life.

dhw: This is hardly a response to my post on religion, but I can see why you wish to dodge it. My argument concerning the vastness of the universe was that I could not understand why your God would create untold billions of coming-and-going stars, planets and solar systems (plus countless coming-and-going life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their foods) if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their foods. You have no idea either, so I don’t know why you are so desperate to find a quote.

Thank you!!! Your same illogical totally discontinuous thinking.. It is a false challenge to God and His works. Because as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it. I view it as an amazing creation and required to produce in the factory of exploding stars all the necessary an important elements to provide for life. History tells us God evolves everything from more simple starts, It is His history I analyze. Try it from His viewpoint.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, October 21, 2021, 14:54 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'll stick to my approach that humans were God's goal over a long period of time after starting with the Big Bang and evolving everything including us.[…]. So you judge God wrong in what He decided to do. […]

dhw: You believe he designed every life form, including us and including countless life forms that had no connection with us. I do not judge God wrong in what he decided to do. I judge your theory of his goal and method of achieving it to be totally illogical.

DAVID: I cannot follow your reasoning, never have.

If you are all-powerful and have only one purpose right from the start, why would you devote your time to matters that have no connection with your purpose? I therefore suggest that your theory is unreasonable. And since you yourself cannot explain why he would act in this way, I’d have thought you’d be able to understand my reasoning.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: The vast universe is just that – a vast universe, and no human can explain it, whether theist or atheist.

DAVID: […] why did God bother with the whole evolutionary process of a giant bush if all He wanted was to start off some living humans with big brains? Forget the need for constant food supply.

dhw: Food supply is needed for ALL life forms, including those not connected with humans. I thought we’d agreed to drop this silly argument of yours.

DAVID: What we are able to eat is produced by balanced ecosystems in all branches of the bush of life.

dhw: But [we do not depend on] all the branches of life that ever existed! See “giraffe plumbing” for your own demolition of this silly attempt to gloss over 3.X billion years of evolution.


DAVID: Same weird discontinuity in your view of evolution. Everyone ate all during all of evolution.

Absolutely true. But that does not mean your God specially designed every extinct form of life and food – including all those that had no connection with humans and their food - throughout 3.X billion years for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food! Stop dodging!

DAVID: When [dhw] discusses a purposeful God, it is a God filled with human purposes which he clearly describes in free-for-alls, experimenting, changing His mind along the say, enjoying a spectacle. This is not God as we religious see Him.

dhw: See “Giraffe” and “Theodicy” on your various unreasonable views of God. And have you not noticed that you “religious” come up with a vast variety of views of your God, including those who see him as encouraging them to kill anyone who doesn’t share their views of him? And do you yourself believe your God had a son who died an agonizing death which, in some incomprehensible way, is meant to “redeem” us all. (See “Religion” in the Brief Guide for more examples of religious views.) In any case your dislike of my alternative explanations is no defence of your illogical one.

DAVID: Misuse of religion is evil, born of human free-will. Some religions have strange story inventions from human free-will minds inventing support for religious belief. I accept only the religious concept of an all powerful all knowing designer as shown by His works.

You have dismissed my theistic explanations of evolution by saying (bolded) “This is not how we religious see him” – as if somehow all believers saw him the same way. You are not “we religious”. You are “you religious”, and your personal religion does not give you the right to dismiss my different proposals regarding God’s nature because they do not coincide with what you believe.

dhw: My argument concerning the vastness of the universe was that I could not understand why your God would create untold billions of coming-and-going stars, planets and solar systems (plus countless coming-and-going life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their foods) if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their foods. You have no idea either, so I don’t know why you are so desperate to find a quote.

DAVID: Thank you!!! Your same illogical totally discontinuous thinking. It is a false challenge to God and His works. Because as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it.

My not understanding your theory – which you do not understand either – is a criticism of your theory, not of your God! It is your own thinking that is illogical and totally discontinuous.

DAVID: I view it as an amazing creation and required to produce in the factory of exploding stars all the necessary an important elements to provide for life. History tells us God evolves everything from more simple starts, It is His history I analyze. Try it from His viewpoint.

And you cannot find a single reason why he would create an infinite number of exploding stars and a vast number of life forms in order to produce one solar system and one species (plus its food). Please stop pretending that an attack on your illogical theory is an attack on your God (if he exists).
**************************

This will be my last post until next Monday. Important family matters….

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 21, 2021, 16:01 (37 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot follow your reasoning, never have.

dhw: If you are all-powerful and have only one purpose right from the start, why would you devote your time to matters that have no connection with your purpose? I therefore suggest that your theory is unreasonable. And since you yourself cannot explain why he would act in this way, I’d have thought you’d be able to understand my reasoning.

The problem is you skip the obvious. God's created history tells us exactly what He did. You object to God doing it that way!!!


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: Same weird discontinuity in your view of evolution. Everyone ate all during all of evolution.

dhw: Absolutely true. But that does not mean your God specially designed every extinct form of life and food – including all those that had no connection with humans and their food - throughout 3.X billion years for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food! Stop dodging!

See above. God did exactly what you object to.


DAVID: Misuse of religion is evil, born of human free-will. Some religions have strange story inventions from human free-will minds inventing support for religious belief. I accept only the religious concept of an all powerful all knowing designer as shown by His works.

dhw: You have dismissed my theistic explanations of evolution by saying (bolded) “This is not how we religious see him” – as if somehow all believers saw him the same way. You are not “we religious”. You are “you religious”, and your personal religion does not give you the right to dismiss my different proposals regarding God’s nature because they do not coincide with what you believe.

I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.


dhw: My argument concerning the vastness of the universe was that I could not understand why your God would create untold billions of coming-and-going stars, planets and solar systems (plus countless coming-and-going life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their foods) if his one and only purpose was to design humans and their foods. You have no idea either, so I don’t know why you are so desperate to find a quote.

DAVID: Thank you!!! Your same illogical totally discontinuous thinking. It is a false challenge to God and His works. Because as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it.

dhw: My not understanding your theory – which you do not understand either – is a criticism of your theory, not of your God! It is your own thinking that is illogical and totally discontinuous.

A neat non-answer to the point I see in your observation: "as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it."


DAVID: I view it as an amazing creation and required to produce in the factory of exploding stars all the necessary an important elements to provide for life. History tells us God evolves everything from more simple starts, It is His history I analyze. Try it from His viewpoint.

dhw: And you cannot find a single reason why he would create an infinite number of exploding stars and a vast number of life forms in order to produce one solar system and one species (plus its food). Please stop pretending that an attack on your illogical theory is an attack on your God (if he exists).

I accept that God creates what He creates for His own reasons, the point you fight. Your personal reasoning is not His, and so you object to His creation of a giant universe. He did it, accept it.

**************************

dhw: This will be my last post until next Monday. Important family matters….

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, October 25, 2021, 09:00 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I cannot follow your reasoning, never have.

dhw: If you are all-powerful and have only one purpose right from the start, why would you devote your time to matters that have no connection with your purpose? I therefore suggest that your theory is unreasonable. And since you yourself cannot explain why he would act in this way, I’d have thought you’d be able to understand my reasoning.

DAVID: The problem is you skip the obvious. God's created history tells us exactly what He did. You object to God doing it that way!!!

The problem is you skip the obvious, which is that history presents us with a vast bush of extinct life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans, although you insist that your God’s only goal was to design humans plus food. But you refuse to recognize that this theory makes no sense.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: Misuse of religion is evil, born of human free-will. Some religions have strange story inventions from human free-will minds inventing support for religious belief. I accept only the religious concept of an all powerful all knowing designer as shown by His works.

dhw: You have dismissed my theistic explanations of evolution by saying (bolded) “This is not how we religious see him” – as if somehow all believers saw him the same way. You are not “we religious”. You are “you religious”, and your personal religion does not give you the right to dismiss my different proposals regarding God’s nature because they do not coincide with what you believe.

DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

But you find each of my theistic explanations logical, you keep agreeing that your God may have human attributes, and so your only objection is “this is not how we religious see him”, as if every religious person shared your own illogical explanations of evolution.

DAVID: […] as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it.

I have not said it is wrong of your God to create it, and this was my answer:
dhw: And you cannot find a single reason why he would create an infinite number of exploding stars and a vast number of life forms in order to produce one solar system and one species (plus its food). Please stop pretending that an attack on your illogical theory is an attack on your God (if he exists).

DAVID: I accept that God creates what He creates for His own reasons, the point you fight. […] Your personal reasoning is not His, and so you object to His creation of a giant universe. He did it, accept it.

If God exists, then of course he did it, but we don’t know what his reasons would have been, whereas you tell us his reason for creating billions of extinct and extant galaxies etc. was to design humans plus our food. Yet another of your dodges: you give us your illogical theory, I attack it for its illogicality, and so you pretend that your theory is the truth and I am attacking your God not your theory!

A beginning or not
Confusing Imagination with Reality
QUOTE: Sutter asserts that Bento and Zalel’s article offers a credible response against the evidence for a cosmic beginning. Yet this claim is only based on what might be possible in the realm of the imagination. The referenced paper is a highly theoretical and entirely speculative cosmological model that is almost entirely divorced from physical reality. Sutter even acknowledges this point

dhw: Of course it’s imagination. And so is the theory that a universe can spring from nothing, and so is the theory that a sourceless universal mind has occupied an eternal “before” and created the universe out of its immaterial self. Nobody can prove anything about what happened before the big bang, if the big bang happened! This discussion encourages pots to call kettles black!

DAVID: Something happened since we are here instead of nothing.

I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that, so let’s settle for it: something happened, and nobody knows what it was or what caused it, so by all means let’s discuss the different theories and their merits or their weaknesses, but please stop pretending you know that one theory is right and the others are wrong.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, October 25, 2021, 16:34 (33 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The problem is you skip the obvious. God's created history tells us exactly what He did. You object to God doing it that way!!!

dhw: The problem is you skip the obvious, which is that history presents us with a vast bush of extinct life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans, although you insist that your God’s only goal was to design humans plus food. But you refuse to recognize that this theory makes no sense.

It is the red plus food that is a giant point you have to diminish to make your illogical objection. The giant bush of life is the food necessary out the of necessity to fuel life.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

dhw: But you find each of my theistic explanations logical, you keep agreeing that your God may have human attributes,

You constantly ignore my qualifier because you have to, as it negates your distorted use of my agreement. Your theories are illogical only if I accept your heavily humanized God.


DAVID: […] as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it.

dhw: I have not said it is wrong of your God to create it, and this was my answer:
dhw: And you cannot find a single reason why he would create an infinite number of exploding stars and a vast number of life forms in order to produce one solar system and one species (plus its food). Please stop pretending that an attack on your illogical theory is an attack on your God (if he exists).

DAVID: I accept that God creates what He creates for His own reasons, the point you fight. […] Your personal reasoning is not His, and so you object to His creation of a giant universe. He did it, accept it.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he did it, but we don’t know what his reasons would have been, whereas you tell us his reason for creating billions of extinct and extant galaxies etc. was to design humans plus our food. Yet another of your dodges: you give us your illogical theory, I attack it for its illogicality, and so you pretend that your theory is the truth and I am attacking your God not your theory!

Again a total misunderstanding of how to think about God. God does exactly what He wants for His own reasons. Since the giant universe exists with aspects we do not understand it does not mean they weren't part of creating humans. We live in a God-created reality and try to understand why He did it the way He did. We explore scientifically, not question it.


A beginning or not
Confusing Imagination with Reality
QUOTE: Sutter asserts that Bento and Zalel’s article offers a credible response against the evidence for a cosmic beginning. Yet this claim is only based on what might be possible in the realm of the imagination. The referenced paper is a highly theoretical and entirely speculative cosmological model that is almost entirely divorced from physical reality. Sutter even acknowledges this point

dhw: Of course it’s imagination. And so is the theory that a universe can spring from nothing, and so is the theory that a sourceless universal mind has occupied an eternal “before” and created the universe out of its immaterial self. Nobody can prove anything about what happened before the big bang, if the big bang happened! This discussion encourages pots to call kettles black!

DAVID: Something happened since we are here instead of nothing.

dhw: I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that, so let’s settle for it: something happened, and nobody knows what it was or what caused it, so by all means let’s discuss the different theories and their merits or their weaknesses, but please stop pretending you know that one theory is right and the others are wrong.

I agree logical faith is not logical proof. Pascal's leap is required.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, October 26, 2021, 14:16 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The problem is you skip the obvious. God's created history tells us exactly what He did. You object to God doing it that way!!!

dhw: The problem is you skip the obvious, which is that history presents us with a vast bush of extinct life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans, although you insist that your God’s only goal was to design humans plus food. But you refuse to recognize that this theory makes no sense.

DAVID: It is the red plus food that is a giant point you have to diminish to make your illogical objection. The giant bush of life is the food necessary out the of necessity to fuel life.

The repetition seems to be endless. ALL forms of life need food. That does not mean that ALL extinct forms of life and food – the majority of which had no connection with humans – were part of the goal of producing humans and their food.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

dhw: But you find each of my theistic explanations logical, and you keep agreeing that your God may have human attributes…

DAVID: You constantly ignore my qualifier because you have to, as it negates your distorted use of my agreement. Your theories are illogical [dhw: you mean logical] only if I accept your heavily humanized God.

Not ignored but dealt with over and over again. You don't have to accept any of my alternative versions, but none of them are any more "humanized" than your own: a God with good intentions who is mysteriously compelled to design a system containing errors that cause untold suffering, and who tries - often in vain - to correct the errors. And for good measure, he also specially designs bad bacteria and viruses, but one day we shall know his intentions were good with them as well. And yet you claim that your God is all-powerful.

DAVID: […] as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it.

I have not said it is wrong of your God to create it, and this was my answer:
dhw: And you cannot find a single reason why he would create an infinite number of exploding stars and a vast number of life forms in order to produce one solar system and one species (plus its food). Please stop pretending that an attack on your illogical theory is an attack on your God (if he exists).[…]

DAVID: Again a total misunderstanding of how to think about God. God does exactly what He wants for His own reasons. Since the giant universe exists with aspects we do not understand it does not mean they weren't part of creating humans.

You keep insisting that humans were his only purpose, and if I ask you why he would create all those things that seem to have no connection, instead of trying to find reasons, you pretend that I am attacking God! I am attacking your theories, not your God!

DAVID: We live in a God-created reality and try to understand why He did it the way He did. We explore scientifically, not question it.

If you believe in God, it is perfectly reasonable to try to understand. I do not question the existence of the billions of galaxies etc, any more than I question the existence of all the life forms that had no connection with humans. But for the life of me, I cannot see how you can claim that there is anything remotely scientific about your constant insistence that I must accept your illogical theories of evolution and theodicy, and if I don’t, I’m saying your God got it wrong! I am suggesting that YOU have got it wrong!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 26, 2021, 16:03 (32 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The repetition seems to be endless. ALL forms of life need food. That does not mean that ALL extinct forms of life and food – the majority of which had no connection with humans – were part of the goal of producing humans and their food.

But God's history says they are.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

dhw: But you find each of my theistic explanations logical, and you keep agreeing that your God may have human attributes…

DAVID: You constantly ignore my qualifier because you have to, as it negates your distorted use of my agreement. Your theories are illogical [dhw: you mean logical] only if I accept your heavily humanized God.

dhw: Not ignored but dealt with over and over again. You don't have to accept any of my alternative versions, but none of them are any more "humanized" than your own: a God with good intentions who is mysteriously compelled to design a system containing errors that cause untold suffering, and who tries - often in vain - to correct the errors. And for good measure, he also specially designs bad bacteria and viruses, but one day we shall know his intentions were good with them as well. And yet you claim that your God is all-powerful.

Same old tired anti-God diatribe that you do not realize as such.


DAVID: […] as a human you don't see the point of a giant universe doesn't mean it is wrong of God to create it.

dhw: I have not said it is wrong of your God to create it, and this was my answer:
dhw: And you cannot find a single reason why he would create an infinite number of exploding stars and a vast number of life forms in order to produce one solar system and one species (plus its food). Please stop pretending that an attack on your illogical theory is an attack on your God (if he exists).[…]

DAVID: Again a total misunderstanding of how to think about God. God does exactly what He wants for His own reasons. Since the giant universe exists with aspects we do not understand it does not mean they weren't part of creating humans.

dhw: You keep insisting that humans were his only purpose, and if I ask you why he would create all those things that seem to have no connection, instead of trying to find reasons, you pretend that I am attacking God! I am attacking your theories, not your God!

Please recognize: humans are the end point of His creations, not as you put it a tunnel-visioned only purpose.


DAVID: We live in a God-created reality and try to understand why He did it the way He did. We explore scientifically, not question it.

dhw: If you believe in God, it is perfectly reasonable to try to understand. I do not question the existence of the billions of galaxies etc, any more than I question the existence of all the life forms that had no connection with humans. But for the life of me, I cannot see how you can claim that there is anything remotely scientific about your constant insistence that I must accept your illogical theories of evolution and theodicy, and if I don’t, I’m saying your God got it wrong! I am suggesting that YOU have got it wrong!

You again describe our differences. You do not see God as I do. If you did we would have no disagreement.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, October 27, 2021, 12:05 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The repetition seems to be endless. ALL forms of life need food. That does not mean that ALL extinct forms of life and food – the majority of which had no connection with humans – were part of the goal of producing humans and their food.

DAVID: But God's history says they are.

I didn’t know God had written a history book explaining his one and only purpose. Did he also explain why he specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although the only thing he wanted to design was humans and their foods?

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

dhw: You don't have to accept any of my alternative versions, but none of them are any more "humanized" than your own: a God with good intentions who is mysteriously compelled to design a system containing errors that cause untold suffering, and who tries - often in vain - to correct the errors. And for good measure, he also specially designs bad bacteria and viruses, but one day we shall know his intentions were good with them as well. And yet you claim that your God is all-powerful.

DAVID: Same old tired anti-God diatribe that you do not realize as such.

Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

DAVID: Please recognize: humans are the end point of His creations, not as you put it a tunnel-visioned only purpose.

Humans are the latest species in the history of evolution. It is you who have consistently presented us with your “tunnel vision” that we plus our food were his only purpose right from the beginning, and that all other life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. If you now wish to argue that your God had different purposes when designing all the other life forms that had no connection with humans, please tell us what they were.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 27, 2021, 16:01 (31 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The repetition seems to be endless. ALL forms of life need food. That does not mean that ALL extinct forms of life and food – the majority of which had no connection with humans – were part of the goal of producing humans and their food.

DAVID: But God's history says they are.

dhw: I didn’t know God had written a history book explaining his one and only purpose. Did he also explain why he specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although the only thing he wanted to design was humans and their foods?

But God wrote our history, which you misinterpret.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

dhw: You don't have to accept any of my alternative versions, but none of them are any more "humanized" than your own: a God with good intentions who is mysteriously compelled to design a system containing errors that cause untold suffering, and who tries - often in vain - to correct the errors. And for good measure, he also specially designs bad bacteria and viruses, but one day we shall know his intentions were good with them as well. And yet you claim that your God is all-powerful.

DAVID: Same old tired anti-God diatribe that you do not realize as such.

dhw: Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

Your illogical complaint comes from your skewed view of who God is. Your God and mine, if they met, would not recognize each other.


DAVID: Please recognize: humans are the end point of His creations, not as you put it a tunnel-visioned only purpose.

dhw: Humans are the latest species in the history of evolution. It is you who have consistently presented us with your “tunnel vision” that we plus our food were his only purpose right from the beginning, and that all other life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. If you now wish to argue that your God had different purposes when designing all the other life forms that had no connection with humans, please tell us what they were.

Your first sentence bolded is logical. We are God's endpoint and everything before it led to us. God's history.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, October 28, 2021, 12:04 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

Chimps /'r’/ not us
dhw: The repetition seems to be endless. ALL forms of life need food. That does not mean that ALL extinct forms of life and food – the majority of which had no connection with humans – were part of the goal of producing humans and their food.

DAVID: But God's history says they are.

dhw: I didn’t know God had written a history book explaining his one and only purpose. Did he also explain why he specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although the only thing he wanted to design was humans and their foods?

DAVID: But God wrote our history, which you misinterpret.

Apparently, then, the correct interpretation is that your God’s one and only goal was to create humans plus food, so he created every form of life and food extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with humans. But amazingly, according to you, “We can only know God’s logic is like ours.” I reckon he’d be as flabbergasted as I am!

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: I have every right to dismiss your humanized form of God. He is yours alone.

dhw: You don't have to accept any of my alternative versions, but none of them are any more "humanized" than your own: a God with good intentions who is mysteriously compelled to design a system containing errors that cause untold suffering, and who tries - often in vain - to correct the errors. And for good measure, he also specially designs bad bacteria and viruses, but one day we shall know his intentions were good with them as well. And yet you claim that your God is all-powerful.

DAVID: Same old tired anti-God diatribe that you do not realize as such.

dhw: Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

DAVID: Your illogical complaint comes from your skewed view of who God is. Your God and mine, if they met, would not recognize each other.

My own varied views of what God might be like, if he exists, have absolutely nothing to do with the sheer illogicality of your belief that he is all-powerful but...see the bolds above. And if I point out the illogicality of this belief, you accuse me of criticizing God, as if somehow your illogical theory has become fact.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 28, 2021, 17:21 (30 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps /'r’/ not us

dhw: I didn’t know God had written a history book explaining his one and only purpose. Did he also explain why he specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although the only thing he wanted to design was humans and their foods?

DAVID: But God wrote our history, which you misinterpret.

dhw: Apparently, then, the correct interpretation is that your God’s one and only goal was to create humans plus food, so he created every form of life and food extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with humans. But amazingly, according to you, “We can only know God’s logic is like ours.” I reckon he’d be as flabbergasted as I am!

God is not as flabbergasted as you are. God's history tells us He created us by a designed process that mimics Darwin's common descent evolution, including all of your so-called objections to His creation. God looks at you and is flabbergasted.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

dhw: Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

DAVID: Your illogical complaint comes from your skewed view of who God is. Your God and mine, if they met, would not recognize each other.

dhw: My own varied views of what God might be like, if he exists, have absolutely nothing to do with the sheer illogicality of your belief that he is all-powerful but...see the bolds above. And if I point out the illogicality of this belief, you accuse me of criticizing God, as if somehow your illogical theory has become fact.

A non-answer to the point as usual: The God you imagine is not at all like mine, so we talk past each other. That what I believe is illogical to you makes the point. The God I recognize is totally logical to me. Remember your God is really very human to me, and you try to foolishly defend your guy by trying to make mine human, which He is not! Humanlike analogues do not transform Him.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, October 29, 2021, 12:55 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Chimps /'r’/ not us
dhw: I didn’t know God had written a history book explaining his one and only purpose. Did he also explain why he specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although the only thing he wanted to design was humans and their foods?

DAVID: But God wrote our history, which you misinterpret.

dhw: Apparently, then, the correct interpretation is that your God’s one and only goal was to create humans plus food, so he created every form of life and food extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with humans. But amazingly, according to you, “We can only know God’s logic is like ours.” I reckon he’d be as flabbergasted as I am!

DAVID: God is not as flabbergasted as you are. God's history tells us He created us by a designed process that mimics Darwin's common descent evolution, including all of your so-called objections to His creation. God looks at you and is flabbergasted.

Why “mimics”? If he took existing organisms and added new bits and pieces, we still have common descent. It’s only when you switch to species without precursors that you abandon common descent, which creates the gross contradiction discussed under “Giraffe plumbing”. And of course you continue to dodge the question of why he designed all those life forms that had no connection with humans if…etc. etc.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

DAVID: Your illogical complaint comes from your skewed view of who God is. Your God and mine, if they met, would not recognize each other.

dhw: My own varied views of what God might be like, if he exists, have absolutely nothing to do with the sheer illogicality of your belief that he is all-powerful but...see the bolds above. And if I point out the illogicality of this belief, you accuse me of criticizing God, as if somehow your illogical theory has become fact.

DAVID: A non-answer to the point as usual: The God you imagine is not at all like mine, so we talk past each other. That what I believe is illogical to you makes the point. The God I recognize is totally logical to me. Remember your God is really very human to me, and you try to foolishly defend your guy by trying to make mine human, which He is not! Humanlike analogues do not transform Him.

It remains illogical for your God to have one purpose and to spend 3.x billion years specially designing life forms that had no connection with his one purpose. You can’t explain it, so please stop pretending you find it logical. According to you, your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc and logic like ours, and you are sure we mimic him in certain ways. There is no “foolish defence” – why is a God who creates a free-for-all, or experiments, or gets new ideas more “human” than a God who only wants to do good, can’t control his design but tries hard – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors, and wishes he hadn’t had to design a system that caused suffering (the mistakes)? And finally, to get back to the point which you have ignored, why do you insist that my criticisms of your illogical theories are an attack on God, when you know that they are an attack on your illogical theories?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, October 29, 2021, 16:31 (29 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps /'r’/ not us

dhw: Apparently, then, the correct interpretation is that your God’s one and only goal was to create humans plus food, so he created every form of life and food extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with humans. But amazingly, according to you, “We can only know God’s logic is like ours.” I reckon he’d be as flabbergasted as I am!

DAVID: God is not as flabbergasted as you are. God's history tells us He created us by a designed process that mimics Darwin's common descent evolution, including all of your so-called objections to His creation. God looks at you and is flabbergasted.

dhw: Why “mimics”? If he took existing organisms and added new bits and pieces, we still have common descent. It’s only when you switch to species without precursors that you abandon common descent, which creates the gross contradiction discussed under “Giraffe plumbing”. And of course you continue to dodge the question of why he designed all those life forms that had no connection with humans if…etc. etc.

I have said what God designed mimics Darwin's common descent. And it does. God started with very simple one-celled animals containing a menagerie of biochemical processes all acting in concert creating their living state. From that point He designed more complex phenotypes and on occasion jumped ahead in form type creating Darwin's and Gould's gaps. I'm sorry you are stuck in Darwin quicksand theory.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: Same old tired dodge of pretending that my criticism of your illogical theories is an attack on God.

DAVID: Your illogical complaint comes from your skewed view of who God is. Your God and mine, if they met, would not recognize each other.

dhw: My own varied views of what God might be like, if he exists, have absolutely nothing to do with the sheer illogicality of your belief that he is all-powerful but...see the bolds above. And if I point out the illogicality of this belief, you accuse me of criticizing God, as if somehow your illogical theory has become fact.

DAVID: A non-answer to the point as usual: The God you imagine is not at all like mine, so we talk past each other. That what I believe is illogical to you makes the point. The God I recognize is totally logical to me. Remember your God is really very human to me, and you try to foolishly defend your guy by trying to make mine human, which He is not! Humanlike analogues do not transform Him.

dhw: It remains illogical for your God to have one purpose and to spend 3.x billion years specially designing life forms that had no connection with his one purpose. You can’t explain it, so please stop pretending you find it logical. According to you, your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc and logic like ours, and you are sure we mimic him in certain ways. There is no “foolish defence” – why is a God who creates a free-for-all, or experiments, or gets new ideas more “human” than a God who only wants to do good, can’t control his design but tries hard – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors, and wishes he hadn’t had to design a system that caused suffering (the mistakes)? And finally, to get back to the point which you have ignored, why do you insist that my criticisms of your illogical theories are an attack on God, when you know that they are an attack on your illogical theories?

My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical. Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you. We start with diametrically opposed God images/personalities. Of course we won't agree. My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, October 30, 2021, 08:30 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Chimps /'r’/ not us
dhw: Apparently, then, the correct interpretation is that your God’s one and only goal was to create humans plus food, so he created every form of life and food extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with humans. But amazingly, according to you, “We can only know God’s logic is like ours.” I reckon he’d be as flabbergasted as I am!

DAVID: I have said what God designed mimics Darwin's common descent. And it does. God started with very simple one-celled animals containing a menagerie of biochemical processes all acting in concert creating their living state. From that point He designed more complex phenotypes and on occasion jumped ahead in form type creating Darwin's and Gould's gaps. I'm sorry you are stuck in Darwin quicksand theory.

I answered this yesterday:
dhw: Why “mimics”? If he took existing organisms and added new bits and pieces, we still have common descent. It’s only when you switch to species without precursors that you abandon common descent...
And then I referred you back to your gross contradiction, which was that humans were directly descended from bacteria, but were not directly descended from bacteria because they were directly descended from Cambrian species which had no precursors.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
dhw: why do you insist that my criticisms of your illogical theories are an attack on God, when you know that they are an attack on your illogical theories?

DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month. And then please tell us how this view explains his design of countless life forms that have no connection with humans plus food although his only goal was to design humans plus food. And please solve the mystery of how we can be directly descended from bacteria and yet directly descended from Cambrian life forms that had no precursors.

DAVID: Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you.

I offer different views, which are no more “supposed” and “invented” and “humanized” than yours, but have the great advantage of logically explaining the course of evolution, as you admit.

DAVID: We start with diametrically opposed God images/personalities. Of course we won't agree. My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

Secret life of cells
QUOTE: Because these tools can reveal structures that have never been seen before, researchers are often left with new mysteries to solve. “What I love about tomography”, Villa says, “is that we always generate more questions than answers.”

DAVID: It makes sense of my view that life's processes are entirely automatic reactions and decisions, designed by God at life's first appearance.

I can almost hear a collective gasp of astonishment. Apparently there are new mysteries, and therefore all reactions and decisions are automatic and programmed from the very beginning of life by your God. Since you set so much store on recognition by science (see the entries on cellular intelligence) I wonder what reception you would get if you gave a lecture on the subject to your scientist colleagues.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 30, 2021, 15:37 (28 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps /'r’/ not us

DAVID: I have said what God designed mimics Darwin's common descent. And it does. God started with very simple one-celled animals containing a menagerie of biochemical processes all acting in concert creating their living state. From that point He designed more complex phenotypes and on occasion jumped ahead in form type creating Darwin's and Gould's gaps. I'm sorry you are stuck in Darwin quicksand theory.

I answered this yesterday:
dhw: Why “mimics”? If he took existing organisms and added new bits and pieces, we still have common descent. It’s only when you switch to species without precursors that you abandon common descent...
And then I referred you back to your gross contradiction, which was that humans were directly descended from bacteria, but were not directly descended from bacteria because they were directly descended from Cambrian species which had no precursors.

The word 'directly' creates an issue for you. Our human biochemistry comes directly from bacteria. When Darwin lamented about the Cambrian gap he could only view evolution by changing forms. I see God the designer creating the forms based upon the underlying processes creating life. It is interesting that you are trying a twisted subterfuge about the Cambrian gap as a gross contradiction. It acts as proof of as designer, remember, since the Edicaran precursors are so simple in form as compared to the Cambrian animals. Straw man foolishness.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.


DAVID: Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you.

Idhw: offer different views, which are no more “supposed” and “invented” and “humanized” than yours, but have the great advantage of logically explaining the course of evolution, as you admit.

Same twist: I only admit your form of a humanized God makes your theories about evolution logical for you.


DAVID: We start with diametrically opposed God images/personalities. Of course we won't agree. My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

dhw: We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

Doesn't answer my point. The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.


Secret life of cells
QUOTE: Because these tools can reveal structures that have never been seen before, researchers are often left with new mysteries to solve. “What I love about tomography”, Villa says, “is that we always generate more questions than answers.”

DAVID: It makes sense of my view that life's processes are entirely automatic reactions and decisions, designed by God at life's first appearance.

dhw: I can almost hear a collective gasp of astonishment. Apparently there are new mysteries, and therefore all reactions and decisions are automatic and programmed from the very beginning of life by your God. Since you set so much store on recognition by science (see the entries on cellular intelligence) I wonder what reception you would get if you gave a lecture on the subject to your scientist colleagues.

Agreement.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 12:54 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

Chimps /'r’/ not us
Discussion switched to “Giraffe plumbing”.

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

“Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food. Full control clashes with your belief that he had no choice other than a life system he could not control. If you mean full control of evolution, you offer the absurdity of his having one goal which he deliberately did not fulfil until he’d designed countless life forms that had no connection with his goal. The history therefore invalidates the goal you impose on him. Logical “in his own way” means nothing when you say his logic is like ours and you can’t find any logic in your own theory. I’m not sure what you mean by “loving?”. Awareness is not the same as caring, but since you say he tries to correct the errors he didn’t want, I’ll take this as meaning that he does care for and love us, which is touchingly human of him.

DAVID: Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you.

dhw: I offer different views, which are no more “supposed” and “invented” and “humanized” than yours, but have the great advantage of logically explaining the course of evolution, as you admit.

DAVID: Same twist: I only admit your form of a humanized God makes your theories about evolution logical for you.

You have agreed that my different suggestions are also logical for you – it is the human thought patterns you object to, although you agree that he and we probably/possibly share thought patterns, and we “mimic” him and have the same logic.

DAVID: My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

dhw: We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

DAVID: Doesn't answer my point. The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.

The goal in all these would be enjoyment of and interest in the creation of life outside himself. That explains the ever-changing history of life on earth. Experimentation and/or new ideas are alternatives to explain the specialness of humans while at the same time explaining all the other life forms that had no connection with humans.

Secret life of cells
QUOTE: Because these tools can reveal structures that have never been seen before, researchers are often left with new mysteries to solve.

DAVID: It makes sense of my view that life's processes are entirely automatic reactions and decisions, designed by God at life's first appearance.

dhw: […] I wonder what reception you would get if you gave a lecture on the subject to your scientist colleagues.

DAVID: Agreement.

I can just see the announcement in yesterday’s newspapers: “Top scientists, meeting in Hempstead, Texas, have agreed unanimously that every evolutionary innovation, and every decision taken by every immune system in every human, was preprogrammed by God 3.8 billion years ago.”
And the announcement in today’s newspapers: “Sorry, folks. Mr. Turrell has just woken up.”

The obstetric dilemma
DAVID: I've discussed these problems before. The human female pelvis is far from ape-like to accommodate big brain birth and upright posture. How did this develop in a chance evolutionary scenario? Not likely. There are several players involved: Mom, Pop and baby DNA all adjusting on their own, unless a designer is at work.

Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 15:19 (27 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, October 31, 2021, 15:38

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

dhw: “Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food.

I know your humanizing goals for your form of God. I view humans as His endpoint of creation.

dhw: Full control clashes with your belief that he had no choice other than a life system he could not control.

He chose to design the only system that would work.

dhw: If you mean full control of evolution, you offer the absurdity of his having one goal which he deliberately did not fulfil until he’d designed countless life forms that had no connection with his goal.

Your invented absurdity clashes with your admitted 'God can chose whatever He wishes to do.'

dhw: I’m not sure what you mean by “loving?”.

I'm not sure He loves.

DAVID: My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

dhw: We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

The bold is your usual distortion of my views. See previous discussion today.


DAVID: Doesn't answer my point. The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.

dhw: The goal in all these would be enjoyment of and interest in the creation of life outside himself. That explains the ever-changing history of life on earth. Experimentation and/or new ideas are alternatives to explain the specialness of humans while at the same time explaining all the other life forms that had no connection with humans.

Again, not recognizing we need all those forms in ecosystems for food/energy or life stops. The current human population has become predictably enormous and God's designed bush of life provides for it.


The obstetric dilemma

DAVID: I've discussed these problems before. The human female pelvis is far from ape-like to accommodate big brain birth and upright posture. How did this develop in a chance evolutionary scenario? Not likely. There are several players involved: Mom, Pop and baby DNA all adjusting on their own, unless a designer is at work.

dhw: Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.

You continue to deny design while obvious design keeps you agnostic. Conflicted, I would say.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, November 01, 2021, 11:07 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

dhw: “Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food.

DAVID: I know your humanizing goals for your form of God. I view humans as His endpoint of creation.

And you are trying to replace the word “goal” with the word “endpoint”, which could simply mean that we are the last item on his creative agenda, as opposed to being his one and only goal from the very beginning – the claim which lies at the heart of one of our disputes since it clashes with your belief that he also specially designed lots and lots of extinct species that had no connection with humans.

dhw: Full control clashes with your belief that he had no choice other than a life system he could not control.

DAVID: He chose to design the only system that would work.

Even that presumption means he is not in full control.

dhw: If you mean full control of evolution, you offer the absurdity of his having one goal which he deliberately did not fulfil until he’d designed countless life forms that had no connection with his goal.

DAVID: Your invented absurdity clashes with your admitted 'God can chose whatever He wishes to do.'

You can’t explain the logic, and so I propose that your theory is less likely to have been what he chose than other theories which you agree make perfect sense.

DAVID: The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.

dhw: The goal in all these would be enjoyment of and interest in the creation of life outside himself. That explains the ever-changing history of life on earth. Experimentation and/or new ideas are alternatives to explain the specialness of humans while at the same time explaining all the other life forms that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Again, not recognizing we need all those forms in ecosystems for food/energy or life stops. The current human population has become predictably enormous and God's designed bush of life provides for it.

Yes, life stops if there is no food. How does that explain why he designed countless forms of life/food that had no connection with humans, if all he wanted to design was humans and their food? You never stop dodging!

The obstetric dilemma
dhw: Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.

DAVID: You continue to deny design while obvious design keeps you agnostic. Conflicted, I would say.

You simply cannot grasp the fact that cellular intelligence is a theory of design, and it does not exclude your God as the possible designer of the intelligent cell. It simply provides an alternative to your 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary development and decision for the whole history of life, or your God constantly popping in to perform operations on each and every individual organism he wants to change.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, November 01, 2021, 14:50 (26 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

DAVID: I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.

dhw: “Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food.

DAVID: I know your humanizing goals for your form of God. I view humans as His endpoint of creation.

dhw: And you are trying to replace the word “goal” with the word “endpoint”, which could simply mean that we are the last item on his creative agenda, as opposed to being his one and only goal from the very beginning – the claim which lies at the heart of one of our disputes since it clashes with your belief that he also specially designed lots and lots of extinct species that had no connection with humans.

I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance. All of evolution produced humans in stepwise fashion from God's designs.


DAVID: Your invented absurdity clashes with your admitted 'God can chose whatever He wishes to do.'

dhw: You can’t explain the logic, and so I propose that your theory is less likely to have been what he chose than other theories which you agree make perfect sense.

I agree that only with a very humanized God that you use to create your theories can make them coherent in any way..


DAVID: Again, not recognizing we need all those forms in ecosystems for food/energy or life stops. The current human population has become predictably enormous and God's designed bush of life provides for it.

dhw: Yes, life stops if there is no food. How does that explain why he designed countless forms of life/food that had no connection with humans, if all he wanted to design was humans and their food? You never stop dodging!

It is your strawman dodge. To go from bacteria to humans required all those evolutionary steps' God wanted to evolve us in the way history shows He did.


The obstetric dilemma
dhw: Not on their own. There would have to be a process of change and response to change. The cell communities involved in the pelvis would have to respond to the changes in the baby, which in turn would have been inherited from changes in the adults. No doubt there would have been many problems and deaths before the new pelvis was fully established, but I must confess I find this process more convincing than that of the first ever cells being given a programme for pelvis restructuring, along with every other evolutionary development, or your God popping in to perform operations on a group of pregnant females after having fiddled around with all the different fathers’ sperms.

DAVID: You continue to deny design while obvious design keeps you agnostic. Conflicted, I would say.

dhw: You simply cannot grasp the fact that cellular intelligence is a theory of design, and it does not exclude your God as the possible designer of the intelligent cell. It simply provides an alternative to your 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every single evolutionary development and decision for the whole history of life, or your God constantly popping in to perform operations on each and every individual organism he wants to change.

I fully grasp your cellular theory to avoid God.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 12:30 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: [...] Purposeful with active goals achieved with full control. [...]

dhw: “Purposeful” agreed. Active goals? Why plural? You refuse to contemplate any goal beyond the design of humans plus food.

DAVID: I know your humanizing goals for your form of God. I view humans as His endpoint of creation.

dhw: And you are trying to replace the word “goal” with the word “endpoint”, which could simply mean that we are the last item on his creative agenda, as opposed to being his one and only goal from the very beginning – the claim which lies at the heart of one of our disputes since it clashes with your belief that he also specially designed lots and lots of extinct species that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance.

Since we are the last species to appear so far, the term is far less problematical than "goal", because it is not necessarily synonymous with purpose. So let’s make it nice and clear, shall we? You wish to drop the term "goal". Are you now saying that you no longer believe that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, and you no longer believe that every single life form and food which had no connection with humans was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food? This will at last rid us of the mantra which has caused so much repetitive discussion.

DAVID: All of evolution produced humans in stepwise fashion from God's designs.

And all of evolution also produced millions of life forms and foods in stepwise fashion that had no connection with humans, but you think humans may be the last species to be produced by the process of evolution, as opposed to being your God’s only goal or purpose. Is that right?The rest of your post repeats various subjects dealt with elsewhere. The now official switch from “goal” to “endpoint” is the new beacon of hope, since clearly it means you think the process of evolution has finished, but equally clearly it does NOT mean that every previous life form and food was part of the goal of evolving us and our food.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 15:51 (25 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance.


dhw: Since we are the last species to appear so far, the term is far less problematical than "goal", because it is not necessarily synonymous with purpose. So let’s make it nice and clear, shall we? You wish to drop the term "goal". Are you now saying that you no longer believe that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, and you no longer believe that every single life form and food which had no connection with humans was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food? This will at last rid us of the mantra which has caused so much repetitive discussion.

The red part which you wish me to discard will not be discarded. I've changed the word goal to endpoint of God's evolution, and remain with my initial interpretation of God's actions. We are here only because God wanted us here, and He chose, for His own reasons, to evolve us from bacteria. All clearly and logically demonstrated from the history God created.


DAVID: All of evolution produced humans in stepwise fashion from God's designs.

dhw: And all of evolution also produced millions of life forms and foods in stepwise fashion that had no connection with humans, but you think humans may be the last species to be produced by the process of evolution, as opposed to being your God’s only goal or purpose. Is that right? The rest of your post repeats various subjects dealt with elsewhere. The now official switch from “goal” to “endpoint” is the new beacon of hope, since clearly it means you think the process of evolution has finished, but equally clearly it does NOT mean that every previous life form and food was part of the goal of evolving us and our food.

Your interpretation and mine are still different and will remain so unless you see the light

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, November 03, 2021, 10:39 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance.

dhw: Since we are the last species to appear so far, the term is far less problematical than "goal", because it is not necessarily synonymous with purpose. So let’s make it nice and clear, shall we? You wish to drop the term "goal". Are you now saying that you no longer believe that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, and you no longer believe that every single life form and food which had no connection with humans was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food? This will at last rid us of the mantra which has caused so much repetitive discussion.

David: The red part which you wish me to discard will not be discarded. I've changed the word goal to endpoint of God's evolution, and remain with my initial interpretation of God's actions. We are here only because God wanted us here, and He chose, for His own reasons, to evolve us from bacteria. All clearly and logically demonstrated from the history God created.

But what is not clearly and logically demonstrated from life’s history is why, if your God’s one and only goal was to design us and our food, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food! As you will certainly go on ignoring this question (because you have no idea how to answer it), let me just ask you why you wish to change “goal” to “endpoint”.

Termite queens
DAVID: All part of necessary ecosystems.

Wonderful wonder! I love these posts. Thank you. Pity about your comment. Every life form that ever lived was part of an ecosystem. And ecosystems are changing all the time, as environments change. If ants were wiped out, there would be a different ecosystem. So what exactly have all the ecosystems been necessary for, other than enabling all the different forms of life to survive until they become extinct? Could you be hinting at some sort of “goal”, in the achievement of which every life form and econiche extant and extinct played a part, including those that had no connection with humans? Perish the thought!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 03, 2021, 15:35 (24 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance.

dhw: Since we are the last species to appear so far, the term is far less problematical than "goal", because it is not necessarily synonymous with purpose. So let’s make it nice and clear, shall we? You wish to drop the term "goal". Are you now saying that you no longer believe that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, and you no longer believe that every single life form and food which had no connection with humans was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food? This will at last rid us of the mantra which has caused so much repetitive discussion.

David: The red part which you wish me to discard will not be discarded. I've changed the word goal to endpoint of God's evolution, and remain with my initial interpretation of God's actions. We are here only because God wanted us here, and He chose, for His own reasons, to evolve us from bacteria. All clearly and logically demonstrated from the history God created.

dhw: But what is not clearly and logically demonstrated from life’s history is why, if your God’s one and only goal was to design us and our food, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food! As you will certainly go on ignoring this question (because you have no idea how to answer it), let me just ask you why you wish to change “goal” to “endpoint”.

Because my answer to your constant illogical question is God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own reasons, unknown to us, and 'endpoint' fits that thought better than goal. 'Goal' implies achieving something over time as if it might be difficult to achieve. God's endpoint implies He knew how to get there all along, but chose stepwise for His own reasons.


Termite queens
DAVID: All part of necessary ecosystems.

dhw: Wonderful wonder! I love these posts. Thank you. Pity about your comment. Every life form that ever lived was part of an ecosystem. And ecosystems are changing all the time, as environments change. If ants were wiped out, there would be a different ecosystem. So what exactly have all the ecosystems been necessary for, other than enabling all the different forms of life to survive until they become extinct? Could you be hinting at some sort of “goal”, in the achievement of which every life form and econiche extant and extinct played a part, including those that had no connection with humans? Perish the thought!

I hope you don't go hungry if the necessary ecosystems vanish.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, November 04, 2021, 07:40 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I have replaced goal with endpoint which is a more accurate way of viewing our appearance.

dhw: Since we are the last species to appear so far, the term is far less problematical than "goal", because it is not necessarily synonymous with purpose. So let’s make it nice and clear, shall we? You wish to drop the term "goal". Are you now saying that you no longer believe that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, and you no longer believe that every single life form and food which had no connection with humans was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food? This will at last rid us of the mantra which has caused so much repetitive discussion.

DAVID: The red part which you wish me to discard will not be discarded. I've changed the word goal to endpoint of God's evolution, and remain with my initial interpretation of God's actions. We are here only because God wanted us here, and He chose, for His own reasons, to evolve us from bacteria. All clearly and logically demonstrated from the history God created.

dhw: But what is not clearly and logically demonstrated from life’s history is why, if your God’s one and only goal was to design us and our food, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food! As you will certainly go on ignoring this question (because you have no idea how to answer it), let me just ask you why you wish to change “goal” to “endpoint”.

DAVID: Because my answer to your constant illogical question is God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own reasons, unknown to us…

And according to you he also chose to evolve countless other life forms that had no connection with us, and again you have no idea why.

DAVID: ….and 'endpoint' fits that thought better than goal. 'Goal' implies achieving something over time as if it might be difficult to achieve. God's endpoint implies He knew how to get there all along, but chose stepwise for His own reasons.

Goal means purpose (e.g. your God started out with the aim of producing humans). Endpoint means completion. It could refer to the fulfilment of a purpose, or it could mean simply the end of any kind of process (e.g. you think humans are the last species that evolution will produce after its higgledy-piggledy history). Both could take a long time or a short time, be difficult or not difficult, entail knowing or not knowing how to get there, and both could entail steps along the way. By refusing to discard the red, you have made it clear that you only mean “goal”, so all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: Faith in science finding answers is OK for me. I'll alter theory with new discoveries.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with science finding answers! I am simply pointing out that both you and Dawkins have come up with diametrically opposite, unproven conclusions, and you both dismiss any alternatives because your minds are closed.

DAVID: I've viewed all alternatives and chosen what I think are reasonable. […]

dhw:. […] And that is why I find both of you equally blinkered, since you both adhere to unproven theories and sneer at each other for adhering to unproven theories.

DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.

Instincts
QUOTES: "But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists.”

The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.”

DAVID: the brain behavioral algorithms require then input of specific information. How was that provided by natural evolution? Not by Darwin style chance mutations.

Just like you, the authors simply ignore the theory that all of these wonderful feats originated through the intelligence of tiny brains working out how best to cope with the world around them. (And the theory does not preclude the existence of a God who gave them their intelligence.)

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 04, 2021, 14:28 (23 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: Because my answer to your constant illogical question is God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own reasons, unknown to us…

dhw: And according to you he also chose to evolve countless other life forms that had no connection with us, and again you have no idea why.

Just study God's history to finally understand. Countless existing forms in the bush of life makes food for all.


DAVID: ….and 'endpoint' fits that thought better than goal. 'Goal' implies achieving something over time as if it might be difficult to achieve. God's endpoint implies He knew how to get there all along, but chose stepwise for His own reasons.

dhw: Goal means purpose (e.g. your God started out with the aim of producing humans). Endpoint means completion. It could refer to the fulfilment of a purpose, or it could mean simply the end of any kind of process (e.g. you think humans are the last species that evolution will produce after its higgledy-piggledy history). Both could take a long time or a short time, be difficult or not difficult, entail knowing or not knowing how to get there, and both could entail steps along the way. By refusing to discard the red, you have made it clear that you only mean “goal”, so all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

It seems that way.


David v Dawkins

DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

dhw: I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.

I agreed Dawkins at the start of this thread in that new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory. I still do.


Instincts
QUOTES: "But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists.”

The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.”

DAVID: the brain behavioral algorithms require then input of specific information. How was that provided by natural evolution? Not by Darwin style chance mutations.

dhw: Just like you, the authors simply ignore the theory that all of these wonderful feats originated through the intelligence of tiny brains working out how best to cope with the world around them. (And the theory does not preclude the existence of a God who gave them their intelligence.)

We all agree cells act intelligently, which may mean they are programmed to act that way automatically.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, November 05, 2021, 11:39 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: Because my answer to your constant illogical question is God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own reasons, unknown to us…

Except that under "Giraffe plumbing" he didn't evolve us from bacteria, and according to you he also chose to evolve countless other life forms that had no connection with us, and again you have no idea why.

DAVID: Just study God's history to finally understand. Countless existing forms in the bush of life makes food for all.

But your God is perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And so if he only wanted to design us plus food, there was no need for precursors of all the life forms and foods that had no connection with us. See “Giraffe plumbing” for your agreement that you have no logical defence for your theory. You have tried to wriggle out of your own trap by changing “goal” to “endpoint”.

dhw: […] all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

DAVID: It seems that way.

So goodbye to another dodge.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

dhw: I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.

DAVID: I agreed Dawkins at the start of this thread in that new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory. I still do.

“Clarify”? They will either support or oppose theories. On that, we can all agree, but none of us know which it will be. Meanwhile, the two of you continue to dismiss each other’s arguments, and to justify your blinkered approaches with the hope/faith that one day science will prove your theory to be correct. And I continue to complain that your respective hopes/faiths entail turning your backs on science.

Instincts
QUOTES: "But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists.”

The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.”

DAVID: the brain behavioral algorithms require then input of specific information. How was that provided by natural evolution? Not by Darwin style chance mutations.

dhw: Just like you, the authors simply ignore the theory that all of these wonderful feats originated through the intelligence of tiny brains working out how best to cope with the world around them. (And the theory does not preclude the existence of a God who gave them their intelligence.)

DAVID: We all agree cells act intelligently, which may mean they are programmed to act that way automatically.

I’m delighted at this universal agreement, and wish all those who agree would acknowledge that intelligent behaviour “may mean” that the cells are intelligent.

Natural protein construction
"Every cell is a master builder, able to craft useful and structurally complex molecules, time and again and with astonishingly few mistakes. Scientists are keen to replicate this feat to build their own molecular factories, but first they'll need to understand it.

Just another reference to cellular abilities as opposed to automatic following of instructions.

Sponges
QUOTE: Arendt emphasises that the sponges’ neuroid cells aren’t neurons. “We still think they don’t have a nervous system,” he says. But these cells may be coordinating the activities of the digestive cells. “We see a lot of vesicles in those neuroid cells that would indicate that they secrete something, which is a very strong indication for communication,” he says. “And we also know the kind of molecules they might produce.”

Cells coordinating the activities of other cells, and appearing to communicate (how else could they coordinate others?). Sounds like intelligence to me.

Ethan Siegel on the Big Bang
QUOTE: "It remains possible that the Universe does, at all levels, obey the intuitive rule of cause-and-effect, although the possibility of a fundamentally acausal, indeterminate, random Universe remains in play (and, arguably, preferred) as well. It is possible that the Universe did have a beginning to its existence, although that has by no means been established beyond any sort of reasonable scientific doubt. And if both of those things are true, then the Universe’s existence would have a cause, and that cause may be (but isn’t necessarily) something we can identify with God. However, possible does not equate to proof. Unless we can firmly establish many things that have yet to be demonstrated, the Kalam cosmological argument will only convince those who already agree with its unproven conclusions."

A perfectly balanced view of the whole mystery, which I can only applaud. Thank you, David, as usual, for your integrity in presenting such an article, even though it goes against your own grain.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, November 05, 2021, 13:32 (22 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: Just study God's history to finally understand. Countless existing forms in the bush of life makes food for all.

dhw: But your God is perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And so if he only wanted to design us plus food, there was no need for precursors of all the life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

Yes God speciates in gaps like the Cambrian.


dhw: […] all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

DAVID: It seems that way.

dhw: So goodbye to another dodge.

We're here no matter how it is termed as a goal and endpoint. We are the desired endpoint of evolution by God.


David v Dawkins
DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

dhw: I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.

DAVID: I agreed Dawkins at the start of this thread in that new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory. I still do.

dhw: “Clarify”? They will either support or oppose theories. On that, we can all agree, but none of us know which it will be. Meanwhile, the two of you continue to dismiss each other’s arguments, and to justify your blinkered approaches with the hope/faith that one day science will prove your theory to be correct. And I continue to complain that your respective hopes/faiths entail turning your backs on science.

If we anticipate answers from ongoing research that will validate or invalidate, we haven't turned our backs on science.


Instincts

DAVID: We all agree cells act intelligently, which may mean they are programmed to act that way automatically.

dhw: I’m delighted at this universal agreement, and wish all those who agree would acknowledge that intelligent behaviour “may mean” that the cells are intelligent.

50/50 chance.


Natural protein construction
"Every cell is a master builder, able to craft useful and structurally complex molecules, time and again and with astonishingly few mistakes. Scientists are keen to replicate this feat to build their own molecular factories, but first they'll need to understand it.

dhw: Just another reference to cellular abilities as opposed to automatic following of instructions.

The key issue is few mistakes in God's design.


Sponges
QUOTE: Arendt emphasises that the sponges’ neuroid cells aren’t neurons. “We still think they don’t have a nervous system,” he says. But these cells may be coordinating the activities of the digestive cells. “We see a lot of vesicles in those neuroid cells that would indicate that they secrete something, which is a very strong indication for communication,” he says. “And we also know the kind of molecules they might produce.”

dhw: Cells coordinating the activities of other cells, and appearing to communicate (how else could they coordinate others?). Sounds like intelligence to me.

And where did the information that makes them operate properly come from?


Ethan Siegel on the Big Bang
QUOTE: "It remains possible that the Universe does, at all levels, obey the intuitive rule of cause-and-effect, although the possibility of a fundamentally acausal, indeterminate, random Universe remains in play (and, arguably, preferred) as well. It is possible that the Universe did have a beginning to its existence, although that has by no means been established beyond any sort of reasonable scientific doubt. And if both of those things are true, then the Universe’s existence would have a cause, and that cause may be (but isn’t necessarily) something we can identify with God. However, possible does not equate to proof. Unless we can firmly establish many things that have yet to be demonstrated, the Kalam cosmological argument will only convince those who already agree with its unproven conclusions."

dhw: A perfectly balanced view of the whole mystery, which I can only applaud. Thank you, David, as usual, for your integrity in presenting such an article, even though it goes against your own grain.

You are welcome

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, November 06, 2021, 08:01 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: Just study God's history to finally understand. Countless existing forms in the bush of life makes food for all.

dhw: But your God is perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And so if he only wanted to design us plus food, there was no need for precursors of all the life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Yes God speciates in gaps like the Cambrian.

And that is why you can’t understand why, if his only purpose was to “evolve” humans he “evolved” all the species plus foods that had nothing to do with humans plus foods, and also “evolved” us humans plus foods, although he was perfectly capable of designing us directly.

dhw: [re David’s switch from “goal” to “endpoint”…]...all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

DAVID: It seems that way.

dhw: So goodbye to another dodge.

DAVID: We're here no matter how it is termed as a goal and endpoint. We are the desired endpoint of evolution by God.

We are indeed here. See bold above and “Giraffe plumbing” for the rest of your illogical theory..

David v Dawkins
DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

dhw: I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.[…]

DAVID: If we anticipate answers from ongoing research that will validate or invalidate, we haven't turned our backs on science.

You turn your back on science the moment you ridicule someone else’s theory which is just as unproven as your own, and you hope or believe that science will prove your theory to be correct. Hoping for support, having faith in an unproven theory but ridiculing other theories because they are unproven, does not square with a scientific approach to any subject.

Instincts
DAVID: We all agree cells act intelligently, which may mean they are programmed to act that way automatically.

dhw: I’m delighted at this universal agreement, and wish all those who agree would acknowledge that intelligent behaviour “may mean” that the cells are intelligent.

DAVID: 50/50 chance.

So please stop dismissing it.

Sponges
QUOTE: Arendt emphasises that the sponges’ neuroid cells aren’t neurons. “We still think they don’t have a nervous system,” he says. But these cells may be coordinating the activities of the digestive cells. “We see a lot of vesicles in those neuroid cells that would indicate that they secrete something, which is a very strong indication for communication,” he says.

dhw: Cells coordinating the activities of other cells, and appearing to communicate (how else could they coordinate others?). Sounds like intelligence to me.

DAVID: And where did the information that makes them operate properly come from?

I suggest that they operate properly because they have the intelligence to observe and process information, and pass on their knowledge to others. But if you’re asking where their intelligence came from, I’m happy to grant that it may have come from your God.

New Ediacaran fossils
QUOTE: “The emerging tempo of Ediacaran evolution is defined by assemblages of organisms with increasing ecosystem complexity that are relatively stable on tens of millions of year time scales, with new assemblages appearing across much shorter, discrete intervals. At the current resolution, these transitions in the fossil record coincide with CIEs, suggestive of a potential causal relationship between environmental perturbations recorded in the carbon cycle and biological turnovers."

DAVID: You can wish for lost fossils, but it will remain a desperate wish.

The heading alone tells you that NEW fossils are being discovered all the time. And you don’t seem to have noticed the alternation of long periods of stasis with short bursts of activity that coincide with changes in the environment (= Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), as cell communities (organisms) respond to those changes.

DAVID: The Edicaran forms definitely advanced to macroscopic more complex forms and may have finally developed into early sponges, which represent first animal life. But that is it. What followed in the Cambrian were highly complex body forms with motility and complex organ systems and a crowning achievement, eyes! The gap remains despite this degree of research.

Yes, the Cambrian gap remains, but the increasing complexity of Edicaran organisms as they interact with environmental changes gives us a clue to the way evolution works. We are still left with the possibility of absent fossils and/or cellular intelligence, as opposed to your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every individual change in all species throughout life’s history just so that he can preprogramme or dabble humans plus their food.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 06, 2021, 15:11 (21 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: Yes God speciates in gaps like the Cambrian.

dhw: And that is why you can’t understand why, if his only purpose was to “evolve” humans he “evolved” all the species plus foods that had nothing to do with humans plus foods, and also “evolved” us humans plus foods, although he was perfectly capable of designing us directly.

You don't recognize God's right to chose His method.


David v Dawkins

DAVID: If we anticipate answers from ongoing research that will validate or invalidate, we haven't turned our backs on science.

dhw: You turn your back on science the moment you ridicule someone else’s theory which is just as unproven as your own, and you hope or believe that science will prove your theory to be correct. Hoping for support, having faith in an unproven theory but ridiculing other theories because they are unproven, does not square with a scientific approach to any subject.

I don't ridicule, by making my choices of reasonable theories.


Instincts
dhw: I’m delighted at this universal agreement, and wish all those who agree would acknowledge that intelligent behaviour “may mean” that the cells are intelligent.

DAVID: 50/50 chance.

dhw: So please stop dismissing it.

50/50 is not dismissal. You are so touchy!


New Ediacaran fossils

DAVID: You can wish for lost fossils, but it will remain a desperate wish.

dhw: The heading alone tells you that NEW fossils are being discovered all the time. And you don’t seem to have noticed the alternation of long periods of stasis with short bursts of activity that coincide with changes in the environment (= Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), as cell communities (organisms) respond to those changes.


The new fossils don't close the gap!!! Never have since Darwin 170 years ago


DAVID: The Edicaran forms definitely advanced to macroscopic more complex forms and may have finally developed into early sponges, which represent first animal life. But that is it. What followed in the Cambrian were highly complex body forms with motility and complex organ systems and a crowning achievement, eyes! The gap remains despite this degree of research.

dhw: Yes, the Cambrian gap remains, but the increasing complexity of Edicaran organisms as they interact with environmental changes gives us a clue to the way evolution works. We are still left with the possibility of absent fossils and/or cellular intelligence, as opposed to your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every individual change in all species throughout life’s history just so that he can preprogramme or dabble humans plus their food.

Minor Edicaran increases in complexity don't close the gap. As above: 'The new fossils don't close the gap!!! Never have since Darwin 170 years ago'

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, November 07, 2021, 13:54 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: Yes God speciates in gaps like the Cambrian.

dhw: And that is why you can’t understand why, if his only purpose was to “evolve” humans he “evolved” all the species plus foods that had nothing to do with humans plus foods, and also “evolved” us humans plus foods, although he was perfectly capable of designing us directly.

DAVID: You don't recognize God's right to chose His method.

Of course I do (if he exists). What I can’t recognize is one grain of logic in the choice of purpose and method which you keep trying to impose on your God!

David v Dawkins
DAVID: If we anticipate answers from ongoing research that will validate or invalidate, we haven't turned our backs on science.

dhw: You turn your back on science the moment you ridicule someone else’s theory which is just as unproven as your own, and you hope or believe that science will prove your theory to be correct. Hoping for support, having faith in an unproven theory but ridiculing other theories because they are unproven, does not square with a scientific approach to any subject.

DAVID: I don't ridicule, by making my choices of reasonable theories.

Under “Dopamine” you wrote: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.” I agree that this is not exactly ridicule. I’d better add to my list of unscientific approaches: “Not caring what other scientists think”.

Instincts
dhw: I’m delighted at this universal agreement, and wish all those who agree would acknowledge that intelligent behaviour “may mean” that the cells are intelligent.

DAVID: 50/50 chance.

dhw: So please stop dismissing it.

DAVID: 50/50 is not dismissal. You are so touchy!

But all your statements on the subject are absolute rejection of the theory!

New Ediacaran fossils
DAVID: You can wish for lost fossils, but it will remain a desperate wish.

dhw: The heading alone tells you that NEW fossils are being discovered all the time. And you don’t seem to have noticed the alternation of long periods of stasis with short bursts of activity that coincide with changes in the environment (= Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), as cell communities (organisms) respond to those changes.

DAVID: The new fossils don't close the gap!!! Never have since Darwin 170 years ago.

My point was that new fossils are being found all the time. There is nothing definitive yet, and ironically you even agreed with Dawkins that “new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory.” But you have simply closed the book when it comes to the Cambrian!

dhw: We are still left with the possibility of absent fossils and/or cellular intelligence, as opposed to your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every individual change in all species throughout life’s history just so that he can preprogramme or dabble humans plus their food.

DAVID: Minor Edicaran increases in complexity don't close the gap. As above: 'The new fossils don't close the gap!!! Never have since Darwin 170 years ago.

All agreed, but hardly evidence of divine preprogramming or dabbling in order to fulfil the one and only aim of designing humans plus their food.

Strange changes in DNA form
DAVID: the appearance of New World monkeys is estimated at 35-70 million years ago. Gaps are everywhere.

And this is a point all too easily glossed over. In the history of life on Earth, even 35-70 million years is peanuts. We are amazed at what has happened in the last hundred years, but our minds simply cannot cope with the actual figures: millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions of years – and yet you expect fossils of every form that ever existed!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 07, 2021, 15:08 (20 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: You don't recognize God's right to chose His method.

dhw: Of course I do (if he exists). What I can’t recognize is one grain of logic in the choice of purpose and method which you keep trying to impose on your God!

No you don't. History tells we came from bacteria under God's chosen mode of creation in my belief.


David v Dawkins

DAVID: I don't ridicule, by making my choices of reasonable theories.

dhw: Under “Dopamine” you wrote: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.” I agree that this is not exactly ridicule. I’d better add to my list of unscientific approaches: “Not caring what other scientists think”.

What do these statements out of context prove? I anticipate new findings and will adjust my theories as necessary.


New Ediacaran fossils
DAVID: You can wish for lost fossils, but it will remain a desperate wish.

dhw: The heading alone tells you that NEW fossils are being discovered all the time. And you don’t seem to have noticed the alternation of long periods of stasis with short bursts of activity that coincide with changes in the environment (= Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), as cell communities (organisms) respond to those changes.

DAVID: The new fossils don't close the gap!!! Never have since Darwin 170 years ago.

dhw: My point was that new fossils are being found all the time. There is nothing definitive yet, and ironically you even agreed with Dawkins that “new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory.” But you have simply closed the book when it comes to the Cambrian!

When the precursors appear I'll adapt to a new theory. I view your faint hope for dramatic fossils as a closed book also.


dhw: We are still left with the possibility of absent fossils and/or cellular intelligence, as opposed to your God preprogramming or personally dabbling every individual change in all species throughout life’s history just so that he can preprogramme or dabble humans plus their food.

DAVID: Minor Edicaran increases in complexity don't close the gap. As above: 'The new fossils don't close the gap!!! Never have since Darwin 170 years ago.

dhw: All agreed, but hardly evidence of divine preprogramming or dabbling in order to fulfil the one and only aim of designing humans plus their food.

The gap is an enormous evidence for a designer.


Strange changes in DNA form
DAVID: the appearance of New World monkeys is estimated at 35-70 million years ago. Gaps are everywhere.

dhw: And this is a point all too easily glossed over. In the history of life on Earth, even 35-70 million years is peanuts. We are amazed at what has happened in the last hundred years, but our minds simply cannot cope with the actual figures: millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions of years – and yet you expect fossils of every form that ever existed!

Nice gloss, yourself. Gaps are everywhere and you wish them away. Only disappeared gaps will help you.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, November 08, 2021, 11:34 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: You don't recognize God's right to chose His method.

dhw: Of course I do (if he exists). What I can’t recognize is one grain of logic in the choice of purpose and method which you keep trying to impose on your God!
See “Giraffe plumbing" for the rest of the argument.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: I don't ridicule, by making my choices of reasonable theories.

dhw: Under “Dopamine” you wrote: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.” I agree that this is not exactly ridicule. I’d better add to my list of unscientific approaches: “Not caring what other scientists think”.

DAVID: What do these statements out of context prove? I anticipate new findings and will adjust my theories as necessary.

This exchange began when I pointed out that your rigid faith in your belief that all changes were automatic (“but agree not absolutely proven as yet”) was as unscientific as Dawkins’ faith/hope that one day his faith in “the natural” would also be proven. My point is that such hope/faith is unscientific, although you both like to think of yourselves as scientists.

New Ediacaran fossils
dhw: My point was that new fossils are being found all the time. There is nothing definitive yet, and ironically you even agreed with Dawkins that “new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory.” But you have simply closed the book when it comes to the Cambrian!

DAVID: When the precursors appear I'll adapt to a new theory. I view your faint hope for dramatic fossils as a closed book also.
There can never be a full record of precursors, just as there can never be proof that your God even exists – unless he introduces himself to us during or after our lives on Earth. That is why ALL these questions remain open to discussion, and I have not closed ANY books.

Strange changes in DNA form

DAVID: the appearance of New World monkeys is estimated at 35-70 million years ago. Gaps are everywhere.

dhw: […] millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions of years – and yet you expect fossils of every form that ever existed!

DAVID: Nice gloss, yourself. Gaps are everywhere and you wish them away. Only disappeared gaps will help you.

I don’t need help and I don’t wish for anything, because I do not have any fixed beliefs. I push alternatives to your rigid beliefs because I find them either unlikely or totally illogical. (See “Giraffe plumbing”). This applies to your illogical, anthropocentric theory of evolution, your confusion over our descent from bacteria and from species without precursors (Cambrian), your all-powerful God who can’t control or even correct errors in his design, and also to your rejection of logical alternatives solely on the grounds that they contradict your rigid beliefs!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, November 08, 2021, 14:41 (19 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: You don't recognize God's right to chose His method.

dhw: Of course I do (if he exists). What I can’t recognize is one grain of logic in the choice of purpose and method which you keep trying to impose on your God!

History shows what God did. Evolution occurred and God did it. I've imposed nothing but claim it is God's work. Your objections are about God, not my acceptance of His works.


David v Dawkins
DAVID: I don't ridicule, by making my choices of reasonable theories.

dhw: Under “Dopamine” you wrote: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.” I agree that this is not exactly ridicule. I’d better add to my list of unscientific approaches: “Not caring what other scientists think”.

DAVID: What do these statements out of context prove? I anticipate new findings and will adjust my theories as necessary.

dhw: This exchange began when I pointed out that your rigid faith in your belief that all changes were automatic (“but agree not absolutely proven as yet”) was as unscientific as Dawkins’ faith/hope that one day his faith in “the natural” would also be proven. My point is that such hope/faith is unscientific, although you both like to think of yourselves as scientists.

Both Dawkins and I might hope for findings that support our theories, but I know I'll change if required by new findings, and assume Dawkins will also,


New Ediacaran fossils
dhw: My point was that new fossils are being found all the time. There is nothing definitive yet, and ironically you even agreed with Dawkins that “new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory.” But you have simply closed the book when it comes to the Cambrian!

DAVID: When the precursors appear I'll adapt to a new theory. I view your faint hope for dramatic fossils as a closed book also.

dhw: There can never be a full record of precursors, just as there can never be proof that your God even exists – unless he introduces himself to us during or after our lives on Earth. That is why ALL these questions remain open to discussion, and I have not closed ANY books.

Thank you.


Strange changes in DNA form

DAVID: the appearance of New World monkeys is estimated at 35-70 million years ago. Gaps are everywhere.

dhw: […] millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions of years – and yet you expect fossils of every form that ever existed!

DAVID: Nice gloss, yourself. Gaps are everywhere and you wish them away. Only disappeared gaps will help you.

dhw: I don’t need help and I don’t wish for anything, because I do not have any fixed beliefs. I push alternatives to your rigid beliefs because I find them either unlikely or totally illogical. This applies to your illogical, anthropocentric theory of evolution, your confusion over our descent from bacteria and from species without precursors (Cambrian), your all-powerful God who can’t control or even correct errors in his design, and also to your rejection of logical alternatives solely on the grounds that they contradict your rigid beliefs!

The confusion about our descent from bacteria is your distortions of my thoughts presented here. Your amorphous thoughts about God introduce a very humanized form who then makes very human-like decisions. You have every right to present God that way, but since we each have our own image of God, we will debate

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, November 09, 2021, 07:28 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: You don't recognize God's right to chose His method.

dhw: Of course I do (if he exists). What I can’t recognize is one grain of logic in the choice of purpose and method which you keep trying to impose on your God!

DAVID: History shows what God did. Evolution occurred and God did it. I've imposed nothing but claim it is God's work. Your objections are about God, not my acceptance of His works.

You have imposed a single purpose (to design humans plus food) and a method (to design countless life forms and food that had no connection with humans plus food). See “Giraffe plumbing” for this and other illogicalities which you continue to dodge.

David v Dawkins
dhw: This exchange began when I pointed out that your rigid faith in your belief that all changes were automatic (“but agree not absolutely proven as yet”) was as unscientific as Dawkins’ faith/hope that one day his faith in “the natural” would also be proven. My point is that such hope/faith is unscientific, although you both like to think of yourselves as scientists.

DAVID: Both Dawkins and I might hope for findings that support our theories, but I know I'll change if required by new findings, and assume Dawkins will also.

Of course you will both change if there are findings that disprove your respective theories once and for all. Otherwise, you will both continue, in your unscientific way, to hope and have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored.

Strange changes in DNA form
DAVID: the appearance of New World monkeys is estimated at 35-70 million years ago. Gaps are everywhere.

dhw: […] millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions of years – and yet you expect fossils of every form that ever existed!

DAVID: Nice gloss, yourself. Gaps are everywhere and you wish them away. Only disappeared gaps will help you.

dhw: I don’t need help and I don’t wish for anything, because I do not have any fixed beliefs. I push alternatives to your rigid beliefs because I find them either unlikely or totally illogical. This applies to your illogical, anthropocentric theory of evolution, your confusion over our descent from bacteria and from species without precursors (Cambrian), your all-powerful God who can’t control or even correct errors in his design, and also to your rejection of logical alternatives solely on the grounds that they contradict your rigid beliefs!

DAVID: The confusion about our descent from bacteria is your distortions of my thoughts presented here.

What distortion? See “Giraffe plumbing”.

DAVID: Your amorphous thoughts about God introduce a very humanized form who then makes very human-like decisions.

They are not in the least amorphous: one is an experimental scientist with one goal, one is an experimental scientist eager to learn and come up with new ideas, and one wants to enjoy creating and watching his creations – in this case, I propose that his enjoyment will be greater if the spectacle is unpredictable, so he creates a free-for-all. Your silly “humanizing” argument has been demolished over and over again, not only by your own humanizations, but also by your agreement that we mimic him and that he probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

DAVID: the autonomic system runs body processes automatically, but this shows the brain keeps track of it all and can modulate responses. A very neat design. We are busy with our own external affairs, so our internal affairs need to run on their own, but have a backup the brain keeps and automatic eye on what's happening and avoid overreactions. Not by chance.

Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. These decisions, whether you like it or not, are made by the cells. If the brain keeps track, modulates, it is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 09, 2021, 14:50 (18 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: History shows what God did. Evolution occurred and God did it. I've imposed nothing but claim it is God's work. Your objections are about God, not my acceptance of His works.

dhw: You have imposed a single purpose (to design humans plus food) and a method (to design countless life forms and food that had no connection with humans plus food).

I simply see God's created history. Humans came last, didn't they


David v Dawkins

DAVID: Both Dawkins and I might hope for findings that support our theories, but I know I'll change if required by new findings, and assume Dawkins will also.

dhw: Of course you will both change if there are findings that disprove your respective theories once and for all. Otherwise, you will both continue, in your unscientific way, to hope and have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored.

My rejection of your pet theories is not ridicule, nor do I ignore them. Are you pouting?


Strange changes in DNA form

DAVID: Your amorphous thoughts about God introduce a very humanized form who then makes very human-like decisions.

dhw: They are not in the least amorphous: one is an experimental scientist with one goal, one is an experimental scientist eager to learn and come up with new ideas, and one wants to enjoy creating and watching his creations

God is not an experimental scientist!!! God has no need to experiment.

dhw: in this case, I propose that his enjoyment will be greater if the spectacle is unpredictable, so he creates a free-for-all.

God does not need to create His own enjoyment!! I assume He enjoys creating itself.

dhw: Your silly “humanizing” argument has been demolished over and over again, not only by your own humanizations, but also by your agreement that we mimic him and that he probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

Repeating my guesses about God as if I think they are factual, when I have repeatedly told you they are GUESSES.


Sensing autonomic activity
QUOTE: Rolls’ study shows “there is a driver,” he said. “There is someone who decides whether to hit the brake or the gas pedal.”

DAVID: the autonomic system runs body processes automatically, but this shows the brain keeps track of it all and can modulate responses. A very neat design. We are busy with our own external affairs, so our internal affairs need to run on their own, but have a backup the brain keeps and automatic eye on what's happening and avoid overreactions. Not by chance.

dhw: Rolls opts for a driver who makes decisions. These decisions, whether you like it or not, are made by the cells. If the brain keeps track, modulates, it is presumably the “driver” that controls and takes decisions. And the brain consists of various communities of cells working together. Decision-making is not an automatic action.

It is if each stimulus has an automatic response. That is the way living biochemistry works.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 11:46 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
DAVID: History shows what God did. Evolution occurred and God did it. I've imposed nothing but claim it is God's work. Your objections are about God, not my acceptance of His works.

dhw: You have imposed a single purpose (to design humans plus food) and a method (to design countless life forms and food that had no connection with humans plus food).

DAVID: I simply see God's created history. Humans came last, didn't they

Last so far. Unfortunately, you have forgotten the rest of your history: namely, the countless life forms and foods he specially designed, most of which had no connection with humans (plus food) although humans (plus food) were his one and only goal. Such lapses of memory are now occurring in every post.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: Both Dawkins and I might hope for findings that support our theories, but I know I'll change if required by new findings, and assume Dawkins will also.

dhw: Of course you will both change if there are findings that disprove your respective theories once and for all. Otherwise, you will both continue, in your unscientific way, to hope and have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored.

DAVID: My rejection of your pet theories is not ridicule, nor do I ignore them. Are you pouting?

OK. Both you and Dawkins have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored or dismissed. And I still say such closed minds denote an unscientific attitude towards the subject. This even applies to different forms of theism. Look at your dismissive responses:

DAVID: God is not an experimental scientist!!! God has no need to experiment.
DAVID: God does not need to create His own enjoyment!! I assume He enjoys creating itself.

How do you know what your God needs?

dhw: Your silly “humanizing” argument has been demolished over and over again, not only by your own humanizations, but also by your agreement that we mimic him and that he probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

DAVID: Repeating my guesses about God as if I think they are factual, when I have repeatedly told you they are GUESSES.

See above for your authoritative guesses, reinforced by multiple exclamation marks. You only downgrade your positive statements when it turns out that they can be used to support different theories from your own, which are also guesses.

When continents appeared
QUOTE: We conclude that the first large continents were making their way above sea level around 3 billion years ago—much earlier than the 2.5 billion years estimated by previous research.

No one would question the rise of the continents or its importance. The sensational news, repeated many times, is the authors’ new “estimate”. Well, it may surprise you to know that my own estimate is 2.7654321 million years ago. However, I am applying for a grant to do further research into this, and I hope I will have your backing.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 14:19 (17 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: I simply see God's created history. Humans came last, didn't they

dhw: Last so far. Unfortunately, you have forgotten the rest of your history: namely, the countless life forms and foods he specially designed, most of which had no connection with humans (plus food) although humans (plus food) were his one and only goal. Such lapses of memory are now occurring in every post.

It is not my history, but God's actions. God, as Creator, created evolution, and you don't accept it. "His one and only goal" defines God's purposeful activity. Since humans are here, they represent His purposeful activity.


David v Dawkins


DAVID: My rejection of your pet theories is not ridicule, nor do I ignore them. Are you pouting?

dhw: OK. Both you and Dawkins have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored or dismissed.

I've just said I don't ridicule or ignore! My non-acceptance/dismissal of you theories is that I cannot logically reach an agreement with your assessments.


DAVID: God is not an experimental scientist!!! God has no need to experiment.
DAVID: God does not need to create His own enjoyment!! I assume He enjoys creating itself.

dhw: How do you know what your God needs?

On the basis of accepting God as the Creator, He knows fully how to create, and is purposeful in reaching His desired goals, whatever they might be.


When continents appeared
QUOTE: We conclude that the first large continents were making their way above sea level around 3 billion years ago—much earlier than the 2.5 billion years estimated by previous research.

dhw: No one would question the rise of the continents or its importance. The sensational news, repeated many times, is the authors’ new “estimate”. Well, it may surprise you to know that my own estimate is 2.7654321 million years ago. However, I am applying for a grant to do further research into this, and I hope I will have your backing.

I'm impressed by your depth of knowledge of the evolution of Earth!!

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 12:17 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
Points covered under “Giraffe plumbing” and “theodicy”.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: My rejection of your pet theories is not ridicule, nor do I ignore them. Are you pouting?

dhw: OK. Both you and Dawkins have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored or dismissed.

DAVID: I've just said I don't ridicule or ignore! My non-acceptance/dismissal of you theories is that I cannot logically reach an agreement with your assessments

You reject outright the concept of cellular intelligence which is capable of major innovation. Dawkins rejects outright your concept of a designer God. You reject outright his faith in the “natural” as opposed to the “supernatural”. I say that such subjective rigidity in both your cases is unscientific.

DAVID: God is not an experimental scientist!!! God has no need to experiment.
DAVID: God does not need to create His own enjoyment!! I assume He enjoys creating itself.

dhw: How do you know what your God needs?

DAVID: On the basis of accepting God as the Creator, He knows fully how to create, and is purposeful in reaching His desired goals, whatever they might be.

If God exists, I agree. All of my alternatives to your illogical theory show him to be purposeful, and two have him knowing how to create what he wants to create (a system - eventually leading to humans - that will provide him with the pleasure of exploring new ideas as he goes along, or a free-for-all system that will provide him with enjoyment through its unpredictability), while one (experimentation) has him purposefully working towards the desired goal you attribute to him.

Human evolution: another huge gap
QUOTE: "...arguments that one or a few random mutations magically created humanity’s advanced intellectual abilities strain credulity. The origin of human cognition and speech would have required many changes that represent a suite of complex interdependent traits. Two leading evolutionists writing in a prominent text on primate origins explain that human language could not evolve in an abrupt manner, genetically speaking, because many genetic changes would be necessary

You and I have long since abandoned random mutations as the cause of innovations. And I proposed long ago that the development of language and of the anatomy necessary for extra expression would have come about as our ancestors found that the original sounds they made were insufficient to convey the new thoughts and observations that came with increased experience of different conditions. Of course it would have been gradual (but that is a very flexible term) and not "abrupt". If you accept the theory that cells can restructure themselves in response to new requirements, you have a perfectly logical explanation for the physical changes.

Quote: “We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from… australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior."

So different hominins/homos evolved independently of one another. What do you think your God was playing at, if he only wanted sapiens?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 19:08 (16 days ago) @ dhw

David v Dawkins

DAVID: I've just said I don't ridicule or ignore! My non-acceptance/dismissal of you theories is that I cannot logically reach an agreement with your assessments

dhw: You reject outright the concept of cellular intelligence which is capable of major innovation. Dawkins rejects outright your concept of a designer God. You reject outright his faith in the “natural” as opposed to the “supernatural”. I say that such subjective rigidity in both your cases is unscientific.

I have the right to consider both sides and choose one. Sorry you are incapable of doing it.

dhw: How do you know what your God needs?

DAVID: On the basis of accepting God as the Creator, He knows fully how to create, and is purposeful in reaching His desired goals, whatever they might be.

dhw: If God exists, I agree. All of my alternatives to your illogical theory show him to be purposeful, and two have him knowing how to create what he wants to create (a system - eventually leading to humans - that will provide him with the pleasure of exploring new ideas as he goes along, or a free-for-all system that will provide him with enjoyment through its unpredictability), while one (experimentation) has him purposefully working towards the desired goal you attribute to him.

Once again your view of God is full of human purposes, not direct action.


Human evolution: another huge gap
QUOTE: "...arguments that one or a few random mutations magically created humanity’s advanced intellectual abilities strain credulity. The origin of human cognition and speech would have required many changes that represent a suite of complex interdependent traits. Two leading evolutionists writing in a prominent text on primate origins explain that human language could not evolve in an abrupt manner, genetically speaking, because many genetic changes would be necessary

dhw: You and I have long since abandoned random mutations as the cause of innovations. And I proposed long ago that the development of language and of the anatomy necessary for extra expression would have come about as our ancestors found that the original sounds they made were insufficient to convey the new thoughts and observations that came with increased experience of different conditions. Of course it would have been gradual (but that is a very flexible term) and not "abrupt". If you accept the theory that cells can restructure themselves in response to new requirements, you have a perfectly logical explanation for the physical changes.

Cells make minor epigenetic adaptation. We agree with that. But you have neatly avoided the size of the gap from Arthropithicus to Erectus, which requires a designer. Cells don't have the mental power to make complex designs.


Quote: “We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from… australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior."

dhw: So different hominins/homos evolved independently of one another. What do you think your God was playing at, if he only wanted sapiens?

I assume God used epigenetic adaptations as Hominins evolved under His designs. Previously I've pointed out how different forms with interbreeding contributed advantages. His desire to finally produce sapiens obviously did not preclude his designs of others. God does what He wants to does for His own reasons. You are allowed tov question Him all you wish. I accept what He has done.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, November 12, 2021, 08:39 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

David v Dawkins
DAVID: I have the right to consider both sides and choose one. Sorry you are incapable of doing it.

Of course both you and Dawkins have the right to tell one another that your own theory is right, the other’s theory is wrong, and you hope/believe science will prove it. My view is that if a question is unresolved, a scientist should wait for more evidence before proclaiming the truth of his theory and the invalidity of someone else’s.

dhw: How do you know what your God needs?

DAVID: On the basis of accepting God as the Creator, He knows fully how to create, and is purposeful in reaching His desired goals, whatever they might be.

dhw: If God exists, I agree. All of my alternatives to your illogical theory show him to be purposeful […]

DAVID: Once again your view of God is full of human purposes, not direct action.

I would regard any form of experimentation as direct action, as is the creation of a free-for-all. I do not regard the design of countless life forms that had no connection with humans as “direct action” for the design of humans, which you claim was your God’s one and only purpose.

Human evolution: another huge gap
QUOTE: "Two leading evolutionists….exolain that language could not evolve in an abrupt manner, genetically speaking, because many genetic changes would be necessary

dhw: […] Of course it would have been gradual (but that is a very flexible term) and not "abrupt". If you accept the theory that cells can restructure themselves in response to new requirements, you have a perfectly logical explanation for the physical changes.

DAVID: Cells make minor epigenetic adaptation. We agree with that. But you have neatly avoided the size of the gap from Arthropithicus to Erectus, which requires a designer. Cells don't have the mental power to make complex designs.

Your usual authoritative statement of your belief as if it were a fact. The article suggested that Australopithecus and Sapiens were very different from one another, so I suggested that they may have evolved independently. Then I asked why your God would have designed Australopithecus if all he wanted was sapiens. No reply.

Human neurons different
QUOTE: "'We think that humans have evolved out of this building plan that was previously restricting the size of cortex, and they figured out a way to become more energetically efficient, so you spend less ATP per volume compared to other species," Harnett says." (David’s bold)

I find the wording somewhat surprising. “They” can only mean humans, but does he really believe that humans sat down and consciously fiddled with their own neurons? Of course, you will say God popped in to do it, or he preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, along with the rest of evolution. A different explanation would be that intelligent cell communities detect problems and find solutions.

DAVID: His desire to finally produce sapiens obviously did not preclude his designs of others. God does what He wants to does for His own reasons. You are allowed to question Him all you wish. I accept what He has done.

Very kind of you, but I am in fact questioning you, because if your God did what he wanted to do, and he only wanted to design sapiens, the question arises as to why he designed other homos. You don’t “accept” that he designed other homos - you believe he designed other homos, and you don’t know why. So it’s possible that he didn’t design them, but that they all found their own means of separate development, or that sapiens was not his one and only purpose.

Free will
QUOTE: “To base the hefty issue of free will on experiments that measure neuronal activity when people move fingers to push a button should hardly count as decisive. Most of the choices we make in life are complex, multi-layered decisions that often take a long time."

DAVID: All I can say is I agree. Libet was refuted long ago.

We’ve tackled the subject many times. I remain surprised that anyone in this field should confine the argument to what happens in the brain. The other question is what control I have over the influences that shape my decisions: i.e. heredity, environment, upbringing, chance events, disease – all of which are outside my control. We needn’t delve any further, as we’re only going back over well trodden ground.

Magic embryology
DAVID: […] the instructional information always produces the same results with minor variations. This is a pure example of cellular automaticity. Automatic sameness is automaticity in fetal production.

Once a pattern is established successfully, it is repeated in all walks of life. It has to run automatically. But when conditions change, organisms must change or die out. Evolution could not have taken place if every living creature had stuck to its inherited form! You always leap in when systems are established, but every new system had an origin, and every existing system is potentially liable to change if conditions change. That is when I suggest that automaticity gives way to autonomy.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, November 12, 2021, 16:12 (15 days ago) @ dhw

David v Dawkins
DAVID: I have the right to consider both sides and choose one. Sorry you are incapable of doing it.

dhw: Of course both you and Dawkins have the right to tell one another that your own theory is right, the other’s theory is wrong, and you hope/believe science will prove it. My view is that if a question is unresolved, a scientist should wait for more evidence before proclaiming the truth of his theory and the invalidity of someone else’s.

Preferring one theory over another produces debate.


Human evolution: another huge gap

DAVID: Cells make minor epigenetic adaptation. We agree with that. But you have neatly avoided the size of the gap from Arthropithicus to Erectus, which requires a designer. Cells don't have the mental power to make complex designs.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement of your belief as if it were a fact. The article suggested that Australopithecus and Sapiens were very different from one another, so I suggested that they may have evolved independently. Then I asked why your God would have designed Australopithecus if all he wanted was sapiens. No reply.

God evolved us from earlier forms in a stepwise manor.


Human neurons different
QUOTE: "'We think that humans have evolved out of this building plan that was previously restricting the size of cortex, and they figured out a way to become more energetically efficient, so you spend less ATP per volume compared to other species," Harnett says." (David’s bold)

dhw: I find the wording somewhat surprising. “They” can only mean humans, but does he really believe that humans sat down and consciously fiddled with their own neurons? Of course, you will say God popped in to do it, or he preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, along with the rest of evolution. A different explanation would be that intelligent cell communities detect problems and find solutions.

What he means is very energetic upright humans had to evolve a brain using less energy.


DAVID: His desire to finally produce sapiens obviously did not preclude his designs of others. God does what He wants to does for His own reasons. You are allowed to question Him all you wish. I accept what He has done.

dhw: Very kind of you, but I am in fact questioning you, because if your God did what he wanted to do, and he only wanted to design sapiens, the question arises as to why he designed other homos. You don’t “accept” that he designed other homos - you believe he designed other homos, and you don’t know why. So it’s possible that he didn’t design them, but that they all found their own means of separate development, or that sapiens was not his one and only purpose.

Once again you are questioning God's logic. I can't help you.


Magic embryology
DAVID: […] the instructional information always produces the same results with minor variations. This is a pure example of cellular automaticity. Automatic sameness is automaticity in fetal production.

dhw: Once a pattern is established successfully, it is repeated in all walks of life. It has to run automatically. But when conditions change, organisms must change or die out. Evolution could not have taken place if every living creature had stuck to its inherited form! You always leap in when systems are established, but every new system had an origin, and every existing system is potentially liable to change if conditions change. That is when I suggest that automaticity gives way to autonomy.

It is God designing new forms

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, November 13, 2021, 07:52 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

David v Dawkins
DAVID: I have the right to consider both sides and choose one. Sorry you are incapable of doing it.

dhw: Of course both you and Dawkins have the right to tell one another that your own theory is right, the other’s theory is wrong, and you hope/believe science will prove it. My view is that if a question is unresolved, a scientist should wait for more evidence before proclaiming the truth of his theory and the invalidity of someone else’s.

DAVID: Preferring one theory over another produces debate.

There is no debate when you say: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.”

Human evolution: another huge gap
DAVID: Cells make minor epigenetic adaptation. We agree with that. But you have neatly avoided the size of the gap from Arthropithicus to Erectus, which requires a designer. Cells don't have the mental power to make complex designs.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement of your belief as if it were a fact. The article suggested that Australopithecus and Sapiens were very different from one another, so I suggested that they may have evolved independently. Then I asked why your God would have designed Australopithecus if all he wanted was sapiens. No reply.

DAVID: God evolved us from earlier forms in a stepwise manor.

The article says Australopithecus was very different from us, so maybe he wasn’t a step on the way to us. I have no idea. I only know that you are convinced that your God created species that had no precursors (Cambrian) and we are descended from them, and you have no idea why a God who is capable of creating species with no precursors didn’t create us in the same way if we were his one and only purpose. (See Genesis).

Human neurons different
QUOTE: "'We think that humans have evolved out of this building plan that was previously restricting the size of cortex, and they figured out a way to become more energetically efficient, so you spend less ATP per volume compared to other species," Harnett says." (David’s bold)

dhw: I find the wording somewhat surprising. “They” can only mean humans, but does he really believe that humans sat down and consciously fiddled with their own neurons? Of course, you will say God popped in to do it, or he preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, along with the rest of evolution. A different explanation would be that intelligent cell communities detect problems and find solutions.

DAVID: What he means is very energetic upright humans had to evolve a brain using less energy.

Perfectly acceptable reasoning, but the great debate concerns how this was achieved. You say God preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform an operation on a collection of the pre-sapiens homos he had already specially designed as part of his step by step design of the only species he wanted to design. I propose cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) responding to new requirements.

On the question of why your God didn’t design humans directly, see “Giraffe plumbing”.

Magic embryology
DAVID: […] the instructional information always produces the same results with minor variations. This is a pure example of cellular automaticity. Automatic sameness is automaticity in fetal production.

dhw: Once a pattern is established successfully, it is repeated in all walks of life. It has to run automatically. But when conditions change, organisms must change or die out. Evolution could not have taken place if every living creature had stuck to its inherited form! You always leap in when systems are established, but every new system had an origin, and every existing system is potentially liable to change if conditions change. That is when I suggest that automaticity gives way to autonomy.

DAVID: It is God designing new forms.

I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

Metamorphosis
DAVID: The key is the concept of irreducible complexity. If its presence is recognized in any animal process as in metamorphosis, Darwinism is dead.

We have long since jettisoned Darwin’s theory of random mutations. I have no idea why or how this process developed. Presumably you think it was all your God’s doing, so please explain why your God chose such a roundabout method of producing butterflies when his sole purpose was to design Homo sapiens plus food.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 13, 2021, 14:52 (14 days ago) @ dhw

David v Dawkins

DAVID: Preferring one theory over another produces debate.

dhw: There is no debate when you say: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.”

The debate is what Dawkins gets wrong when you encouraged me..


Human evolution: another huge gap

DAVID: God evolved us from earlier forms in a stepwise manor.

dhw: The article says Australopithecus was very different from us, so maybe he wasn’t a step on the way to us. I have no idea. I only know that you are convinced that your God created species that had no precursors (Cambrian) and we are descended from them, and you have no idea why a God who is capable of creating species with no precursors didn’t create us in the same way if we were his one and only purpose. (See Genesis).

You follow Genesis, I don't. My 'idea' is God c hose His method which creates an illusion of evolution.


Human neurons different
QUOTE: "'We think that humans have evolved out of this building plan that was previously restricting the size of cortex, and they figured out a way to become more energetically efficient, so you spend less ATP per volume compared to other species," Harnett says." (David’s bold)

dhw: I find the wording somewhat surprising. “They” can only mean humans, but does he really believe that humans sat down and consciously fiddled with their own neurons? Of course, you will say God popped in to do it, or he preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, along with the rest of evolution. A different explanation would be that intelligent cell communities detect problems and find solutions.

DAVID: What he means is very energetic upright humans had to evolve a brain using less energy.

dhw: Perfectly acceptable reasoning, but the great debate concerns how this was achieved. You say God preprogrammed it 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to perform an operation on a collection of the pre-sapiens homos he had already specially designed as part of his step by step design of the only species he wanted to design. I propose cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) responding to new requirements.

dhw: On the question of why your God didn’t design humans directly, see “Giraffe plumbing”.

Yes, God designs is my position.


Magic embryology
DAVID: […] the instructional information always produces the same results with minor variations. This is a pure example of cellular automaticity. Automatic sameness is automaticity in fetal production.

dhw: Once a pattern is established successfully, it is repeated in all walks of life. It has to run automatically. But when conditions change, organisms must change or die out. Evolution could not have taken place if every living creature had stuck to its inherited form! You always leap in when systems are established, but every new system had an origin, and every existing system is potentially liable to change if conditions change. That is when I suggest that automaticity gives way to autonomy.

DAVID: It is God designing new forms.

dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

If autonomous intelligence exists. I still have God as designer.


Metamorphosis
DAVID: The key is the concept of irreducible complexity. If its presence is recognized in any animal process as in metamorphosis, Darwinism is dead.

dhw: We have long since jettisoned Darwin’s theory of random mutations. I have no idea why or how this process developed. Presumably you think it was all your God’s doing, so please explain why your God chose such a roundabout method of producing butterflies when his sole purpose was to design Homo sapiens plus food.

Butterflies play a major role in pollination, part of the ecosystems that support all life. You've neatly skipped over the problem of metamorphosis. There is no way it could develop naturally is the whole point of the article. What is your theory about it as such a roundabout method? You've said you are blank on the subject. Just ignore it? It exists and must have a cause. I'd like to hear your version.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 11:12 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

David v Dawkins
DAVID: Preferring one theory over another produces debate.

dhw: There is no debate when you say: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.”

DAVID: The debate is what Dawkins gets wrong when you encouraged me..

The debate is over your dismissal of a theory (cellular intelligence) as if your opinion was a fact. This dismissal of theories which you do not believe is common to theists and atheists alike. If you think Dawkins’ opinion is only worth ignoring – and he thinks the same about yours – there is no debate but simply a blinkered and unscientific approach to the subject.

Human evolution: another huge gap
DAVID: God evolved us from earlier forms in a stepwise manor.

dhw: The article says Australopithecus was very different from us, so maybe he wasn’t a step on the way to us. I have no idea. I only know that you are convinced that your God created species that had no precursors (Cambrian) and we are descended from them, and you have no idea why a God who is capable of creating species with no precursors didn’t create us in the same way if we were his one and only purpose. (See Genesis).

DAVID: You follow Genesis, I don't. My 'idea' is God chose His method which creates an illusion of evolution.

I don’t follow Genesis! I’m an agnostic and an evolutionist! I’m merely pointing out that Genesis proposes God’s direct design of H. sapiens and of all those life forms connected with him. And I am asking why you think instead he specially designed lots of other unconnected species and foods, and designed us in lots of stages, although you are sure that he is capable of designing brand new species without any precursors (the Cambrian). You don’t know why. See “Giraffe plumbing

Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

DAVID: If autonomous intelligence exists. I still have God as designer.

I’m delighted at this more cautious approach to the existence of cellular intelligence. If it exists, I’ll settle on 50/50 for God as the designer. I’m an agnostic.

Metamorphosis

DAVID: The key is the concept of irreducible complexity. If its presence is recognized in any animal process as in metamorphosis, Darwinism is dead.

dhw: We have long since jettisoned Darwin’s theory of random mutations. I have no idea why or how this process developed. Presumably you think it was all your God’s doing, so please explain why your God chose such a roundabout method of producing butterflies when his sole purpose was to design Homo sapiens plus food.

DAVID: Butterflies play a major role in pollination, part of the ecosystems that support all life.

Nobody would question that. But why would your God choose such a roundabout way of producing them if he is capable of producing species directly and his only goal was to design humans plus their food? It’s basically the same question as why he didn’t create humans directly if we were his only purpose.

DAVID: You've neatly skipped over the problem of metamorphosis. There is no way it could develop naturally is the whole point of the article. What is your theory about it as such a roundabout method? You've said you are blank on the subject. Just ignore it? It exists and must have a cause. I'd like to hear your version.

The problem of metamorphosis relates to all forms of “babies”. Your breakfast egg, protected by its shell, would turn into a chicken. The mammal’s eggs are protected inside the mother. The acorn grows into an oak. They are all weird in their own way. They may have evolved “naturally” – by which I mean through cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God), and not through random mutations – or supernaturally (through your God). Either way, I accept that they are intelligently designed, and clearly the aim of each design was survival. But I have not offered any over-all theory because I have no idea how such methods could have evolved. If there are things we don’t understand, and if we can’t think of any logical explanation, I feel it is better not to present and stand by a fixed opinion. Don’t you?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 15:44 (13 days ago) @ dhw

David v Dawkins

DAVID: The debate is what Dawkins gets wrong when you encouraged me..

dhw: The debate is over your dismissal of a theory (cellular intelligence) as if your opinion was a fact. This dismissal of theories which you do not believe is common to theists and atheists alike. If you think Dawkins’ opinion is only worth ignoring – and he thinks the same about yours – there is no debate but simply a blinkered and unscientific approach to the subject.

Now you don't like the fact each of us has opinions. You have yours


Human evolution: another huge gap

dhw: I don’t follow Genesis! I’m an agnostic and an evolutionist! I’m merely pointing out that Genesis proposes God’s direct design of H. sapiens and of all those life forms connected with him. And I am asking why you think instead he specially designed lots of other unconnected species and foods, and designed us in lots of stages, although you are sure that he is capable of designing brand new species without any precursors (the Cambrian). You don’t know why.

I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in stages from bacteria. But that is His obvious choice of a creation process.


Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

DAVID: If autonomous intelligence exists. I still have God as designer.

dhw: I’m delighted at this more cautious approach to the existence of cellular intelligence. If it exists, I’ll settle on 50/50 for God as the designer. I’m an agnostic.

Finally! I jave my 50, you have oursr.


Metamorphosis

dhw: But why would your God choose such a roundabout way of producing them if he is capable of producing species directly and his only goal was to design humans plus their food? It’s basically the same question as why he didn’t create humans directly if we were his only purpose.

Why can't God have His preferred choice of a creation mechanism that is stepwise? Metamorphosis requires a designing mind, doesn't it.


DAVID: You've neatly skipped over the problem of metamorphosis. There is no way it could develop naturally is the whole point of the article. What is your theory about it as such a roundabout method? You've said you are blank on the subject. Just ignore it? It exists and must have a cause. I'd like to hear your version.

dhw: The problem of metamorphosis relates to all forms of “babies”. Your breakfast egg, protected by its shell, would turn into a chicken. The mammal’s eggs are protected inside the mother. The acorn grows into an oak. They are all weird in their own way. They may have evolved “naturally” – by which I mean through cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God), and not through random mutations – or supernaturally (through your God). Either way, I accept that they are intelligently designed, and clearly the aim of each design was survival. But I have not offered any over-all theory because I have no idea how such methods could have evolved. If there are things we don’t understand, and if we can’t think of any logical explanation, I feel it is better not to present and stand by a fixed opinion. Don’t you?

The above is your great agnostic example of not accepting God. Accepting the need for a designer then requires the next step, a designing mind we call God. Just accept the designing mind concept, and no further.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, November 15, 2021, 12:14 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

Moved from “Cellular intelligence” as you switched the subject to survival:
Sensing autonomic activity
DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

dhw: […] As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

DAVID: Flippers are a requirement for survival in a watery environment. So God designed them helping mammals become aquatic.

It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

David v Dawkins
DAVID: The debate is what Dawkins gets wrong when you encouraged me..

dhw: The debate is over your dismissal of a theory (cellular intelligence) as if your opinion was a fact. This dismissal of theories which you do not believe is common to theists and atheists alike. If you think Dawkins’ opinion is only worth ignoring – and he thinks the same about yours – there is no debate but simply a blinkered and unscientific approach to the subject.

DAVID: Now you don't like the fact each of us has opinions. You have yours

I am not against opinions! I am against what amounts to biogotry (e.g. The God Delusion), whether theistic or atheistic! (This is getting too close to ad hominems for my liking, and I think we should drop the subject!)

Human evolution: another huge gap
DAVID: I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in stages from bacteria. But that is His obvious choice of a creation process.

As a believer in evolution and an agnostic, I have no problem with the idea that your God (if he exists) chose evolution in stages as his method of fulfilling whatever may have been his purpose! The problem that I have is with your interpretation of evolution, as discussed under “Giraffe plumbing”.

Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

For some reason, you digressed from this important distinction, and returned to the 50/50 game.

Metamorphosis
dhw: The problem of metamorphosis relates to all forms of “babies”. Your breakfast egg, protected by its shell, would turn into a chicken. The mammal’s eggs are protected inside the mother. The acorn grows into an oak. They are all weird in their own way. They may have evolved “naturally” – by which I mean through cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God), and not through random mutations – or supernaturally (through your God). Either way, I accept that they are intelligently designed, and clearly the aim of each design was survival. But I have not offered any over-all theory because I have no idea how such methods could have evolved. If there are things we don’t understand, and if we can’t think of any logical explanation, I feel it is better not to present and stand by a fixed opinion. Don’t you?

DAVID: The above is your great agnostic example of not accepting God. Accepting the need for a designer then requires the next step, a designing mind we call God. Just accept the designing mind concept, and no further.

When I say “perhaps designed by your God” and “through your God”, I am explaining a possible God’s possible role in metamorphosis and evolution in general. This is not a matter of “not accepting God”. It is you who insist on going further and offering a fixed but illogical interpretation of evolution that goes far, far beyond the designing mind concept (see “Giraffe plumbing”).

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, November 15, 2021, 15:29 (12 days ago) @ dhw

Moved from “Cellular intelligence” as you switched the subject to survival:
Sensing autonomic activity
DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

dhw: […] As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

DAVID: Flippers are a requirement for survival in a watery environment. So God designed them helping mammals become aquatic.

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

Human evolution: another huge gap
DAVID: I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in stages from bacteria. But that is His obvious choice of a creation process.

dhw: As a believer in evolution and an agnostic, I have no problem with the idea that your God (if he exists) chose evolution in stages as his method of fulfilling whatever may have been his purpose! The problem that I have is with your interpretation of evolution, as discussed under “Giraffe plumbing”.

We disagree about the important implications of the appearance of humans in evolution. Adler, a leading philosopher of religion, is my guide. You know his views.


Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

dhw: For some reason, you digressed from this important distinction, and returned to the 50/50 game.

The reason is I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.


Metamorphosis
dhw: The problem of metamorphosis relates to all forms of “babies”. Your breakfast egg, protected by its shell, would turn into a chicken. The mammal’s eggs are protected inside the mother. The acorn grows into an oak. They are all weird in their own way. They may have evolved “naturally” – by which I mean through cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God), and not through random mutations – or supernaturally (through your God). Either way, I accept that they are intelligently designed, and clearly the aim of each design was survival. But I have not offered any over-all theory because I have no idea how such methods could have evolved. If there are things we don’t understand, and if we can’t think of any logical explanation, I feel it is better not to present and stand by a fixed opinion. Don’t you?

DAVID: The above is your great agnostic example of not accepting God. Accepting the need for a designer then requires the next step, a designing mind we call God. Just accept the designing mind concept, and no further.

dhw: When I say “perhaps designed by your God” and “through your God”, I am explaining a possible God’s possible role in metamorphosis and evolution in general. This is not a matter of “not accepting God”. It is you who insist on going further and offering a fixed but illogical interpretation of evolution that goes far, far beyond the designing mind concept (see “Giraffe plumbing”).

I don't see your problem. God, as designer, can create anything He wishes. An endpoint of humans through designed evolution was God's wish.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 11:27 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

Moved from “Cellular intelligence” as you switched the subject to survival:

DAVID: I'll stick to my view survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage.

dhw: […] As for survival, do you or do you not agree that the development of flippers from legs was an aid to survival and a factor in changing pre-whales into whales (= speciation)?

DAVID: Flippers are a requirement for survival in a watery environment. So God designed them helping mammals become aquatic.

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

DAVID: Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

The word play is yours. If a new body form is designed to aid survival, it makes no sense to say that the design was not driven by the need or desire to aid survival.

Human evolution: another huge gap

Covered under “Giraffe plumbing

Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.
dhw: For some reason, you digressed from this important distinction, and returned to the 50/50 game.

DAVID: The reason is I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.

You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

Metamorphosis
DAVID: I don't see your problem. God, as designer, can create anything He wishes. An endpoint of humans through designed evolution was God's wish.

Also covered under “Giraffe plumbing”, not to mention hundreds of other threads for the last I don’t know how many years! :-)

Predicting perception
QUOTE: "Consequently, many neuroscientists are pivoting to a view of the brain as a “prediction machine.” Through predictive processing, the brain uses its prior knowledge of the world to make inferences or generate hypotheses about the causes of incoming sensory information. Those hypotheses — and not the sensory inputs themselves — give rise to perceptions in our mind’s eye. The more ambiguous the input, the greater the reliance on prior knowledge.

DAVID: all along in the past I have predicted the brain is built to help us perceive. It makes perfect sense to view it that way.

I’m sure we would all agree that the brain helps us to perceive. The above quote simply relates to the fact that our perceptions create “Gestalten” [patterns], and of course these are based on experience, which never ends. This is not “prediction” unless the subject of the perception requires looking into the future, so I don’t understand why the authors have decided to focus solely on this one term. If I see thunderclouds and the air is still and stifling, and I have lived through a thousand thunderstorms, I may predict that there is going to be a thunderstorm. But if I see and hear little Johnnie crying and clutching his bleeding leg, I will assume that he has hurt his leg and is in pain and needs treatment. There is no prediction involved. Yes, our perceptions and inferences and hypotheses will depend on prior knowledge, but prediction is simply one of the brain’s activities. Deduction is another.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 15:27 (11 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?


DAVID: Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

dhw: The word play is yours. If a new body form is designed to aid survival, it makes no sense to say that the design was not driven by the need or desire to aid survival.

Off my point, survival does not act as a driving force for evolution


Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.
dhw: For some reason, you digressed from this important distinction, and returned to the 50/50 game.

DAVID: The reason is I think all cell decisions are automatic. No autonomous intelligence.

dhw: You always illustrate your belief in automaticity by referring to established systems. It is the solving of new problems and the ORIGIN of established systems that demonstrate intelligence. I will continue to point this out whenever you try to oppose the theory with your automatic examples.

Yes, God's intelligence at work.


Predicting perception
QUOTE: "Consequently, many neuroscientists are pivoting to a view of the brain as a “prediction machine.” Through predictive processing, the brain uses its prior knowledge of the world to make inferences or generate hypotheses about the causes of incoming sensory information. Those hypotheses — and not the sensory inputs themselves — give rise to perceptions in our mind’s eye. The more ambiguous the input, the greater the reliance on prior knowledge.

DAVID: all along in the past I have predicted the brain is built to help us perceive. It makes perfect sense to view it that way.

dhw: I’m sure we would all agree that the brain helps us to perceive. The above quote simply relates to the fact that our perceptions create “Gestalten” [patterns], and of course these are based on experience, which never ends. This is not “prediction” unless the subject of the perception requires looking into the future, so I don’t understand why the authors have decided to focus solely on this one term. If I see thunderclouds and the air is still and stifling, and I have lived through a thousand thunderstorms, I may predict that there is going to be a thunderstorm. But if I see and hear little Johnnie crying and clutching his bleeding leg, I will assume that he has hurt his leg and is in pain and needs treatment. There is no prediction involved. Yes, our perceptions and inferences and hypotheses will depend on prior knowledge, but prediction is simply one of the brain’s activities. Deduction is another.

Agreed.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 11:01 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

DAVID: Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

dhw: The word play is yours. If a new body form is designed to aid survival, it makes no sense to say that the design was not driven by the need or desire to aid survival.

DAVID: Off my point, survival does not act as a driving force for evolution.

So when conditions change, and an organism’s structure changes to meet the new requirements (= improve chances of survival) - thereby creating the new species that form the whole history of evolution - the changes are not driven by the need to meet new requirements (= improve chances of survival). Not for the first time, I am baffled by your logic.

Magic embryology

Transferred to “Cellular intelligence”.

Predicting perception

dhw: Yes, our perceptions and inferences and hypotheses will depend on prior knowledge, but prediction is simply one of the brain’s activities. Deduction is another.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: :-) :-) :-)

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 15:10 (10 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

DAVID: Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

dhw: The word play is yours. If a new body form is designed to aid survival, it makes no sense to say that the design was not driven by the need or desire to aid survival.

DAVID: Off my point, survival does not act as a driving force for evolution.

dhw: So when conditions change, and an organism’s structure changes to meet the new requirements (= improve chances of survival) - thereby creating the new species that form the whole history of evolution - the changes are not driven by the need to meet new requirements (= improve chances of survival). Not for the first time, I am baffled by your logic.

God designs forms for future introduction into new environments, as in the whale series so they are prepared for future survival. Darwin style fight for survival not needed.


Magic embryology

Transferred to “Cellular intelligence”.

Predicting perception

dhw: Yes, our perceptions and inferences and hypotheses will depend on prior knowledge, but prediction is simply one of the brain’s activities. Deduction is another.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: :-) :-) :-)

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 11:31 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

DAVID: Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

dhw: The word play is yours. If a new body form is designed to aid survival, it makes no sense to say that the design was not driven by the need or desire to aid survival.

DAVID: Off my point, survival does not act as a driving force for evolution.

dhw: So when conditions change, and an organism’s structure changes to meet the new requirements (= improve chances of survival) - thereby creating the new species that form the whole history of evolution - the changes are not driven by the need to meet new requirements (= improve chances of survival). Not for the first time, I am baffled by your logic.

DAVID: God designs forms for future introduction into new environments, as in the whale series so they are prepared for future survival. Darwin style fight for survival not needed.

We are not talking about Darwinian competition. I don’t know why you are always so anxious to bring Darwin into these discussions. You believe that your God operated on pre-whales in advance, to give them flippers instead of legs, and then he let them go into the water. Even in your theory, what was the purpose of giving them flippers? As you say, to prepare them for future survival. If the innovation is a preparation for survival, how can you then argue that the innovation is not driven by the need for the organism to survive?

Balance of Nature: importance of ecosystems
QUOTE "The angiosperms became hugely diverse themselves, but they also created enormous numbers of niches for other plants and animals, so you get tens more species on each hectare of the Earth's surface than you would if angiosperms had not become established when they did.'"

DAVID: The current environment on Earth developed stepwise over giant amounts of time. These systems supply our food. Note that humans arrived long after all of this was in place. We could not have grown to current population size if this were not present. Looks like great planning to me.

I don’t think anyone will deny that the current environment developed over giant amounts of time, or that humans arrived after giant amounts of time had elapsed, during which countless environments came and went, as did countless forms of life with their countless ecosystems, most of which had no connection whatever with humans. If our ecosystem was planned, then so were all the other ecosystems. Maybe the planner just enjoyed planning different ecosystems, life forms etc. Who knows? Fascinating and revealing article, though, for which many thanks.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 18, 2021, 15:16 (9 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: It is therefore absurd to claim that designing a species-changing organ which is required for survival means that survival plays no role in driving evolution to the next stage. What is evolution if it is not changes in body forms which lead to speciation?

DAVID: Word play. Survival does not drive evolution is my point. Yours is an attempt for pure Darwinism.

dhw: The word play is yours. If a new body form is designed to aid survival, it makes no sense to say that the design was not driven by the need or desire to aid survival.

DAVID: Off my point, survival does not act as a driving force for evolution.

dhw: So when conditions change, and an organism’s structure changes to meet the new requirements (= improve chances of survival) - thereby creating the new species that form the whole history of evolution - the changes are not driven by the need to meet new requirements (= improve chances of survival). Not for the first time, I am baffled by your logic.

DAVID: God designs forms for future introduction into new environments, as in the whale series so they are prepared for future survival. Darwin style fight for survival not needed.

dhw: We are not talking about Darwinian competition. I don’t know why you are always so anxious to bring Darwin into these discussions. You believe that your God operated on pre-whales in advance, to give them flippers instead of legs, and then he let them go into the water. Even in your theory, what was the purpose of giving them flippers? As you say, to prepare them for future survival. If the innovation is a preparation for survival, how can you then argue that the innovation is not driven by the need for the organism to survive?

Again backward. Organisms must survive in evolution to produce the next stage, so design for survival is required as part of the new design. Survival does not drive the need for a new design as God designs evolution.


Balance of Nature: importance of ecosystems
QUOTE "The angiosperms became hugely diverse themselves, but they also created enormous numbers of niches for other plants and animals, so you get tens more species on each hectare of the Earth's surface than you would if angiosperms had not become established when they did.'"

DAVID: The current environment on Earth developed stepwise over giant amounts of time. These systems supply our food. Note that humans arrived long after all of this was in place. We could not have grown to current population size if this were not present. Looks like great planning to me.

dhw: I don’t think anyone will deny that the current environment developed over giant amounts of time, or that humans arrived after giant amounts of time had elapsed, during which countless environments came and went, as did countless forms of life with their countless ecosystems, most of which had no connection whatever with humans. If our ecosystem was planned, then so were all the other ecosystems. Maybe the planner just enjoyed planning different ecosystems, life forms etc. Who knows? Fascinating and revealing article, though, for which many thanks.

You are welcome.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, November 19, 2021, 08:36 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

dhw: You believe that your God operated on pre-whales in advance, to give them flippers instead of legs, and then he let them go into the water. Even in your theory, what was the purpose of giving them flippers? As you say, to prepare them for future survival. If the innovation is a preparation for survival, how can you then argue that the innovation is not driven by the need for the organism to survive?

DAVID: Again backward. Organisms must survive in evolution to produce the next stage, so design for survival is required as part of the new design. Survival does not drive the need for a new design as God designs evolution.

The next stage IS the new species, which results from the changes in the anatomy which have been designed to improve the organism’s chances of survival. Whether God does the designing in ADVANCE of environmental change, or the cell communities do it in RESPONSE to environmental change, makes no difference. In both cases, the purpose of the flippers is to improve chances of survival. I would suggest that the purpose is what drives any action. Wouldn’t you?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, November 19, 2021, 16:15 (8 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: You believe that your God operated on pre-whales in advance, to give them flippers instead of legs, and then he let them go into the water. Even in your theory, what was the purpose of giving them flippers? As you say, to prepare them for future survival. If the innovation is a preparation for survival, how can you then argue that the innovation is not driven by the need for the organism to survive?

DAVID: Again backward. Organisms must survive in evolution to produce the next stage, so design for survival is required as part of the new design. Survival does not drive the need for a new design as God designs evolution.

dhw: The next stage IS the new species, which results from the changes in the anatomy which have been designed to improve the organism’s chances of survival. Whether God does the designing in ADVANCE of environmental change, or the cell communities do it in RESPONSE to environmental change, makes no difference. In both cases, the purpose of the flippers is to improve chances of survival. I would suggest that the purpose is what drives any action. Wouldn’t you?

Whose purpose is what is at issue. I see God's purpose in creating new species. Survival is simply a requirement for God to solve.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 12:56 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: You believe that your God operated on pre-whales in advance, to give them flippers instead of legs, and then he let them go into the water. Even in your theory, what was the purpose of giving them flippers? As you say, to prepare them for future survival. If the innovation is a preparation for survival, how can you then argue that the innovation is not driven by the need for the organism to survive?

DAVID: Again backward. Organisms must survive in evolution to produce the next stage, so design for survival is required as part of the new design. Survival does not drive the need for a new design as God designs evolution.

dhw: The next stage IS the new species, which results from the changes in the anatomy which have been designed to improve the organism’s chances of survival. Whether God does the designing in ADVANCE of environmental change, or the cell communities do it in RESPONSE to environmental change, makes no difference. In both cases, the purpose of the flippers is to improve chances of survival. I would suggest that the purpose is what drives any action. Wouldn’t you?

DAVID: Whose purpose is what is at issue. I see God's purpose in creating new species. Survival is simply a requirement for God to solve.

We are sadly edging back into your overall theory of evolution, which I was hoping to avoid now that we have shaken hands on dropping the subject. As I understand it, your reading of your God’s thoughts is as follows: “I wanner turn them pre-whales into a new species, because I wanner design human beings and their food. So I’m gonna operate on them pre-whales, take away their legs an’ give ‘em flippers instead. The flippers will help ‘em survive in the water though I’m not givin’ ‘em flippers to help ‘em survive in the water, but only because that will make ‘em into a new species. The point is that by makin’ them into a new species by givin’ ‘em flippers, I’ll be able to design humans, an’ whales in water will provide humans with food, whereas pre-whales on land would also have provided humans with food, ‘cos that’s why I designed ‘em in the first place, but that Mister Turell understands why I’m doin’ what I’m doin’.”
Please forgive the irreverent dialogue, and just see what sense you can make of the reasoning.
My alternative: some pre-whales had difficulty finding enough food on land, and so they went hunting in the water. There was much more food available there, and so the cell communities responded to the new movements required and restructured the legs into flippers as an aid to survival in the new conditions. Too complicated?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 20, 2021, 19:55 (7 days ago) @ dhw

Survival
dhw: You believe that your God operated on pre-whales in advance, to give them flippers instead of legs, and then he let them go into the water. Even in your theory, what was the purpose of giving them flippers? As you say, to prepare them for future survival. If the innovation is a preparation for survival, how can you then argue that the innovation is not driven by the need for the organism to survive?

DAVID: Again backward. Organisms must survive in evolution to produce the next stage, so design for survival is required as part of the new design. Survival does not drive the need for a new design as God designs evolution.

dhw: The next stage IS the new species, which results from the changes in the anatomy which have been designed to improve the organism’s chances of survival. Whether God does the designing in ADVANCE of environmental change, or the cell communities do it in RESPONSE to environmental change, makes no difference. In both cases, the purpose of the flippers is to improve chances of survival. I would suggest that the purpose is what drives any action. Wouldn’t you?

DAVID: Whose purpose is what is at issue. I see God's purpose in creating new species. Survival is simply a requirement for God to solve.

We are sadly edging back into your overall theory of evolution, which I was hoping to avoid now that we have shaken hands on dropping the subject. As I understand it, your reading of your God’s thoughts is as follows: “I wanner turn them pre-whales into a new species, because I wanner design human beings and their food. So I’m gonna operate on them pre-whales, take away their legs an’ give ‘em flippers instead. The flippers will help ‘em survive in the water though I’m not givin’ ‘em flippers to help ‘em survive in the water, but only because that will make ‘em into a new species.

Total distortion of my point. Design for survival is required in any new species in a new environment. But as God designs new species the requirement of survival is taken care of in the new design. You put it all backwards.

dhw: Please forgive the irreverent dialogue, and just see what sense you can make of the reasoning.

It makes perfect sense when one admits God creates all reality and all history any way He wishes. Evolution seemed to have happened (per Darwin) so God evolved us

dhw: My alternative: some pre-whales had difficulty finding enough food on land, and so they went hunting in the water. There was much more food available there, and so the cell communities responded to the new movements required and restructured the legs into flippers as an aid to survival in the new conditions. Too complicated?

No, too simple!! Phenotypic and physiological changers are too complex for simple cells to design. The complexity of design requires a designing mind, simple logic.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 11:02 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival

dhw: Whether God does the designing in ADVANCE of environmental change, or the cell communities do it in RESPONSE to environmental change, makes no difference. In both cases, the purpose of the flippers is to improve chances of survival. I would suggest that the purpose is what drives any action. Wouldn’t you?

DAVID: Whose purpose is what is at issue. I see God's purpose in creating new species. Survival is simply a requirement for God to solve.

dhw: We are sadly edging back into your overall theory of evolution, which I was hoping to avoid now that we have shaken hands on dropping the subject. As I understand it, your reading of your God’s thoughts is as follows: “I wanner turn them pre-whales into a new species, because I wanner design human beings and their food. So I’m gonna operate on them pre-whales, take away their legs an’ give ‘em flippers instead. The flippers will help ‘em survive in the water though I’m not givin’ ‘em flippers to help ‘em survive in the water, but only because that will make ‘em into a new species.”

DAVID: Total distortion of my point. Design for survival is required in any new species in a new environment. But as God designs new species the requirement of survival is taken care of in the new design. You put it all backwards.

In some ways, yes I do. I propose that when conditions change, organisms RESPOND by making the physical changes that will improve their chances of survival. These are the changes that result in speciation. You switch it round, and have your God changing organisms IN ADVANCE of changing conditions, but you insist that – to use our concrete example – he changes legs to flippers because he wants to create a new flippered species. Speciation consists of changes in body form, and if the changes in body form are designed to improve chances of survival, then obviously improving chances of survival is the driving force behind speciation!

dhw: Please forgive the irreverent dialogue, and just see what sense you can make of the reasoning.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense when one admits God creates all reality and all history any way He wishes. Evolution seemed to have happened (per Darwin) so God evolved us

If God exists, then yes he created our reality, and yes he could do it any way he wished, and yes evolution happened, and yes we and every other life form evolved. How does that come to mean that your God changed legs to flippers in advance of changing conditions in order to ensure that the new species would have a better chance of survival, and yet the flippers – which were one of the changes in body form that constitute speciation – were not designed for the purpose of improving chances of survival? In other words, why do you separate the reason for changes in body form from speciation, which consists in changes of body form? And all this confusion is without even mentioning your theory that he changed legs to flippers solely for the purpose of designing humans and their food!

dhw: My alternative: some pre-whales had difficulty finding enough food on land, and so they went hunting in the water. There was much more food available there, and so the cell communities responded to the new movements required and restructured the legs into flippers as an aid to survival in the new conditions. Too complicated?

DAVID: No, too simple!! Phenotypic and physiological changers are too complex for simple cells to design. The complexity of design requires a designing mind, simple logic.

Perhaps cells are not as simple as you think. (Even you give odds of 50/50.) And perhaps your all-powerful God was capable of giving them the intelligence to do their own designing. Also simple logic.

Genome complexity
"There is a deeper, philosophical question here: How can such a complex molecular machine, crucial for the synthesis of proteins and hence life, be itself dependent on 75 different proteins for its function? Where did those proteins come from in the first place if there was no PIC to initiate protein synthesis? (DAVID’s bold)
"Or what came first—the chicken or the egg?"

DAVID: any reasonable person, reading this article, would recognize the need for design, so why not accept a designer at work? Not at the 'maybe' level of thought!

Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 21, 2021, 16:51 (6 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: Total distortion of my point. Design for survival is required in any new species in a new environment. But as God designs new species the requirement of survival is taken care of in the new design. You put it all backwards.

dhw: In some ways, yes I do. I propose that when conditions change, organisms RESPOND by making the physical changes that will improve their chances of survival. These are the changes that result in speciation. You switch it round, and have your God changing organisms IN ADVANCE of changing conditions, but you insist that – to use our concrete example – he changes legs to flippers because he wants to create a new flippered species. Speciation consists of changes in body form, and if the changes in body form are designed to improve chances of survival, then obviously improving chances of survival is the driving force behind speciation!

Your approach is always organism oriented, so of course in your theory suv ival is a driving force.


DAVID: It makes perfect sense when one admits God creates all reality and all history any way He wishes. Evolution seemed to have happened (per Darwin) so God evolved us

dhw: If God exists, then yes he created our reality, and yes he could do it any way he wished, and yes evolution happened, and yes we and every other life form evolved. How does that come to mean that your God changed legs to flippers in advance of changing conditions in order to ensure that the new species would have a better chance of survival, and yet the flippers – which were one of the changes in body form that constitute speciation – were not designed for the purpose of improving chances of survival?

The bold is a total misstatement of my stated position: God's newly designed species must be designed for survivability as God advances evolution through each more complex stage.

dhw: In other words, why do you separate the reason for changes in body form from speciation, which consists in changes of body?

Because, as above, I don't!!!


dhw: My alternative: some pre-whales had difficulty finding enough food on land, and so they went hunting in the water. There was much more food available there, and so the cell communities responded to the new movements required and restructured the legs into flippers as an aid to survival in the new conditions. Too complicated?

DAVID: No, too simple!! Phenotypic and physiological changers are too complex for simple cells to design. The complexity of design requires a designing mind, simple logic.

dhw: Perhaps cells are not as simple as you think. (Even you give odds of 50/50.) And perhaps your all-powerful God was capable of giving them the intelligence to do their own designing. Also simple logic.

As a designer myself, my judgement of a purposeful God is that He would do direct designing all on his own and not leave it for any others input. Of course your humanized God follows humble human thinking.


Genome complexity
"There is a deeper, philosophical question here: How can such a complex molecular machine, crucial for the synthesis of proteins and hence life, be itself dependent on 75 different proteins for its function? Where did those proteins come from in the first place if there was no PIC to initiate protein synthesis? (DAVID’s bold)
"Or what came first—the chicken or the egg?"

DAVID: any reasonable person, reading this article, would recognize the need for design, so why not accept a designer at work? Not at the 'maybe' level of thought!

dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, November 22, 2021, 13:38 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: Speciation consists of changes in body form, and if the changes in body form are designed to improve chances of survival, then obviously improving chances of survival is the driving force behind speciation!

DAVID: Your approach is always organism oriented, so of course in your theory suv ival is a driving force.

Even your God could hardly direct speciation without considering the possible interests of the species. What was his motive in giving pre-whales flippers instead of legs? Was it because he wanted a new species with flippers, or was it because he wanted the organisms to have a better chance of survival in the water?

DAVID: It makes perfect sense when one admits God creates all reality and all history any way He wishes. Evolution seemed to have happened (per Darwin) so God evolved us

dhw: If God exists, then yes he created our reality, and yes he could do it any way he wished, and yes evolution happened, and yes we and every other life form evolved. How does that come to mean that your God changed legs to flippers in advance of changing conditions in order to ensure that the new species would have a better chance of survival, and yet the flippers – which were one of the changes in body form that constitute speciation – were not designed for the purpose of improving chances of survival?

DAVID: The bold is a total misstatement of my stated position: God's newly designed species must be designed for survivability as God advances evolution through each more complex stage.

But all stages of evolution consist of changing body forms! This is not an abstract process with flippers tacked on so that the new species can survive. The flippers are what MAKE the organism a new species. So did your God say to himself: “Flippers are more complex than legs, so a flippered whale will be the new complex stage of evolution”?

dhw: In other words, why do you separate the reason for changes in body form from speciation, which consists in changes of body?

DAVID: Because, as above, I don't!!!

You are saying God’s reason for changing legs to flippers (which stands for all the changes in body form that make for speciation) was to advance evolution through more complex stages. But the changes that RESULT in speciation (flippers) are designed to improve chances of survival! Therefore, even in your God-directed evolution, speciation is driven by the quest for survival! The flippers are not separate from speciation – they ARE speciation.

Genome complexity
"There is a deeper, philosophical question here: How can such a complex molecular machine, crucial for the synthesis of proteins and hence life, be itself dependent on 75 different proteins for its function? Where did those proteins come from in the first place if there was no PIC to initiate protein synthesis? (DAVID’s bold)
"Or what came first—the chicken or the egg?"

DAVID: any reasonable person, reading this article, would recognize the need for design, so why not accept a designer at work? Not at the 'maybe' level of thought!

dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

DAVID: If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

Correct. How do you fill in the need to explain the existence of a conscious, universal mind etc., as above? You don’t.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, November 22, 2021, 15:29 (5 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

DAVID: Your approach is always organism oriented, so of course in your theory suv ival is a driving force.

DAVID: The bold is a total misstatement of my stated position: God's newly designed species must be designed for survivability as God advances evolution through each more complex stage.

dhw: But all stages of evolution consist of changing body forms! This is not an abstract process with flippers tacked on so that the new species can survive. The flippers are what MAKE the organism a new species. So did your God say to himself: “Flippers are more complex than legs, so a flippered whale will be the new complex stage of evolution”?

No!!! God also established a complex bush of necessary ecosystems to feed all who need food!!! The whale is in a very necessary ocean system previously described here.


dhw: In other words, why do you separate the reason for changes in body form from speciation, which consists in changes of body?

DAVID: Because, as above, I don't!!!

dhw: You are saying God’s reason for changing legs to flippers (which stands for all the changes in body form that make for speciation) was to advance evolution through more complex stages. But the changes that RESULT in speciation (flippers) are designed to improve chances of survival! Therefore, even in your God-directed evolution, speciation is driven by the quest for survival! The flippers are not separate from speciation – they ARE speciation.

I know that! God drives speciation and provides for survival, the reverse of your reasoning.


Genome complexity
"There is a deeper, philosophical question here: How can such a complex molecular machine, crucial for the synthesis of proteins and hence life, be itself dependent on 75 different proteins for its function? Where did those proteins come from in the first place if there was no PIC to initiate protein synthesis? (DAVID’s bold)
"Or what came first—the chicken or the egg?"

DAVID: any reasonable person, reading this article, would recognize the need for design, so why not accept a designer at work? Not at the 'maybe' level of thought!

dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

DAVID: If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

dhw: Correct. How do you fill in the need to explain the existence of a conscious, universal mind etc., as above? You don’t.

But logically I do: if design is present, where is the designer? I don't know, but He must exist. Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

More "miscellany": seeing with periods of blindness

by David Turell @, Monday, November 22, 2021, 16:00 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

It actually helps us in visual perception:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-11-period-essential-vision.html

"Fixational eye movements are tiny movements of the eye—so small we humans aren't even aware of them. Yet they play a large role in our ability to see letters, numbers, and objects at a distance.

***

"By studying how a type of fixational eye movement called a microsaccade affects the foveola, a small region at the center of the retina, the researchers provide important foundational information that can lead to improved treatments and therapies for vision impairments.

"Although the foveola is tiny, it is essential for seeing fine details and conducting everyday tasks such as searching for a friend in a crowd or reading distant road signs while driving. Because the region is so small, however, we need to constantly shift our gaze to allow the foveola to get a full view of the world, similar to rotating a telescope to get a full view of a scene. Unlike when we might rotate a telescope, however, our eyes make most of these gaze shifts, especially the smallest ones, on their own, often beneath our awareness. But the gaze shifts are critical for vision; says Intoy, "How well we see at any given moment is tightly linked to how and when we shift our gaze."

"The researchers focused on microsaccades, tiny rapid gaze shifts that frequently occur when we're examining fine details. It's long been known that vision is transiently impaired during larger gaze shifts, such as those we are aware of making, for instance looking back and forth between two computer screens. This phenomenon of transiently impaired vision is known as saccadic suppression. Until now, however, it was unknown whether a suppression also occurs during microsaccades and whether that would affect visibility in the foveola.

"The researchers recorded microsaccades in human observers who were engaged in a computer task— searching on the screen for "fleas" jumping in a patch of "fur," a task that resembles social grooming in primates.

"What the researchers found was surprising.

Immediately before and immediately after participants' gaze shifted, the participants could not see the fleas, even when they were looking directly at them.

"'We observed that microsaccades are accompanied by brief periods of visual suppression during which we are essentially blind," Intoy says.

"However, the researchers found that vision recovered rapidly at the center of the gaze and continued to improve, so that vision was overall transiently enhanced in this region after the saccade.

"'Our results show that the very center of gaze undergoes drastic and rapid modulations every time we redirect our gaze," Intoy says. "This brief loss of vision likely occurs so that we do not see the image of the world shifting around whenever we move our eyes. By suppressing perception during saccades, our visual system is able to create a stable percept.'"

Comment: An excellent design to help our perception

More "miscellany": how children develop humor

by David Turell @, Monday, November 22, 2021, 16:09 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

Studied from birth to four years:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211118203810.htm

***

"The team found the earliest reported age that some children appreciated humour was 1 month, with an estimated 50% of children appreciating humour by 2 months, and 50% producing humour by 11 months. The team also show that once children produced humour, they produced it often, with half of children having joked in the last 3 hours.

"Of the children surveyed, the team identified 21 different types of humour. Children under one year of age appreciated physical, visual and auditory forms of humour. This included hide and reveal games (e.g., peekaboo), tickling, funny faces, bodily humour (e.g., putting your head through your legs), funny voices and noises, chasing, and misusing objects (e.g., putting a cup on your head).

"One-year-olds appreciated several types of humour that involved getting a reaction from others. This included teasing, showing hidden body parts (e.g., taking off clothes), scaring others, and taboo topics (e.g., toilet humour). They also found it funny to act like something else (e.g., an animal).

"Two-year-olds' humour reflected language development, including mislabelling, playing with concepts (e.g., dogs say moo), and nonsense words. Children in this age group were also found to demonstrate a mean streak as they appreciated making fun of others and aggressive humour (e.g., pushing someone).

"Finally, 3-year-olds were found to play with social rules (e.g., saying naughty words to be funny), and showed the beginnings of understanding tricks and puns."

Comment: how the fun side of life develops

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, November 23, 2021, 13:35 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
DAVID: God's newly designed species must be designed for survivability as God advances evolution through each more complex stage.

dhw: But all stages of evolution consist of changing body forms! This is not an abstract process with flippers tacked on so that the new species can survive. The flippers are what MAKE the organism a new species. So did your God say to himself: “Flippers are more complex than legs, so a flippered whale will be the new complex stage of evolution”?

DAVID: No!!! God also established a complex bush of necessary ecosystems to feed all who need food!!! The whale is in a very necessary ocean system previously described here.

You’ve shifted from God changing legs into flippers in order to move to a new, more complex stage of evolution (are flippers more complex than legs?) to God wanting to create a new econiche. So he changed legs into flippers so that different life forms could eat or be eaten in order to survive. But the flippers which make the species new were still designed to improve chances of survival!

dhw: Therefore, even in your God-directed evolution, speciation is driven by the quest for survival! The flippers are not separate from speciation – they ARE speciation.

DAVID: I know that! God drives speciation and provides for survival, the reverse of your reasoning.

You see your God as the agent of speciation, but we're discusing his PURPOSE for changing legs into flippers! You said his purpose for designing flippers was to advance evolution to a more complex stage, but apparently this simply means another collection of life forms eating one another in order to survive. Food for all seems to be the driving principle, and what is the purpose of food if it’s not survival? I suppose inevitably we’ll have to resurrect your overall, illogical theory of evolution, according to which your God had only one purpose: he specially designed not just whale flippers but every single innovation, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so that he could specially design humans and their food.
And you just can't believe pre-whales might have found more food in the water, and usage changed legs into flippers.

Genome complexity
dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

DAVID: If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

dhw: Correct. How do you fill in the need to explain the existence of a conscious, universal mind etc., as above? You don’t.

DAVID: But logically I do: if design is present, where is the designer? I don't know, but He must exist. Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

Agreed. It is also highly reasonable to argue that the only consciousness we know of must have a source, so how can a being with a consciousness that is infinitely more powerful than our own simply exist without having a source?

Keeping a cell organized
DAVID: Every aspect of cellular biochemical processes has controls, as in feedback loops previously described. Life based on free-floating protein molecules that must alter folding shapes requires guiding molecule controllers, which as my bold shows, must also have cellular controllers. So we see designed layers of controllers must exist to maintain order in our system of life homeostasis. Only a designing mind can create this.

I didn’t answer because my only answer is the same as ever: I accept the argument for design, as above, and I accept the argument for control. The latter will take us back to the same disagreement as below and a thousand times before:

How T cells are triggered
QUOTES: “T cells communicate with other cells in the body in search of infections or diseases.”
Here we have shown that these gamma delta T cells can recognize MHC-like molecules in their own unique ways and in ways we could not have predicted.”

DAVID: here is a marvelous example of how T cells act automatically to fight infections and cancer. […] The cells are not innately intelligent, but completely automatic. Cells act automatically, and following intelligent information (instructions) appear to BE intelligent, inferring they use an innate intelligence they do not have.

Your usual authoritative statement, based presumably on the belief that if you repeat the word “automatic” often enough, I will have to accept that cells act automatically, and are not – to use Shapiro’s terms – “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…and possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” 50/50 according to you, and that means 100% no!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 23, 2021, 15:57 (4 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: Therefore, even in your God-directed evolution, speciation is driven by the quest for survival! The flippers are not separate from speciation – they ARE speciation.

DAVID: I know that! God drives speciation and provides for survival, the reverse of your reasoning.

dhw: You see your God as the agent of speciation, but we're discusing his PURPOSE for changing legs into flippers! You said his purpose for designing flippers was to advance evolution to a more complex stage, but apparently this simply means another collection of life forms eating one another in order to survive. Food for all seems to be the driving principle, and what is the purpose of food if it’s not survival? I suppose inevitably we’ll have to resurrect your overall, illogical theory of evolution, according to which your God had only one purpose: he specially designed not just whale flippers but every single innovation, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life, including all those that had no connection with humans, so that he could specially design humans and their food.
And you just can't believe pre-whales might have found more food in the water, and usage changed legs into flippers.

You are back to Lamarck in the bold. I'll stay with my position: God speciates and provides for survival. God's purpose is to cerate organisms from Archaea to humans, and he did just that.


Genome complexity
dhw: Thank you for yet another instance of design that cries out for a designer. There is, of course, no answer to the bolded question, and it represents the best possible argument for the existence of your God. But in answer to the same question and to your own, I can only ask: where did a conscious, universal mind come from in the first place? Back we go to “first cause”, and the enormous leap of faith required if one is to believe that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe together with all the complexities of life can simply “be”, and can have had no origin. This faith solves one mystery by creating another which is even more mysterious.

DAVID: If you see the powerful argument for a designer in the complex stuff I present, how do you then fill the need? You don't.

dhw: Correct. How do you fill in the need to explain the existence of a conscious, universal mind etc., as above? You don’t.

DAVID: But logically I do: if design is present, where is the designer? I don't know, but He must exist. Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

dhw: Agreed. It is also highly reasonable to argue that the only consciousness we know of must have a source, so how can a being with a consciousness that is infinitely more powerful than our own simply exist without having a source?

And what is the source of the universe that seems to have a beginning? No wonder Einstein fought against it!! It raises your question to requiring an answer.


Keeping a cell organized
DAVID: Every aspect of cellular biochemical processes has controls, as in feedback loops previously described. Life based on free-floating protein molecules that must alter folding shapes requires guiding molecule controllers, which as my bold shows, must also have cellular controllers. So we see designed layers of controllers must exist to maintain order in our system of life homeostasis. Only a designing mind can create this.

dhw: I didn’t answer because my only answer is the same as ever: I accept the argument for design, as above, and I accept the argument for control. The latter will take us back to the same disagreement as below and a thousand times before:

Which means you have to recognize the designed automaticity.


How T cells are triggered
QUOTES: “T cells communicate with other cells in the body in search of infections or diseases.”
Here we have shown that these gamma delta T cells can recognize MHC-like molecules in their own unique ways and in ways we could not have predicted.”

DAVID: here is a marvelous example of how T cells act automatically to fight infections and cancer. […] The cells are not innately intelligent, but completely automatic. Cells act automatically, and following intelligent information (instructions) appear to BE intelligent, inferring they use an innate intelligence they do not have.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement, based presumably on the belief that if you repeat the word “automatic” often enough, I will have to accept that cells act automatically, and are not – to use Shapiro’s terms – “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…and possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” 50/50 according to you, and that means 100% no!

Shapiro, whose bacterial findings I accept fully, studied free-living bacteria, nothing beyond that in the process of evolution to more complexity. He theorized all of evolution might work that way. And you have swallowed that as probable fact since it helps you avoid God arranging for automaticity as He has done in His biological designs..

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 08:59 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: And you just can't believe pre-whales might have found more food in the water, and usage changed legs into flippers.

DAVID: You are back to Lamarck in the bold. I'll stay with my position: God speciates and provides for survival. God's purpose is to cerate organisms from Archaea to humans, and he did just that.

Your position is your God changes legs to flippers, thereby creating a new species. The change is designed to improve chances of survival, but apparently survival is NOT the purpose. God’s purpose is to design humans and their food (you forgot the food), and so changing legs to flippers, like every act of speciation and every natural wonder, is a step on the way to designing humans and their food, although the majority had nothing to do with humans and their food. And for good measure, flippers instead of legs are part of progress towards greater complexity (you forgot that too).

Genome complexity
DAVID: Extremely complex design without a designer? Really? His existence is highly reasonable.

dhw: Agreed. It is also highly reasonable to argue that the only consciousness we know of must have a source, so how can a being with a consciousness that is infinitely more powerful than our own simply exist without having a source?

DAVID: And what is the source of the universe that seems to have a beginning? No wonder Einstein fought against it!! It raises your question to requiring an answer.

The answer has to be that the “beginning” (the big bang, if it happened) was not the beginning, because nothing can come of nothing. And so instead of a sourceless conscious mind, we have a sourceless mass of matter and energy forever readjusting itself.

Keeping a cell organized
DAVID: […] So we see designed layers of controllers must exist to maintain order in our system of life homeostasis. Only a designing mind can create this.

dhw: I didn’t answer because my only answer is the same as ever: I accept the argument for design, as above, and I accept the argument for control. The latter will take us back to the same disagreement as below and a thousand times before:

DAVID: Which means you have to recognize the designed automaticity.

No it doesn’t. See below.

How T cells are triggered
DAVID: here is a marvelous example of how T cells act automatically to fight infections and cancer. […] The cells are not innately intelligent, but completely automatic. Cells act automatically, and following intelligent information (instructions) appear to BE intelligent, inferring they use an innate intelligence they do not have.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement, based presumably on the belief that if you repeat the word “automatic” often enough, I will have to accept that cells act automatically, and are not – to use Shapiro’s terms – “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…and possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” 50/50 according to you, and that means 100% no!

DAVID: Shapiro, whose bacterial findings I accept fully, studied free-living bacteria, nothing beyond that in the process of evolution to more complexity. He theorized all of evolution might work that way. And you have swallowed that as probable fact since it helps you avoid God arranging for automaticity as He has done in His biological designs.

We're talking about cellular intelligence, and I’m sorry you think Shapiro would have formulated his theory without studying the work of other scientists in the field, and that you think they are as ignorant as you think he is. I haven’t swallowed the theory, but I consider it far more reasonable than your own. And yes, it helps me to avoid the illogicality of yours – as detailed ad nauseam – by removing a 3.8 billion-year-old programme for all undabbled innovations, lifestyles, econiches, natural wonders, problem solutions etc., and (theistic version) by substituting your God “arranging for” cells to possess an autonomous ability to do their own designing.

Reality: God is a mathematician
QUOTES: “Much of reality follows mathematical designs…”
"McDonnell’s view is more radical. She thinks reality is made of mathematical objects and minds. Mathematics is how the Universe, which is conscious, comes to know itself.”

Consciousness is not an object – it is a quality of minds. So why does she differentiate between mathematical objects and minds, and then say mathematics is how consciousness arises?

QUOTE: "I defend a different view: the world has two parts, mathematics and matter. Mathematics gives matter its form, and matter gives mathematics its substance.”

And where does consciousness come in?

DAVID: "Is God a Geometer" is a book published many years ago recognizing this approach. Our minds can see the inherent conceptual math which this article shows is a necessary part of reality. But this does not mean reality is psychic.

I would suggest that the world has many parts, and we can chuck in as many nouns as we like and they will all fit: I shall now, as usual, apply for a grant to investigate what part is played in the real world by matter, mathematics, information, consciousness, geography, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, biology, panpsychism, the human imagination and bubblegum. I hope I can rely on your support.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 24, 2021, 15:32 (3 days ago) @ dhw

Survival

dhw: Your position is your God changes legs to flippers, thereby creating a new species. The change is designed to improve chances of survival, but apparently survival is NOT the purpose. God’s purpose is to design humans and their food (you forgot the food), and so changing legs to flippers, like every act of speciation and every natural wonder, is a step on the way to designing humans and their food, although the majority had nothing to do with humans and their food. And for good measure, flippers instead of legs are part of progress towards greater complexity (you forgot that too).

Yes, I have God in charge.


Genome complexity

DAVID: And what is the source of the universe that seems to have a beginning? No wonder Einstein fought against it!! It raises your question to requiring an answer.

dhw: The answer has to be that the “beginning” (the big bang, if it happened) was not the beginning, because nothing can come of nothing. And so instead of a sourceless conscious mind, we have a sourceless mass of matter and energy forever readjusting itself.

Back to Einstein. Eternal something from ?????? nothing??? Not a solution, if one exists.


How T cells are triggered
DAVID: here is a marvelous example of how T cells act automatically to fight infections and cancer. […] The cells are not innately intelligent, but completely automatic. Cells act automatically, and following intelligent information (instructions) appear to BE intelligent, inferring they use an innate intelligence they do not have.

dhw: Your usual authoritative statement, based presumably on the belief that if you repeat the word “automatic” often enough, I will have to accept that cells act automatically, and are not – to use Shapiro’s terms – “cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully…and possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” 50/50 according to you, and that means 100% no!

DAVID: Shapiro, whose bacterial findings I accept fully, studied free-living bacteria, nothing beyond that in the process of evolution to more complexity. He theorized all of evolution might work that way. And you have swallowed that as probable fact since it helps you avoid God arranging for automaticity as He has done in His biological designs.

dhw: We're talking about cellular intelligence, and I’m sorry you think Shapiro would have formulated his theory without studying the work of other scientists in the field, and that you think they are as ignorant as you think he is. I haven’t swallowed the theory, but I consider it far more reasonable than your own. And yes, it helps me to avoid the illogicality of yours – ... and (theistic version) by substituting your God “arranging for” cells to possess an autonomous ability to do their own designing.

Your insistence upon cell intelligence and your previous reference to panpsychism show you recognize mental activity is obviously present in our universe and manages the designs we see. Our only difference is how we describe the source. You see it scattered among all living matter, source unknown, while I offer a working mind.


Reality: God is a mathematician
QUOTES: “Much of reality follows mathematical designs…”
"McDonnell’s view is more radical. She thinks reality is made of mathematical objects and minds. Mathematics is how the Universe, which is conscious, comes to know itself.”

dhw: Consciousness is not an object – it is a quality of minds. So why does she differentiate between mathematical objects and minds, and then say mathematics is how consciousness arises?

I don't know but I think there is a universal consciousness


QUOTE: "I defend a different view: the world has two parts, mathematics and matter. Mathematics gives matter its form, and matter gives mathematics its substance.”

dhw: And where does consciousness come in?

For me, God


DAVID: "Is God a Geometer" is a book published many years ago recognizing this approach. Our minds can see the inherent conceptual math which this article shows is a necessary part of reality. But this does not mean reality is psychic.

dhw: I would suggest that the world has many parts, and we can chuck in as many nouns as we like and they will all fit: I shall now, as usual, apply for a grant to investigate what part is played in the real world by matter, mathematics, information, consciousness, geography, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, biology, panpsychism, the human imagination and bubblegum. I hope I can rely on your support.

I will always support you, as you study how information runs the universe.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, November 25, 2021, 09:16 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

Survival
dhw: Your position is your God changes legs to flippers, thereby creating a new species. The change is designed to improve chances of survival, but apparently survival is NOT the purpose. God’s purpose is to design humans and their food (you forgot the food), and so changing legs to flippers, like every act of speciation and every natural wonder, is a step on the way to designing humans and their food, although the majority had nothing to do with humans and their food. And for good measure, flippers instead of legs are part of progress towards greater complexity (you forgot that too).

DAVID: Yes, I have God in charge.

And you haven't a clue why he would choose your idea of his method to fulfil your idea of his purpose. But at least you believe that your God designed flippers in order to improve the pre-whale’s chances of survival in new surroundings. I think that is enough to demonstrate that survival is the purpose of the new structures that constitute speciation. Whether speciation itself has a purpose - and what that purpose might be - is another matter.

Genome complexity
DAVID: And what is the source of the universe that seems to have a beginning? No wonder Einstein fought against it!! It raises your question to requiring an answer.

dhw: The answer has to be that the “beginning” (the big bang, if it happened) was not the beginning, because nothing can come of nothing. And so instead of a sourceless conscious mind, we have a sourceless mass of matter and energy forever readjusting itself.

DAVID: Back to Einstein. Eternal something from ?????? nothing??? Not a solution, if one exists.

Of course it’s not a solution. That’s why we have the alternatives: an eternal, first-cause conscious mind, or an eternal first-cause mindless mass of matter and energy.

How T cells are triggered

DAVID: Shapiro, whose bacterial findings I accept fully, studied free-living bacteria, nothing beyond that in the process of evolution to more complexity. He theorized all of evolution might work that way. And you have swallowed that as probable fact since it helps you avoid God arranging for automaticity as He has done in His biological designs.

dhw: We're talking about cellular intelligence, and I’m sorry you think Shapiro would have formulated his theory without studying the work of other scientists in the field, and that you think they are as ignorant as you think he is. I haven’t swallowed the theory, but I consider it far more reasonable than your own. And yes, it helps me to avoid the illogicality of yours – ... and (theistic version) by substituting your God “arranging for” cells to possess an autonomous ability to do their own designing.

DAVID: Your insistence upon cell intelligence and your previous reference to panpsychism show you recognize mental activity is obviously present in our universe and manages the designs we see. Our only difference is how we describe the source. You see it scattered among all living matter, source unknown, while I offer a working mind.

I do not insist on cell intelligence, but I do strongly object to your attempts at belittling Shapiro and all those scientists in the field who share his opinion that cells are intelligent. Of course at some stage in eternity there has been mental activity, but we have no idea when it began or in what form. You always forget that as an agnostic I do NOT reject your theory of a working mind (God). I present the alternatives, but am unable to choose between them.

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: "Is God a Geometer" is a book published many years ago recognizing this approach. Our minds can see the inherent conceptual math which this article shows is a necessary part of reality. But this does not mean reality is psychic.

dhw: I would suggest that the world has many parts, and we can chuck in as many nouns as we like and they will all fit: I shall now, as usual, apply for a grant to investigate what part is played in the real world by matter, mathematics, information, consciousness, geography, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, biology, panpsychism, the human imagination and bubblegum. I hope I can rely on your support.

DAVID: I will always support you, as you study how information runs the universe.

Strange. I thought you thought your God ran the universe. But I welcome your support.

Theoretical origin of life
DAVID: note in the bold the miraculous appearance of necessary parts of the protocell. The obvious objections were quite strong, but note the final paragraph trying to justify this foolishness.

I may apply for another grant to support my research on the origin of life. In the course of my long life, I have collected a whole herd of bleating explanations, and if I can get the requisite funding, I shall publish them under the title The Origin of Wool by Means of Unnatural Reflection.

***********************************

This may be my last post for a few days. My elder son has terminal cancer, and has just had an emergency operation on his brain. I will try to keep up or catch up as and when I can.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 25, 2021, 15:42 (2 days ago) @ dhw

Survival
DAVID: Yes, I have God in charge.

dhw: And you haven't a clue why he would choose your idea of his method to fulfil your idea of his purpose. But at least you believe that your God designed flippers in order to improve the pre-whale’s chances of survival in new surroundings. I think that is enough to demonstrate that survival is the purpose of the new structures that constitute speciation. Whether speciation itself has a purpose - and what that purpose might be - is another matter.

We seem to finally agree on the role of sruvival


How T cells are triggered

DAVID: Your insistence upon cell intelligence and your previous reference to panpsychism show you recognize mental activity is obviously present in our universe and manages the designs we see. Our only difference is how we describe the source. You see it scattered among all living matter, source unknown, while I offer a working mind.

dhw: I do not insist on cell intelligence, but I do strongly object to your attempts at belittling Shapiro and all those scientists in the field who share his opinion that cells are intelligent. Of course at some stage in eternity there has been mental activity, but we have no idea when it began or in what form. You always forget that as an agnostic I do NOT reject your theory of a working mind (God). I present the alternatives, but am unable to choose between them.

Still on your picket fence


Reality: God is a mathematician

dhw: I would suggest that the world has many parts, and we can chuck in as many nouns as we like and they will all fit: I shall now, as usual, apply for a grant to investigate what part is played in the real world by matter, mathematics, information, consciousness, geography, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, biology, panpsychism, the human imagination and bubblegum. I hope I can rely on your support.

DAVID: I will always support you, as you study how information runs the universe.

dhw: Strange. I thought you thought your God ran the universe. But I welcome your support.

The information is God's contribution.


***********************************

dhw: This may be my last post for a few days. My elder son has terminal cancer, and has just had an emergency operation on his brain. I will try to keep up or catch up as and when I can.

That surgery should give Chris some time.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum